Empires, wise or foolish?

I was just thinking, has the creation of empires been wise, or foolish? Personally, I think good and bad results have followed every one.
Some good results: they produce unity of currency and language, thus making it easier and more convenient for communication. Advances of improvement to more remote locations-such as means of travel by roads and such. Generally there is better safety and security for the citizens against pirates and lawlessness.
Some bad results: A crushing blow to independence for those who yearn for autonomy. War and bloodshed are the usual causes for the empire's formation. Empires are often used as excuses to increase power and influence, otherwise known as Imperialism.
These are just some ideas that I thought about at the moment. So, I am curious what do you guys think?

Empires are great, The Roman empire caused roads to be built. Rome made huge Libraries of the Books and writtings of tonnes of the countries it conquered. The made big cities and developed great technologies like the aquaduct. Of course the Roman empire wasn't all fun and games, they caused large bloodshed, and took away the freedoms of people, they caused slavery to run rampent.

Eventualy all Empires fall. An Empire can be wise but you have to think about running one once you have one set up. You need a huge army, you need to tax tremendously. An empire can become so big that it crumbles or splits.

Capitalizing on what dr_osprey said, Empires have their good qualities such as new technologies, roads, communication, patriotism, so on and so on. The size of the empire does not matter, it is the leadership that can make or break it.

I think CelticWolf summed it up pretty well. Empires often have incredible achievements, but they often take away rights and make the lowest class slaves. Perhaps the best example of this would be in the Roman Empire. In one bathhouse, the upper class enjoyed the ancient equivalent of a steamroom/jaccuzi combo, complete with whatever food and drink they wanted. Directly underneath the floor, however, the lower class worked hard to keep the fires going. The floor basically symbolized the divide of class; a wall which a normal citizen could not pass to become an upper-class citizen.

Empires are cool. The age of Imperialism is over, and alas we no longer have any empires. Some people call the United States of America an empire, but I think this is bull since they are a democracy plus they don't have many dependancys. The modern day empires are the great corporations, like Pepsi. Imagine 100 years from now, people studying their history and learning about the age of Wallmart and Microsoft!

I think that since historically every single empire that has ever reigned on this earth has collapsed, we can assume that they function under incredibly flawed systems. The Roman, Greek, and Egyptian empires all fell apart within only a few hundred years; the European empires of the imperialist era all were divided up into independent countries; the "Aryan" "empire" established by Hitler didn't last very long, either.

Basically the main issue comes in the fact that [real] power is much too centralized in empires, and the decentralization of power, as has happened in the U.S., U.K., and most other Western nations, has proven to show more stability.

Empires are brilliant because where would we be with out them eg roman empire made
libraries, roades ect

Originally Posted by Duku Dude

Empires are brilliant cuz where would we be with out them eg roman empire made
libraries, roades ect

It doesn't take a genius to invent something. Just a lucky idiot.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

Empires are cool. The age of Imperialism is over, and alas we no longer have any empires. Some people call the United States of America an empire, but I think this is bull since they are a democracy plus they don't have many dependancys. The modern day empires are the great corporations, like Pepsi. Imagine 100 years from now, people studying their history and learning about the age of Wallmart and Microsoft!

I agree, Empires are cool.

Who's to say that an Empire cannot be a democracy, aside from Caesar Rome had a democracy, and arguably there are times in Roman history when it was the democratic part that ruled and not the Caesar. What exactly is the deffinition of Empire, is it a large area being controlled, is it a buisness, is it money and cash flow. Is the age of empires over, is it only a game now. Or are these "present" day Empires like Wallmart reflective of historical empires like the Mongolian empire.

This probably isn't the textbook or dictionary answer, but I'd define an "empire" as a state (by "state" I mean country) that seeks to increase its land and labor resources through conquest not purely for the sake of its citizens, but primarily for the sake of its own power.

By that definition, one could consider the United States to be an empire. I'd be inclined to agree with them.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

This probably isn't the textbook or dictionary answer, but I'd define an "empire" as a state (by "state" I mean country) that seeks to increase its land and labor resources through conquest not purely for the sake of its citizens, but primarily for the sake of its own power.

By that definition, one could consider the United States to be an empire. I'd be inclined to agree with them.

But the United States hasn't increased its land for years, unless I'm wrong. When was the last time USA conquested(if thats even a word) another country?

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

But the United States hasn't increased its land for years, unless I'm wrong. When was the last time USA conquested(if thats even a word) another country?

Iraq. I don't care what our intent was for going there--we effectively increased our international power and our sphere of influence, which is imperialistic. And we did so by force.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I think that since historically every single empire that has ever reigned on this earth has collapsed, we can assume that they function under incredibly flawed systems. The Roman, Greek, and Egyptian empires all fell apart within only a few hundred years; the European empires of the imperialist era all were divided up into independent countries; the "Aryan" "empire" established by Hitler didn't last very long, either.

Basically the main issue comes in the fact that [real] power is much too centralized in empires, and the decentralization of power, as has happened in the U.S., U.K., and most other Western nations, has proven to show more stability.

I'm curious. Do you think instead of an centralized empire it would be better to have a more decentralized one? How so?

Originally Posted by Celticwolf

I'm curious. Do you think instead of an centralized empire it would be better to have a more decentralized one? How so?

An empire is, by definition, centralized. Most "empires" centered upon the rule of one man--or at most, a very few [men]--and, therefore, had a remarkable imbalance of power between the governing and the governed, which is generally attributed to their collapse (especially in the case of Nazi Germany, the regime of which most everyone outside Germany hated). Again, as I said in my own definition, an empire exists to increase its own power, which would involve the centralizing of power directly.

So than, you do not like empires at all because they are too centralized? Or are you alright with them but have decided that decentralized powers are better? I'm just trying to see if I am interpreting you correctly.

Originally Posted by Celticwolf

So than, you do not like empires at all because they are too centralized? Or are you alright with them but have decided that decentralized powers are better? I'm just trying to see if I am interpreting you correctly.

No. Citizens of empires don't like them because the governments are too centralized.

If George W. Bush made every decision involving the American people, I doubt anyone would tolerate it for very long (myself included). Thankfully, this is not how American politics and government works, and power is divided amongst various institutions.

I have no opinion on empires, actually. They make for fun reading material. I find it funny that people keep trying them, even in this day and age (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China [somewhat], etc.) when people have generally figured out that better harmony is attained when the people are generally free and have multiple points of access to the government and to influencing public policy.