In the USA=Rome analogy, the British Empire was the Hellenistic-Macedonian empire that preceded Rome.
Actually, I was thinking of Arminius, but if you want to be the Canadian Hannibal then that’s fine too. You could bring them over the (Canadian) Rockies and lay waste to everything you can get too. We’ll see you for the final showdown in Ottawa in, say, 50 years? ETA: I’ll bring the salt…
-XT
The USA is not (and has never been) an empire like Rome or GB. The only period when the USA tried imperialism was the era of the Spanish-American War, we added territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, and established rule of the Philippines.
We got tired of imperialism fast-it cost us a bundle and gained us little.
The period of US world hegemony is coming to an end-as it needs to (we are spending far too much on our miltary and neglecting our own country). Will China and India step up to the plate and share the world policeman role? I think not-they prefer that we continue to pay for it.
What we need to do: make treaties with friendly nations on the basis of mutual benefit. And tell the Chinese to take care of the psychopath regime in N Korea-we wash our hands of it.
I knew this story had a sinister undertone.
[quote=“ralph124c, post:43, topic:568194”]
The USA is not (and has never been) an empire like Rome or GB.
There is definitely a considerable amount of semantic ambiguity regarding the word “Empire”. The USA certainly isn’t an empire in the, I suppose, historical sense ala Rome, France, Great Britain, Japan, China, Russia etc. I’ve always felt that colonialism formed a strong component of what it meant to be an old-school Empire. Aside from North American westward expansion, the US isn’t exporting en masse people to permanently live Iraq or Afghanistan or other areas directly or indirectly under their control. However, past actions do suggest a definite imperialist tone toward acquiring foreign resources and influencing politics that meet domestic demands and interests. Economic Empire? Probably, but they are hardly alone in that endeavor.
Kentucky.
(sorry, I thought you asked what state the decline was at)
Even if the US were an empire, I’d still take American Imperialism over Russian or Chinese Imperialism.
Iraq has never been a colony, and we’ve been invading countries pretty consistently since 1775. You forgot all the other countries we’ve invaded like Mexico, Korea, Hawaii, Vietnam, Panama, etc.
Refresh my memory. Who did Obama appoint as the American proconsul in Mexico?
Compare today’s overstretched, chaotic, disparate US with the one in, say, 1864 and tell me we’re still in decline.
You ever heard about Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and California? And a gentleman called James K. Polk?
Ok, so who did Polk appoint as proconsul? (nobody, that’s who) The territory we gained through his (admittedly aggressive) war was made part of the country, not a colony.
Does that make us a kingdom instead? Since we don’t have imperial administrators for our annexed territory, and instead all of the territory is directly incorporated into the central kingdom?
-XT
Edward Gibbon argued that Christianity lead to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453, and was thoroughly Christian. The Holy Roman Empire can be seen as a restoration of the Western Roman Empire. It survived until 1806, and was also Christian.
The Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire, which was conquered by the Persian Empire, which was conquered by the Macedonian Empire, fragments of which were conquered by the Roman Empire. In none of these cases was there a change of religion in the empire that fell.
Could that have been a requirement to fly in?
My my, jump much?
Some dude from Sabado Gigante, I think.
I guess I don’t understand the distinction between outright annexation and colonization. So if you conquer territory and annex it, then you’re not an empire?
But surely the Phillipines would count, right? That would make us an empire. But suppose we later annexed our colony and made the Phillipines a state, then we’d switch back to not being an empire?
Because that’s pretty much exactly what happened with the Sandwich Islands.
Well, as soon as I am king, yes. I’m still working out how I can claim divine right and still be an atheist, though. I don’t want to be some common dictator, they don’t dress as nice. This could take awhile, so don’t hold your breath.
Yes, that’s how I understand the difference between a functional empire and non-empire. The Philippines counted, but they are independent now. Hawaii counted too, but it’s currently a state. So, without any colonies, I don’t think the U.S. qualifies. Are you saying, “Once an empire, always an empire”?
If we annex a territory, and the prior inhabitants can become citizens (heck, they can grow up and rule the place); then we are conquering territory, but not creating an empire. If you think that just conquering and annexing territory makes you an empire, then there’s very few countries that don’t qualify.
(On preview, I see that BG has posted the wiki definition, I don’t think the hegemonic empire described within is really an empire. Hegemonic control can be subverted or ignored in ways that imperial control generally cannot be. I won’t argue against us being called a hegemon.)
First, Oklahoma wasn’t conquered from Mexico; it was part of the Louisiana Purchase. And Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California hardly qualify as imperial colonies - they’re a fully equal part of the United States. If you count a country itself as being its own empire then it makes the term meaningless - every nation in the history would be an empire.