Imperial Collapse from Internal Factors

[SeleucusNicator]

Hey guys,

A few weeks ago, I came to World History looking for help with a paper I was writing on methods that pre-modern empires used to keep local governors under control. I'm happy to say that, with CFC's help, I got an A+ on that paper. Now, my professor has ordered me to write a sequel: organizational failure in pre-modern empires.

Essentially, I am looking for examples of when an empire or pre-modern state failed due to internal factors, such as structural inability to deal with a new crisis or being beholden to a idealogy or special interest group that prevented them from taking appropriate action.

So far, the only example I have is the fall of the Mamluk Empire in Egypt. They didn't like the idea of firearms, so they didn't make any. Then the Ottomans came with firearms and conquered them.

Any ideas out there? Once again, I can do my own research, I'm just looking for pointers on where I could find examples.

 

[North King]

Rome works, partially at least. You could perhaps make a case for the Abbasid Caliphate... Their fall was mainly due to internal factors. Saba in Arabia failed IIRC due to the failure of their major dam. Charlemange's empire was dissolved due to succession laws. Oh, you could count the fall of the Shogunate in the Meiji Restoration, I guess. Viking Greenland is a very minor little place, but it is a prime example of poor planning leading to the death of that area. There are very few who fell soley due to internal factors, most a combination of internal and external, I would examine the role that internal factors have on the fall, I guess.

 

[Dreadnought]

The Inca empire (although it didn't entirely fall from internal fighting) was engaged in a bloody civil war due to succession when it was conquered by Spain, so you could use that.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Yes, yes. I should clarify. I'm not looking for examples where empires fell apart entirely from internal causes. Rather, I am looking for examples where empires have failed to appropriately meet external threats due to internal factors.

As a structural determinist, this is a very difficult paper for me to write. That's why I need your help.

 

[Dell19]

The Timurid empire seems to be a good example.

Although I can't really find a huge number of sources.

 

[Aramazd]

The Ottomans, perhaps. I don't know too much about them, but IIRC they were called the "Sick Man of Europe", so I would think that there must have been some major internal problems. Also, Rome would be a very good example.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I don't think the Ottoman Empire would be too great an example though. They had made modernisation attempts, and they fell largely by being outgunned by more advanced expansionist European states, and then the European powers decided to keep propping it up since it prevented Russia from gaining domination. Basically it endured because it was weak and suffering internal problems, instead of dying because it was weak and suffering internal problems.

The Mughal Empire is a good example IMO. After Aurangzeb's disastrous policies, it was only doomed to die. Basically they pissed off everyone who wasn't Muslim, so one by one the non-Muslims became independent and then attacked the weakening empire.

Another example is Qing Dynasty China (the last Chinese Empire). Failure to modernise and reform despite the obvious need to left it too weak to resist Europeans.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I think I'm going to broaden the scope of the paper and also talk about why certain states failed to, say, seize opportunities to gain lots of additional power.

Yes, Ming China, I'm looking at you. I'm sure there has been tons of ink spilled on why Ming China failed to advance into an age of overseas conquest and industrialization. Any recomendations on where I could find some of it?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Update on the Ming front:

Wikipedia tells me that Confuscianism is hostile to trade. If I could find a citable source on that, it would be absolutely wonderful.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Update on the Ming front:

Wikipedia tells me that Confuscianism is hostile to trade. If I could find a citable source on that, it would be absolutely wonderful.

Hostility to trade, historically, is not always a bad thing. Confucianism itself was more hostile to merchants and money-makers than to trade itself. The Ming just never seized any opportunity which came their way. One of the Chinese posters, Dann or XIII maybe, might be able to point you in a direction.

 

[North King]

China generally viewed itself as the center of the world, and thus, sending massive expeditions to the rest of the world was the exception. Thus, it was not at all out of the ordinary for them to not be exploring or trading, it was out of the ordinary for them to do these things. That's the quick answer, anyway.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Yes, Ming China, I'm looking at you. I'm sure there has been tons of ink spilled on why Ming China failed to advance into an age of overseas conquest and industrialization. Any recomendations on where I could find some of it?

The biggest reason was the Mongols (and then the Manchus). With their eye on the northern security situation, the officials at court had little temptation to look elsewhere, where it didn't threaten the empire directly. And apart from the nomadic horsemen of the north, nothing else could threaten the empire directly.

Also in China, the imperial bureaucracy had its hand into almost every affair. There wasn't a burgeious (sp?) or free cities or mercantile guilds or like-wise organisations, to look into other stuff (and offset the officials). The officials' priorities were agriculture, the peasants (free farmers actually) and security in the north.

The Ming emperors were also more authoritarian than the average Chinese dynasty, due to the Mongol Yuan legacy. Imperial policy were at times weak, because the last few emperors were weak. Too much depended on the centre.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

China generally viewed itself as the center of the world, and thus, sending massive expeditions to the rest of the world was the exception. Thus, it was not at all out of the ordinary for them to not be exploring or trading, it was out of the ordinary for them to do these things. That's the quick answer, anyway.

Chinese ships had been sailing into the world to trade in force, since the Southern Song. It was the time when the barbarians conquered the northern half of China and the Chinese turned to the sea.

The Ming expeditions grew out of those experiences. Also the Yongle emperor was outward-looking and ambitious.

Even after the expeditions ended, Chinese vessels were still out in force for centuries. Just w/o official sanction or support.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Hostility to trade, historically, is not always a bad thing. Confucianism itself was more hostile to merchants and money-makers than to trade itself. The Ming just never seized any opportunity which came their way. One of the Chinese posters, Dann or XIII maybe, might be able to point you in a direction.

Confucianists view merchants and money-makers as parasites on free farmers and society.

Not much different from how some people see the mega-corporations and MNCs of today.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Another example is Qing Dynasty China (the last Chinese Empire). Failure to modernise and reform despite the obvious need to left it too weak to resist Europeans.

It wasn't failure to modernize; it was failure to modernize enough (China was a large country, compared with say Japan), and to follow thru on the modernization (with a modern public education system, modern public finance system etc).

E.g. during the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, the Chinese flagship was a relatively modern battleship built in Germany (I think). Its armor was thick enough that the Japanese had nothing that could penetrate it. But it was ineffective, as the Chinese didn't maintain the ship well nor train sufficiently to use it effectively. :doh:

It was the same thru out China. Bits and pieces here and there, with no systematic overall direction and concerted effort.

 

[Israelite9191]

The empires of West Africa, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai predominantly, fell because they were unable to adjust to different internal problems that resulted in them being conquered by others. The one outstanding factor of these empires falls would be the shift of primary gold and salt deposits eastward over a long period of time. When the gold and salt deposits shifted, the empires were unable to cope and subsequently fell to their eastern neighbors.

A situation that almost fits your topic would be that of the Hausa, also in West Africa located primarily around Lake Chad. They had the power, resources, trade routes, etc. to become a powerful empire. However, the bickereing between the different city states prevented the Hausa from becoming a real power. The same could be said of the Greek city states which only rose to power when they were united by Alexander the Great. The Phoenician almost fit this situation, however they are actually closer to your topic. The Phoenicians were a major power in the Mediterranean, but bickering among the city states and their colonies (see Carthage) prevented the Phoenicians from reacting to the growth of other powers in the Mediterranean.

The Hungarian state during the its height of power had similar internal bickering. In this situation the bickering was among the different local lords as well as between the Hungarian homeland and the subjugated Croatia and at some times with Poland when the Poish and Hungarian thrones were united.

Hapsburg Spain likewise suffered from internal disputes and problems. The Spanish were incapable of using the vast wealth of their colonies to their advantage and in fact the colonial wealth of the colonies damaged the Spanish by preventing the development of a middle class as well as causing the monarchy to go on huge spending sprees, in fact so much spending that they developed debt despite their huge amount of wealth from the colonies. The disputes with the Netherlands, then an outpost of Spanish Hapsburg rule, didn't help, the Netherlands, really the economically stable part of Spain, in fact seceeded.

The fall of the Alexandrian Empire was for a large part, if not primarily because, of diputes among succesors who ended up splitting the empire up. The Mongol Empire had the same problem, even if the fall was delayed for longer with the succession problems only coming to fruition with Kublai Khan's refusal to go to Karakoum for the choosing of the new emporer (can't remember the Mongolian title). For more information on the fall of the Mongol Empire, read Genghis Kahn and the Making of the Modern World, the later chapters go over the fall ver well.

The Holy Roman Empire, after Charlemagne, also suffered because of internal problems. Even when people such as Frederik the Great (IIRC) were able to lead bring the german Princes together, the fact that the inndividual German princes held much, if not most of, the power prevented a strong Holy Roman Empire, and Germany, from emerging until the Prussians and Austrians came to power.

There are many more than these, but I can't seem to think of any that I can provide information on. I do believe that the Iroquois Confederacy and Sioux had internal problems, although wether they would be considered pre-modern is up for debate. The Mayans I believe had the city-state bickering problem. The Anasazi, although the exact circumstances are still debated, tend to have their fall blamed on internal problems or internal problems that prevented Anasazi reaction to Mexican tribes invading from the south. Pre-Norman Ireland, IIRC, had internal problems. Great Zimbabwe and Maputo are likewise atributed to internal problems and reaction to foreign influences. If I come up with more I will post them.

 

[Adler17]

Israelite, there were some great emperors in the German Empire. Frederic II. of Hohenstaufen (not Frederic the Great, Frederic II. of Prussia) was one of the few who could centralize the state a lot. However due to the lack of power and also due to other factors, the Holy German Empire was doomed. The last chance to become a strong state was in the 18th century, shortly before its death: Frederic William I. looked for a wife for his only son, who later would become Frederic the Great. One of the potential wifes was Maria Theresia, Frederic´s main enemy in the Silesian wars! IIRC even Prince Eugene of Savoy was supporting that. If he married Maria Theresia, Germany would have had the chance to become a strong nation before Napoleon arose.
However, as you said, due to the lack of power to the central power the Holy Roman Empire of German nation was doomed.
The Iroquois Confederacy was on the way to become a real Indian state. It was de facto recognized by the US and Britain. However they broke in two as the tribes decided to fight for different sides in the struggles of Britain and the US (IIRC it was in the war of 1812). Ohterwise there would have been a relaitve strong Indian nation in North America.

Adler

 

[Stefan Haertel]

The Sasanian (aka Sassanid) empire of Persia is a classic example. It had a strong centralized structure based on ultimate power of the Great King and a strong proto-feudal aristocracy. When running smoothly, the empire would work perfectly, but as soon as there was a dynastic crisis or hostility between the Great King and the aristocracy, the empire would get weak knees. Also, the empire relied on vassals and allies to protect its less threatened borders, mostly in Arabia.
This is what ultimately brought the downfall. Chosroes II eliminated his Arab vassals, the Lakhmids, who kept the Arab border safe. His misadventures against the Byzantine empire enraged the aristocracy, and he was murdered. A major crisis ensued, and within only five years, there were more than ten kings and queens ('tis true: The lack of male members of the royal family forced the parties to put female members on the throne). When finally Yazdgerd III. could restore the power of the monarchy, the Muslim Arabs stood at the Persian frontiers. The remaining Lakhmids had joined them. Had the Persians had an Arab ally, the Muslims might have failed with their attacks, but the Persians themselves were completely unable to fight the Arab armies. Although there was strong Persian resistance, the Arabs were unimpressed by the Persian heavy cavalry, elephants and armoured troops that had been a scourge of the Romans for four hundred years.
So, the Persian empire fell thanks to internal crisis combined with (bluntly spoken) stupid foreign policy.

 

[DAv2003]

The fall of the British Empire was because of the near bankruptcy after both World Wars. Would that count?

 

[Takhisis]

Carthage fell before the Romans because of their very narrow policy and lack of political vision:

• FIRST PUNIC WAR: after the victory of Drepanum, and the disaster of Pachynum -which meant total destruction to the Roman navy-, the Romans only used the minimum ships required: transports and their escorts, plus some corsairs sent against Carthaginian traders. The Romans abandoned the sea warfare.
  So, if the Carthaginians had built and equipped a good fleet at that moment, and sent it against the Roman convoys, or used it for swift landings on Sicily and southern Italy, they could have induced some of the Greek cities of Sicily to join theiir cause. As they didn´t, the romans eventually rebuilt their fleet, defeated the Carthaginians, and forced them to surrender and abandon Sicily.
• SECOND PUNIC WAR: The Carthaginians sent most of their troops to fight in Spain, Sicily, and other places but not to Italy, to fight under Hannibal. So they wasted their resources instead of securing the ground gained after Thrasimene and Cannae.
• Also, after the SPW, the Carthaginians exiled Hannibal, who was the only ne at the time who could have rebuilt their country´s economy succesfully and stood up against Masinissa. They forced him to go into hiding and thus lost the chance.