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?
Since we've only looked at a couple empires (tomorrow being the third), I'm not sure that we can fully answer this question. In fact, it may never be answerable.
ReplyDeleteBut personally, I think that you're right. Certainly in the cases that we've seen so far (including "Muslim Spain" and the Islamic countries) imperial order isn't their first, or even a single, priority. But it also appears, as you say, that somewhere between being content with their own land and conquering some neighboring areas, the Romans, Chinese, and Muslims have gotten a little greedy for land and developed into an imperial power.
Coincidence? I would say no; at least not yet.
I think that, with a little more experience under our belts, we can now start to see that there is a necessary relationship between empire and highly centralized, even autocratic, rule. The size and diversity of imperial populations are such that no form of representative government, for example, could succeed, particularly in an era before the advent of mass communication.
ReplyDelete