Building Mythos out of the Empires

Eastern and Western empires vary in their degree of reign.  Western empires seem more crueler than Eastern empires because many affiliate Western empires to successful colonization across the globe, and the inhumane treatment subjugated towards natives.  Western empires successfully conquered overseas territory and conquered the indigenous populations with cruelty.  Domestically, people living under the domestic empire enjoyed better living.  Despite the lack of colonies, Eastern empires excelled Western empires, in terms of reform policy.

Western empires fought and competed against each other during the 15th to 17th-centuries for territorial expansion.  Eastern empires fought within and against each other around the same time as the Western empires did.  Eastern empires focused on domestically securing peace within their territories and stability.  At the same time, feudal lords and emperors in the East plotted military campaigns to conquer land overseas.

Between 1463-AD to 1573-AD of Japan, the period known as the Sengoku Jidai dominated the land. Feudalism governed the ways of the people.  Daimyo stood as the governors of the land.  They dictated their laws as they branched out to establish a stable empire after famine and earthquakes disrupted Japanese economy.  Europe saw the Renassaince, the Protestant Reformation, and the colonization of the Americas around that time.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a daimyo from the lower class, ruled Japan after the assassination of the previous daimyo, Oda Nobunaga.  Not surprisingly, his name had no origins of samurai-class distinction or achievement-class.  He started his life from the obscure peasant class and moved up eventually as a vassal, then general to Oda Nobunaga.  He established the end of the Sengoku Jidai and unified Japan.  His tenure as daimyo and unifer brough significant change to Japan by instating a heirarchy class system that defined Japan up until the Meiji Reformation.

The general consensus suggests Sengoku Jidai Japan best be on par with the periodic transition of the rest of the world and define a line drawn between the divine-religious interpretation and the human realm.  What makes the Sengoku Jidai so significant stems from the nature of the period itself.  The name translates to the 'Warring States Era'.  At this time, most expect Japan too far isolated to engage in trade, or have time for ethnocentric spirituality.

It became the opposite as brilliance, art, and culture flourished.  With addition of encountering the Portuguese earlier, Japan grew into a nation soon unified by the deified-daimyo in history.  If the Portuguese arrived any later, can it possibly jeopardize the timing of Japan's establishment and unification process?  What if the Spanish first arrived instead of the Portuguese? 

The Problems with Building an Empire

           The changing culture, political structure, and social framework of the eighteenth century enabled the common man to imagine a non-empire; a single people sovereign over a single territory. Empire was the stage not the victim of revolution. As society changed, so did the view of empires. In cities like London and Paris with a strong wealthy upper class, the proletariat formed new political concepts spurned by monarchial regimes and their concept that “rights” came strictly from a monarch. Political thinkers of the time argued that the right to rule came form the people and a monarchs authority emanated directly from his subjects.

            As the concept of natural rights developed, the question of citizenship surfaced. Would citizenship only be granted to those naturally born in the country in question? Would it be national, only for people of a single linguistic, cultural, and territorial area? Or could citizenship be imperial and embrace the diverse people who populated the state?

            The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fathered revolutions that fueled the spark of change. The Franco-Haitian Revolution started as a squabble over Caribbean colonies and swiftly grew into the French questioning empire as well as their ability and right to govern people not their own. The Spanish encountered similar internal struggles when their colonies began causing a political ruckus. Turns out local peoples don’t appreciate a foreign government decimating regional rule for the sake of expanding empire. England had problems with the pesky American colonies that were peopled by naturally born English citizens, but no longer wished to be ruled by the empire.

 

            Empires are tricky. There are questions of nationality, individual rights, land, and resources, not to mention the right to rule. Imperial rule, ruling empires, monarchial rule; ruling is hard work. Changing political framework and shifting cultural norms help alter social views of empires and change the expectations for rulers, but it does little to truly change the structure. Some things take time to change. Sure the Mongols built an empire in less than half the time it took the Romans, but changing the definition of empire is just a wee bit harder than conquering people groups. Who knew! 

What changed?

Although it only lasted for twenty-five years, Napoleon Bonaparte’s French Empire was strong during its existence and utilized many of the same governing principles from prior empires. Like many former imperial leaders, Napoleon “cast himself,” according to Parsons, as the ruler. With great military success and persuading words, Napoleon promised to “restore Italy to its former glory.” Yet, in the midst of doing so, he crowned himself king.

This seems to be a reoccurring problem within imperial powers; one leader emerges as a capable militant or administrator and, not long after, is sitting on the throne, ruling over subjects. Some unique points about Napoleon’s rule however, were his specific goals of ralliement and amalgame.

Oddly enough, the definition of Napoleon’s ralliement is just how it sounds. A major goal was to ‘rally’ his imperial subjects. “The goal was for “revolutionaries and the men of the ancient regime to work together for the glory of France under Napoleonic rule.” From urban nobles, wealthy landowners, and former radicals, to men of talent with jobs and social honors, Napoleon needed to recruit elites to help maintain his empire. But this was a difficult task. In theory, the elites would be loyal to Napoleon and his regime, as well as provide financial assistance and resources for his rule. But just as there were problems in earlier empires, Napoleon struggled to acquire loyalty. Still, Napoleon’s goal to ‘bridge the gap,’ might have proved valuable if his empire had lasted longer. This bridging of the gap is evident his Napoleon’s amalgame. Using conscription, to mix revolutionary armies and French troops, Napoleon created a large army. He even “promoted amalgame by establishing prestigious secondary schools to train their sons for state service.”

And although these two shining aspects of Napoleon’s regime could be support for Parsons’ underlining argument, in this chapter, Parsons states that “Napoleon’s empire did not last long enough to give these experiments in social engineering a chance to…produce a loyal imperial citizenry.” It seems as if Parsons does not have as much evidence as usual for the ‘wrongness’ of Napoleon’s empire.

So what changed? Was Napoleon’s empire not as brutal as previous ones? Why did it only last for twenty-five years if it utilized many of the same principles and tactics? “Napoleon was no revolutionary,” but then why was his empire so different?

The Changing State of Empire Construction

With the rise of the Napoleonic Empire of France in Europe during the early 1800's Parsons describes that the way that leaders go about constructing Empires has changed as a result of Napoleon. The most important notion here is that people are more resistant to empires.

Parsons states, "This model lost its viability when common people came to see empires as foreign and thus illegitimate." (Pg. 235) The model that he is talking about here is when Empires win a serries battle and thus create an empire, sometimes not even traveling to these new lands or engaging with the population that they have just conquered. This can be seen in Rome, during the Punic Wars, the Romans had major defeats at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, and yet they won the war and constructed an empire because they won the battle of Zama, as well as some other battles. They did not occupy the populate, or commit a full fledged invasion of the Carthaginian state, but instead won a series battle and came to an agreement with the losing nation as to exchange of lands. The people in turn would have accepted the transition and life continues as normal.

With Napoleon things become different. He was not going to conquer European countries by winning a battle and then having the people and government give lands over to him as the victor. No he was going to have to invade the country and occupy everything in order for him to force them to follow him. Instead of people submitting to Napoleon Parson states "Napoleon's attempt to rule local communities directly sparked a powerful and popular anti-French backlash throughout the continent. This resistance was not yet national, for most Europeans at this time still identified themselves on the basis of local or communal loyalties. Nevertheless, the common experience of resisting the invasive French Empire helped build larger identities that were the raw material of European Nationalism." (Pg. 234) The people of Europe resisted the invasion of France because they saw it as illegitimate and oppressive, as a result of this Napoleon had to change the scope of how empires are constructed, he had to occupy the entire state and population to force them to be part of his empire, a vast contrast from past empires. Is this true? Did Napoleon change the growth of Empires, forcing them to be more invasive and controlling of the population, as a result of the peoples new-found distaste for empire and national identity?

Peter the Great

Peter the Great, was well great. He survived murderous rampage between the clans of his father's (Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich) two wives. And at a young age of twenty-four he became he sole Tsar. When Peter was young he lived outside of Moscow where he grew to find an interest in "western" ideas and technology. Finding a specific interest in military strategy, mathematics and boat sailing. As Tsar he made a few trips into Europe , one where he disguised himself to apprentice to a shipbuilder in Holland.

His interesest in Europe lead him in his goal to have Russia "catch up" with the rest of the world. This involved many different changes to the Russian life.

His military ideas were extremely ambitious, reforms lead to annual recruiting from every twenty families. Peter ultimately achieved his goal, he successfully defeated the Swedes and secured Russia's Baltic ports. And after battling the Ottomans, Peter built a Roman Arch in Moscow with the translation of Casear's motto "I came, I saw, I conquered" written across.

Peter did many other great things beside win wars. He replaced the boyar duma with a senate which was able to proclaim his as the Emperor. He founded the Academy of Science as well as printing Russia's first ever newspaper. He used the "Table of Ranks" to classify state services, and reorganized the administration into colleges, a practice he learned will in Europe.

Peter the Great was great for Russia. He was able to further their power to move them up in a fast changing world. He accepted the ideas from a western world and adapted them to create a better country for his people. Peter the Great lives up to his name.

It's Good to Rule

It’s good to be a prince. Power, prestige, the family jewels, seems like a good job to me. The Daniilovichi princes of Moscow inherited family lands, married exotic princesses, and had power. Of course, there were problems too. The muscovite princes had the makings of an empire in their grasp. By carefully choosing marriage alliances they had formed strong bonds with the right allies and were in a strong position politically. The grand princes were not only competing with foreign countries, but were competing amongst themselves for supremacy. Unlike the ottomans that arrange their control to inhibit nobility from coming to power, Russia produced nobility that was both involved in the imperial project and contingent on the autocrat. They allowed their ruling families to truly have control and manipulate the state for the best interest of the whole.

    In China family order dictated who would rule. During the Qiny dynasty, Emperor Kangxi inferred the right to choose his successor as the most capable of his heirs. This new found competition for the crown kept princes alert and concentrated. Suddenly it wasn’t enough to simply be born the oldest, or even second; you had to be the best ruler, best according to the son of heaven, imperial god, the Emperor. Sounds stressful to me. Maybe it wasn’t so great to be a prince.

    Regardless of where a prince ruled, or whether an heir was born or chosen, being a prince would have been hard work. Russia or China, both would have their problems and both states nobility would suffer as modernity altered the nobility’s abilities. It sounds like it would be fun to be a prince, to lead troops into battle, wear fancy clothes and have your head printed on a coin. But it reality royalty were responsible for dictating a nations politics of difference, where the imperial intersections lay, manifesting religious piety and devotion, and in short taking care of an entire nation. Peter the Great. Tzar of Russia altered the churches power during his reign and many of his people resented the change. Wasn’t he just doing what he thought best? During the Ming dynasty China adopted a anti-foreigner policy that didn’t last and proved mainly to set China back technologically for generations. Wasn’t the emperor only trying to protect his people and cultural identity? Maybe being a prince would be more than I want, and certainly more than I can handle. While the job sounds like fun, I think I’ll stick to being a student, a bit less glamorous, and just a wee bit simpler. All thought, a shiny crown? That’s quite an incentive…

"Ivan the Terrible"

Russia as an empire did not emerge until the 16^th century, quite late as compared to other Eurasian regions. It initially broke away from the Mongols and therefore was heavily influenced by the Mongol way of empire but other influences stemmed from the Turk and Byzantine empires. The Moscovite empire had 3 pillars, the first and most important being the Tsar, next the land grant system for elites, and the church. Ivan, “The Terrible” was the first official Tsar of Russia. At the tender age of 3 he was declared the Grand Prince of Moscow due to his father’s death. Until his mother’s passing when Ivan was only 8 years old, she was the leader of the territory. Still too young to govern a society Ivan had to watch as his throne was ran by a group of nobles otherwise known as regents who were bidding for supreme power. Ivan grew up with no true companionship and was often mistreated by the regents. Many have stated that his treatment towards nobles and his unruly hostility towards them stemmed from his childhood.

At the young age of 16 Ivan became Russia’s first Tsar. Initially Ivan was an innovative leader focused on reforming and strengthening Russia as an empire. Russia flourished; he centralized the government, created a new law code, promoted and extended Russian trade, and built an elite military. At a young age Ivan’s goal was to rule as many people and as much territory as possible, so his campaigns to extend the empire came as no surprise. Under his leadership the Russian military was transformed, there overtaking of Syria completely changes Russian society.

The Syrian conquest introduced the strictly Orthodox Christian empire to foster Muslims, for the first time the empire had multiple religions. Despite the large amount of land and people who were already under Russian control, Ivan also brought the first new ethnicity to the empire as well. He was a great leader who elevated the young empire to new heights in a short period of time.

We are all familiar with the negative aspects of Ivan’s reign, his mistreatment of nobles and unjust executions, his random rants, and his unfortunate murder of his son and best option as heir to the throne. His death is thought to have been caused by poison from someone in his royal court, which is not surprising due to his often uncontrollable temper. Most are not aware that much of the early success that the Russian empire had was because of Ivan “the terrible” son of Ivan ‘the great”.

 http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/the-ryurikovich-dynasty/ivan-iv-the-terrible/