> and being under the rule of an autocrat (e.g. Emperor)

Is this condition really necessary? Rome's expansion began during the republican period, even before Sulla. The rise of the British Empire coincided with the reallocation of political power from the kings to the Parliament and the ministerial bureaucracy. France's colonial acquisitions continued under its 3rd republic (e. g., Madagascar became a French protectorate in 1882 and a colony in 1897).

He is stating the definition. So that kind of makes the condition necessary.

There are multiple ways of defining imperialism, but what's usually meant is what John Hobsin wrote about (though I'm going off memory here:) Imperialism is an attempt by one nation to force its own identity upon another.

Historically, that was very rarely the case: the Romans and Athenians did not seek to spread democracy, or togas, or their religions. They sought wealth and power, and their institutions only spread as far as it would take to acquire those things.

Imperialism is basically the inverse of that: spreading one's institutions and culture as a justification for acquiring more wealth and power. The first time I believe we see something like that is with Qin China and Legalism, but even that was limited to China itself.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Certain intellectuals single out Europe because they hate Western Civilization, but Imperialism has been around since the dawn of civilization. If you restrict the definition to "spreading one's culture" as the previous commenter said, the archetypes would be China, Islam, Russia, Spain, and the USA. The 19th Century European colonial empires were mostly in the Roman mode, grabbing territory for resources and profit. If the colonized adopted French or English as their official languages, it wasn't from being "oppressed" but because it was a neutral alternative to the various local languages.

Was it limited to China or is China the region that it was applied to. There was no line in the ground or on a map that said China back then.

I really have to squint to see the differences you seem to be seeing. The Arab conquest not spreading identity? How about the Aztecs? Half of Europe speak Latin languages somehow. The Roman colonists were different to later colonist how? Roman law had no impact on local tradition I presume?

Agree but I think China, Christianity and Islam are the prime examples. USA use culture as trading goods mostly which certainly has worked in terms of spread but then Swahili should be included as well, no?

Any definition of imperialism that miss the Mongols is silly in my mind. Percentage of humanity is related to someone who lived 800 years ago but this is somehow not worth mentioning.

Imperialism is another "ism", an ideology. Modern ideologies don't have close parallels with the pre modern ages. It's mostly a European thing that spread with European contact, and ideologies tend to be entangled with technology, economic, political, and cultural institutions and situations.

Imperial Rome was a thing and the rule of the Emperor was was imperial rule. The Mongols had an Empire as did the Caliphate. I have never heard that it was restricted you Euro imperialism during the early and mid modern era.

[removed]

[removed]

The irony is that the notion of "Age of Imperialism" is part of a very Eurocentric storyline. It is when a handful of Western European countries started behaving like traditional land-grabbing empires of old for a brief period.

It is a fitting storyline for a British or French school system, explaining their history in broad strokes from their own perspective, but one would expect haters of Western Civilization to be less uncritically Eurocentric if they actually aimed for a more balanced understanding of world history.

Europeans did not invent "Imperialism" in any meaningful sense. They just repurposed a Latin word that sort of described an important dynamic in a historical period of their own country well.

It's basically fake history, similar how renaissance intellectuals claimed the christian middle age was a "dark age", modern intellectuals like to hate on the past as imperialistic to make themselves look more enlightened.

The other side are Anti-European intellectuals from ex-colonies, who use it as a tool to justify their hate of Europeans. The irony is that most of those people have the same "might makes right" mindset like those dead Europeans they complain about. They are the real life version of the french comic figure Isnogud.

Honestly it's terrifying how demented this part of humanity is. You see really well educated individuals decry an event from centuries ago as the worst thing to ever happen, only to brush off the crimes of present day political entities as something justified.

A combination of timing and reductionism. Modern theories of historical critique and analysis that claim to be predictive based on looking at the past generally came into vogue while European colonial empires were a really big deal.

They are tied to a notion of historical progress that takes its example from science, industrialization, and mechanization - that human institutions and behaviors are like machines and have parts and purposes that work to do different things. If you let them work over time they will do these things over time and change the world, and if you change how they work you will change what happens in the future (as opposed to past ideas that were them existing in the context of a natural or supernatural order, being cyclical, consisting of mystical or mystical-adjacent ideas, always getting worse, etc.).

It is not a foregone conclusion in all of historical thought than an empire exits in order to "do" something. You have to get to the point that people are thinking that way in order to arrive at a modern theory that includes what empires "do," and it just so happens that when people got around to that, colonial empires were a really big deal.

And from there you run into a big problem with modern predictive theories, especially about biology and the humanities as opposed to chemistry and physics - which is that there is a lot of noise and chaos and not a lot of signal in observing how these systems work, but that this isn't obvious from somebody writing historical analysis - they often suffer from massive availability and representativeness bias because the sources of information they have to work from are not randomly selected. So it takes a while to arrive at the idea that human systems are pretty chaotic - and even when you do, people don't want to hear it and it's not a very compelling or attractive idea - you get more cred as a thinker for presenting either polemics tearing down something specific or proactive affirmations of some new thing than for ambiguous, skeptical findings.

Anyway - the gist of it is that most people when they build predictive models are very focused on how their model predicts the present from the standpoint of the past. If you were looking at physics, this would be how you would prove that your model reflects reality and that your predictions will come true. You do not have the opportunity to test your theory with future information because the future hasn't happened yet and often takes a long time to get around to happening and you need to do your job. When you're talking about gravity and orbits this is not a problem, because the future resembles the past very closely, and you can even do controlled experiments. In history, this is not the case, and even getting around to tackling the implications of that gap takes a long time.

The present is already bad at predicting the future for humans, we know that. But the past is _also_ bad at predicting the present for humans, it just doesn't feel that way. We get this illusion of confidence in our information because we mostly pay attention to things that seem like they have a point or purpose and have culled out things that seem extraneous or pointless. Because history (or dumb luck that looks like purpose) has done the work of culling out what seems important, we can sift through that to look for the "important" information not realizing what we're sifting through.

Adding to that is the deeper problem that because empires are big and important people assume everything they do has a big and important cause or a sum of sufficiently many different, smaller causes, which is an attractive but flawed way of looking at causality in both history and science.

And sure enough, most models that look to predict the future from the present and validate themselves by predicting the present from the past don't work out. But they sure can be persuasive. This is especially obvious in investing.

So, going back to empires - empires are a really big deal. They are usually among the biggest human things going on at any given time. Because they are big they seem important, and they seem to work like machines, with purposes and parts and ways they can be tweaked or changed or broken.

It would seem not only viable, but critically important, for any modern predictive theory of history to first and foremost explain, from the standpoint of the past, how these empires came to be what they are.

This is such an important part of making the core argument to justify the predictive system, and it seems so unlikely that empires are big beneficiaries of dumb luck and nonsense since they themselves seem on the surface to be so orderly and sensible - that the retroactive explanation for colonial empires can easily become axiomatic for the modern historical critique/analysis models.

1. My predictive theory needs to explain how or why empires came into being in order to be seen as valid about the future, and right now it doesn't.
2. So I go back and look at the evidence available to me about empires, and build out my theory around the evidence so that it's valid and persuasive.
3. What does my theory predict about empires in the future? Well, my theory now explains it!
4. Everybody ignore steps 1 and 2.

But yeah, by a series of coincidences, colonial empires are at the Great Divide in modern historical theory between that which we think we understand about the past and that which we want to be able to predict about the future. So information about them tended to be very selectively framed in any model that saw the light of day, and thus they tend to have extremely different purposes and functions depending on the historical analytical theory you happen to be talking about, very closely linked to the core propositions of the theory, because of the pressure they apply as the "test case" for new theories - more than usual for human institutions and groups, which is already a lot.

And one of the casualties of this is a popular understanding of empires other than modern European colonial empires - the theories are so closely linked to what they say about empires that empires that don't quite fit the theory get arbitrarily in-grouped or out-grouped based on this or that circular axiomatic argument at the heart of the theory.

Why historical traditions frame things in a certain way tends to be unrelated to whether that framing has truth value, and is definitely unrelated to whether it's good or right.

John Hobson was very influential and the way he thought and wrote about imperialism has a lot of influence to this day. Through Lenin his ideas became the basis for an entire new form of international relations.

He also thought the advanced nations of the world should all get together one day and create a commission to exterminate or sterilize all people in the world from inferior races.

People say a lot of things.

No but there is no one definition of what an Empire is, so it's polite to pick one and tell people which one you picked before talking about it.

Good point. I think it’s easy for people to forget that ancient empires also count as imperialists. The Roman’s were probably better at expansion than most other imperialist empires of the more modern times, because the Roman’s were all about assimilation and bringing stability to the regions they conquered (which is very arguable of course, but still). Whereas more modern imperial regimes tended to be parasites that only ever took from the countries they preyed upon.

The Mongol empire conquered all or most of Asia and ruled it in a kind of Imperialist system. they were so big that maybe they could count in the definition of imperialism.

Nice bit at the end there!