In What Ways Does Maritime Empire Differ From Land-Based Empire - Essay Example

In what ways does maritime empire differ from land-based empire? Over the of its existence, the word “empire” has come to mean different concepts with varying connotations. The prime example of the terms negative implications was evident during the recently concluded Cold War. Both the Soviet Union and the United States accused each other of “imperialistic” ambitions. Much further back in history, the empires of Romans and Greeks were seen by scholars as pinnacles of human achievement. In effect, a distinction between a pre-modern empire and a modern one could be made based on its popular implication. This fact is supported by the fact that the British Empire of the last two centuries inspired many great works of subversive and dissenting literature from its subjects. Also, the term “empire” is defined differently by different sections of its population. The conquering kingdom/nation-state saw it in a benign light – equating it to “teaching civilized ways to primitive people”, “helping universal salvation through the spread of Christianity”, etc (Porter, 2004). But, the subjugated people saw it exactly oppositely. So, the definition of the term is dependent on the view point. Having said so, a consensus could be reached on its true meaning by referring to revisionist history publications. It is now widely understood that “empire” is a concept of “exploiting a foreign geo-political entity for economic and other benefits through application of violence and force.” Henceforth in the essay, the word “empire” would stand for this current definition (Porter, 2004). There are many factors that contribute to the success of any imperialist ambition. The prime criterion is “internal organization”. In other words, a state of harmony and wilful co-operation should exist among the subjects of the kingdom, before they can set about on their imperialist adventure. A common identity, feelings of brotherhood, voluntary co-operation and a uniting heritage; they all help lay the foundation for successful empire building. Such qualifiers as culture, language and economic life too help build unity. In other words, all empires of the past and present have at their core what is presently known as “nation-states” (Gorrie, 2007). Paradoxically enough, the more an empire expands, the more it loses its nation-state identity – the empire consumes the very foundation upon which it was built. For example, the cultural, linguistic and geographical identities (which comprise the concept of a nation-state) are diluted with the advance of an empire. Some historians see this as an explanation for the inevitable decline of all empires – their inherent contradictions and paradoxes (Gorrie, 2007). So, what are the differences between a sea-based empire and a land-based empire? An empire can evolve into a predominantly land-based one or sea-based one based on geographic and strategic factors. Let’s take the example of the greatest of sea-based empires – the British Empire. Firstly, Britain being an island, sea-faring was the only means of communication with the rest of the world. The interaction with the rest of the world was very important for exchange of resources through trade. Secondly, acts of aggression against Britain from the Vikings, Celts and Normans have all been through the sea. So, Britain needed a strong naval force to defend itself from further attacks. It has to be remembered that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when British naval power was at its peak, ships were the most advanced vehicles for commutation. So, any nation that possessed a strong navy held a significant advantage over its rivals (Anderson, 2005). Similarly, the motivation to attain strategic advantage over rivals led to the advancement of land-based empires. A corollary to the British naval advancement was the Continental army advancement. The post medieval Europe was a period of intense competition between neighbouring kingdoms. The Prussian empire during late 19th century and the Russian empire of early 19th century are good examples of successful land-based empires. The geographies of these empires were such; that further expansion in-land was most advantageous (Richenberg, 1998). The Russian annexation of the Caucasus and Finland were made possible by their superior land-based military organization. The same was true with the Mogul domination of the Indian landscape. While the sea-based empires essentially grew out of trade-links and scientific expeditions, the land-based empires evolved out of the need to defend against hostile neighbouring kingdoms. This also explains why land-based empires had longer and more stable reign than se-based ones (Anderson, 2005). “Navigation technology underwent drastic changes in the eighteenth century. The accurate measurement of a ships longitude had been a longstanding problem at sea, making early navigation difficult and dangerous. Some scientists tried to use astronomical measurements to calculate these time differences, but John Harrison, a British clockmaker, invented a portable timepiece called a chronometer which ships captains could take to sea. The chronometer kept track of the time in England, and by comparing this with local time, a captain could find the longitude of his ship. Solving the “longitude problem” produced a revolution in European exploration and mapping.” (Richenberg, 1998) The progress in the technique and craftsmanship of ship-building helped adapt what were traditionally vehicles of cargo into machines of warfare. On the other hand, land-based empires grew in prominence and significance through the invention of newer, more devastating artillery. The first of such inventions was the use of gunpowder. Tapping the potential offered by this new ammunition, the land-based empires of the ottomans, Moguls and the Russians expanded multi-fold. It is interesting to note that most predominant land-based empires were non-European, while sea-based ones were European; the British and German empires are good examples of the latter (Richenberg, 1998). Historically, empires might have grown out of primitive nations; language, culture and ethnicity being the uniting factors. But there is little evidence to suggest that the people of conquered lands will have to be of different cultural and ethnic origins. For example, one of the lengthiest and violent cases of imperialism was the British exploitation of Ireland. Ethnically and culturally there are only superficial differences between these people. Both peoples are of the Caucasian race as well. Hence, imperialism and empire building is purely an economic enterprise and not a political, racial or cultural one. In the words of James Elliott, “If there remains any doubt that the idea itself of empire is thoroughly discredited, Ireland today may serve as the best example of the dog that is too ashamed to bark. Nationalists assail the continuing British presence in Northern Ireland as an indefensible case of prolonged imperialism. Their Unionist adversaries defend the presence in terms of democratic legitimacy as representing the wishes of the majority. The Unionists are hardly ignorant of the historic origins of British rule, which can only be depicted as a classic early example of settler imperialism.” (Elliot, 2006) There are many more examples in the history of imperialism that would support this thesis. In recent history, the United States and Saudi Arabia have been strong trading partners. But the cultural, racial and linguistic differences between the two countries could not be more different. Again, this goes to prove that imperialism restricts itself to economic exploitation. The underlying economic nature of imperialism can also be discerned from its present manifestation. History text-books talk of imperialism as a historical concept; as if the world polity had elevated to a level of equality and justice. But, the truth is quite different. The most obvious case in point is the United States. Going by government rhetoric and the mainstream press, one would be led to believe that the American government is at the forefront of defending democratic values and that their military is used judiciously to “liberate” oppressed people. In other words: “Democratic republics have been happily supportive of the genocides, wars, and bullying pursued by their democratically elected leaders. The United States, arguably the most democratic state of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, illustrates the point. Even if their reasons for doing so were beyond reproach, Americans did massacre Indians, drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese, assist in the fire bombing of Dresden, provoke war with Mexico and Spain, gratuitously incinerate retreating Iraqi soldiers, carried out barbarous acts in battling the Philippine insurgency and intervene-militarily, diplomatically, and surreptitiously-in scores of states…amounting to what, by todays standards, would have to be termed crimes against humanity.” (Anderson, 2005) Viewed in this light, the economic imperialism of the present day is a sophisticated form of militaristic imperialism of yester-centuries. It was not simply a matter of plundering wealth, but of preserving long-standing systemic conditions for retaining power and privilege within the neo-imperialist society. In the American context (the only remaining superpower), almost all Presidents, including McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were party to this phenomenon. Though masked in the rhetoric of aversion to old-fashioned imperialism and its hopes for world peace, the centrepiece of its strategy remains economic expansionism. And, to execute that strategy the imperialist government will do all it can in "pushing and holding open doors in all parts of the world with all the engines of government ranging from polite coercion to the use of arms” (Anderson, 2005). A retrospective analysis of the history of colonialism and imperialism can conceal or twist facets of that history which needs to be understood on its own terms, rather than with the added knowledge of “later preconceptions and preoccupations”. To see those societies in the backdrop of their own times as opposed to viewing from the privileged vantage-point that is afforded to present investigations is not to excuse their crimes and follies. As the tragic stories of indigenous peoples across the world makes it clear, the empires of old and new ages are stained by innumerable horrors. Bibliography: Elliot, J (August 2006). Contrasting empires: J.H. Elliott looks at the differences--cultural, religious, ethnic and economic--between the Spanish and British approaches to their empires in the Americas, and asks how they turned out, both for the mother countries and for the colonies and states that eventually emerged from them. History Today, 56, 8., p.12(8).  Richenberg, A. (March 1998). Legacies of empire., History Today, 48, n3. p.8(3).  Porter, B. (Oct 2004). What did they know of Empire? Bernard Porter argues that, through most of the nineteenth century, most Britons knew little and cared less about the spread of the Empire., History Today, 54, 10. p.42(7).  Gorrie, C. (April 2007)., The restoration of the Porticus Octaviae and Severan imperial policy., Greece & Rome, 54, 1. p.1(17 MURRAY, N. (July-Dec 1999)., Apprehending reality: Race & Class as an anti-imperialist journal, Race and Class, p.73.  Anderson, R D (Spring 2005)., Lessons from history on the limits of imperialism: Successful small state resistance to great power aggression., Journal of Third World Studies, 22, 1. p.21(20). Read More