The empires of the twentieth century were more humane compared to the ruthless and exploitive ancient empires. Although twentieth-century empires attempted to improve the lives of the ruled, their humanitarianism was based on the premise that their subjects required salvation. The rulers and the ruled had different viewpoints on empires. Current history idealizes emirs, Caesars, viceroys, conquistadors, explorers, nabobs, soldiers, and missionaries. However, the ruled viewed empires as despotic due to its practices. To dominate their subjects, empires utilized practices such as foreign domination and subjugation, the use of local allies and elites, and economic exploitation.
One practice used by imperialists is the permanent rule of defeated subjects by a conquering power. Most pre-modern empires were unsustainable because their subjects found them intolerable (Nicolaïdis, Sèbe & Maas, 2015). From the Roman Empire to the most recent European imperialism in African, it is clear that empress is about permanent rule by a conquering power. Although the Romans conquered Britain, they failed to control the lives of their British subjects. British subjects were mainly peasant farmers, tenants, and slaves. Roman rulers depended on assimilated British subjects to rule (Parsons, 2010). Common British subjects could not resist Roman domination because they were divided by local habits and customs. Roman domination of Britain lasted longer because the use of assimilated local elites made it less severe.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Umayyad caliphate in Spain also conquered and ruled the Iberian Peninsula by domination of the local population. Iberia fell into the hands of a refugee Umayyad prince. The Umayyad caliphate ruled the peninsula for four centuries by using assimilated local notables to govern. Although many notables avoided subjecthood through conversion to Islam, commoners and rural dwellers sought protection from imperialism from their local communities (Parsons, 2010). In India, the British replaced the Mughal Empire and used Indian aristocrats and nobles to prop the British Empire. The Raj was the imperial administrative entity in India. It comprised the secretary of state for India, the Indian office, and a Viceroy. Although Napoleon's empire was grounded on the ideals of the French revolution such as liberty, fraternity, and freedom, the use of new policing and bureaucratic techniques interfered into the loves of his subjects. The demands of the empire contributed to the resistance that ended his temporary rule in Europe.
The scramble for Africa by European powers in the nineteenth century was another example of empire building through foreign permanent rule and domination. Guided by humanitarian concerns such as civilization, these European empires wanted to subjugate the local population for their benefit. They considered Africans as racially inferior because of their military weakness. The outcome was a cruel and degrading system of imperial domination (Nicolaïdis, Sèbe & Maas, 2015). The need to end imperial subjugation inspired colonized countries in Africa and Asia to fight for their independence from European imperialism. Lastly, the Third Reich represents an empire that used pseudoscientific ideologies to rule and dominate the French. After conquering and defeating the French, the Nazis proceeded to occupy France, but their exploitative rule turned the whole world against them. The German occupation of France shows that any defeated people regardless of their level of advancement could be turned into subjects.
Exploitation was another practice used by imperialists. Imperialists extracted wealth and labor for their benefit at the expense of the local population. Conquistadors including Francisco Pizzaro looted the Incan empire in South America (Parsons, 2010). These Spanish explorers became exceedingly wealthy by exploiting the local population and stealing their wealth. The local population was used to provide labor in plantations and mines. Additionally, the conquistadors acquired large tracts of land from the Andeans, and in the process displaced the local population.
The East India Company got the right to collect taxes in Bengal on behalf of Mughal emperors. Acting as Mughal vassals, company employees known as nabobs obtain significant wealth from Indian by hijacking its revenue collection systems. When the Crown replaced the East India Company, the Raj assumed all administrative functions on behalf of the Crown. The Indian civil service, which was a meritocracy, was created to manage the Indian bureaucracy. Only educated Indians were allowed to join the civil service by holding exams in London. The replacement of the East Indian Company did not alter the realities of exploitation in India (Parsons, 2010). The new ruling elite was only concerned with producing and extracting wealth. Furthermore, the imperial rulers believed that they could enhance their profits by increasing agricultural production. They introduced formal taxation to replace tribute collection. Napoleon's empire was also characterized by the exploitation of his subjects for tributes and conscripts to join his army. A severe and demanding form of empire building led to the demise of his empire.
European empires in Africa were motivated by the continent's natural resources and land. They conquered the continent with the objective of civilizing the African population, but the real aim was profiteering. In Kenya, the British acquired fertile lands in the highlands by displacing the local population. Furthermore, they exploited the labor of the locals in their farms (Parsons, 2010). They also introduced formal taxation to collect revenue to support the colonial administration.
Regardless of the time and geographical location, modern empires were characterized by imperial practices such as permanent rule and domination, subjugation, the use of local allies to rule, and economic exploitation. From the Roman Empire to the Third Reich, these imperial practices were responsible for the demise of empires because of the resistance from the ruled.
References
Nicolaïdis, K., Sèbe, B., & Maas, G. (2015). Echoes of empire: Memory, identity and colonial legacies . London: I.B. Tauris.
Parsons, T. (2010). The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fall . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
