New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Tee Kay]

Southeast Asian mandalas are examples of hegemonic empires, where direct central power do not reach far away from the capital, and other cities are highly autonomous and only loosely controlled by vassal relationships. Thus something like Ayutthaya can both be arguably described as a city-state as well as an empire.

Please do read up on mandalas. It will answer all your queries. But first you need to discard your preconceived notions of what a state or empire should be.

 

[Civciv5]

Southeast Asian mandalas are examples of hegemonic empires, where direct central power do not reach far away from the capital, and other cities are highly autonomous and only loosely controlled by vassal relationships.

Please do read up on mandalas. It will answer all your queries. But first you need to discard your preconceived notions of what a state or empire should be.

But that contradicts with the definition of an empire
"An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture — unlike a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples."

 

[Absolution]

Yes,they were independent city-states that shared the same culture.

And many Sumerian city states ruled large territories, and controled more than one city.

HOW can a KINGDOM consist of only one-city?

A kingdom is a monarchic state which is ruled by a king.
There were several city states which were ruled by a king.

HOW can an EMPIRE consist (Khmer,Burmese) consist of only one-city?

Khmer and Burmese weren't city states (except earely Pagan..), but being a city state doesn't mean consisting of one city.

 

[Tee Kay]

Defining what an empire is is a bit like defining what a civilisation is. Even so, with the definition you've given I don't see how it contradicts. Using Ayutthaya as an example again, it's a city that dominated other cities in the region, but never quite managed to fully incorporate them; hence it being both a city-state (in the sense that the authority of its central government only reached as far as the regions surrounding the capital) and an empire (in the sense that it had enough military, economic and diplomatic power to coerce and dominate other cities).

 

[Traitorfish]

HOW can a KINGDOM consist of only one-city?

Cornwall was a kingdom, and didn't even have one city.

 

[Civciv5]

So Wikipedia and Wiktionary gave me false definitions of city-states?
Can anyone give me a correct definition of a city-state?

 

[Absolution]

So Wikipedia and Wiktionary gave me false definitions of city-states?
Can anyone give me a correct definition of a city-state?

An indepedant state which is based on a specific city and decides to be called a city state.

It is indeed depends of what the government decides.
For example, in what ways was the early Kingdom of Rome differnt from Sparta?
Still, Rome wasn't a city state, and Sparta was.

 

[Tee Kay]

So Wikipedia and Wiktionary gave me false definitions of city-states?

I wouldn't say it's false. Just too narrow.

 

[Civciv5]

An indepedant state which is based on a specific city and decides to be called a city state.

But Ayutthaya didn't call itself "City-state of Ayutthaya",but it called itself "Kingdom of Ayutthaya" according to wikipedia.

 

[Absolution]

A city state can be called a kingdom.

 

[innonimatu]

For example, in what ways was the early Kingdom of Rome differnt from Sparta?
Still, Rome wasn't a city state, and Sparta was.

Ok, I'm going to be pedantic and reply that Rome was a city state for a long time!

 

[Dachs]

Ok, I'm going to be pedantic and reply that Rome was a city state for a long time!

That depends on what you think of the Latin league, surely.

 

[Lord Baal]

That depends on what you think of the Latin league, surely.

I've always considered it somewhat akin to the Delian League; originally a fairly peaceful alliance system, albeit with a very obvious leader, but eventually evolving into an overlord vassal relationship, followed by the outright rule of the leading power. I have no idea what dates I'd place those cut-off points at though, or if it's even possible. After all, different polities succumbed to Roman domination at different times, and in different ways.

 

[Dachs]

I've always considered it somewhat akin to the Delian League; originally a fairly peaceful alliance system, albeit with a very obvious leader, but eventually evolving into an overlord vassal relationship, followed by the outright rule of the leading power. I have no idea what dates I'd place those cut-off points at though, or if it's even possible. After all, different polities succumbed to Roman domination at different times, and in different ways.

That's a fairly sharp disagreement with one of the modern prevailing narratives about Roman power, namely, that the Romans' success at resource mobilization was largely due to the manpower they extracted from their allies under more or less consensual agreements that left considerable autonomy to non-Roman cities, and that this was in direct opposition to Greek-style leagues (other than the federal leagues, the koinon Achaion and the koinon Aitolion), which had the typical hegemon/vassal relationship where the vassals got basically nothing out of the arrangement. With Athens this narrative can be modified with respect to some League possessions (e.g. Samos) but these were in a clear minority.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's a fairly sharp disagreement with one of the modern prevailing narratives about Roman power, namely, that the Romans' success at resource mobilization was largely due to the manpower they extracted from their allies under more or less consensual agreements that left considerable autonomy to non-Roman cities, and that this was in direct opposition to Greek-style leagues (other than the federal leagues, the koinon Achaion and the koinon Aitolion), which had the typical hegemon/vassal relationship where the vassals got basically nothing out of the arrangement. With Athens this narrative can be modified with respect to some League possessions (e.g. Samos) but these were in a clear minority.

I recall you mentioning that theory to me before, actually. You also stated that no one really knew how those consensual agreements worked, but that they allowed Rome to mobilise a whole hell of a lot more troops than their rivals in the area.

 

[Civciv5]

From a discussion that originally was going about whether Laos is a civilization went to a discussion about the Roman Empire?
It does not matter anyway,we would have continued into infinity...

 

[History_Buff]

I recall you mentioning that theory to me before, actually. You also stated that no one really knew how those consensual agreements worked, but that they allowed Rome to mobilise a whole hell of a lot more troops than their rivals in the area.

Either of you two care to elaborate? I'm just very curious is all.

 

[Traitorfish]

But Ayutthaya didn't call itself "City-state of Ayutthaya",but it called itself "Kingdom of Ayutthaya" according to wikipedia.

So? Singapore is a city-state, and it's called the Republic of Singapore.

 

[innonimatu]

Either of you two care to elaborate? I'm just very curious is all.

That makes two of us.

 

[Lord Baal]

That makes two of us.

I don't recall where we had the discussion, but it may have been in one of the threads on Roman military tactics. It was quite some time ago. Dachs informed us that the only thing separating the Romans from the other Mediterranean powers was the amount and speed of the manpower they could amass, which was vastly superior to that of their opponents.

In fact, you can even see evidence of this when reading some of the original Roman historians. Livy, for example, casually mentions Rome raising several new armies after Hannibal destroyed the Romans at Cannae, which, while overblown, still should have been a crippling blow. Unlike every other polity in the Mediterranean at the time, Rome shrugged off this major loss with only a short period of panic, then actually raised enough troops to send an army to Spain, despite having a large, experienced foreign army just a few dozen miles from their city. Unfortunately, neither Livy nor any other Roman historian explains how the Romans raised these forces in such great speed and numbers, probably because they didn't realise how important it was to their success, so we have no idea exactly how the hell they did it.