Which was the greatest ancient empire?

[Uraeus]

Egypt. But I also like Greece, Rome and wish the British empire was still around.

[Devil's Advocate]

I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.

As to the question, for my money, it's a toss-up between the Egyptian and Persian empires.


*EDIT* On second thought, definitely Egyptian.

[Severus]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.

Damn straight. National independence FTW!

I would say the Roman Empire is probably the one which interests me the most.

[thaddeus6th]

I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.

[Severus]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.

Whoa. It's the twenty-first century. You're not seriously arguing in favour of imperialist domination, are you?

[Devil's Advocate]

Yeah, exactly.

I'm sorry, Thaddeus, but I hope your comment was more of the "for the hell of it" variety, because if you truly believe in the validity of the British (or any other) Empire in the present world, then that is a ridiculous line of thought.

Flat-out unacceptable.

[thaddeus6th]

Flat-out unacceptable? No. Self-determination is obviously the best course. But better a peaceful province than an AIDS-ridden, impoverished, famished dictatorship where the average man on the street is a billionaire who caren't afford a good meal.

I'm not saying we should go out and re-establish the Empire. I'm saying that Zimbabwe now is far worse than it would be if it were run properly, whether as a province or a self-determined and well-functioning democracy.

[Devil's Advocate]

Precisely the argument that pro-imperialists have made throughout history.

"These people are too incompetent to take care of themselves, so we better do it for them."

Sounds, on the surface, perfectly reasonable. And therein lies the danger.

[Vladd67]

Originally Posted by Severus

Damn straight. National independence FTW!

Does that include from Brussels?

But getting back to the subject of Ancient Empires, Rome has to a front runner.

[Devil's Advocate]

Speaking of Ancient Empires, what's the oldest one, by the way? The first Empire, that is. The 'trendsetter'?

Egyptian?

[Vladd67]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Speaking of Ancient Empires, what's the oldest one, by the way? The first Empire, that is. The 'trendsetter'?

Egyptian?

This is a contender

[Peter Graham]

I'm sorry, Thaddeus, but I hope your comment was more of the "for the hell of it" variety, because if you truly believe in the validity of the British (or any other) Empire in the present world, then that is a ridiculous line of thought.

Flat-out unacceptable.

I think very few points of view are flat out unacceptable. I can see Thaddeus' point, although I should also make it clear that I am not advocating a return to the days of Empire.

In the day, the fashionable belief was that the British Empire was an unreservedly Good Thing because we showed these damnable natives a thing or two about running their own affairs and taught them cricket into the bargain.

Nowadays, the fashionable belief is that the British Empire was an unreservedly Bad Thing as it relied on the vile jackboot of oppression and the stifling of those yearning to be free.

Whether it's tribe or Empire, it's usually about the control of resources. States that become Empires might be particularly good at acquiring those resources, but if moral opposition to Empire is based on notions of self determination and the sanctity of each tribe/nation/people to govern their own affairs, can anyone explain the qualitative difference between the British annexing India (or the Romans annexing Britain) and the Macsomeones annexing the Macsomeonelses?

And how far back do we have to go to find a first people, living in their Garden of Eden state, to whom the right of self determination attaches?

Take Cumbria as an example. The earliest records suggest it was part of a Celtic Brigantian federation which covered most of what is now northern England. The Celts themselves were incomers who displaced (or at least took over from) their proto-Celtic predecessors, who in turn were descended from waves of different peoples who had been pitching up through the Bronze Age.

The Brigantes were conquered and/or assimilated into the Roman empire. Following the fall of Rome, Cumbria coalesced into a Romano-Britsh kingdom called Rheged. After a brief but glorious hiatus, Rheged fell to English Northumbria. English Northumbria in turn lost it to the Manx/Irish Viking settlers who in turn were absorbed by expanding British Strathclyde. Strathclyde in turn became part of Scotland (settled by the Irish Dal Riadans), who controlled Cumbria until it was ceded to the Norman French kings in the late 11th Century.

So, who has the right of self determination in Cumbria? Who are the Cumbrian people? Who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors? Where do we draw the line - and when (in historical terms) do we draw it?

Regards,

Peter

[thaddeus6th]

I'm not saying a return to Empire would be a good thing. I'm saying that in the specific case of Zimbabwe, it would be less bad than the state of famine, poverty and rampant AIDS they presently suffer. Life expectancy there was (a few years ago) in the early 30s. There is little political freedom, the economy is in ruins and there's no food. Zimbabwe doesn't have self-determination (which would be the best course) now. A peaceful and well-run province is better than a dictatorship.

[Severus]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

Does that include from Brussels?

For me it certainly does, I was a No voter when it came to Lisbon, and I'll continue to oppose such attempts to erode national independence.

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

I'm not saying a return to Empire would be a good thing. I'm saying that in the specific case of Zimbabwe, it would be less bad than the state of famine, poverty and rampant AIDS they presently suffer. Life expectancy there was (a few years ago) in the early 30s. There is little political freedom, the economy is in ruins and there's no food. Zimbabwe doesn't have self-determination (which would be the best course) now. A peaceful and well-run province is better than a dictatorship.

I'd rather live in a lawless nation of my own than live in a stable imperial province. There is also no evidence whatever to suggest that Zimbabwean problems are a result of their own independence and not the deplorable ambitions of a single power-mad despot.

[Esioul]

All right people, let's keep to the topic of 'Ancient' Empires, the topic is derailing dangerously.

I've always liked the Mesopotamian empires myself.