Jump to content

250 Year Empires - Sir John Glubb?

William Wallace

By William Wallace
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

William Wallace

William Wallace 106

Posted
Posted

Anyone read this?  I found the book in the last year.

British Commander that served in the Middle East. Wrote this 1978. He researched and came up with the theory that Empires die every 250 years. 1776, so we have a few years lol.

He has Markers that we have achieved. I need to read again.  

It has been months since I read it, but it he backs it up.  Fun theory for Conspiracy Theorists. 

One has to learn from history.  Hopefully it won't repeat AGAIN.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

 

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, William Wallace said:

What would be a good start date for The US Empire?

I think that post-WWII is reasonable, and we won't make it close to 250 years if that is the index date. We will end up being one of the more minor empires in the course of world history, at least in terms of longevity. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that post-WWII is reasonable, and we won't make it close to 250 years if that is the index date. We will end up being one of the more minor empires in the course of world history, at least in terms of longevity. 

If we called it an empire, I would put it at '42 or '43

Year Army          Total Size of Military
1939     189,839        334,473
1940 269,023       458,365
1941 1,462,315       1,801,101
1942 3,075,608       3,915,507
1943 6,994,472       9,195,912
1944 7,994,750       11,623,468
1945 8,267,958       12,209,238

I don't know how well that table will come out, but by 1942, we began projecting power like nobody's business.  In three short years, we went from 190,000 soldiers in the Army alone, to over 3 million.

The problem is, and the OP's posts don't address this, is that the US is not a empire in the sense that all of those nations the OP listed as empires are.

While we have projected military power on the scale of an empire (hence my table above) during and after WWII, and while we project economic power, we are lacking the fundamental things that make up a traditional empire.

Charles Tilly had a fairly good definition:

Quote

An empire is a large composite polity linked to a central power by indirect rule. The central power exercises some military and fiscal control in each major segment of its imperial domain, but tolerates two major elements of indirect rule: (1) retention or establishment of particular, distinct compacts for the government of each segment; and (2) exercise of power through intermediaries who enjoy considerable autonomy within their own domains in return for compliance, tribute, and military collaboration with the center

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. simply do not compare to Australia, Canada, India, etc. 

This is not an empire:

800px-US_insular_areas.svg.png

This is an empire:

800px-The_British_Empire.png

This is an empire:

800px-Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

That's arguably when we started down the road of colonialism, but we weren't a major global player and "empire" until after WWII

in 1320 the ottomans held some towns just east of constantinople. 

europe didn't take us seriously until we demolished the spanish, that doesn't mean we weren't in the expansion phase prior to that.  hell, austria was called an empire and was shit basically its whole existence.  they needed prussian help to defeat the danes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Agree with this. America was incredibly isolationist until post-WWII/Cold war when we started playing world police

We were doing "stuff" in China, Japan, The Philippines, and Central America (Nicaragua) before WWII.  There's that whole Spanish-American war deal.  Don't guess Mexico counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. simply do not compare to Australia, Canada, India, etc. 
This is not an empire:
800px-US_insular_areas.svg.png
This is an empire:
800px-The_British_Empire.png
This is an empire:
800px-Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png


Economic empire with bases everywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4809

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Economic empire with bases everywhere.

Yeah, I would go along with this.  We were pretty good about going in and setting up puppet regimes that fed us a lot of their natural resources without us having to plant a flag.  Then we figured out how we could loan them American tax dollars with the stipulation they only hire American contractors to build needless infrastructure and pointless outdated weaponry.  

On the other hand, our empire really did start with the landing at Jamestown, because our European forefathers had no problem wiping out the existing indigenous people and taking their land all the way across North America.  Even using localized control with states and territories.  Not much different than Romans did.  

So maybe Empire part one, and Empire part two?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28691

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yeah, I would go along with this.  We were pretty good about going in and setting up puppet regimes that fed us a lot of their natural resources without us having to plant a flag.  Then we figured out how we could loan them American tax dollars with the stipulation they only hire American contractors to build needless infrastructure and pointless outdated weaponry.  

On the other hand, our empire really did start with the landing at Jamestown, because our European forefathers had no problem wiping out the existing indigenous people and taking their land all the way across North America.  Even using localized control with states and territories.  Not much different than Romans did.  

So maybe Empire part one, and Empire part two?

Eh, that was the British empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Economic empire with bases everywhere.

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yeah, I would go along with this.  We were pretty good about going in and setting up puppet regimes that fed us a lot of their natural resources without us having to plant a flag.  Then we figured out how we could loan them American tax dollars with the stipulation they only hire American contractors to build needless infrastructure and pointless outdated weaponry.  

I would agree with this, but we don't have the control over those entities that the Brits or Romans had over their territories.  How many times have those puppet regimes changed sides on us or the leadership changed, leaving us out to dry?  The UK still has close ties with Canada, Australia, and plenty of other countries (see the whole commonwealth thing).  We don't have that level of closeness with any countries that we had puppet regimes in.  

Now our multinational companies....they do operate at that kind of level.  And our alliances (NATO, etc.) do, but those are not exactly the same thing.

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

So maybe Empire part one, and Empire part two?

Jamestown was the Brits.

Part One at the earliest started in the early 1940s if you're on that track.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28691

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

yeah but it wasn't the brits after 1776 and we started embracing Manifest Destiny.

That's probably more similar to the city-state of Rome invading southern Italy. Would be centuries before it would become an empire.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
0xdeadbeef

0xdeadbeef 1626

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, William Wallace said:

chart.png

The roman empire didn't fall in 180AD, more like 395 AD.  (422 years)

The Byzantine Empire went from about 330AD to 1453AD  (1,123 years)

The British Empire probably should probably start 50 years earlier.  

Edited by 0xdeadbeef
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11777

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Why not begin it w/ the Louisiana Purchase and Manifest Destiny?

Probably this...

Maybe Monroe's presidency....

Or like other's have said the Mexican American war .....

Or possibly Perry's expedition and the forced opening of Japan...

Or the Alaskan purchase....

Or maybe the Spanish American war and the forced annexation of Hawaii...

Or post WWI and the Wilson presidency....

Or definitely WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
Jamestown was the Brits.
Part One at the earliest started in the early 1940s if you're on that track.
 
 

Because the populations of those former British colonies have a close cultural identity due to supplanting the natives.

They are also reviled for how brutal they were when they did control the locals which outnumbered them, and those relationships are a bit more complex.

Our economic empire is one that allows us flexibility so if a regime changes we can leave, or we can trade with people who hate us, whatever suits us. With trade, we can really change market forces and keep regimes on edge as they need to constantly work on stability. We also have the ability to wait, even if our demos lacks patience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Nivek said:

Economic empire with bases everywhere.

12 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yeah, I would go along with this.  We were pretty good about going in and setting up puppet regimes that fed us a lot of their natural resources without us having to plant a flag.  Then we figured out how we could loan them American tax dollars with the stipulation they only hire American contractors to build needless infrastructure and pointless outdated weaponry.  

I still stand by my original assertion that we are not an empire in the traditional sense, but I was willing to consider it with the puppet regimes we setup after WWII. In thinking about it some more, we are as much hired guns as we are an economic-only empire with puppet regimes, if not more.  

How many times have we exerted our power and setup these regimes not because of our actual national interests (including economic), but because some fucking lobbyists or diplomats whispered in some politicians ears?  How much blood have we spilled to protect the Saudis/Sunnis, who could give a fuck about us outside of whether we can protect them?  How much blood have we spilled so that some CEO could get his bonuses?

And how many of these countries/companies turn against our national interests when it suits them financially, such as the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries, European allies, Latin America countries, etc.?

The Brits or Romans or Byzantines would not have tolerated the kind of shit that we tolerate from these companies and countries.

We're fucking mercenaries.  We keep the multinationals, the wealthy, various countries, etc. safe.  They don't concede whatever power they have to us, Rather, they use our power to enhance their power and their wealth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted

The British companies did influence British policy and did move them into action.

Our relationship with the Saudis is not out of love or a hobbyist, but for geopolitical reasons. Fuel is important to keeping the economy going and keeping the war machine in business. We are not in Israel out of love, but for the bases. It is why they act like cunts and get away with it. Once we decide we don’t need their base anymore their attitude will completely change.

I would hardly call Germany or Japan puppet regimes. And considering how losers in wars previously fared, they likely have a fondness for how their country was altered vs the previous European model of punishment for losing wars.

Yeah, there have been some games played in other regions, Vietnam is really such an oddity and stupid one and it showed.
It was good money after bad scenario until the hole was too deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12928

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Nivek said:



Yeah, there have been some games played in other regions, Vietnam is really such an oddity and stupid one and it showed.
It was good money after bad scenario until the hole was too deep.

And now we're trading partners on relatively decent terms.   Now imagine if we'd just stayed the fuck out.

 

 

Oh, and hi, Cuba.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

The British companies did influence British policy and did move them into action.

The British royals still had the ultimate power though

They also weren't as easily bought off by other countries like we Americans are (witness Kushner and various ME countries), and were the ones usually doing the buying off.  There's way too many American politicians who have bent over publicly for Chinese companies, etc.

Plus, companies here in the US hold the ultimate power over the politicians, and can get them easily removed from office.  American companies can even try and dismantle or rule over parts of the government they don't like if they get their preferred candidates into power (witness the EPA and BLM under Trump).

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Our relationship with the Saudis is not out of love or a hobbyist, but for geopolitical reasons. Fuel is important to keeping the economy going and keeping the war machine in business. We are not in Israel out of love, but for the bases. It is why they act like cunts and get away with it. Once we decide we don’t need their base anymore their attitude will completely change.

The problem with the Saudis is that we don't hold power over them in the way that traditional empires do.  They spite us publicly, they pull shit that gets our people killed (look at their involvement after Saddam was overthrown, when they were stirring up shit that got American soldiers killed).  Yes, we tolerate their shenanigans because of geopolitical reasons, but a traditional empire would not tolerate it.  Ye Olde British Empire would have made it clear to the Saudi leadership that their fuckery would get them replaced with somebody more aligned with everybody else.

As for Israel, we fucking give them money/weapons/etc. so that a political party can get votes from Jewish and Evangelical Americans.

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I would hardly call Germany or Japan puppet regimes. And considering how losers in wars previously fared, they likely have a fondness for how their country was altered vs the previous European model of punishment for losing wars.

I wouldn't include them, well maybe the Japanese directly after WWII, but they quickly went their own way, while staying allied with us.

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Yeah, there have been some games played in other regions, Vietnam is really such an oddity and stupid one and it showed.
It was good money after bad scenario until the hole was too deep.

Vietnam and Cuba are two that we really fucked up.  I have relatives who were Vietnam vets, and have went to Vietnam in recent years, and had a fantastic time.  Cuba?  We should be extremely close with them and have a MLB team or two down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17566

Posted
Posted
On 7/22/2021 at 1:34 AM, 0xdeadbeef said:

The roman empire didn't fall in 180AD, more like 395 AD.  (422 years)

The Byzantine Empire went from about 330AD to 1453AD  (1,123 years)

The British Empire probably should probably start 50 years earlier.  

There's also a legit argument to be made that the Eastern Roman Empire can be counted back to the inception of the Western Roman Empire.  It was one unbroken polity.  They themselves didn't call themselves "eastern" or "western."  They called themselves Roman.  The distinction is a fiction of modern historians.  I suppose that's what we'd call an "outlier" but it's a hell of an outlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The British royals still had the ultimate power though

They also weren't as easily bought off by other countries like we Americans are (witness Kushner and various ME countries), and were the ones usually doing the buying off.  There's way too many American politicians who have bent over publicly for Chinese companies, etc.

Plus, companies here in the US hold the ultimate power over the politicians, and can get them easily removed from office.  American companies can even try and dismantle or rule over parts of the government they don't like if they get their preferred candidates into power (witness the EPA and BLM under Trump).

The problem with the Saudis is that we don't hold power over them in the way that traditional empires do.  They spite us publicly, they pull shit that gets our people killed (look at their involvement after Saddam was overthrown, when they were stirring up shit that got American soldiers killed).  Yes, we tolerate their shenanigans because of geopolitical reasons, but a traditional empire would not tolerate it.  Ye Olde British Empire would have made it clear to the Saudi leadership that their fuckery would get them replaced with somebody more aligned with everybody else.

As for Israel, we fucking give them money/weapons/etc. so that a political party can get votes from Jewish and Evangelical Americans.

I wouldn't include them, well maybe the Japanese directly after WWII, but they quickly went their own way, while staying allied with us.

Vietnam and Cuba are two that we really fucked up.  I have relatives who were Vietnam vets, and have went to Vietnam in recent years, and had a fantastic time.  Cuba?  We should be extremely close with them and have a MLB team or two down there.

We hold power over them and they know it.  They are mostly saber rattling as to appear independent or in a cooperative relationship, but we get exactly what we demand and some of what we want.    We are not a traditional empire, we don't give a fuck if they honor us or kiss the ring as long as they give us the land, trade, resources we are after.   We let them have a say in Desert Storm, but they had no real say.  

British Royals has the ultimate say, but they also could read a room and the nobility had a large influence on politics.  One King who didn't read the room or respond was usurped and killed by the pilgrims who had used fake news and propaganda to gain public support and eventually political support.  They even attacked the Irish because of fake news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...