Why are African apologists so insincere and dishonest that they can call pic related an empire?

Why are African apologists so insincere and dishonest that they can call pic related an empire?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Athenian_Empire
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

benin :DDDD

benin :DDDD

Benin :DDDDD

But really, African apologists suck. But since when do they call Benin and empire?
Usually west Africa is Mali/Songhai.

Africa is a big place, so that is definitely a real empire.

An Empire is not defined by it's size. Consider pic related, or the Byzantine "Empire" when all it controlled was part of Thrace.

>comparing the Benin """empire""" at its height to the Byzantine empire when it was on its death bed
Just like I said insincere and dishonest.

*tips fedora*

No one credible calls that the Athenian Empire

If a state has an Emperor it's an empire

In Benin's case the terminology is actually disputed, since for most of its history it was a city state like Venice or early medieval Dublin

Speaking of, at its greatest extent the Benin Empire was 90,000 km2 in size, which is just about bigger than all of Ireland. The map doesn't really reflect that.

But nobody will read this and /pol/ack shitposting will continue unabated

I can dig out my old university reading list and recommend some books about Benin if anyone's interested

Empire usually involves ruling multiple groups asides from the rulers own and rile over those lands.

Nobody calls that Athenian Empire.

So like how the Edo ruled over the Esan, the Afemai, the Isoko and the Urhobo?

Because the definition of empire isn't related to size, you double nigger. There are generally two definitions:

1. Those who claim ancestry to the Roman Empire in one way or another
2. A territory ruled by a single ruler or governing body containing many different ethnic and linguistic traditions.

By the most broad of definitions, Belgium is an empire while the much larger United States is not. That's why languages like Dutch and German separate between the two. We have the Dutch Rijk (realm) but the Roman Keizerrijk (imperial realm).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Athenian_Empire

>United States is not.

You realize America is multicultural? Not just whites and niggers, but beaners, wetbacks, sambos, zambos, mestizos and even a few full-blooded redskins.

Those are mostly immigrants and the redskins are entirely marginalized in their reservations. If we count immigrants, there's almost no nation that isn't an empire.

Yes they do. In fact the history book I've just read did.

It's by three professors of classics and one of history.

The US became an imperial power the it started venturing further west than the original colonies.

It never stopped being imperialist once it reached the Pacific.

Who the fuck calls the Delian League an empire?

If anything that proves how vague the term "empire" truly is. Which is why I believe "Empire" should only be applied to regimes which claimed successorship to the Roman Empire. So the Byzantines, Charlemagne, the >Holy >Roman >Empire, both Napoleons, Austria-Hungary, the Germans and the Ottomans. That's it.

One could make an argument for China, because their first unified ruler also adapted a "not a king but totally a king except more powerful than a king" title, which might best be translated as emperor.

quite a few academics

it became one though, rather than having been one from the start

I'll definitely agree that empire is a vague label, but calling the Delian League an empire is a huge stretch.

It was nothing more than a city-state NATO that lasted for 50 years.

>The Second Athenian Empire or Confederacy was a maritime confederation of Aegean city-states from 378–355 BC
Sounds totally like an empire

>
>If anything that proves how vague the term "empire" truly is. Which is why I believe "Empire" should only be applied to regimes which claimed successorship to the Roman Empire. So the Byzantines, Charlemagne, the >Holy >Roman >Empire, both Napoleons, Austria-Hungary, the Germans and the Ottomans. That's it.
But that would be an abjectly retarded rewrite of a definition just to satisfy your autistic desire for everything to fall into a neat little box.

>It was nothing more than a city-state NATO that lasted for 50 years

It was more than that (well became more than that). Members were essentially under the rule of Athens, and the tributes (in the form of gold or cash) went under the control of Athens; the treasury of the league was also moved to Athens.

Naxos tried to leave the Empire, Athens defeated them and they were forced to tear down their walls and give up their fleet to Athens.

Thasos tried to defect. They were besieged by Athens, and were forced to tear their walls down, confiscate their land and naval ships, and give their mines to Athens. It was after this that Thucydides said the league had turned from Alliance to Hegemony .

great post

>But that would be an abjectly retarded rewrite
On the contrary: it would be a return to its original definition (Caesar).

>Persian Empire, Parthian Empire, Mughal Empire, Mongol Empire, Abbasid Empire, British Empire, Spanish Empire etc. are not empires in this individual's opinion

That's true though

I hate that term as anybody around here, but his definition of empire is literal definition of eurocentrism

1. I wasn't aware that Turkey was in Europe.
2. No shit, why would a definition that originates in a European political power (the Roman Empire) ever be Eurocentric? Next you're going to tell me waving the English flag is a sign of English nationalism!

3. Did you not notice that my definition excludes every colonial empire, all of them except Japan being European?

Rulers didn't care about the title they gave themselves, they cared what the plebs thought.

Yes, and before Athens could turn it into an empire everyone revolted on them and slapped their shit so hard they became irrelevant for the remainder of history.

It certainly was on the tracks to becoming an empire, but it never quite got there.

Probably because the word "empire" was only ever supposed to refer to Rome?

according to who?

An Empire is not about size doofus, it's about a ruling core (imperial government, "central state," or collective) governing multiple, culturall/ethno-linguistically peripherical groups.

Hence why some states were Imperial (i.e. Colonial Europe with Kings or even Presidents at their head) while some Empires weren't quite Imperial (Japan).

Romans?

They did not speak English

empire (n.)
early 14c., from Old French empire "rule, authority, kingdom, imperial rule" (11c.), from Latin imperium "a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm," from imperare "to command," from assimilated form of in- "in" (see in- (2)) + parare "to order, prepare" (see pare).
[P]roperly an empire is an aggregate of conquered, colonized, or confederated states, each with its own government subordinate or tributary to that of the empire as a whole. [Century Dictionary]
Not etymologically restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor," but used that way. The Empire, meaning "the British Empire," first recorded 1772 (it officially devolved into "The Commonwealth" in 1931); before that it meant the Holy Roman Empire (1670s). Empire as the name of a style (especially in reference to a style of dresses with high waistlines) is by 1869, in reference to the affected classicism prevailing in France during the reign of Napoleon I (1804-15). Second Empire is in reference to the rule of Napoleon III of France (1852-70). New York has been called the Empire State since 1834.

Imperium and empire are the same word. In fact for centuries after the fall of Rome, "Empire" and all its equivalents throughout all languages was only ever used to refer to Rome and states which claimed to be Rome.

>1. I wasn't aware that Turkey was in Europe.
The capital was. Most of the territory wasn't, so it was similar to Russia in that regard. I think it's fair to say the Ottomans were a European Empire.

Imperium referred to the ability of an individual to command the military

Nigga, if that's your flag you're allowed to call you anything

And became associated with the rule over Rome

For fucks sake, word Pope was associated with building fucking bridges.

Language is an evolving thing, and everybody with a bit of common sense has long realized that "Empire" has wider meaning than just successors of Roman Empire

No one's denying that. The problem is that "empire" is too broadly applied and people use it to describe either states that controlled areas of multiple regions (Mongols, European colonials), states that had a similar sort of word (China, Japan), or even just to describe the period when a country was at its highest (Sweden). The point is that there's only one definite way to describe a country as an empire, and it has to relate to the origin of the word itself.

You know you can just make a definition, instead of going back to the roots, which are not appliiable to the current use of the word.
I'd say the definition would be something about controlling people of different linguistic/cultural groups as well as pure size of controlled land, since "Empire" nowadays basically just means "state bigger than others around"

Wasn't Imperial Japan actually imperial for a few years? They did hold territories in SEA that were populated by majority non-Japanese peoples, after all.

It most definitely is not fair to say.

why not

They did not consider themselves such.

They were not considered such by others, including Europeans.

They themselves recognized "Europe" "Europeans" and "European empires" and did not include themselves among them.

The 'capital' was 'in Europe' and on its extreme border by some technical geographical expression, but that is it.

It spoke non-European languages and followed non-European religions, it was governed in the main by non-European people.

Yeah, I'm a student of ancient Mediterranean civilisations, plenty people call the Delian League an empire, or de facto empire, after about the 450s.

>their language, religion and people were non-European because their language, religion and people weren't European

what are you trying to say

That your entire distinction between "European" and "non-European" is arbitrary and doesn't really bare up to scrutiny.

My "entire distinction," by which you mean ignoring the main distinction that I made, about identification.

>They did not consider themselves such.

>They were not considered such by others, including Europeans.

>They themselves recognized "Europe" "Europeans" and "European empires" and did not include themselves among them."

And the distinction was as arbitrary then as it is now.

Look at the Russians, they don't consider themselves European either.

benin :DDDD

You keep throwing the word "arbitrary" around like it makes you sound intelligent.

What do you actually want, are you looking for an undisputed definition of what "European" means? Because you won't get one.

Is it "arbitrary" if it is contested, if it doesn't have strict parameters, if it doesn't have a scientific definition?

Saying that self-identification is "arbitrary" doesn't mean anything at all, and it's just not true. It's messy, complex, contradictory, disputed, but "arbitrary" makes it sound like its rootless and meaningless and just pulled out of thin air. It's not "arbitrary" that some Russians don't consider themselves Europeans, and some people consider the Russians to be European.

Why does someone need to apologize for a continent?

>No one credible calls that the Athenian Empire

What? Yes they do...

>while the much larger United States is not.

Wut

Are you autistic?

>mfw some people are so butthurt at all the good history being in Europe mostly, that they pretend some literally who african ooga booga shit is relevant

>African apologists
kek

because "empire" has no actual definition aside from the ruler calling himself an emperor. Why was the HRE considered an Empire while France was only a Kingdom until the 19th century?

>"not a king but totally a king except more powerful than a king" title
Best metric for empire.

>its another "y Africa cant into cilivisation" thread made by /pol/tards

No scholar actually calls Benin an 'empire'. Benin was ruled by an Oba, which translates to 'king'. Benin is usually called a kingdom or a city-state. Only Wikipedia and similarly useless sites call it an empire.

> hating on benin empire
> when even more tiny Tonga empire existed longer than Byzanitum

so what are the colonial empires if they aren't actually empires

Properly it was a hegemony.

>The King of Benin can in a single day make 20,000 men ready for war, and, if need be, 180,000, and because of this he has great influence among all the surrounding peoples. . . . His authority stretches over many cities, towns and villages. There is no King thereabouts who, in the possession of so many beautiful cities and towns, is his equal.
>—Olfert Dapper, Nauwkeurige Beschrijvinge der Afrikaansche Gewesten (Description of Africa), 1668

Why can't that be an empire? The definition I am most comfortable with and makes the most logical sense to me is a state that can exert its influence in a mostly permanent, continuous form over groups that lay outside the typical center of a nationality or ethnic group. Now, as states became more centralized in western Europe, for example, the divides between disparate groups became smaller as they became subsumed into the larger identity, as with Germany and France.

I'd say it really depends on what form that influence takes. If those other groups are actually within its political boundaries, then it's an empire, if it exerts influence through "soft power" and threats of military action, etc, then it's a hegemon. And even then there's the gray area of at what point groups are classified as separate.

the word "empire" is a European word, thats the only bit of facts you have to substantiate your pathetic definition. "Emperium" wasn't a word used by the Romans EXCLUSIVELY in reference to rome, "emperium" was used by the Roman Historians to describe the influence of Hannibal in the Punic ruling class as well as in reference to the Diadochi, so no, its not only for "European political power" retard

Not him but...
For thousands of year most cultures, European or no, had no concept of "Europe" as a continent or as a culture. So yes, the idea that "European" means anything, especially in reference to ancient civilizations, is completely arbitrary, and retarded.

Nigeria was and is the most densely populated region in Africa. That's why it was known as an empire

do you have any statistics for that

>Venice
>City state

What did he mean by this?

For you.

Also how has no one checked these trips?

Benis:DDD

I guess Jerusalem is in Europe now...

>Good history being in Europe
You mean in the Mediterranen and England, and by a stretch Russia? Because the Germans and Scandinavians are the WE WUZ of Europe

Empire = Ruler of Kings

Why are people so proud of greedy tyrants and earthly rulers from the same country/continent as them?

>continent
no relation
>ruler
if the ruler is of your ethnicity then it comes from common blood.
>ruler
if the ruler is not of the common blood then the people don't have any relation.

What's the difference between a Kingdom and an Empire.
I've read than Empires involve ruling over different ethnic or linguistic groups. But then wouldn't, say, England have become an empire when they conquered Wales?