Conquering for Peace and Wealth...

You know there are moments in history were the conquers, the Hegemonic power of the day brought peace to much of the world, they conquered. It seems conquering brings peace and prosperity to the conquered . Here are two periods: Pax Romana and Pax Mongolica ... It seems maybe the world needs one nation to rule them all for peace to create wealth for all. We were all born into the Pax Americana for it was the world greatest time of wealth creation throughout the world...
Pax Romana - Wikipedia

The Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman Peace") is a roughly 200-year-long period in Roman history which is identified with increased and sustained inner hegemonial peace and stability (though not meaning without wars, expansion and revolts). It is traditionally dated as commencing from the accession of Caesar Augustus, founder of the Roman principate, in 27 BC and concluding in 180 AD with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the "good emperors".[1] Since it was inaugurated by Augustus with the end of the Final War of the Roman Republic, it is sometimes called the Pax Augusta. During this period of approximately two centuries,[2] the Roman Empire achieved its greatest territorial extent and its population reached a maximum of up to 70 million people.[3] According to Cassius Dio, the dictatorial reign of Commodus, later followed by the Year of the Five Emperors and the crisis of the third century, marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust".

Pax Mongolica - Wikipedia

The Pax Mongolica (Latin for "Mongol Peace"), less often known as Pax Tatarica[1] ("Tatar Peace"), is a historiographical term modelled after the original phrase Pax Romana which describes the stabilizing effects of the conquests of the Mongol Empire on the social, cultural and economic life of the inhabitants of the vast Eurasian territory that the Mongols conquered in the 13th and 14th centuries. The term is used to describe the eased communication and commerce the unified administration helped to create and the period of relative peace that followed the Mongols' vast conquests.

The conquests of Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) and his successors, spanning from Southeast Asia to Eastern Europe, effectively connected the Eastern world with the Western world. The Silk Road, connecting trade centres across Asia and Europe, came under the sole rule of the Mongol Empire. It was commonly said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm".[2][3] Despite the political fragmentation of the Mongol Empire into four khanates (Yuan dynasty, Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate and Ilkhanate), nearly a century of conquest and civil war was followed by relative stability in the early 14th century. The end of the Pax Mongolica was marked by the disintegration of the khanates and the outbreak of the Black Death in Asia which spread along trade routes to much of the world in the mid-14th century.

Pax Americana - Wikipedia

Pax Americana[1][2][3] (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world beginning around the middle of the 20th century, thought to be caused by the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States.[4] Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20th century, it has been used with different meanings and eras, such as the post-Civil War era in North America,[5] and regionally in the Americas at the start of the 20th century. Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana"

5fish said:

It was commonly said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm".

Click to expand...

I would say managing the silk road with the interest of everyone can make money is a moment of enlighten self interest...

5fish said:

For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana"

Click to expand...

Our rebuilding of western Europe was another moment of enlighten self interest...

byron ed said:

Bottom line we've moved from "an evil act of our fathers and grandfathers generation" (inherently immoral) to being a "hegemonic nation" (there being nothing inherently immoral in that).

Click to expand...

Yes dropping the A-Bomb and WW2 were precursors to our nation becoming a hegemonic nation. I do not think a nation becoming a hegemonic is either inherently moral or immoral. It means a nation has accumulated the assets, resources and leadership to raise one's nation to such heights.

Jim Klag said:

How the hell did a thread about Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb turn into a discussion of bat bombs?

Click to expand...

We are in decline and Pax Americana comes to and end. The world and history will judge us harshly for the use of the A- Bomb and bats... the article is loooong... but a good read see how China and Asia are coming on strong...

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...how-western-decline-became-inevitable/256388/

Snip... denials

When great powers begin to experience erosion in their global standing, their leaders inevitably strike a pose of denial. At the dawn of the twentieth century, as British leaders dimly discerned such an erosion in their country's global dominance, the great diplomat Lord Salisbury issued a gloomy rumination that captured at once both the inevitability of decline and the denial of it. "Whatever happens will be for the worse," he declared. "Therefore it is our interest that as little should happen as possible." Of course, one element of decline was the country's diminishing ability to influence how much or how little actually happened.

Snip... our denials...

We are seeing a similar phenomenon today in America, where the topic of decline stirs discomfort in national leaders. In September 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed a "new American Moment" that would "lay the foundations for lasting American leadership for decades to come." A year and a half later, President Obama declared in his State of the Union speech: "Anyone who tells you that America is in decline . . . doesn't know what they're talking about." A position paper from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated flatly that he "rejects the philosophy of decline in all of its variants." And former U.S. ambassador to China and one-time GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman pronounced decline to be simply "un-American."

Snip...

Pax Americana, in which the United States employed its overwhelming power to shape and direct global events. That era of American dominance is drawing to a close as the country's relative power declines, along with its ability to manage global economics and security.

Snip...

The impending end of the Old Order--both Pax Americana and the period of Western ascendancy--heralds a fraught transition to a new and uncertain constellation of power in international politics. Within the ascendant West, the era of American dominance emerged out of the ashes of the previous international order, Pax Britannica. It signified Europe's displacement by the United States as the locus of global power. But it took the twentieth century's two world wars and the global depression to forge the transition between these international orders

Snip...

in 1987, Yale's Paul Kennedy published his brilliant Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which raised questions about the structural, fiscal and economic weaknesses in America that, over time, could nibble away at the foundations of U.S. power. With America's subsequent Cold War triumph--and the bursting of Japan's economic bubble--Kennedy's thesis was widely dismissed.

Now, in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown and ensuing recession, it is clear that Kennedy and other "declinists" were right all along. The same causes of decline they pointed to are at the center of today's debate about America's economic prospects: too much consumption and not enough savings; persistent trade and current-account deficits; deindustrialization; sluggish economic growth; and chronic federal-budget deficits fueling an ominously rising national debt.

snip...

During the next two decades, the United States will face some difficult choices between bad outcomes and worse ones. But such decisions could determine whether America will manage a graceful decline that conserves as much power and global stability as possible. A more ominous possibility is a precipitous power collapse that reduces U.S. global influence dramatically. It may have to choose between attempting to preserve American hegemony or repairing the U.S. economy and maintaining the country's social safety net.

Here is a book about walls and empires and when empires begin using walls, it means they are a fading power... America is building a wall'''

In Empires and Walls Mohammad A. Chaichian meticulously examines the rise and fall of the walls that are no longer around; as well as impending fate of 'neo-liberal' barriers that imperial and colonial powers have erected in the new Millennium. Based on four years of extensive historical and field-based research Chaichian provides compelling evidence that regardless of their rationale and functions, walls always signal the fading power of an empire.

5fish said:

...walls always signal the fading power of an empire.

Click to expand...

Merely another truism (things which seem true but are in fact unsupportable, a sound-bite). Over history architectures (walls, castles, compounds) have gone up and come down. Some due to human politic ("fading power" but just as often due to declining resource. Some of these had stayed in place for decades or even centuries fulfilling a role; meaning they were successful in their purpose. Success is not necessarily predicated on how long things last.

Bottom line, the power of the truism notwithstanding, walls may or may not signal the fading power of an empire. Context is everything. Finding the truth of history requires effort, as tempting as sound-bites are.

5fish said:

...walls always signal the fading power of an empire.

Click to expand...

btw this is nothing more than a late iteration of the time-worn truism "Pride goeth before a fall," which in calm review is no more true than "Meekness goeth before a fall." Of course over history many nations fell because they were too meek before the presence of an aggressive power.

It's akin to claiming something like "few of the guilty die in war" when of course (and verifiably) many of the guilty die in war, nowhere near a tiny minority of them; or "the CW wasn't over the issue of slavery" when of course (and verifiably) the primary cause of the Civil War was over the issue of slavery.

Truisms, as sound-bites, beggar calm common sense and even-handed review. Do I have to say "imho"?

Jim Klag said:

It just means you said it twice.

Click to expand...

On this thread I am just point ting to the fact we are building a wall meaning Pax American is in decline...

5fish said:

On this thread I am just point ting to the fact we are building a wall meaning Pax American is in decline...

Click to expand...

To support that premise one would have to demonstrate that "Pax American" is in decline.

I do agree that is one possible outcome of the current condition, left uncorrected.

Voting is what has an actual effect on outcomes in this country. Voting requires participation rather than angst, an active trip to the polling place (or mail box) rather than sound-bites.

5fish said:

On this thread I am just point ting to the fact we are building a wall meaning Pax American is in decline...

Click to expand...

"Building" a supposed Wall is not the sign of decline, 2016 was and the October surprise will be "let's dig trenches."

“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity. If mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything made by man can be overcome.” -- George S. Patton

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!! I found the average length of Empires....


The late British diplomat Sir John Glubb wrote a book called “The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival.” Glubb noted the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline.

All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by “defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion.”

Decadence, he writes, “is due to: Too long a period of wealth and power, selfishness, love of money [and] the loss of a sense of duty.”
Do these not define America at the end of 2014? Glubb says the 250-year average of empires has not varied in 3,000 years, but we don’t learn from history because “our studies are brief and prejudiced.” He means they are mostly about one’s own country.

I am going to add a list of Empire and duration of existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

Here a graph of civilizations... average longevity 336 years...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190218-the-lifespans-of-ancient-civilisations-compared

5fish said:

Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years

Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. The Roman Empire lasted far more than 267 years. The Romanovs ruled Russia for 300 years. The so-called Holy Roman Empire lasted from Charlemagne to Napoleon - about 1000 years. The Byzantine Empire ran for over 800 years. There were several Chinese dynasties that lasted over 250 years each. Your source is full of shit.

5fish said:

...we don’t learn from history because “our studies are brief and prejudiced.” He means they are mostly about one’s own country...

Click to expand...

Or, yes there has been learning from history. Social Studies have been ongoing in recent decades and with increasing neutrality. Anymore the democracy of Internet and instant communications forecloses that.

Slavery is no longer readily accepted in any major nation, while cannibalism and human religious sacrifice are no longer accepted anywhere in the world (designated criminal behavior everywhere). The 19th-century variations of democracy have proven remarkably sturdy, beneficial and flexible on behalf of their constituents -- the common people -- the Democratic Republic of the U.S. well within that mode. Let's notice how many from other places want to be American citizens.

So none of it's perfect yet, but it's far from not having learned from history at all. Calm down.

Jim Klag said:

That is ridiculous. The Roman Empire lasted far more than 267 years. The Romanovs ruled Russia for 300 years. The so-called Holy Roman Empire lasted from Charlemagne to Napoleon - about 1000 years. The Byzantine Empire ran for over 800 years. There were several Chinese dynasties that lasted over 250 years each. Your source is full of shit.

Click to expand...

I believe that the calculations are based upon the average length of empires, not each as an individual one. Perhaps you or someone should file a dispute w/ the BBC.

O' Be Joyful said:

I believe that the calculations are based upon the average length of empires, not each as an individual one. Perhaps you or someone should file a dispute w/ the BBC.

Click to expand...

The source said only the Mameluke Empire lasted more than 250 years. Perhaps you should read the whole post.

Even the graph posted shows that 336 years is the average.

Jim Klag said:

The Byzantine Empire ran for over 800 years

Click to expand...

Here is this...

.

The name ‘Byzantine’ was coined by 16th-century CE historians based on the fact that the capital city’s first name was Byzantium before it changed to Constantinople (modern Istanbul). It was and continues to be a less-than-perfect but convenient label which differentiates the Eastern Roman Empire from the Western Roman Empire, especially important after the fall of the latter in the 5th century CE. Indeed, for this reason, there is no universal agreement amongst historians as to what period of time the term ‘Byzantine Empire’ actually refers to. Some scholars select 330 CE and the foundation of Constantinople, others the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, still others prefer the failure of Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE) to unify the two empires in 565 CE, and some even plum for c. 650 CE and the Arab conquest of Byzantium’s eastern provinces. Most historians do agree that the Byzantine Empire terminated on Tuesday 29 May 1453 CE, when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (r.1444-6 & 1451-81 CE) conquered Constantinople.

5fish said:

Here is this...

Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empire, often called the Eastern Roman Empire or simply Byzantium, existed from 330 to 1453 CE. With its capital founded at Constantinople by Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE), the Empire...

www.ancient.eu

.

The name ‘Byzantine’ was coined by 16th-century CE historians based on the fact that the capital city’s first name was Byzantium before it changed to Constantinople (modern Istanbul). It was and continues to be a less-than-perfect but convenient label which differentiates the Eastern Roman Empire from the Western Roman Empire, especially important after the fall of the latter in the 5th century CE. Indeed, for this reason, there is no universal agreement amongst historians as to what period of time the term ‘Byzantine Empire’ actually refers to. Some scholars select 330 CE and the foundation of Constantinople, others the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, still others prefer the failure of Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE) to unify the two empires in 565 CE, and some even plum for c. 650 CE and the Arab conquest of Byzantium’s eastern provinces. Most historians do agree that the Byzantine Empire terminated on Tuesday 29 May 1453 CE, when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (r.1444-6 & 1451-81 CE) conquered Constantinople.

Click to expand...

Right. So even the shortest estimate of that empire's span is 803 years. Even the Ottoman Empire, which followed the Byzantine lasted until World War One, over 500 years. To say that only the Mamaluke Empire spanned more than 250 years is absolutely wrong.

The singular problem with this whole shootin' match is that the USA is not an empire and the wall it has built and is building is not a military fortification but a component of immigration security. Our wall is more a symptom of xenophobia than of military insecurity.