Editing Empire (section)

==Definition==
An empire is an aggregate of many separate states or territories under a supreme ruler or oligarchy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Oxford Dictionary Online |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/61337?rskey=ZzCRVM&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid |access-date=2020-06-30}} "An extensive territory under the control of a supreme ruler (typically an emperor) or an [[oligarchy]], often consisting of an aggregate of many separate states or territories. In later use also: an extensive group of subject territories ultimately under the rule of a single sovereign state."</ref> This is in contrast to a [[federation]], which is an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. An empire is a large polity which rules over territories outside of its original borders.

Definitions of what physically and politically constitutes an empire vary. It might be a state affecting [[imperialism|imperial policies]] or a particular [[Structuralism|political structure]]. Empires are typically formed from diverse ethnic, national, cultural, and religious components.{{Sfn|Howe|2002|page=15}} 'Empire' and 'colonialism' are used to refer to relationships between a powerful state or society versus a less powerful one; [[Michael W. Doyle]] has defined empire as "effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Doyle |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XlluDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 |title=Empires |date=5 September 2018 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-3413-7 |page=30 |language=en |quote=I favor the behavioral definition of empire as effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society by an imperial society.}}</ref>

Imperialism for Doyle is simply the process of establishing and maintaining an empire.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Doyle |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XlluDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 |title=Empires |date=5 September 2018 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-3413-7 |page=30, 37 |language=en}}</ref> This is not to be confused with the [[Imperialism]] in the Marxist-Leninst sense of late modern phenomenon following the European Colonialism and representing the last stage of Capitalism.<ref>Lenin, Vladimir. (1917). ''[[Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism]]''. (Петроград: Жизнь и Знание).</ref> Initially, the term was [[New Imperialism]], where the qualifier "new" differentiated the contemporary imperialism from earlier imperialism, such as the formation of ancient empires and the first wave of European colonization.<ref>Louis, W. Roger (2006). "32: Robinson and Gallagher and their critics". ''Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization''. (London: I.B.Tauris), p. 910.</ref> Eventually, Lenin cancelled all earlier forms and began the history of Imperialism in the 1760s. The Leninist definition of imperialism removed the essence of empire from politics to economics and explicitly denied that modern capitalist imperialism had anything in common with the empires of the past.<ref>[[Dominic Lieven|Lieven, Dominic]] (2012). "Empire, history and the contemporary global order," ''Proceedings of the British Academy'', vol 131: p 130, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2012/pba131p127.pdf</ref> 

Since the beginning, mainstream historians of empire were puzzled: As the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism cannot exist before 1876. At the same time, some Marxist experts describe imperialism since the recorded time. Such a concept is not much helpful “if we do not know for certain whether it fits the facts of two millennia or… two generations.” <ref>[[Keith Hancock (historian)|Hancock, William Keith]] (1940). ''Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs''. (Oxford University Press), p 2, 298, https://archive.org/details/surveyofbritishc0002wkha</ref> [[Kenneth Waltz]] wandered: The cause (capitalism) appears much younger than the effect (imperialism). It is as though Newton explained gravitation by a certain 17th century phenomenon ignoring that gravitation operated earlier.<ref>Waltz, Kenneth (1979). ''[[Theory of International Politics]]''. (Boston: McGraw-Hill), p 25, https://archive.org/details/theoryofinternat00walt/page/24/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> Lenin’s work was interpreted as political pamphlet rather than scientific thesis,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Doyle |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XlluDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 |title=Empires |date=5 September 2018 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-3413-7 |page=12 |language=en}}</ref> calling to hunt the “invisible hand” of economic exploitation. Thus imperialism turned into economic phenomenon.<ref>[[Keith Hancock (historian)|Hancock, William Keith]] (1940). ''Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs''. (Oxford University Press), p 2, 298, https://archive.org/details/surveyofbritishc0002wkha</ref> Few historians follow the Marxist approach and most recognize that imperialism predates the European colonialism and capitalism by 4.5 millennia at least.<ref>[[Dominic Lieven|Lieven, Dominic]] (2012). "Empire, history and the contemporary global order," ''Proceedings of the British Academy'', vol 131: p 132, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2012/pba131p127.pdf</ref><ref>[[Kimberly Kagan|Kagan, Kimberly]] et al (2010). ''The Imperial Moment''. (Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press), p 8.</ref><ref>[[Strobe Talbott|Talbott, Strobe]] (2009). ''The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for Global Nation''. (Simon & Schuster), p 33.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Doyle |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XlluDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 |title=Empires |date=5 September 2018 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-3413-7 |page=64 |language=en}}</ref><ref>Waltz, Kenneth (1979). ''[[Theory of International Politics]]''. (Boston: McGraw-Hill), p 25, https://archive.org/details/theoryofinternat00walt/page/24/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> Involving the cessation of state sovereignty, empires should properly be studied in the domain of politics rather than economics.<ref>[[Kimberly Kagan|Kagan, Kimberly]] et al (2010). ''The Imperial Moment''. (Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press), p 5.</ref> The Marxist historians moved so far from mainstream historians’ debates on empire that communication almost ceases.<ref>[[Dominic Lieven|Lieven, Dominic]] (2012). "Empire, history and the contemporary global order," ''Proceedings of the British Academy'', vol 131: p 132, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2012/pba131p127.pdf</ref>

[[Tom Nairn]] and [[Paul James (academic)|Paul James]] define empires as polities that "extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive [[hegemony]] over those spaces to extract or accrue value".{{Sfn|James|Nairn|2006|page=xxiii}} [[Rein Taagepera]] has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Taagepera |first=Rein |date=1979 |title=Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D. |journal=Social Science History |volume=3 |issue=3/4 |page=117 |doi=10.2307/1170959 |jstor=1170959}}</ref> Peter Bang characterizes empire as "composite, layered and anything but uniform in their internal organization of power," and comprising "a range of different territories and communities, subjected hierarchically in various ways to a dominant power."<ref>{{Citation |last=Bang |first=Peter Fibiger |title=Empire—A World History |date=2021-03-03 |work=The Oxford World History of Empire |pages=1–88 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/39128/chapter-abstract/338546613?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=2024-11-30 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oso/9780199772360.003.0002 |isbn=978-0-19-977236-0}}</ref> 

However, sometimes an empire is only a semantic construction, such as when a ruler assumes the title of "emperor".<ref>{{Cite web |title=empire |url=https://www.thefreedictionary.com/empire |access-date=26 October 2018 |website=The Free Dictionary |quote=any monarchy that for reasons of history, prestige, etc, has an emperor rather than a king as head of state}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018 |title=empire |url=http://www.yourdictionary.com/empire |access-date=26 October 2018 |website=Your Dictionary |publisher=LoveToKnow, Corp. |quote=government by an emperor or empress}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=empire |url=https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/empire |access-date=26 October 2018 |website=Vocabulary.com Dictionary |quote=a monarchy with an emperor as head of state}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018 |title=empire |url=https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/empire |access-date=26 October 2018 |website=Collins English Dictionary |quote=government by an emperor or empress}}</ref> That polity over which the ruler reigns logically becomes an "empire", despite having no additional territory or hegemony. Examples of this form of empire are the [[Central African Empire]], [[Second Mexican Empire|Mexican Empire]], or the [[Korean Empire]] proclaimed in 1897 when Korea, far from gaining new territory, was on the verge of being annexed by the [[Empire of Japan]], one of the last to use the name officially. Among the last states in the 20th century known as empires in this sense were the Central African Empire, [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]], [[Empire of Vietnam|Vietnam]], [[Manchukuo]], [[Russian Empire|Russia]], [[German Empire|Germany]], and Korea.

Scholars typically distinguish empires from nation-states.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |last=Tilly |first=Charles |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uV8KywAACAAJ |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992 |date=1990 |publisher=Blackwell |pages=4, 45–46 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Colomer |first=Josep M. |title=Empires Versus States |date=2017 |entry=Empires Versus States |encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.608 |doi-access= |isbn=978-0-19-022863-7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hechter |first1=Michael |last2=Brustein |first2=William |date=1980 |title=Regional Modes of Production and Patterns of State Formation in Western Europe |journal=American Journal of Sociology |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=1061–1094 |doi=10.1086/227125 |issn=0002-9602 |jstor=2778891 |s2cid=143853058}}</ref> In an empire, there is a hierarchy whereby one group of people (usually, the metropole) has command over other groups of people, and there is a hierarchy of rights and prestige for different groups of people.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Stanard |first=Matthew G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pZlNDwAAQBAJ |title=European Overseas Empire, 1879 - 1999: A Short History |date=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-119-13013-0 |pages=3–4 |language=en}}</ref> [[Josep Colomer]] distinguished between empires and [[State (polity)|states]] in the following way:

# Empires were vastly larger than states
# Empires lacked fixed or permanent boundaries whereas a state had fixed boundaries
# Empires had a "compound of diverse groups and territorial units with asymmetric links with the center" whereas a state had "supreme authority over a territory and population"
# Empires had multi-level, overlapping jurisdictions whereas a state sought monopoly and homogenization<ref name=":0" />