Imperial Rule

[Pyrosocial]

Well, I have been wondering for a long time how much better (or worse, take your pick.) an Empire could run things. I believe that if the world was under one Rule, then we would be able to possibly get rid of war between countries, and improve the living conditions for millions. Of course no country would probably just sign over to an empire so they would have to be fought and surrender first, but then have the remaining military of said country adopted into the empire, and making it stronger with every country that comes under imperial rule.

 

Once We are ruled by an empire, with multiple viceroys to govern the countries, we would no longer have country and country trying to kill each other. I'm certain that there would be terrorist, but if the empire was Fair and just, then they would have no need to worry about a rebellion. the economy would improve, hundreds of 3rd world areas would have better living conditions, and We would see less hate in the world.

 

Once there is no need to make better bombs to kill each other, we would have more great minds working on cures for diseases, solving the mysteries of the world, and the possibility of space travel beyond what we have already.

 

I'm not trying to say i don't like our government, I'm just listing some pros of what an empire could do if it did not become corrupt.

 

Ok, so throw your thoughts, opinions, and debates at me.

 

~Pyrosocial~

[ub3rman123]

But how would we all agree on who would head the empire? I don't think it possible to simply unite everyone, as not everyone wants to be united.

[Pyrosocial]

But how would we all agree on who would head the empire? I don't think it possible to simply unite everyone, as not everyone wants to be united.

 

I honestly have no idea, but im sure out of millions someone would figure out it...Or i dunno maybe vote on it...Good question though, i hadn't thought of that.

[Ihoe]

You think there would be no wars or "other" problems with a single empire? I'm sure this idea would have been useful 800 years ago, but even 800 years ago people had tribes, countries and other values among their social system, and would be entitled to them. So if anyone wanted to unite them, they should shed blood as well, not counting the forthcoming problems. Now today we have the united nations, a useless piece of puppet crap. Does not stand up to his name. how many wars were avoided? More declared than avoided. Were the leaders elected? No, they were already super powers, but it is democratic, isn't it?

 

An empire would stand up to his name, an imperial rule, and an imperial rule is not just. Since only nobles are considered to be honored civillians in an imperial rule and beggars and other lower class and middle class people are neglected.

 

On Science and technology,

how much do you think that the technology can advance in time? Do you think that all brilliant minds work good and even better with other brilliant minds? Not from where I come from, besides, east and west are not in a cold war, they're in a warm war. Which doesn't solve anything, but adds up the contents.

 

Anyway, in an empire there Are no wars, there are rebellions. And when the borders are open, the scum of one particular nation spreads to another, making things worse. Add the size of the earth to it And then solving problems would be litteraly impossible for a singiular government and security system. The solution to this problem is to spread the earth into states and each state to provinces. And each state and province must have a commander in chief.

What's the difference between the gov. System said above and reality? In reality each state or province would love to have more power. Ancient empires did the same thing and they had to Wage war with rebellious governors sometimes. Sometimes several states would unite and wage war against the empire, marking a "Civil War", get rid of normal wars, make civil wars.

 

Today we have the useless UN as a union of nations :d. It's not an empire, but it has the context of what issaid above, each country acts like a state, and they all answer to the UN. Nice idea, but does it work? Of cource not, no wars have stopped, no other problems solved. Only job-making achieved.

 

Therefore, the idea of a singiular empire is usless, and scratched In my vista.

[Pyrosocial]

You think there would be no wars or "other" problems with a single empire? I'm sure this idea would have been useful 800 years ago, but even 800 years ago people had tribes, countries and other values among their social system, and would be entitled to them. So if anyone wanted to unite them, they should shed blood as well, not counting the forthcoming problems. Now today we have the united nations, a useless piece of puppet crap. Does not stand up to his name. how many wars were avoided? More declared than avoided. Were the leaders elected? No, they were already super powers, but it is democratic, isn't it?

 

An empire would stand up to his name, an imperial rule, and an imperial rule is not just. Since only nobles are considered to be honored civillians in an imperial rule and beggars and other lower class and middle class people are neglected.

 

On Science and technology,

how much do you think that the technology can advance in time? Do you think that all brilliant minds work good and even better with other brilliant minds? Not from where I come from, besides, east and west are not in a cold war, they're in a warm war. Which doesn't solve anything, but adds up the contents.

 

Anyway, in an empire there Are no wars, there are rebellions. And when the borders are open, the scum of one particular nation spreads to another, making things worse. Add the size of the earth to it And then solving problems would be litteraly impossible for a singiular government and security system. The solution to this problem is to spread the earth into states and each state to provinces. And each state and province must have a commander in chief.

What's the difference between the gov. System said above and reality? In reality each state or province would love to have more power. Ancient empires did the same thing and they had to Wage war with rebellious governors sometimes. Sometimes several states would unite and wage war against the empire, marking a "Civil War", get rid of normal wars, make civil wars.

 

Today we have the useless UN as a union of nations :d. It's not an empire, but it has the context of what issaid above, each country acts like a state, and they all answer to the UN. Nice idea, but does it work? Of cource not, no wars have stopped, no other problems solved. Only job-making achieved.

 

Therefore, the idea of a singiular empire is usless, and scratched In my vista.

 

 

It seems to me that the reason the roman empire was so vast was because of it being an empire...Back then morals were different and people were persecuted for being different, And the government was a bunch of wealthy slobs. I think it would be more successful in our present time.

[Aurielius]

I thought about this concept for a bit and I think that it could be broken down into three questions:

1) Feasibility

2) Viability

3) Desirability

 

1) Feasibility: It would require a quantum difference in technological abilities between your Empire and the remainder of the world. It would have to be of a disparity equivalent to the Aztecs and the Spanish Conquistadors.The Aztecs having pre bronze age weaponry versus Spanish firearms, so we are talking of a spread of two millennium. The optimum occupation rate is at minimum is 1 solder per 5000 civilians, that would require the entire population of the "Empire" to be under arms, so who is left to produce food, weapons, and new Imperial citizens? Let us assume that the tech of the Empire uses unmanned platforms to conduct war, with all of it's armed forces manning their PCs to conduct it, same question who is left to run the economy,political infrastructure and the assimilation process? I could not envision a feasible method of conducting such a campaign of assimilation.

 

2) Viability: Assuming that this Empire had surmounted the feasibility issue how viable would it be? Unless this Imperium was so benign, generous,and equitable to it's new subjects it would have no long term viability as a political entity. The remainder of the world would have to be in some state of complete social anarchy for them to consider an exterior force more desirable than their home grown governments. Next without some form of equitable representation of the Imperial citizenry it would have no long term prospects, that would by necessity have to include subject national populations. I am at loss to conjecture what form of political representation would be satisfactory to the world as a whole.

 

3)Desirability: The requirements for this is even more astronomical than the preceding two, there would have to be such gulf between the option of the Empire and the status quo that it would require some form a cataclysmic event equivalent to an extinction event for the planet as a whole. The Empire would have to be the ONLY power with a solution. Short of termination of ALL life on the planet as the other option I cannot for the life of me envision why it would be desirable at all. BTW the Empire would have to be the one providing the Life Option not threatening the Extinction Option. The ONLY scenario that I can conceptualize that would make this desirable would be an exterior extraterrestrial threat of a continuing nature that would require a unified planet in order to survive. I personally think that we would squabble among ourselves until it was too late to do anything effective.

 

So in summation I would have to say not feasible, not viable and not desirable.

[bben46]

You seem to think that somehow this hypothetical empire will be benevolent. What is the incentive for that? Of course the emperor will appoint cronies and relatives to the viceroy posts.

 

What is to keep the viceroys, the emperors friends and relatives remember, from acting however they please, raise the taxes to allow them selves a more elaborate lifestyle. Build a palace in every corner of the provence, appoint their own cronies and relatives to responsible posts such as tax collector, judges and chief of police. The law becomes whatever they say it is and changes at their whim.

 

As to medical and scientific advances. It is to the advantage of the empire to suppress discoveries or use them for their own limited advantage. New discoveries will have a chance to change things, and an empire does not like change.

 

As for human, or any other kind of rights, your rights are whatever the gang in charge says they are, until they change their minds.

 

As absolute ruler (a given for an empire) the emperor does what he pleases until some army general or prince gets ambitions and leads a rebellion to overthrow him. The serfs (us) can't rebel as the first thing the emperor did was ban all weapons from being used or owned by the peons - with an automatic death penalty that included your entire family - parents, wife, brothers, children - for being caught with a weapon. So what if a couple of hundred or hundred thousand serfs die in an epidemic? or uprising? or catastrophe? there are lots more where those came from.

[ginnyfizz]

Hmm. Britain once had an Empire. It was not wholly benevolent and certainly had its faults, and incidents of brutality abounded, but since by the time the British Empire was at its greatest extent the British monarchy was a constitutional one, despotism was never viable. The local people could always manage to put their hands on weapons, as witnessed by the Indian Mutiny, Isandlwhana and a rather bigger incident across the Atlantic :wink: involving a certain George Washington. In some cases the "Pax Britannica" worked as a kind of referee to stop the local factions warring, but there were places that it never subdued...ahermmm.....Afghanistan. (I think we should have learned from that by now.)

 

Cronyism there certainly was, but then, that is very much the nature of any kind of government.

[Ihoe]

 

It seems to me that the reason the roman empire was so vast was because of it being an empire...Back then morals were different and people were persecuted for being different, And the government was a bunch of wealthy slobs. I think it would be more successful in our present time.

 

Oh really? You think it is more suitable for today?

 

People are dying in rebellions, just to change the governmental system to democracy and republic. Who would want a self appointed idiot to rule them, just for having a royal ass? I don't see how you got the despot roman empire connected to what is said above, but we certainly had many world conquering empires, but has any of them remained? Name a single one. There is certainly a reason there is no "empire" left today.

[ginnyfizz]

Yes, there are no empires left. The end of the British Empire, for example, allowed statesmen such as Jawarhalal Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi to take their rightful places. Unfortunately, it also spawned some despots who could give Nero or Caligula a run for their money.