History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Traitorfish]

Okay; this is fascinating conversation and I'm glad Owen asked the question - but doesn't it end up boiling down to something I said in the first place?

Strictly speaking, it not an empire without an Emperor, just as you call a country without a king something besides a kingdom.

Notwithstanding my typo, we don't really have a more useful definition of any precision, do we?

Well, the British monarch didn't use any imperial title until 1876, and even then the title only strictly referred to British India, but the British were referring to their empire as an "empire" since the late eighteenth century. So you also have to count empires that were referred to as such by their inhabitants, even if no formal office of emperor existed.

edit: Which means, come to think of it, you have to start unpicking the distinction between "empire" and "Empire", if that makes sense, between something a state owns and something that a state is. Sometimes that's straightforward enough: France was an "empire" for about four hundred years, but only an "Empire" for a few decades. But in other cases, it's blurred: the British start talking about their "empire" in the eighteenth century, but by some point in the ninteenth century it's become their "Empire", and there's no specific date at which it went from one to the other. (Very crude estimate, Google Books suggests that "British Empire" overtook "British empire" sometime in the 1870s- but how far that represents a change in how the British thought about themselves and how far it just represents shifting grammatical convention isn't clear to me.)

 

[jackelgull]

Empire is like fascism in that it's hard to come up with concrete parameters to define it because it involves the national mood so heavily. In the end, if people call it an empire, then odds are they feel like it is an empire, and that counts.

 

[Arakhor]

I seem to recall that George I was offered the title of Emperor in 1714, but he declined the role (if not the job).

 

[dutchfire]

This entire discussion is rather Anglophone, the word empire has a 'double meaning' in English that becomes clear when translating to Dutch or German. An emperor is a keizer/Kaiser. He rules an empire (keizerrijk/Kaiserreich). But there is also the more general rijk/Reich, which can broadly be translated as land/state/territorial entity [I like the description Machtbereich, reach of power, on the German wikipedia]. The American Empire, or the Aztec Empire are examples of rijk/Reich, but not of keizerrijk/Kaiserreich.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Sure. It's an English-language problem. We have a word that's not actually defined well at all in common usage; sorta a surprise to me to find out a group so erudite in names and dates and understanding of same find so little agreement on Owen's question. -He can summon battling history nerds from the vastly deep, apparently.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think it's an exclusively Anglophone problem: the French "Empire", Spanish "Imperio" and Portuguese "Império" also have this double-meaning, and produce the similar problem of how one distinguishes between an empire ruled by an emperor, and one ruled by a king, dictator or democracy.

 

[Dachs]

This entire discussion is rather Anglophone, the word empire has a 'double meaning' in English that becomes clear when translating to Dutch or German. An emperor is a keizer/Kaiser. He rules an empire (keizerrijk/Kaiserreich). But there is also the more general rijk/Reich, which can broadly be translated as land/state/territorial entity [I like the description Machtbereich, reach of power, on the German wikipedia]. The American Empire, or the Aztec Empire are examples of rijk/Reich, but not of keizerrijk/Kaiserreich.

The HRE was commonly referred to as a Reich, not a Kaiserreich, but its ruler was referred to as a Kaiser. In Latin, it was an Imperium and its ruler was an Imperator.

The original quote and topic of discussion is in French and therefore uses "empire" as well: Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire.

 

[Mouthwash]

What about the First British Empire? The British didn't really bother subordinating existing political structures until they reached India and realised that there's no way an island can rule a subcontinent without a little compromise. In Ireland, the Scottish Highlands and in the Americas, they cheerfully destroyed the indigenous political system of chieftainly confederations and planted bureaucratic English-style governments in their place. So is the usually classification of the empire as an empire mistaken?

It counts if they retain a distinct identity and demand some form of self-rule. If not, than it's just England getting bigger.

EDIT: Didn't notice this, sorry:

Which means, come to think of it, you have to start unpicking the distinction between "empire" and "Empire", if that makes sense, between something a state owns and something that a state is.

Yes, that's exactly it. It get a little blurred when you have regionalisms in a nationstate, or pan-ethnic movements across disparate states, but this is the cleanest way to put it by far.

Sometimes that's straightforward enough: France was an "empire" for about four hundred years, but only an "Empire" for a few decades. But in other cases, it's blurred: the British start talking about their "empire" in the eighteenth century, but by some point in the ninteenth century it's become their "Empire", and there's no specific date at which it went from one to the other. (Very crude estimate, Google Books suggests that "British Empire" overtook "British empire" sometime in the 1870s- but how far that represents a change in how the British thought about themselves and how far it just represents shifting grammatical convention isn't clear to me.)

How many historians do you know that would quibble over the difference between an "empire" and an "Empire?"

 

[sophie]

This entire discussion is rather Anglophone, the word empire has a 'double meaning' in English that becomes clear when translating to Dutch or German. An emperor is a keizer/Kaiser. He rules an empire (keizerrijk/Kaiserreich). But there is also the more general rijk/Reich, which can broadly be translated as land/state/territorial entity [I like the description Machtbereich, reach of power, on the German wikipedia]. The American Empire, or the Aztec Empire are examples of rijk/Reich, but not of keizerrijk/Kaiserreich.

This entire discussion sprung up because I noted that it isn't an exclusively Anglophone Thing, as Dachs noted a couple posts above me.

And RE: Buster: my conclusion was basically the same thing. Empires are empires because the polity refers to itself as an Empire, or else a historian centuries later is trying to draw a connection with, generally speaking, The Roman Empire, and so employs the term.

 

[Traitorfish]

It counts if they retain a distinct identity and demand some form of self-rule. If not, than it's just England getting bigger.

Ireland and the American colonies had their own legislatures, yes, but these weren't indigenous institutions, they were established by colonial elites. I suppose you could describe that as "Britain getting bigger", but it would require a precise and not very geopolitical definition of "Britain", because the British state was virtually absent in most colonies until the 1760s: London sent a governor, who may have brought a staff, but the colonies otherwise governed themselves, in accordance with their own laws. It's only with the 1760s that a corps of imperial officials really appears in North America, and they're greeted with a lot of hostility, as an attempt to replace the colonies' traditional self-government with direct government from parliament: the subordination of previously external political system, if you will. Likewise, Ireland is self-governing until 1801. All of these domains are clearly within a British sphere of control and subject to greater or lesser parliamentary authority, but they're not clearly part of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

So if Britain's Atlantic holdings weren't just an expansion of the British state, but they weren't an empire, what were they? Do we need a new word?

How many historians do you know that would quibble over the difference between an "empire" and an "Empire?"

Depends on the context. Any historian of modern France would need to make the distinction, for example.

 

[Agent327]

Good one.

However...

No Agent, Dachs is correct. You need to understand that for medieval Europeans, Romanitas and Christianitas are virtually indistinguishable. They don't really know or care about Cicero or Roman citizenship or togas (aside from a few very nerdy monks), they know about Constantine the Great and Justinian and the Hagia Sophia and Heraclius and the Popes and church councils and Roman law and canon law, etc. The logic is that the emperor, the leader of the Romans, is God's favourite ruler--he is the to Christianity what the kings of Israel and Judah were to Judaism, and he sits at the head of a sacral order that underlies the legitimacy of all political and legal institutions. That doesn't mean everyone believes or internalizes this doctrine, but that is the logic (and yes, he is conceived of as a kind of priest). The German king/emperor built up his power by using bishoprics and monasteries to gain an inalienable political ascendancy (Otto, for instance, was otherwise just a ruler of the Saxons), which is one of the reasons the Investiture Dispute was so damaging--even though that didn't, as you suggest, lead to the independence of German prelates or their appointment.

By the time you get to Voltaire, Romanitas was being recycled as the classical pagan civilization we know from the movies--in part because there emerged a new class of clerks in Italy who lacked Church education and used the alleged superiority of 'classical' Roman learning to persuade patron types to give them jobs.

Firstly, for 'medieval Europeans' (as if that were a singular category) romanitas and christianitas not only were not indistinguishable, the first literally had no meaning whatsoever. In fact, I have no idea where you might have gotten this idea from.

The same goes for "the emperor, the leader of the Romans, is God's favourite ruler". Which emperor did you have in mind with this? The Byzantine or the one from the HRE?

Thirdly, I note you still cling to the illusional idea that a monarch "is conceived of as a kind of priest". This has literally no basis in medieval sources. Perhaps you are confused with the idea that a monarch receives his authority from God directly? A doctrine still adhered to by the pope - even though each and every pope is elected.

Nor did I imply that "the Investiture Dispute was so damaging--even though that didn't, as you suggest, lead to the independence of German prelates or their appointment." Prelates never were independent, as you just pointed out a sentence or so before. That, obviously, wasn't the key element of the investiture struggle - nor the outcome.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Firstly, for 'medieval Europeans' (as if that were a singular category) romanitas and christianitas not only were not indistinguishable, the first literally had no meaning whatsoever. In fact, I have no idea where you might have gotten this idea from.

I'm not suprised you have no idea, since your posts demonstrate conclusively that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The same goes for "the emperor, the leader of the Romans, is God's favourite ruler". Which emperor did you have in mind with this? The Byzantine or the one from the HRE?

Nor the ability to follow an argument (as this demonstrates once again)

Thirdly, I note you still cling to the illusional idea that a monarch "is conceived of as a kind of priest". This has literally no basis in medieval sources. Perhaps you are confused with the idea that a monarch receives his authority from God directly? A doctrine still adhered to by the pope - even though each and every pope is elected.
.

Again, 'my ignorance is as good as your expertise'. I would suggest that you look up the term anointment. BTW, have you ever actually read a medieval source?

Nor did I imply that "the Investiture Dispute was so damaging--even though that didn't, as you suggest, lead to the independence of German prelates or their appointment." Prelates never were independent, as you just pointed out a sentence or so before. That, obviously, wasn't the key element of the investiture struggle - nor the outcome.

What? The investiture struggle was a contest to control the right to invest prelates in office. that's how it got its name. I thought you would at least have gotten that from your google searches.

 

[Agent327]

I'm not suprised you have no idea, since your posts demonstrate conclusively that you have no idea what you are talking about.

What an intelligent reply...

Nor the ability to follow an argument (as this demonstrates once again)

So, which emperor is it?

Again, 'my ignorance is as good as your expertise'. I would suggest that you look up the term anointment. BTW, have you ever actually read a medieval source?

Yes, it's kind of required in university medieval history. From what I gather from you, it's doubtful that you have, in fact. Medieval kingship acquired (over time) a kind of sacral aura. It was even reported that kings 'healed'. Unfortunately neither, nor anointment, makes any king a priest. Priesthood requires a number of vows, you see.

What? The investiture struggle was a contest to control the right to invest prelates in office. that's how it got its name. I thought you would at least have gotten that from your google searches.

I don't need to 'google' things I own books on. Interesting that you missed the point, by the way. Which was the supposed 'independence' of prelates.

To wit, you haven't countered a single point.

 

[Pangur Bán]

What an intelligent reply...

So, which emperor is it?

Like I said, this question shows you haven't followed the argument!

Yes, it's kind of required in university medieval history. From what I gather from you, it's doubtful that you have, in fact. Medieval kingship acquired (over time) a kind of sacral aura. It was even reported that kings 'healed'. Unfortunately neither, nor anointment, makes any king a priest. Priesthood requires a number of vows, you see.
.

Why don't you explain to me what you understand by 'anointment'. Please also explain what a priest was in the 8th and 9th centuries. Also, what do you understand by the concept of kingship? And how were kings inaugurated in the 8th and 9th centuries? Also, what were their duties, what distinguished them from other potentates?

I don't need to 'google' things I own books on. Interesting that you missed the point, by the way. Which was the supposed 'independence' of prelates.

To wit, you haven't countered a single point.

Like I said before, you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Not think it a bit odd that you've suddenly become such an expert in the topic that a professional with a doctorate and years of university teaching in the area is suddenly such a noob when met with your brilliance? You probably don't, but it'll dawn on you at some point if you keep at it.

 

[Traitorfish]

This stopped being about the Holy Roman Empire some time ago, didn't it?

Became about some other stuff.

 

[Mouthwash]

Ireland and the American colonies had their own legislatures, yes, but these weren't indigenous institutions, they were established by colonial elites.

So what? They felt like Irish and Americans, not English. The fact that their legal system was established by Englishmen (or Brits, whatever) doesn't change the fact that they desired self-governance. I think you're nitpicking way beyond what seems necessary to determine a useful definition of empire.

So if Britain's Atlantic holdings weren't just an expansion of the British state, but they weren't an empire, what were they? Do we need a new word?

Why wouldn't they be an empire? Did those territories rely on Britain for defense? Did they follow it into wars and pay tribute to the British government? I don't see why autonomous states couldn't be defined as imperial territory.

 

[Cutlass]

This stopped being about the Holy Roman Empire some time ago, didn't it?

Became about some other stuff.

Doesn't that usually happen?

 

[Traitorfish]

So what? They felt like Irish and Americans, not English. The fact that their legal system was established by Englishmen (or Brits, whatever) doesn't change the fact that they desired self-governance.

Nah, they were pretty comfortable being British. Pretty enthusiastic about it, actually: the claim to "Britishness" being the foundation of their appeal to traditional rights and freedoms. They desired self-government, yes, but they didn't understand that is implying independence, simply breathing room to manage their own affairs. Identities are layered, if you'll let me put on the Dachs-hat for a minute, so just because two identities are contradictory now doesn't mean that was the case in the past.

Why wouldn't they be an empire? Did those territories rely on Britain for defense? Did they follow it into wars and pay tribute to the British government? I don't see why autonomous states couldn't be defined as imperial territory.

You previously said that an empire subordinates external political systems. That wasn't the case in the First British Empire: Britain planted colonial governments in Ireland and North America, extinguishing indigenous political structures; there was no "Kingdom of Ireland" or "Colony of Massachusetts" until the empire got there, so they can't be considered "external". Yet, as you acknowledge here, Great Britain continued to maintain a relationship with them which would be widely recognised as "imperial". So the definition of "empire" which you offered seems to be colliding with your intuitive sense of how an "empire" actually works.

I think you're nitpicking way beyond what seems necessary to determine a useful definition of empire.

The point of this isn't to nit-pick, it's to test your definition. You present a definition of "empire", I present something which was and is commonly described as an "empire" but doesn't satisfy your definition, you tell me how your definition responds to it. As I mentioned, you seem to be struggling at this point and relying instead on a conventional definition of empire as something like "far-reaching domain", so is the original definition you offered really very useful after all?

Doesn't that usually happen?

"Other stuff" was a polite way of saying "ego".

Which, yeah, that usually happens too.

 

[jackelgull]

OK then, so I have a few questions about the Ottoman empire -

First of all, why did the sultan dissolve the first parliament after two years?

Second, coal was founded in the empire in 1829. Why didn't government initiative in that sector not play a role until the 1860's considering how desperate the Ottoman government was for coal for their steamships?

Third, why was foreign capital so vital for Ottoman industrialization? Was it a matter of there wasn't enough rich people with money in the Ottoman Empire, or was it more a matter of native Ottoman subjects lacked the technology and experience to build factories?

Fourth, why didn't the Ottoman Empire pay its bureaucratic and military apparatus better? In order to recruit janiseries, the empire had to promise to allow janiseries the right to work other jobs to supplement their meager income, which lead to the development of commercial and social ties between the janiseries and various urban groups, which lead to their defiance of the government and political violence. This could have been avoided had the Ottomans paid their military better and segregated them from civilian society.

 

[Mouthwash]

Nah, they were pretty comfortable being British. Pretty enthusiastic about it, actually: the claim to "Britishness" being the foundation of their appeal to traditional rights and freedoms. They desired self-government, yes, but they didn't understand that is implying independence, simply breathing room to manage their own affairs. Identities are layered, if you'll let me put on the Dachs-hat for a minute, so just because two identities are contradictory now doesn't mean that was the case in the past.

You previously said that an empire subordinates external political systems. That wasn't the case in the First British Empire: Britain planted colonial governments in Ireland and North America, extinguishing indigenous political structures; there was no "Kingdom of Ireland" or "Colony of Massachusetts" until the empire got there, so they can't be considered "external". Yet, as you acknowledge here, Great Britain continued to maintain a relationship with them which would be widely recognised as "imperial".

Not really seeing your point here. If the British subjugate a bunch of kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent, and later those regions declare independence as a united country- what's the difference? Destroying external political systems and replacing them with others in order to provide autonomy to subjects who feel distinct from their new masters doesn't refute my definition at all. Who cares if some post-imperial countries are anachronistic?