Republics between hegemony and empire: How ancient city-states built empires and the USA doesn’t (anymore)
By Walter Scheidel
Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics (2006)
City of Rome during time of republic. This is a picture out of the book ” Geschichtsbilder” published in 1896 by Friedrich Polack (1834-1915).
Introduction: Do Rome and the USA qualify as ‘imperial republics’? The question mark in the title of our conference prompts us to address the question of definitions: what is a republic, what is an empire, and – if either Rome or the USA fail to meet our criteria – what are the alternatives? While extended discussion of definition can be tedious and must never become an end in itself, the fuzzy rhetoric of ‘empire’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘hegemony’ that characterizes contemporary discourse underscores the need for conceptual clarity. In fact, if we cannot agree on a working definition of ‘empire’, comparative analysis becomes impossible, and there may be little to discuss.
On a minimalist view, republics are state-level political systems that are not hereditary monarchies. More commonly, however, and in keeping with the original meaning of res publica, republics tend to be regarded as states in which government entails some substantial involvement or the consent of the people governed. Popular rule per se or democracy (however defined) are not essential to this concept, while a clear notion of citizenship and the presence of deliberative and electoral bodies of citizens may reasonably be considered defining features of a republican regime (and also accommodate oligarchic forms of government). Luckily for us, the republics were are concerned with – both ancient and modern – conform to both minimalist and more expansive definitions: the absence of monocracy, a clearly defined citizenry, and the existence of established institutions of popular political participation.
Empire, by contrast, is a more elusive concept. The principal difference is between explicitly political and therefore narrow definitions of empire and more sweeping metaphorical usage of this term. As we will see below, the latter is particularly prevalent in discussions of the contemporary United States and its foreign policy. Historical comparison, however, benefits from conceptual clarity and a universally applicable ‘core’ definition. From that perspective, empire is best defined as a state that is endowed with particular properties. The state, as opposed to bands, local groups or chiefdoms, may be defined following Michael Mann (drawing on Max Weber) as ‘a differentiated set of institutions and personnel, embodying centrality, in the sense that political relations radiate outwards from a center to a cover territorially demarcated area, over which it claims a monopoly of binding and permanent rulemaking, backed up by physical violence’.
Republics between hegemony and empire: How ancient city-states built empires and the USA doesn’t (anymore)
By Walter Scheidel
Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics (2006)
Introduction: Do Rome and the USA qualify as ‘imperial republics’? The question mark in the title of our conference prompts us to address the question of definitions: what is a republic, what is an empire, and – if either Rome or the USA fail to meet our criteria – what are the alternatives? While extended discussion of definition can be tedious and must never become an end in itself, the fuzzy rhetoric of ‘empire’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘hegemony’ that characterizes contemporary discourse underscores the need for conceptual clarity. In fact, if we cannot agree on a working definition of ‘empire’, comparative analysis becomes impossible, and there may be little to discuss.
On a minimalist view, republics are state-level political systems that are not hereditary monarchies. More commonly, however, and in keeping with the original meaning of res publica, republics tend to be regarded as states in which government entails some substantial involvement or the consent of the people governed. Popular rule per se or democracy (however defined) are not essential to this concept, while a clear notion of citizenship and the presence of deliberative and electoral bodies of citizens may reasonably be considered defining features of a republican regime (and also accommodate oligarchic forms of government). Luckily for us, the republics were are concerned with – both ancient and modern – conform to both minimalist and more expansive definitions: the absence of monocracy, a clearly defined citizenry, and the existence of established institutions of popular political participation.
Empire, by contrast, is a more elusive concept. The principal difference is between explicitly political and therefore narrow definitions of empire and more sweeping metaphorical usage of this term. As we will see below, the latter is particularly prevalent in discussions of the contemporary United States and its foreign policy. Historical comparison, however, benefits from conceptual clarity and a universally applicable ‘core’ definition. From that perspective, empire is best defined as a state that is endowed with particular properties. The state, as opposed to bands, local groups or chiefdoms, may be defined following Michael Mann (drawing on Max Weber) as ‘a differentiated set of institutions and personnel, embodying centrality, in the sense that political relations radiate outwards from a center to a cover territorially demarcated area, over which it claims a monopoly of binding and permanent rulemaking, backed up by physical violence’.
Click here to read this article from the Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
Sponsored Content