On the edge of civilization

I noticed something the other day. So many of the great empires of our time have been built on the edges of the civilized world.
Alexandrian Empire- The Macedonians were on the edges of Greek civilization, well to the north of the civilized areas.
Roman Empire- What else was in Europe, anyway? Nothing really, just Celtic and Germanic tribes.
Arab Empire- They came out of the desert. 'Nuff said.
Mongol Empire- The steppes. 'Nuff said.
Portugese & Spanish Empires- waaaay out on the edge of the civilized world (india, china), so far out that they decided to go around the twenty gazillion middlemen in between them and the cores of civilization
British Empire- pretty much a backwater during the 16th century, but by the 18th, was the most powerful nation.
Russian Empire- again, on the edge of civilization, goes on to be the largest nation yet (besides the mongols).
United States- a nation settled only for a century or two, surrounded by trees and savages, goes on to be the most powerful force the world has seen.

Does this sound valid to you guys? Any idea why this happens? Any idea where it could happen again?

I guess nobody is really able to answer that question, but since guessing is OK...

Maybe it's because they all were close enough to civilization to get all the good advantages (scientific ones and others), but not close enough to introduce all the unnecessary stuff (big bureaucracy, outdated traditions) as well.

Of course, you'd have to test your theory, f.e. by looking through world history whether there were people on the edge of civilization who did NOT become a world power...

New Empires emerge on the outskirts of civilization because the heart of civilization is usually the capital of an existing empire.

If George Washington had begun the American Revolution in the middle of London how far would he have gotten?

Plus the surrounding areas are the nearest ones with undeveloped resources.

They have place to expand, and they are new. If Washington had begun the American Revolution in the middle of London, it still would have been change within empire, not beginnning of new one.

Otis Tarda said:

They have place to expand, and they are new. If Washington had begun the American Revolution in the middle of London, it still would have been change within empire, not beginnning of new one.

Click to expand...

That's my point. You can't start a new empire in the middle of Civilization. That's why they all come from the peripheries.

What about the Empires of Babylonia, Persia, and Assyria? These were created over top exiting empires.

But, there's another possible scenario: average country from the middle becames an Empire; it's - unfullified - case of France, Germany and Poland in XVIth century.
On the other hand, sooner or later they'd meet restrictions to their expansion: their neigbours. Peripheral countries don't have this problem, after all...

Norman said:

What about the Empires of Babylonia, Persia, and Assyria? These were created over top exiting empires.

Click to expand...

The Persians were your regulation barbarian-invaders-turned-imperial-masters. Assyria, while an old civilisation by the time it went imperial, was situated at the nexus between the Mesopotamian civilisation and the mountain tribes. Babylon, however, like Egypt, the Inca, China, Chola, Vijayanagar, and very likely quite a few more are valid points.

My guess is: Empire, like theft and fraud, is made up of motive and opportunity. If you're sitting in the middle of a civilised world, opportunity and motive may be limited. You can't easily beat your neighbours, and there's usually no need to, either. If you are in constant contact with warlike nations and faced with unstable places that you'd dearly love to set to order just so you can sleep in peace, and on the other flank perpetually look at people who eat better than you, wear nicer clothes, live in bigger houses and can't fight for beans - things look better. Not every periphery culture becomes an empire, but statistically I'd say the chances are better. Especially if they still retain enough of the barbarian "If he wanted to keep it so much, why didn't he fight harder?" way of thinking.

Which would also explain how Europe, when it discovered how much high seas navigation expanded its periphery, decided to do a Genghis Khan. Opportunity and impunity...

second half

To address the second half of your Question
The ongoing meltdown of Columbia & Venezuela Get worse, Brazil moves in to restore order.

The central Africa Meltdown collaspses, into total Anarcy. a small group somewhere at the edge sets out on It's Manifest Desistiny.

The ASBs strike- the whole world meltsdown, collaspes, Everyone gets a chance to play.

The early examples are not valid since the empires in question, Babylon, Egypt, et. al. more or less comprised the entirety of civilization, and were thus on its periphery.

The Persians started in Asia and swept in an conquered the Medes. That is still an empire from the periphery.

Opportunity Costs

If you are fat and happy, going away to kill strangers doesn't attract you. If you are hungry, you can make that choice much easier. The most dangerous combination is a civilisation dominated by a less industrialised cousing group. Germany was the Ruhr dominated by the Prussians, the Alexandrian empire was Greeks dominated by the Macedonians, etc.

Well, if you want a new "edge", your best bet is central Africa, as well as central Asia. In both areas, the nearby great powers aren't powerful enough to intervene, but there's plenty of people there that could follow you.

Antarctica: too damn cold.

Er no one has mentioned Rome ! It was not as stated just the only thing in Europe, a whole load of Southern Italy and Sicily were Greek and the Etruscans were certainly civilised. What Rome did was subdue its fellow tribal kingdoms (eg the Sabines), unify the lot and then was able to take on the stronger, older and more civilised neighbours. Does this fit a theory ?

Grey Wolf