AH challenge : World Domination

Eurofed

Banned
And about scientific progress...in ancient/medieval ages I think this would make a better progress for science... (think about Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate...)

Yup. Or Imperial China for the vast majority of its history.

But in modern age...I would imagine a world full of dictatorism, communism, nazism...

Or conversely a world full of US-like democracy.

I think an ancient/medieval world-dominating empire was highly improbable, though... (except Eric's TL... :D)

To be truly world-dominating, an empire needs at least Early Modern technology. and its control only becomes deeply entrenched with Victorian Age tech. But Eric's TL is indeed a compelling evidence of how an empire with the right characteristics could get to assimilate and have a stable rule over half of Eurasia in the pre-Exploration age. This creates the "critical mass" to become world-dominating later.
 
Yup. Or Imperial China for the vast majority of its history.

What about the old argument that civilization flourishes best in a divided condition - Classical Greece, taifa Spain, Renaissance Italy, or on the grander scale - early modern Europe?

There's an argument in both Western and Confucian history that says the large, old, stable regimes tend to stagnate.

Do you think that interpretation of history has any validity?
 

Eurofed

Banned
What about the old argument that civilization flourishes best in a divided condition - Classical Greece, taifa Spain, Renaissance Italy, or on the grander scale - early modern Europe?

There's an argument in both Western and Confucian history that says the large, old, stable regimes tend to stagnate.

Do you think that interpretation of history has any validity?

Personally I think it is Eurocentric, particularist, and OTL favoritism crap, and I do not give it any intellectual respect (expect me to get very annoyed if it gets parroted in my face too much). Rome only started to stagnate when its economy, political stability, and border security went down the tube late in its history, Imperial China was at the vanguard of technological and scientific innovation for the vast majority of its history, the British Empire and the USA have been notorious hubs of innovation. It all depends on how the empire is set up, you can have imperial or Balkanized civilizations that promote or stifle progress, depending on their features. The only field where Balkanization might have a net effect is military innovations, but OTOH, if you give the empire a worthy rival, that kind of competition just gets played out in a bigger arena.
 
Last edited:
Eurofed

Its an opinion, but as you know I'm on the other side of the argument. With centralised states without opposition people have very little power. Even in democratic states of 'medium' size, such as most European states many people feel largely powerless and alienated. With a universal state this would be greatly increased. Such a system, without any rival or opponent to keep it at least partially honest, would be my personal nightmare.

Steve

Personally I think it is Eurocentric, particularist, and OTL favoritism crap, and I do not give it any intellectual respect (expect me to get very annoyed if it gets parroted in my face too much). Rome only started to stagnate when its economy, political stability, and border security went down the tube late in its history, Imperial China was at the vanguard of technological and scientific innovation for the vast majority of its history, the British Empire and the USA have been notorious hubs of innovation. It all depends on how the empire is set up, you can have imperial or Balkanized civilizations that promote or stifle progress, depending on their features. The only field where Balkanization might have a net effect is military innovations, but OTOH, if you give the empire a worthy rival, that kind of competition just gets played out in a bigger arena.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed

Its an opinion, but as you know I'm on the other side of the argument. With centralised states without opposition people have very little power. Even in democratic states of 'medium' size, such as most European states many people feel largely powerless and alienated. With a universal state this would be greatly increased. Such a system, without any rival or opponent to keep it at least partially honest, would be my personal nightmare.

Steve

Well, the argument was about cultural and technological progress, not political freedom. But about this, my stance is that size of a state is absolutely not a guarantee of getting a nice or nasty political regime.

History is chock-full of little states that became authoritarian hellholes: a cursory memory review reminds me of: NK, Burma, Cuba, Belarus, Eritrea, plus in the past Equatorial Guinea, Communist Albania, Paraguay, Haiti on multiple counts, Nicaragua. Moreover, let's mention that three of the last four genocides have been performed in little states: Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia. Chances are that as soon as the nationalist extremists get in charge that spearheaded the break-up of your idealized "little Fatherland" away from the "faceless" big-medium state, they shall immediately proceed to turn into an intolerant and oppressive nightmare. I'll happily keep my "faceless" Italian nation-state, and hopefully merge it within an even more "faceless" European federation ASAP, any day rather than trust the "close to the locals" Padan Fatherland whose racist loonie would-be leaders are blatantly itching to start the lynchings of the Rom and immigrants and the deportations of the Southern Italians.
 
Eurofed

The question is, is cultural and technological progress that easy and reliable without some version of rule of law? Which basically means some restraint on central power.

The most common and reliable way of getting this, and preventing the people on top simply hiring a bunch of thugs to impose their will, is to have them need to win real support because of external threats. As such universal states, or those that due to geographical factors are virtually so, are prone to both excesses of power against their internal population and stagnation.

There are plenty of smaller states often badly or viciously run. However that, with neighbours, gives the option of fleeing or being receptive to an invasion from another state. As such small states can't afford to do that sort of thing too much without mitigating factors. [Some religious dogma, a powerful ally or simply other states don't care very much. The last two are why so many nasty states have survived in the modern world and earlier times. However it doesn't mean that the state can rely on this state of affairs lasting].

With Rome for instance for much of its history after the founding of the empire there was no real external check on its power. It became progressively more autocratic and socially hidebound and that seems to have been a significant factor in its fall. Most states, especially large materially powerful ones, die when they cease to hold the loyalty of the bulk of their population. Ditto with China. If often saw great brutality against the host population when the empire seemed strong simply because there was no check on the authority of the ruling elite.

Steve

Well, the argument was about cultural and technological progress, not political freedom. But about this, my stance is that size of a state is absolutely not a guarantee of getting a nice or nasty political regime.

History is chock-full of little states that became authoritarian hellholes: a cursory memory review reminds me of: NK, Burma, Cuba, Belarus, Eritrea, plus in the past Equatorial Guinea, Communist Albania, Paraguay, Haiti on multiple counts, Nicaragua. Moreover, let's mention that three of the last four genocides have been performed in little states: Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia. Chances are that as soon as the nationalist extremists get in charge that spearheaded the break-up of your idealized "little Fatherland" away from the "faceless" big-medium state, they shall immediately proceed to turn into an intolerant and oppressive nightmare. I'll happily keep my "faceless" Italian nation-state, and hopefully merge it within an even more "faceless" European federation ASAP, any day rather than trust the "close to the locals" Padan Fatherland whose racist loonie would-be leaders are blatantly itching to start the lynchings of the Rom and immigrants and the deportations of the Southern Italians.
 
Top