|
The sad truth is that empires require massive amounts of violence to maintain. There is no other way. Just look at Sumer, Assyria, Persia, Rome, China, Ottoman, France, Britain, and Germany. Also, make no mistake, the United States is also a defacto empire. Unfortunately, the alternatives to empires is isolation and infighting between smaller powers. For an example of this, take a look at the middle east. The middle east is most peaceful when it is part of an empire - be it the Ottoman, the British, Mongol, or Arab empires. Another example, is Europe. Europe was pretty peaceful when it was partitioned between the Soviet empire and the US Empire (also known as NATO). Also, empires can provide major benefits through economies of scale. Take a look at Europe before and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back historically, the Roman Empire was probably a net positive for human development throughout the Mediterranean World. The various Chinese empires were also probably net positives for their citizens. Thus, it is not proper to judge the British empire over violence (given that an empire requires violence). The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved. |
The example of the middle east is not really the best for supporting your claim, since there are not only small powers, but also the big empires fighting for various reasons.
And I believe that is the case in nearly every mayor conflict I know. The big empires are allways involved. So it is not really an argument pro empire, when the empires are the cause for the conflict in the first place.