A "law of empires"?

In my study of history there seems to be a "law of empires" which basically states that the faster an empire is built up the faster it comes tumbling down. Two examples of the latter are the huge British gains in the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763--which they lost in less than a generation when the American colonists rebelled, and the Axis victories in World War 2 that gave way to disaster for said Axis. Have many people here noticed this?
 
In my study of history there seems to be a "law of empires" which basically states that the faster an empire is built up the faster it comes tumbling down. Two examples of the latter are the huge British gains in the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763--which they lost in less than a generation when the American colonists rebelled, and the Axis victories in World War 2 that gave way to disaster for said Axis. Have many people here noticed this?
I think it probably applies to empires that control a lot of people that do not like their rulers. If you can get the people to like you then they probably won't want to leave.
 
In my study of history there seems to be a "law of empires" which basically states that the faster an empire is built up the faster it comes tumbling down. Two examples of the latter are the huge British gains in the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763--which they lost in less than a generation when the American colonists rebelled, and the Axis victories in World War 2 that gave way to disaster for said Axis. Have many people here noticed this?
I'm find faulty your logic because you have case as the Persian empire of Cirus that was builtnin less than 40 years and last more than 200 years, or the mongol Empire that was build even faster and lasted more than 200 years and even morebif you count the succesor Empires,
 
I think the point here that may be useful is less a Universal Law and more a general point-that the faster you expand a greater amount, the harder it is to do the kind of things needed to stabilize one's territory(entrenching power, getting your coins minting, gaining control of local elites and coopting them or installing your own, creating ideological loyalty", etc. On the other hand, slower expansion or fast expansion in a smaller area makes it easier to do those things.
 
In my study of history there seems to be a "law of empires" which basically states that the faster an empire is built up the faster it comes tumbling down. Two examples of the latter are the huge British gains in the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763--which they lost in less than a generation when the American colonists rebelled

I suggest you look a bit more closely at maps of British gains in the Seven Years War compared to losses to the rebellion. The new acquisitions were, by and large, the bits that stayed loyal.
 
Top