Lets talk about a very famous empire, but one that I don’t think gets viewed through an Imperial lens. It was to be the greatest empire of all. It was going to weld the various territories of Central and Eastern Europe into a super state that could challenge the wealth of the United States.

Its elite was an odd pairing. Radical new ideologues hoping to weld an ancient society into a single, unified “people’s community”. Contrasted with this was an old, landed aristocracy concerned with protecting their privileges and restoring their homeland to its former prominence and strength.

It used strange symbols, both ancient and new. Its eagle standard bearing shock troops would have been familiar to Ancient Rome, yet at the same time its national anthem was a folk song rip-off made by a guy living in a prostitute’s apartment who was killed for not paying rent money.

Its leader was the stuff of legend, or nightmare depending on who you asked. A power hungry demogauge, who at one point bragged:

I'm going to become a religious figure. Soon I'll be the great chief of the Tartars. Already Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers. Amongst the Tartars I shall become Khan.

It was an empire that was to last a thousand years, it lasted less than twelve. Of course we are naturally talking about Nazi Germany, that odd pariah state that lasted from 1933-1945.

Hitler took inspiration from the older German states that had proceeded him, the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire. But to Hitler all these states had fundamental flaws that his mind tainted them and ensured their destruction. The Holy Roman Empire had bowed to the pope and tainted Germany with the weakness of Roman Catholicism. The German Empire failed to properly unite all Germans and lacked any clear sense of direction. Hitler’s empire would not make the same mistakes.

The Nazis drew primary inspiration from two sources, both works of literature. One was a book called “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century” by Houston Chamberlain. He argued that the “Aryan Race” (a broad term he meant to encompass pretty much every European culture) was spearheaded by the Nordic Race in a conflict with the Jewish dominated Semitic races. The book features many anti-Semitic myths that are easily recognizable, the long nose, the fondness for money and cheapness. The book was read by anyone who was anyone in the Nazi movement.

The second book was called “German in the Next War” by an army officer Friedrich von Bernhardi. Again the arguments are recognizable. The book argued that Germany must see “living space” in the vast reaches of the East in order to sustain growth. These two books were to provide a foundation for this new Empire. So how did this empire function?

Well it was a confusing mess of various organizations run by cronies hoping to curry favour with the top brass and to line their own pockets while they were at it. All power in the Third Reich came from Adolf Hitler. It was by Hitler’s will alone that this empire would be built. See for all the important duties given to men such as Himmler and Goering, it was Hitler’s cult of personality that drove the state and it was to Hitler that the people were loyal. When people made jokes it was always directed at the Nazi party or Goering or Himmler, etc. Never at Hitler; its telling of German attitudes towards Hitler.

When Hitler was nearly killed by that same aristocracy that had aided him in his rise to power, the frontline troops were horrified, for them the Furher was the ultimate symbol of Germany and for final victory. I dare say the Nazi empire was unique in how it was driven completely by one man, the Empire and the Nazi party were inseparable from the person of Adolf Hitler. This of course deeply ironic considering Hitler never intended to actually be supreme leader of Germany, simply preferring to be a vanguard for a more competent ruler.

So moving to the military, which was the method through which Hitler hoped to accomplish his vast goals. The army was divided, the soldiers on the ground were fiercely loyal to Hitler; a feat accomplished equal parts by Hitler’s own image and an unparalleled propaganda machine. But the officer corp was not so loyal. Certainly Hitler had his proponents, but there were those who grumbled and worried about the direction Germany was heading in. Hitler felt compelled to send specially designated party members to keep an eye on the officers, similar to Soviet Russia’s commissar system.

The military took on an even more important role in Nazi Germany, mainly because the entire state was built for war. Nazi Germany’s empire very foundations meant that a war was necessary. The economy needed the gold reserves and resources of other nations if the empire were to avoid total economic collapse. Hitler’s rhetoric left no room for compromise. Germany needed resources to grow and to avoid reliance on foreign powers.

The Nazi military system proved quite effective at first, they brought victory after victory, conquest after conquest to expand the Nazi empire. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. All fell to the expanding empire.

Anyways the narrative is well known and won’t be detailed here, suffice to say the military ran into problems. But because the Nazi empire was rather unique it did not have the luxury of suing for a peace treaty, rebuilding, and trying the whole thing over again in a couple years. The rhetoric and the actions of Hitler ensured that this empire’s fate was to be decided in a single conflict. The failure of the army meant the failure of the empire. Which is rather unique in history, because usually when we think of the fall of Empires we bring out a long list of causes, social, political, military, etc. But in this case the fall was not due to some debilitating civil war, or political strife, it was due completely to the failure of its military.

So what this Nazi empire’s legacy? With some foresight Hitler correctly predicted his fame, unfortunately probably not the type he had envisioned. The Nazis have become the quintessential bad guys, and their Empire, a model for how not to run a state. Now many have rallied de-humanizing the Naizs, understandably so. But as you look through the Nazi Empire, it becomes shockingly clear why they have become the bad guys, mainly because it’s hard to find anything positive about their Empire or its legacy. Even the things traditionally trumpeted as “accomplishments” are hardly that. To give an example:

“Hitler Fixed The Economy.” He put the German economy into a rapid rearmament program it could not support, had the Nazis not been able seize gold reserves it may very well have collapsed into the economic equivalent of a black hole.

But moving on from that and just surveying the Nazi Empire, it was a mess of contradictions. To give an example of this look at the Nazi’s view of women. For all the Nazi preaching with regards to sexual morals and how an ideal German woman should stay at home with the family, the Hitler youth proceeded to encourage sexual encounters between teenage boys and girls. Sexual abuse and even homosexual relationships were ever present in the Hitler Youth and the SA. Himmler set up organizations to care for single mothers with children out of wedlock, it was even encouraged to have children outside of wedlock, as long as they fit racial purity guidelines. Not exactly the type of behavior one would expect from a group pushing “traditional values.”

Really the Nazis for all their rhetoric, weren’t all that revolutionary. Pretty everything Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, did was shamelessly plagiarized from some other source. As shown above Nazi racial ideology was already largely explored by others. Everything from the Empire’s symbolism, to its architecture, hell, even Hitler’s title “Furher” was taken from someonelse.

Was the Soviet Union an Empire? Sure, Ronald Reagan labeled them as an “Evil Empire” and called for them to be taken down. But just because a politician claimed it, does not often mean that it is true. Russia and the Soviet Union in some ways break down the notion of “Empire” and especially colonial empire. We have a nation, whose borders were continuous (exception being Kalingrad). They did not sail the sea and conquer distant lands like the British and the French. They did however methodically consolidate power and also push its reach to create the largest country in the world. But that is the question, is it not? Is Russia a country or an Empire?

Russia pushed its borders through conquest. After Muscovy and the expulsion of the Mongols, the Russians gradually began building a kingdom. The vacuum left after the collapse of the Golden Horde, and lack of any other global power in the region meant that Russia went east. Much like the American “Go west, young man” or manifest destiny, Russia went east. This wasn’t a new thing, the city of Novgorod had always been expanding east even during the Mongol Yoke, but now it was the nation heading east. Cossacks, scouts, and the army wrangled the east and built a series of forts and towns along the southern border. Trade happened with the indigenous population, although sparse, and Russia conquered Siberia. The main goal was furs, which was then sent back to Europe or to Asia. This Eastward expansion ultimately ended up with Russia in North America by the 18th century. But does this mean that Siberia was part of an empire’s holding; or rather was a nation that just increased its borders? If yes, does that mean the USA is an Empire because of manifest destiny? And if Siberia was part of an empire, does that still mean they are an empire, even if the people there are decidedly “Russian”?

There was parts of Russia that is more typical of empire, though. Here we have to look West and South. Russia, while pushing east with its expeditions also had an eye on Europe. There was a huge desire in Russia for a “warm water” port; a port that did not freeze. Catherine the Great succeeded here by conquering and gaining Crimea from the remnants of the Golden Khanate in the 18th Century. Also gathering the southern coast of what is now Ukraine, where there was to be a “New Russia” which was centered around the current city of Odessa from the Ukrainian Cossacks. These wars of conquest then victories led to a new project; Russification.

They wanted to make the newly conquered into Russians. To do this they used a mix of religion, education, language, and trade to bring “Russia” to the conquered. These policies had a diverse effect on different areas. For example, Lenin was not ethnically Russian, however he saw, and others saw him as “Russian.” The same could be said about Stalin, and even Khurshchev. All men who were not ethnically Russian (East Slav), but were brought up to be Russian. The process failed in other regions, and here we see trappings of Empire. Uprising and dissent happened often and hard in the Caucasus region. Here there was a large population of Turkic people who followed another religion. Further they were often funded and armed by the Ottoman Empire to fight against the Russians. The act of Russification did not quell and there were bloody conflicts, ones that last until this day (see Chechnya).

So, to round back to the question; Is Russia an Empire? We have trappings of Empire with forced erasure of culture to fit into the main stream (internal colonization) but we also have expansion and conquest over indigenous people as well. However, the latter happened a long time ago. While the former has happened far more recently. However, all these conquests happened on the border regions, unlike the Colonial Empires of Europe. Maybe this means the Russian Empire is far closer to the Roman Empire than say the British Empire. Whereas the British kept distance from its colonies, like India, and mainly just ruled, where Russians sought to build a larger nation through Empire, or as my British Empire professor called it “Internal Colonization.” But if successful, does this mean they are an Empire any longer? Is Britain an Empire over Wales and Scotland? And does diversity mean empire? These questions barrel to the Soviet Union, who inherited all of these trappings. They also inherited the lasted conquered lands of the Russian Empire in Central Asia. So, is Russia an Empire?

I study the British Empire in the mid-eighteenth century. My research specifically concerns the transition from the “First” to the “Second” British Empire in the 1760s and competing visions for colonial governance. P.J. Marshall has justifiably criticized the division between the “First” and “Second” Empires and has contended that we should see the shift as a process taking place between the Seven Years’ War and American Revolution.

Despite the problems of terminology, the British Empire transformed within the half century from 1750-1800. In 1750, Britain’s colonies were plantations of white settlers from the home islands. They saw themselves as Britons, as signaled by the goods they purchased, the holidays they celebrated, and the blood they shed. (See T.H. Breen, “An Empire of Goods” and Marketplace of Revolution; Brendan McConville, The King’s Three Faces; Fred Anderson, The Crucible of War, respectively) When colonists protested against their governors or laws, they did so in the name of the ancient English constitution (see Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution). This is the British Empire of David Armitage: Protestant, commercial, maritime, and free (Ideological Origins of the British Empire). (Of course, slavery complicates Armitage’s picture of British identity in the Atlantic World.)

By 1800, the British Empire looked quite different. With the loss of the thirteen colonies, new acquisitions in Canada, the Pacific, and Asia, the empire’s population was racially, linguistically, culturally, and religiously diverse. The new empire would exist as a system of colonies, protectorates, and dominions with separate legal and religious establishments. C.A. Bayly characterizes these colonial societies as authoritarian or despotic systems, ruled by aristocratic military establishments that relied on the patronage of indigenous elites (Imperial Meridian).

The issue of coercion/force in the British Empire has been hot in the historiography in recent years. Service in imperial administration (often through military channels) provided a way for previously disadvantaged groups within the empire to prove their loyalty to the empire, link themselves to patronage networks, and gain status and wealth. Men living in the peripheries were hungrier to take distant and dangerous appointments because their comparative poverty and lack of influence in comparison with their English peers. For instance, Scots—including many Highland Regiments—fought in frontier wars against Native Americans (e.g. Anglo-Cherokee War, Pontiac’s Rebellion). Colin Calloway, succinctly articulates this idea: “Colonial relationships did not always break down neatly into exploiter and exploited,” (White People, Indians, and Highlanders, p. 14). Alvin Jackson’s work contends that the role of Scots in the eighteenth-century empire was taken up by the Irish in India in the nineteenth century.

I find the term empire helpful in describing my research on the relationship between the peripheries and center because the field has struggled with an alternative lens. For most of the twentieth century, English/British exceptionalist assumptions produced insular histories. J.G.A. Pocock famously pled for a “new” British history in the 1970s that would incorporate all the peoples who had made the commonwealth (though he focused disproportionately on its white inhabitants). This “new” British history has been picked up mostly as a “Three Kingdoms” approach for that incorporates Scotland and Ireland into English history. David Armitage has suggested the term “Greater Britain” as an alternative framework to comprise the empire (AHR Forum, April 1999), but the historiography has not picked up the term systematically.

The trend of Atlantic History has brought the relationships of colonies and the metropole more clearly into focus. However, its definition is fuzzy. A basic definition is that Atlantic history concerns the people, ideas, and goods moving between the landmasses of the Atlantic basin: Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Most definitions emphasize the comparative and transnational possibilities of Atlantic history. (See the primers Bernard Bailyn and Karen Kupperman have written on Atlantic history). Although the Atlantic World has become a very popular realm of study, I am hesitant to apply the term to my research because I have not mastered other European imperial historiographies. I sometimes say I study the British Atlantic World, which to me implies that I specialize in British historiography, but am also familiar with Britain’s interactions with native peoples, other European empires, and the slave trade.

So, rather than talk about the way the empire is set up, I would like to talk about how the Romans talked about their empire. And I'm going to do it without mentioning Vergil at all. Instead, I want to view it by looking at concentric circles of proximity to the imperial center.

So first the actual name they used was imperium Romanorum or something like that, which essentially means "authority of the Romans". Imperium in a more specific sense was the authority to command, the attribute conferred on magistrates who may assume military commands. So in many ways it is better translated as something like "the Roman rule", referring specifically to the area that the Romans had under their control. But it also had a more nebulous meaning, the sort of innate attribute possessed by the Romans. When a Seleucid king marched his army into Egypt in an attempt to conquer the Ptolemies, the Roman magistrate who stopped him displayed his imperium, and challenged him with opposing the imperium of the Roman people. So imperium was both the empire possessed, and the imperial quality that allowed it to function.

Moving one circle out there are the Greeks, who were the prestige culture of the empire without actually being the rulers. The Greek perspectives on the empire is often simplified, particularly for those looking to find a deep well of anti-imperial sentiment. For example, Greeks such as Plutarch talk a great deal about the ancient liberty and virtue of the Greeks, and the glories of the Greek past in a way we might view as nationalistic and anti-imperial. However, Plutarch was himself an official of the Roman Empire and seems to have been quite closely connected to the intellectual currents of the imperial center. And more to the point, this glorification of the Greek past was something the Romans themselves, such as Hadrian, engaged in. So we need to be very careful not to easily equate the boosters of Greek heritage with anti-imperialists.

On the other hand, there are several works such as Pausanias and even Lucian to a degree that don't paint the empire as bad but do decry the times quite harshly, Pausanias, for example, will create pictures of faded glory and ruins that seem to characterize his depiction of Greece under the Romans. And Lucian does not comment directly on the Romans but describes in detail the indignities of living in a Roman house, and the angst that comes from ethnic discrimination and prejudice because of that.

The Israelites I'm putting in the next circle because we have a substantial body of literature surviving from them. I will leave them to someone more experienced, but it is worth noting that Revelations is one of the few pieces of truly anti-imperialist literature we have from antiquity (the Whore of Babylon sits upon seven hills wink wink). Perhaps even more noteworthy, the events of Revelations which describe the overthrow of a very thinly veiled metaphor for Rome are equated with the end of the world. Even to those who hated the empire it was not just a simple problem to be overcome, it was something much more significant.

The last circle is in the outer provinces, and we are almost entirely in the dark. Curse tablets provide one form, and indeed there are examples of curse tablets directed at Roman officials from the early period of Roman Gaul, but whether this constituted a full imperial sentiment rather than an antipathy towards an individual is impossible to know. And there are some weird artifacts, like the Magerius Mosaic from North Africa in which a gladiator named "Mamertinus" spears a leopard named "Romanus". It could just be the name of a leopard, it could be an assertion of Punic identity opposed to Rome, recalling the Mamertines of distant history. Hard to say.

Even something like rebellions are hard to interpret, because they were very often frontier affairs, incorporating elements from both sides of the limes. Is being ornery and contrary just something borderlands tend to do, or did they tap into a well of discontent at the ruling Romans? Hard to say.

So it gets much more difficult to say how the empire is discussed, but the Groans of the Britains, written at the end of the western empire's life, gives an interesting perspective:

To Agitius, thrice consul: the groans of the Britons. [...] The barbarians drive us to the sea, the sea drives us to the barbarians; between these two means of death, we are either killed or drowned.

So by then at least some self described Britanii felt a part of the empire. Or it was because the Picts were worse. Hard to say!

Something I'm personally interested in is the intersection of colonialism and imperialism. These are two often related processes (e.g. Rome or Great Britain), and so it is maybe difficult to draw a distinction at times. For those of you who work on states that are both imperial and colonial, how do you distinguish between the two, or do you at all?

Does it matter how you define the empire: for example if you use the example of the roman empire vs the british empire to define the concept of empire.

I feel that one (among other) important key, and perhaps the most clearly illustrated, of Empire is separation in terms of legal traditions. When authority is claimed over a people or land who live within a different legal tradition, and that separation is maintained via legal separation, Empire is indisputable. This distinction is particularly acute when indigenous populations remain rooted in their own customs and laws while colonists and administrators exist in a privileged form of colonial or supranational system.

The clearest illustrations of the point I am trying to make would be the formation in the Spanish Empire of the "republica de Indios" and the "republica de espanoles" or the creation of reservation systems in Australia, the USA, Canada. The Ottoman authority over and separation of legal codes applicable based on religious affiliation would be another example. Or let's say Muslim rule over populations of non-Muslims where dhimmi status is afforded to non-Muslim populations.

Of course, this leads us to interesting questions. Are all societies with slave and caste systems forms of Empire? Is this legal separation definition of Empire only valid with subjugated populations or can it also function with separation-by-consent? Can federal systems be considered imperial systems if they are sufficiently dominated by a metropole? Can legal integration or homogenization over time "lessen" or change Empire into something else?