"Deadly Consequences"

The question of capital punishment and whether it is a humane punishment is one of the most controversial questions of human history. In America today, the country is truly torn as to whether it should be legal. It has been left up to the discretion of each individual state to decide if they will administer the death penalty in special cases. Many argue that is violates our Eight Amendment right of not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, while others do not see death as cruel and unusual since we all experience it. It is non-the-less an extremely sensitive topic in the US.

 

Sentencing criminals to the death penalty was also a sensitive topic during the Roman Empire. Many great leaders felt differently about the matter and each sought to attack the issue in their own right. Though Rome never fully ruled it out certain leaders would not permit it. Roman leaders became more worried with privileges given to the elite after they had committed a crime. Though leaders could not agree as to whether capital punishment should be administered during their regime, they all felt as though the status of an individual should not protect them from the penalty they deserve. Each also thought that discretion should be exercised, truly weighing all the elements of the crime. Writers have noted that many citizens did not worry about the safety of the criminal but for the character of the man administering the punishment and his true intention.

China on the other hand, recommended it to discourage deviant behavior. They had no issue with mitigating harsh punishments to maintain order.  Chinese leaders felt as though consistency in sentencing and upholding punishments was the key to an orderly society. The relied heavenly on general deterrence being the fundamental principle of social order. The Chinese also believed in fairness, ensuring that every punishment administered truly fit the crime.

China's willingness to administer the death penalty did not surprise me; nor, did Rome's skepticism to do so. Each of these empires were founded and governed on different principles with different ideals. Rome sought to have a republic style of leadership while China's emperor could be easily be compared with a dictator. These empires clearly had different approaches to many aspects of their societies they were both successful in their own right.

Law and Punishment

The final sentences from the excerpts of Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires is rather large:

Law existed as a means to preserve order and garner the resources needed to maintain imperial apparatus, and elites, whether Confucian or Communist, have always decided matters of life and death. The system has worked for over two thousand years. But the human costs are high indeed."

What does this mean exactly?

It seems that the empires of both Rome and China are emotionless judges who make decisions only in terms of imperial apparatus and societal elites. Their “controlling” patterns of history were “standard for maintaining order and adjudicating disputes.” They both lacked a lack of discretion for laws, serving only the “needs of justice.” China’s emperors do not have laws that are truly “identified” with any emperor—laws were “timeless, universal products.” And although both wavered on the death penalty, their laws provided deadly consequences for their subjects. Treason, for both empires was a difficult subject. The definition was blurred, and in Rome, some emperors were rather lenient about it. Torture varied for punishment, but to obtain “truth,” torture was “deemed justifiable.” Overall, it is summarized that “Chinese state builders carefully…managed their convict laborers while later Roman emperors squandered them.”

Does this mean that China handled its law(s) better than China? Or did China manage their bureaucracy better than the Roman Empire? Or is that even the question?
Unfortunately, this bit of reading seemed difficult. But even through the reading of the third chapter, I am not even sure that I feel confident to answer the focus question. Author Karen Turner states that her focus is on "how to justify the state's right to punish elites whose support was necessary for political survival and commoners whose compliance and labor sustained the institutional apparatus."
Can this sort of punishment ever be justifiable in terms of Rome and China's patterns of history, law and discretion, emperors, critics, deadly consequences, treason, bodily harm, economies of punishment, and legacies? Morally, I would argue no. But politically, economically, and militarily in terms of empire building, I would say yes. Depending on the circumstance, such torture and bodily harm may not be necessary. But without those actions, the empires may have failed long before their time. So is it a moral question or do morals (when building and sustaining an empire) go out the window?

I couldn't help it. This is clearly a necessary addition to our empires education. "Sabine Women" from the 1954 Metro-Golden-Mayer production of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers directed by Stanley Donen, music by Saul Chaplin and Gene de Paul, staring Howard Keel and Jane Powell.

Enjoy! :D

China: Dynasty Untamed

China's imperial history, often rife with political instability and infighting amongst feudal lords, who vied for political power.  Constant infighting and warring for dominion to establish control, ironically, allowed China to continue establishing imperial rule as an empire.  Up until the late 20th century, China's empire underwent cyclic times of entering a time of war, chaos, rebellion, short term peace, political unrest, division, all which leads back to the fall of the previous dynasty and succession to the next dynasty.

China lasted as an empire from her people.  Ludicrous as it sounds, fighting sustained China's role as an empire for ages.  Not for the self, but for the sustenance of the future mattered to political officials, no matter how selfish or noble the intentions came decided the fate of the imperial realm.  Destruction from an established regional power within the empire, such as another state, indicates that the unity of the rule looms towards fall prior to the age of Qing Dynasty rule.

The cost for maintaining the Chinese empire came at a great price for the people and the rulers of each period.  For example, Qin Dynasty's Qin ShiHuang enacted laws that might perhaps damaged educational purposes.  Qin declared philosophy books from Confucius and others criminal, censored from the public.  Han-rule China corrected this error, allowing Confucian philosophy to be relearned as part of the new way.  Citizenship and isolationism became problematic into the future for the later ages.  The Opium War appropriates this example of China's inability to adapt to the political change in the world.

With all the burden carried of maintaining the dynasties of China came good.  Military innovation from fighting invaders and internal political threats lead to construction to the Great Wall in Qin-China. Han-China saw the use and application of the Civil Service exams.  Law review between those two eras fell under the emperor's province leaders, officials, but not to nobles for many reasons.

   

Although far from perfect, China seems to have identified itself as one of the many contenders, if not, better as an ideal empire.  Despite the hardships that ensued in the time to rebuild the empire, significant insight of looking into the history of some of the turmoil in Chinese history paves an open path of many questions.  Historically, eunuchs have been known to be power hungry.  Plots of rebellion, abdication, usurpation, and overthrow came from eunuchs.  Not all, but a number came from eunuchs.  Due to the constant defeat of said plots, perhaps it might be one of the many reasons that China successfully maintained an empire longer than Rome.  Not to mention the geographical terrain of China determined the way and shape of how to construct the empire.  Could it be that it was more than suppression of rebellion, geography, constant political unrest, and many other factors? Does the foundation of how long the empire lasted rest with how the future of the empire from the minds of those behind it?

Celebrating Rome

Rome is one of the most known and beloved historical topics, you can find references to them everywhere from a much loved movie on mean girls to a drunk frat boy's party.

 But what is it that makes us have strong ties to an ancient Rome?

Rome had great accomplishments ranging from beautiful art to architecture achievements. But they were a society built on much more than that. Rome was a civilization that was formed from war and law. Rome made a switch from having a singular ruler to having a republic around 550 BCE, this was viewed as a political innovation. Rome then went on to acquire most of the land that we know refer to as the Roman empire. This is lead Rome to have a combined respect towards popular sovereignty and a hierarchy. This made it possible for military veterans, well establishment men, as well as rookies to make a change and shape the political world. It was laws created by the people for the people. Much like the an America we were formed from.

Ancient Rome's structure and legacy seems to be a loved subject much like the 1980's and their outfits and 1990's and their cartoons. Will there ever be a time where we remembering and celebrating Rome is irrelevant? Or is our lives so in tuned to a Roman way that we will never not reference it?

I personally have deep seeded issues with Rome due to the fact that they wouldn't let me into the Colosseum when I was 12.

The Exceptional Empire of Rome

Roman Britain came to be under Emperor Claudius in 43 A.D. Seeking to flesh out his credentials and gain land and wealth for Rome, the Emperor sent forty-thousand troops to the British coast. The value of this expedition was unknown, but the prospect of a great reward was too much to pass up. There was no initial opposition, and the soldiers were able to quickly claim the land. Rome has a history of not apologizing for conquest, and this was the case with Britain. As Rome had for centuries before, and would for centuries to come, they came, they saw, they conquered; or in Latin “Veni Vidi Vici”.

(The Pantheon, Seat of Government, Rome Italy, Photo Courtesy of Me!) 

Parsons suggests one definition of empire as “a direct and authoritarian rule of one group of people by another”. In this case, Rome would fail to be classified as an empire because when they conquered a new land like Britain, they turned the subjects into Roman citizens, thus making them all one people group. While Rome might have failed the Empire test in this category, assimilating their newly acquired subjects into Roman life, had its advantages. This new citizenship provided identity and connected people on the fringes of Roman control, with those at the heart. It created unity and a sense of togetherness. Some people groups were enslaved, but in the long run it was more profitable to get people to work and pay taxes, than to make them free labor.  

From the 2^nd century B.C to the 2^nd Century A.D much of the Roman empires wealth came from slaves working large farms in the Italian countryside. At times slaves out numbered the free Roman citizens, but slave revolts were dealt with such severity, few were wiling to take the risk. While Rome often enjoyed a peaceable takeover, if violence was needed, violators could be assured that swift actions would be taken to regain control. Above all else, Rome was a organized controlled state. The Roman military did not have any significant technological advantage. The neighboring armies use more of less the same sort of weapons in more or less the same manner. Romes strength came from their superior organization and ability to quickly obtain control. 

At the beginning Rome was not consciously trying to build an empire. They acquired property from weaker states seeking protection, and occasionally by overpowering a foreign state. Over time as they expanded their grasp and went in search of new territory, war became more commonplace. As Rome grew, so did their prestige, wealth, and value. Contrary to popular opinion, Rome did not fall in a day. It took quite some effort by invading Muslim forces. Rome, like all things, came to an end. But its glory far outlived it time.

Whether accidentally or intentionally, Rome grew to be one of the most feared and revered empires of all time. Today we define modern empires by comparing them to Rome. Rome not only exhibited the characteristics of a empire, but did so well an equal match is yet to be found.

So, Kenney is right. Rome is the best thing ever. 

Rome: Empire or State?

Rome under Emperor Caracalla, 210 AD

All empires it can be agreed upon have a similar structure through the ruling method of a metropolis and periphery. In this formula the metropolis has a vast majority of the wealth and power of the empire. On the other hand, the periphery are the states that are controlled by the metropolis and are considerably weaker. This difference in power is what keep the periphery states under the control of the metropolis.

Now when the conversation of empires comes up, one of the first one that comes to mind is the Roman empire. Yet, it could be argued that in the later stages of the empire it actually was not an empire at all, but instead just a massive Roman State. In the third century AD, the emperor Caracalla made all subjects of the Roman empire Roman citizens. While this move may have been for political reasons, it could have eliminated the notion of metropolis and periphery. Now rather than an Egyptian saying they were an Egyptian under Roman rule. They could say they were equal Roman citizens with the Romans who lived in the metropolis of Rome. Does this in fact change Rome from being an empire? By making it so that there was no separation between citizen and subject does that make Rome a notion-state, a state, or still an empire? An argument could be made for each of these. It is an empire because the people are all of separate nationalities and the power would still have largely revolved around the city of Rome, as well as the massive size of the state. It could be argued that it is a state because of the fact that all the people are citizens of Rome and so no person is seen as being a lesser subject of the empire than anyone else. It could also be argued that the state was a nation-state because now all the people could claim the nationality of being a Roman citizen, though this would seem to be the most far fetched answer.

It cannot be argued that Rome started out as a republic, and eventually moved to an empire through conquest and political change. Though the question has to be raised, was the Roman empire still an empire towards the end after Caracalla’s political move to give citizenship to all subjects?

American Empire Chatter on the Interwebs

Given our conversation in class on Wednesday, I couldn't help but take note of this link when a friend circulated it on Facebook.  The article isn't specifically tied to events in the news, but rather a compilation of quotes from Noam Chomsky, an incisive (if not in any sense moderate) observer of American politics and culture.  Perhaps it will offer you some additional insights.

A New Empire?

Is America an empire?  Timothy Parson's introduction to "Rules of Empires" can make one believe yes. He references the 2001 terrorist attacks as America's reason for imperial power.
He defines empire as a "formal, direct, and authoritarian rule of one group of people over another.  It is born of the attempt to leverage military advantage for profit" (9). Imperialism he says is "exploitation linked to global spread of capitalism... an attempt to use hard power to reorder and transform a conquered society."
In modern times, to conquer a peoples involves making them less human. It is the western assumption, with the media's portrayal, that those who are different are backwards and not as advanced. Racial differences are exploited.
The development of nationalism has helped ending the spreading of empires and imperial rule.  But is that changing? Perhaps America is the "New Roman Empire," but will she suffer the same fate?

"Politics of Difference"

In Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper’s Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference, they sought to cover 2,000 years of history in a way no other text has ever done before. It is a vast collaboration of many works, historians, and students who have all studied and been fascinated with empires and imperial history.

            The empire less world that we live in is only phenomenon, roughly 60 years. Empires have dominated this world for two millennia. Burbank and Cooper said, “Despite efforts in words and wars to put national unity at the center of political imagination, imperial politics, imperial practices, and imperial cultures have shaped the world we live in” (p. 2). From this I can only question how? Burbank and Cooper sought to learn how the success and longevity of empires slowly but surely developed into the nation-state world we now live in and give that answer to their students and the rest of the history world. They defined an empire as a large political unit, expansionist or with a memory of power extended over space, politics that maintain distinction, and hierarchy by incorporating new people. They defined a nation-state as being based on the idea of a single people in a single territory constituting itself as a unique political community (p. 8). Every successful empire found its perfect balance between incorporation and differentiation, also known as the “politics of difference”.

Burbank and Cooper’s politics of difference seeks to take us on a political journey through the evolution the empire to the nation-state. Many times in the opening chapter they refer to how un-natural democracies and nation-states seem while empires are more natural to the human mindset. This naturalness could have been what allowed each empire to differ so greatly from the others but still flourish just as much. The beauty of it all was that, “Empires could mix, match, and transform their ways of rule” (p. 13). Despite the many contrasts all empires did rely on one thing. Intermediaries, they were necessary for empires to thrive, grow, and prosper. Intermediaries were those who interacted with the people, those who truly developed new territories. The relationship between rulers, intermediaries, and subjects was pivotal to the successful development and preservation of all empires.

Burbank and Cooper end the chapter with the question, is the normality of the empire over lingering. Nation-states are only a miniscule blimp on the time-line of history, will they ultimately fizzle-out and society be pushed back into imperial rule and order?

 

             

Is the United States an Empire?

In the assigned reading ("Thinking About Empire," Part 4 of Recent Themes in World History... pp. 111-154) there are six authors writing about a particular subject. Although some of the scholarly language can be confusing, collectively, they defend a unique position on the definition of “empire,” establish whether or not it matters, and ultimately, discuss the United States’ classification as one. The first author, Lal, uses Greek historian, Thucydides’ definition of empire—controlling both domestic and foreign policies. The other authors disagree. Some, such as Maier, would add that empires must enlarge territory or influence. Still Pieterse argues that “in the twenty-first century the imperial state, the state that chooses war, is a weak state, a state that lacks alternative institutional resources and imagination to pursue its aims.” Several words and phrases come up like: neoliberalism, metrocentrism, and imperial syndrome. Overall, there seem to be three important questions worth focusing on:

1. What is the definition of “empire”?
2. Does empire matter?
3. Is the United States of America an empire?

Each of the authors disagrees on one or all of these questions. We already know that Lal, Maier, and Pieterse disagree on the definition of the word. And in terms of further explanation, Maier uses the phrase imperial syndrome. This, although I am not completely sure of his meaning, seems to be similar to an empire. Or maybe it is only the feelings of being an empire. He says that it includes: ideas of war from a national challenge, having power from “frontiers” which act as “portals,” having a “big idea,” measuring popularity with the relationship of “rulers and ruled,” and rampant growth of privilege and inequality. It almost seems like an entangling disease. But James says that much of the world now acts in this imperial way. Is that okay? Since it does seem to matter, (according to the aforementioned authors), is imperialism “bad”? I’m not so sure that it is. Certainly if taken to an extreme, choosing war and colonial takeover would certainly qualify you as a “weak state,” but wouldn’t (maybe even shouldn’t) every nation have imperialistic qualities? If so, then maybe the United States of America classified as an empire shouldn’t be bad. But is there a better definition of “empire”? Does it matter? And does the United States of America qualify?

The Han Empire

The Han Dynasty, marked by internal strife, chaos, and tormented by constant warfare, began in 206 B.C.  This time marked China's golden age.  Innovations such as mandatory education, and paper marks a crucial point in the economy of China.  The Han Empire reformed many of the previous policies of the Qin Dynasty.  The rule and government styled roots itself in meritocracy.  Privilege turned into a thing of the past, yet has not left the mentality of those in rule.  Chaos, and internal strife will mar China once more, ending the Han Empire in 220 A.D. Out of the Han Dynasty came three successors, the San Guo.

NTDTV, "Discovering China : The Han Dynasty-China's First Golden Age," YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS7pKZJ3zPs (accessed January 9, 2013).

The British Empire and Why It Rules (Pun intended)

The United Kingdom rules. Really, it does. Since the creation of the Modern British Empire in the 1400s, the UK has withstood wars, cultural revolutions, having a woman prime minister, the 2012 Olympics and The Beatles. Thanks to the British mankind has James Bond, scones with clotted cream, David Beckham, and a good excuse for poor dental heigine. Alice and Wonderland and Winne the Pooh Bear, both childhood icons the world over, come from the United Kindgom. Fish and chips, tea with lemon, football/soccer, hearty beef stew, and a variety of entertaining phrases are also from the friends across the pond.

Winklepickers - VERY pointy shoes

Queen Anne Fan - Showing disdain by raising your thumb to your noise and wiggling your fingers.



Sixes and Sevens - Crazy

Codswallop - Sininam for Hogswash

Bubble and Squeak - Traditional English Dish made with hallow fried leftover vegatables from a roast dinner


All jokes aside, The United Kingdom has maintained a unique cultural identity and political system while the rest of the world seeks for unificaiton. Most developed European countries use the Euro as their unit for currency. The United Kingdom has the Pound. Americans go for vacations, Brits go "On Holiday". Queen Elisabeth II is one of the worlds most respected leaders and she has pet courgies, rarely smiles, and loves afternoon tea. Most countries have presidents or prime ministers. Very few have royal figureheads, especially figureheads that are well respected and loved. The Queen remains a loved, honored, and permanent figure of British Pride.



Someday, I will go to England. Someday I will have 4:00 tea with scones and clotted cream and I will watch a football match surrounded by thousands of screaming ManCity fans. Someday, I will visit the best empire ever. England Rules.

On an Evening in Roma!

Many, many years ago, a little more than five years, I was taught about Roman and Greek history, for my first two years of high school. Thinking that one should be a master, I however feel like I have a mental block on both. To that, I would like to learn anything about Roman history and anything about the Roman Empire.
 Photo from Google Images

"The sun never sets on the British Empire."

Honestly, I prefer United States History over any other world area, but since the development of our nation is so interconnected with England, choosing the British Empire to be my 'favorite' is the most logical option. Even though the U.S. remains my favorite, the British Empire is pretty awesome. It was part of The Big Three in World War II, was—for much of it's history—the greatest maritime power, and it's traditional color for Imperial British dominions on maps is pink. The British Empire has grown like no other. Colonizing in the 'New World,' Africa, and Austrailia, the empire is still known today as one of the wealthiest, largest, and greatest. What's not to love?

"The Roman Republic"

"The Roman Republic"

Ancient history has never been my forte; the immense amount of civilizations, the countless number of rises and falls, and what seemed to be constant war during the time period has always been difficult for me fully emerge myself in academically. For that reason, I do not have a "favorite" empire and I am unsure as to which would be most interesting to learn about. However, the Roman Empire otherwise known as the Roman Republic is probably the most well known empire in Western Society and serves as a good starting point for this new academic endeavor I am embarking on. The empire was in existence for 500 years, and for nearly half of it its sheer dominance was unprecedented and felt throughout the world. My research stated that the empire began its downward slope during the reigns of Aurelian and Diocletian. The empire consisted of Eastern Europe in nearly its entirety and began to be attacked from all sides. Reading this caused me to pose the question, did the empire fall simply because it was too large to protect during its time? It must have been difficult to maintain proper protection for its people during that time period. I would like to fully understand the rise and fall of the Roman Republic as well as all the other empires we will study during this class this semester. http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/decl-index.html

 

The Mongols and Their Flying Horses

I enjoy Empires where they go around on horseback, swinging weapons, and sporting large and interesting beards. That is probably why I like the Dothraki (Game of Thrones) and the Mongols. In past history classes I have taken the topic of the Mongols where barely ever touched upon. So learning more on this great empire would be ,well, great. My favorite author and YouTuber, John Green, produced a series of World History videos entitled Crash Course. Crash Course had a highly anticipated video on the Mongols late last year. Its great to watch if you've never heard of the Mongols or want to learn more on them. Crash Course in general is great to watch if you want to learn about one of the World History topics he has taught about.

Senatus Populesque Romanus

When asked the question of what is my favorite empire, there is no doubt in my mind that the empire is Rome. The sheer military and political power that Rome emulated over Europe for nearly a thousand years is staggering. During its reign there was no greater military power than the Roman legion, the equipment and design of the units made them some of the most deadliest armies this world has ever seen. Not only was it militarily dominant, but also had a deep political system, spanning from its roots as a democracy all the way to the end as an empire. Rome has always been one of the most popular and well known empires, and for me personally is the hands down favorite.

Welcome to Empires in World History!

Welcome to the official blog of HI350, Empires in World History, a course being taught during the Spring 2013 semester at Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, MA.  Over the course of this semester, my students and I will be using this space to reflect on our readings and discussions about empire.  The course spans a great deal of time and space, but we have two particularly exciting books to guide us along the way: Jane Burbank & Frederick Cooper's Empires in World History and Timothy Parson's The Rule of Empires.  Expecting some fascinating discussions along the way!

How to Comment on a Blog

One of the things we will all need to work on doing this semester is providing thoughtful and helpful comments on the work of others.  Grammar Girl has some very useful comments on this topic here. The most important lesson, of course, is to always remember to be respectful in your comments.  On this same topic, I highly recommend the sistersalad's "Yo Comments are Wack" video on YouTube - highly useful and set to the tune of "Baby Got Back"!