The Common Thread

After reading Parson’s chapter, Company India, I noticed that one of the factors of the East India Company’s Empire was extremely similar to the other empires we have studied. According to page 173, “the Company’s directors…never planned to acquire an empire…”

This has been true of the Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empire, and others. In India’s case, they did not need a military advantage (a characteristic much unlike the other empires we have studied) because they won using foreign troops and they maintained the original economic and political structures because of their efficiency. Specifically, in the case of Robert Clive, there was no “inclination, authority, or resources to annex the province. Instead, he lobbied his superiors for permission to supplant the nawabs as the primary revenue collectors in Bengal.”

However, it seems confusing as to how a “Company” could control and govern an entire empire. Much unlike the other empires we have studied, Parsons does not seem to have a strong case about the viciousness of the British East India Company’s “Private Empire Building.” Although he describes the foreigners as “barbarous but seemingly innocent,” much of the history of the companies seem diplomatic, not militaristic. Certainly, the annexation of Indian states, and the treaties between Indian rulers and the Company are evidence of expansion, but without the militarism and rough economy, can Company India be considered an empire?

“A Tragic Intertwining of Histories”

 

Enslavement can be defined as a process of displacement, or alienating a person from their social roots or natural environment. This definition described the transatlantic slave trade that occurred during the 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, 18^th centuries. Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal were the major players in the slave trade, they needed slavery and slavery needed them. All parties benefited greatly economically in multiple ways and for that reason the slave trade continued to grow expeditiously. Transatlantic migration surpassed all other migration during that time period. During the 16^th century, 25% of all people who crossed the ocean were slaves. It more than doubled the following century to 60% and in the 18^th century over 75% of people migrating across the ocean were slaves.

The slave trade funded the empires that were built in the Americas, Burbank and Parsons stated that the Americas experienced the most devastation of all the newly colonized places during this time period. The empires built in the new land, were built on the political, demographic, and cultural devastation that they caused many other nations and people all over the world. But in this regard, they were not alone. Many fault only the European countries for the intricate part they played in the slave but forget that Africans played a large role as well. The two continents each had their hand in the extensive trade and each benefited greatly. Europeans needed to put their newly acquired land to good use, nonetheless labor was necessary. Elite Africans benefited for providing the labor using their human assets from other tribes and regional opponents.

 African kings would order their military to overtake other polities and take all the eligible slaves they could round up. During that time the African states with the best militaries benefited the greatest from the slave trade. Slave catching and the slave market completely dominated the West African economy. Slavery was well established before the transatlantic slave trade began. Many states had developed complex forms of slavery: caste, military, and labor. Labor was far more extensive than the others simply because the need to cultivate the land was more important than any other aspect of community life. Although Africans have been accused of selling one another, this is not exactly the case. Africans do not identify on racial lines but on lineage and community levels. There was no black or African identity in Africa during the slave trade.

http://africa.unc.edu/outreach/ASA/slavery_and_trade.pdf

Life of an Empires

            People talk about the greatness of the infamous Roman Empire. There are countless books written about the military strategy of the Mongols. Well known and well respected for the accomplishments made, both Empires deserve every praise granted them. However, there are more great Empires than just Rome and Mongolia.

Sure, the Mongols built a empire bigger than Rome in less time, but wasn’t able to withstand test of time for very long. Sure, Rome was large and towards the end, rather permissive, but they collapsed in a pile of burning rubble when the next great thing arrived.

            That next great thing, was the Ottoman Turks. The Ottomans conquered the Roman city of Constantinople and from that point, would have a ruling seat in the modern world from the mid 1400s until the early 20^th century. The Ottoman practice of blending Eurasian practices and Mediterranean culture, created a state where different kinds of rulers could blend together to form a composite empire. The Ottomans not only took over Constantinople and eventually all of Byzantium, but also the territories beyond. Their polity was inclusive unlike than the monotheistic Roman Empire, and more sustainable than the Mongol Khanates. This allowed their rule to flourish where planted. Ottoman emperors ruled by intentionally recruiting people from outside ottoman society and integrating them into Ottoman life. Thus broadening Ottoman understanding of the outside world and deepening a connection to potential allies. Unlike the surrounding countries in Europe and Asia, The Ottoman Empire had little need for physical expansion. Until the Spanish Habsburgs began their ocean expansion, the Ottomans occupied richer land and had more natural resources than their neighboring countries.

            As westward expansion became the obvious route to success, the Spanish King Philip II joined the race to the new world and sent thousands of troops across the ocean to claim land for Spain. Once Spain occupied new lands, they threatened the Ottoman power, and a struggle for supremacy began. Unlike the Ottomans the Spanish drew power from within, promoting internal leaders who already had strong supportive forces. This created a strong sense of national pride and gave Spain the ability to inspire from within. However, even Spain would once day meet its match.

            As with flowers in a field, or paintings on a wall, empires fade. Their glory diminishes and their power grows dull. Empires, just as the men who control them, seem to have a certain life expectancy. The good healthy ones, can run for a few hundreds years. The truly magnificent ones, a thousand years, however, each will come to an end. Maybe the question of empires isn’t which one is the best, or which lived the longest, but which lived its life to the fullest, did the most to improve its situation, and was able to maintain what control was had, for as long as it had it. Rome ended bitterly, but we remember it for its greatness, not its failure. The Turks defeated the Ottomans, but we still remember them. Maybe, a great empire isn’t one that lasted for hundreds of years, but one that made a lasting impression. Maybe a empire, is only what we remember it to be. 

European vs Asian Empires

Are European Empires crueler to their subjects than Asian Empires?

As I was reading the material on Spain and interesting idea popped into my head, I was thinking about the previous empires that we have discussed, and it appears that European empires are much more ruthless and Asians ones. The European ones that we discussed were the Romans and the Islamic state, both were very expansionist states whom you did not want to be against. They were not very tolerant of other people's within their borders and exploited their subjects to an extreme.
On the other hand the Asian Empires that we have talked about are China and the Mongols. Now China, while it was still exploitive of the subjects in the empire, everyone who wasn't the emperor would have been seen as a subject, causing for everyone to be viewed on almost the same level. This results in a lack of the upper level people receiving benefits at the expense of the lower class, as would be seen much more prominently in Rome and Islam.
When it comes to the Mongols, while they were ruthless on the battlefield, they were surprisingly tolerant of other people. If someone lived through the initial invasion of the Mongols, it was very likely that they would not be killed. The Mongols accepted all religions and people groups to live as equals in their empire.
Now this all brings us to another European Empire, Spain. The conquistadors of Spain were ruthless. They went to the new world looking for wealth and power. Usually a small number of them would overthrow vast empires such as Pizarro and his 200 conquistadors overthrowing the Incas. Pizarro is known to have had upwards of 100 thousand Native American people's under his own personal control. As can be seen, they enslaved vast amounts of the population. Those who were not enslaved were killed by disease. Of the 15 million native Americans in Mexico pre-Columbus, only about 800 thousand remained at the end of the 17th century. Clearly it seems that the Spanish empire in the America's was one of the most ruthless empires, something that appears to be common of European empires of Asian ones.

Mongol-Style

Chinggis Khan’s unique rise to power was the driving force behind his ruthlessness; he had a no-holds-bar approach to running an empire. Throughout his childhood he witnessed countless betrayal to his family members by those who they trusted, some were even family. This caused him to not judge loyalty by blood but by ones actions, how far were they willing to go in order to prove their faithfulness to the Khan?

Chinggis built the Mongol Empire on personal loyalty. Family was not defined by biological standards but by ones actions. His reign was fierce, an extreme tough leader whose warrior charisma defined him and propelled him into an elite category of emperors. His Nomadic background shaped his politics and policies, but he constantly pushed those policies and his people to their limit in hopes of building a greater empire. There were no exceptions in Chinggis’ empire, he killed or threatened of his close relatives who defied him or tried to abuse their status. He was a ruthless leader, who rewarded his soldiers for their merciless behavior if it was for the good of the empire. He defined family by those willing to go above and beyond for the betterment of the empire, thus calling his soldiers his brothers. His willingness to do whatever it took to be great was evident throughout his reign, he once said, “The Greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who live him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” (Khan, Bibliography)

            Chinggis is considered a great leader because he took rival steppe tribes and turned them into a booming empire that at one point had control over almost all of Eurasia. No steppe people had accomplished anything even remotely close to what Chinggis started and his successors ultimately finished. He united these rivalry tribes who himself had once been a part of by selling them on loyalty and its importance. In order to sustain their “loyalty”, he integrated an extremely structured military to uphold the new laws he had established and ensure all the newly converted Mongols were fully committed to the empire.

Chinggis united the steppe people in a way no other emperor before him had. His charisma and general like leadership compelled the people to follow him and join the Mongol empire. He used his tough background to guide his reign and ultimately overtake many states and integrate them into the empire. No component was more important to Chinggis’ success than loyalty, his empire thrived on it and he accepted nothing less as an emperor.

http://www.biographyonline.net/military/genghis-khan.html

http://allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire

 

 

The Mongols

     The Mongols are a very interesting group. Although their dynasty was not a very long one, it did however stretch from the Pacific Ocean, to the Mediterranean Sea, and the Baltic Sea, all united under one family, connecting Eurasia.
      Beginning in 1206, Chinggis Kahn became chief, and from him, he formed a dynasty. Although when one thinks of an empire, one usually thinks of one uniformed body governing their territories. The Mongols however, were a little bit different. Four Chinggisid dynasties emereged from the Mongols conquests: Golden Horde, Changati Khante, Il-Khans, and Yuan. With this it helped form connections which helped support new trade routes witch helped produce variety in food as well as weapons. The Mongols did not really impose their rule. They relied on the local government to oversee its peoples and they had religious tolerance. From a group that was violent and it's only time of peace was when they were at war, religious tolerance seems like a far fetched tale. But I believe their tolerance stems from the fact that they believed in "Tengri," which was the supreme deity. They also believed that the highest hills were sacred because they were closest to the sky/heaven and that the world was full of spirits. They also relied heavily on shamans. I believe their tolerance of other religions is because of the Tengri. In the Abrahamic religions, there is one God, who is supreme, which I can believe that drew a connection to. A similar deity by a different name.
     The Mongols, as I had stated before, were a violent group. When one wanted to become successor, it was not the "oldest son," it was more the "one who doesn't die, wins." The competition was between brothers and uncles. In warfare, Chinggis Khan revised the decimal system, providing unity, making that each soldier was responsible for all the soldiers in their group, and when one failed they all had to suffer the consequences. They introduced shorter stirrups, which provided more mobilty for the rider while shooting an arrow as well as enhancing speed. They also set up bogus camps to surround and attack the enemy, false retreats and that victory was most important.
     Although the dynasty started to fall apart one by one become of different interests, the Mongols had completely changed Eurasia, with their practices, policies and trade routes.  

The Mongol Way

     The focus of the reading from Cooper and Burbank's chapter, is outlined at the bottom of page 93:
     "In this chapter, we will look at the origins of Mongol might, the astonishing career of Chinggis Khan, Mongol repertoires of power, the trajectories of Mongol khanates, and the impact of Mongol empires on world politics and culture."
Essentially, this chapter looked at the Mongolian Empires during their lifetime and then examined their legacies.
     The chapter began with a question. "What kind of society could master the challenge of long-distance war and transform Eurasia with its scattered peoples into a web of material and cultural exchange?" In short, Cooper and Burbank pose the question: how on earth, could a group of nomads rule an empire? They then flesh out this answer with multiple sub-points.
1. The Mongols developed an organized mobility because of their geography and climate conditions; they had to be adaptable.
2. Their management of people, in terms of families and marriages, led to large associations and allies.
3. Since the choosing of an emperor (khan) included competition, their military and soldier base expanded and charisma was essential.
     In their "Making Empire" section, the first Chinggis Khan is introduced. His life was all about overcoming hardship and defeating his rivals and enemies. Clearly, this translates into 'The Mongol Way'. In this section, Cooper and Burbank explain the beginnings of empire expansion: the target of China and the Silk Road, then moving west towards the Muslims, and later, the failed diplomatic relations with Iran. After Temujim's (Chinggis Khan's) death, came a time of 'peace'. But really, this peace meant a time of succession and war.
     In defining The Mongol Way, the chapter discusses Mongolian law, trade routes, medical systems, and their map-making, astronomy, and carpet-making skills.
     Finally, the Mongolian Empires broke down just as quickly as they had risen. The allies made through connections became fraught with war, and each empire died—one by one. But what remained, was the Mongolian legacy. "The Mongols' protection of religious institutions, their governing practices based on recognized difference, with no fixed center or core population; the cultivation of personalized loyalty as the sovereign's means of control; the fluid politics of contingent allegiance, pragmatic subordination, and treaty making—this repertoire remained in play long after Chinggis's empire disintegrated."

     My question is about their religious toleration. Most of the discussion is on pages 108-109. It mentions that many Mongols converted to different religions (which, considering their nomadic nature, makes some sense). But why were they so tolerant? How did "Buddhists, Christians of several varieties, Jews, and Muslims all flourish" simultaneously?

Exemplar of True Cold Imperial Privilege

Twisted and fraudulent as it sounds, empires serve the purpose of creating peace.  In wicked, vile, and unprincipled hands, it transforms into another typical vehicle fitted for self pleasures and madness.


China dates back multiple millenia, established in 1370-BC, perhaps further, set off in another direction emphasizing moral character. Throughout rule, states warred and vied for power to bring unity and peace to the land.  Accomplishments such as the civil service entrance exams, and philosophical teachings of Confucius to improve bureaucratic conduct became core to Chinese political life.   In 1911, the Qing Dynasty ended as the last dynasty of Chinese empire.


Rome, founded in 753-BC, by Romulus, placed an emphasis on morals.  Those morals included willingness to step down from power, humility, honor, and patriotism.  Coming out as an empire in 27-BC, the republic made history when it sought unification and balance creating government suited for empire.  Tragically, the Roman Empire fell to internal decay and barbarian invasions in 453-AD.


The Islamic Empire started in the 7th-century. Caliphates lead the imperial seat. From the main imperial line, bureaucratic rule diverged with satellite empires, independent and some dependent, in states ranging from fiefdom to established political rule.  Most of which dissolved in the 20th-century.  Character and dedication to religious faith stand out as this empire's tools to reign.

If empires equate to peace, do the hands of humanity fail to properly execute imperial rule so in a benevolent and ideal manner?  Goals become lost along the way.  Times change and the depictions of empires range from positive to outright pessimistic.  How so can people lauding empires as evil, then make the claim a foreign empire, not domestic, determine true peace?

Even in the times of the Roman Empire, no doubt exists dissatisfied denizens that believed improvement can exist.  Romance of the Three Kingdoms depicts each warlord and ruler with goals, hopes, ambitions, and feelings evident, representing them in humanly mannerisms as possible.  The Crusades and Jihad universally penetrate hearts in the West today as an evil spawned from indescribable abomination.

Empires exist, with a form of order.  Excessive liberty made into law favoring one side, destroys this balance.  The continual masquerade manipulated by such desired excesses sometimes, lead to absolute death by anarchy.  Of the two so-called evils, does an empire seem more desirable than an anarchical society?  Or does a lawful empire represent true order that allows privileges and liberties given in place of savage anarchic behavior?

The Emperor who never sleeps

The emperor and his wife, Justinian and Theodora, are well known historical leaders when learning about the Byzantine Empire. Both came from humble roots. Justinian started his life a farmers son, with the help of his uncle (Emperor Justin I) he was able to become a great political figure. Theodora came from even lesser means, she had little family and took to the streets as a performer, which can also be considered a form of prostitution.  She turned to Christianity and became a wool spinner, and was later married to Justinian, who changed laws just to be with her. 

Justinian can be seen as a man who wished to change and help the laws of his land. He had man ideas that were seen as beneficiary.  In 534 Justinian published his “Coprus Juris Civilis” which is commonly known as Justinian’s Code. In his code he expressed adaption’s of Roman laws influenced by his Christian background.  In the prologue he wrote:

               “The law which a people makes for its own government belongs exclusively to that state and is called the civil law, as being the law of particular state…. The people of Rome, then, are governed partly by their own laws, and partly by the laws which are common to all mankind.”

This speaks a lot for what the code meant as well as its relevance to a modern world. Many countries have their own sets as law, but for a most part we all agree on basic laws that are practiced in some way. Mankind can generally agree on the fact that it’s illegal to murder and steal. These two basic laws can be found in Christian ideals such as the Ten Commandments.

Justinian wanted to bring his laws back to Christian values that he had. The code were Christian based and Justinian wasn’t going to apologize for that fact. I feel that the reason Justinine was able to succed with his ideas was because of his humble beginnings and his faith. He wasn’t too steep into power.

Religion in an Empire - Strength or Weakness

In late 4^th century Rome became Christian, using monotheism as a tool of the empire. This tool, however useful for controlling mass people groups, introduced doubts as to the Emperors right to supreme authority over. Could plague, loss in battle, and sickness is a result of an unfaithful leader? Supreme authority was given from God, but was it right for a mere man to possess such control?  Despite the questions, a common religious theme throughout the Empire provided a common moral standard across the lands. When the Muslim invaders advanced towards Rome with the Arab-Byzantine wars from the late 7^th to 11^th centuries, the Empires morals, faith, and society as a whole were instantly threatened. Likewise, the reality of a strictly Christian society was a menace to Islam.

            Regardless of cultural and faith based differences, both religious empires sought to expand their empire and find new converts. Two religious groups, each claiming to know the single way to eternal salvation, cannot exist side by side in harmony. For centuries, these two empires would engage in battles of faith, of money, and for simply the power to be proven correct in battle. When the Muslims took over Constantinople, they converted what had been the largest church in the world, Haggia Sophia, into a Islamic Temple. Hoping to simply repurpose a grand space, they ended up creating tension among their own people, inspiring hatred in their enemies, and starting a drama that would unfold for centuries to come. Two single minded faiths can not coexist. The Jihads and crusades were both sides’ ways of spreading their saving message and gaining new lands for their respective “gods". Both sough for a single truth, and both instead found battle and internal conflict. 

            Despite the noble intentions found by gaining new converts and acquiring land to honor ones faith, the fact remains that brining in new peoples with foreign ideas, is a threat to the stability of a nation. Rome experienced social upheaval when they tried being a solidly Christian nation, but yet continued their tradition of allowing anyone in an acquired city to become a citizen. Yes, that new citizen had to convert, but their original ideology did not instantly changed. This caused the delicate balance of an Empire that covered most of modern world of the time, to experience unbalance. The periphery was supposed to be supported by the metrapole, but it only served as a symbolic gesture of what was. Similarly the Muslims were threatened by millions of new converts and the ideas that came with bringing in people who had not been raised Muslim. Both states were caught between the undeniable desire to gain land and people, and the impending problems caused by such gains.

           

            Perhaps religion, for all its benefits, runs the risk of causing imperial collapse. Religion only works when all in a group agree. When one tries to add outsiders, with no regard to whether they actually feel similarly, integral internal issues arise. Maybe religion is not something that can be forced on people. Maybe it’s something each much choose for himself. If only Rome had realized that and been a bit more wary with their acceptance. What if Islam had killed instead of converted? We will never know what could have been, but what we do know, is that for a time each empire was strengthened, and renewed by devotion to their gods. However, in time, as religious zeal left them, and when they became religious only in name, they failed to remain unified and collapsed. Faith is not something one can do halfheartedly. 

Bureaucratic Change in Imperialistic Expansion

Spread of the Islamic Empire

It appears that one of the common themes of empires is that when they originate they do not have an imperial emperors. As we have seen in the case of Rome they originated as a republic when it was small. It wasn’t until it was just about at its largest extension that it began to be ruled by dynastic lines of imperial emperors. In the case of China there appeared to be warlord rulers who competed for rule until eventually one leader took over control of the whole area and founded the empire. In both of these cases when they began they did not start out with Imperial Emperors.

The same appears to be the case for the Islamic Empire which begin in the 600s AD under the prophet Muhammed. What originally began as a religious based nation under Muhammad and could be claimed to be the same under his appointed successors in the second through fourth caliphates quickly changed after them. When the Umayyad Dynasty came into power in 661 AD the empire had been undergoing a period of massive expansion and the seat of power quickly changed from a religious one to a massive imperial bureaucracy. No longer were they intent on spreading Islam and protecting the faith, but were focused more on power and controlling the people that were now under their empire.

It would appear form these examples that Imperialistic Emperors is a direct result of massive expansion. The larger the empire gets, the more likely that there are going to be people would just want power and therefore will do whatever it takes to take the throne. Is this true? Is it possible for an empire to expand to a massive scale but still maintain its foundation roots of its origins?