Captain Seafort wrote:Not all empires are totalitarian.
Captain Seafort wrote:And some are responsible for triggering the greatest leaps in technological progress in history.
Mikey wrote:In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.
Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.
Captain Seafort wrote:Mikey wrote:In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.
Not at all - in common usage "Empire", at least on this side of the pond, refers to a nation state expanding to seize control of other nation states, and bring them under its direct control. There's absolutely no connotation of there being an Emperor at the top, or of it being totalitarian, which refers to a state under the absolute rule of a single individual, and usually associated with a cult of personality.Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.
Given that the fall of one of history's definitive empires was far from stifling, and lead to a collapse of technology and civilisation across the known world, I disagree with this notion as well.
Vic wrote:That very empire was quite stifling to many types of technology by cultural bent. It wasn't till the decline of slavery that mechanical technology really took off, and the Roman's had no shortage of slaves to do all kinds of work.
Your usage of Empire is very much a modern one, most empires of history were indeed totalitarian
The Romans went from a dictatorial empire to a tyrannical empire over a short period of time
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests