What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fall
In The Rule of Empires , Timothy Parsons gives a sweeping account of the evolution of empire from its origins in ancient Rome to its most recent twentieth-century embodiment. He explains what constitutes an empire and offers suggestions about what empires of the past can tell us about our own historical moment.
Parsons uses imperial examples that stretch from ancient Rome, to Britain's "new" imperialism in Kenya, to the Third Reich to parse the features common to all empires, their evolutions and self-justifying myths, and the reasons for their inevitable decline. Parsons argues that far from confirming some sort of Darwinian hierarchy of advanced and primitive societies, conquests were simply the products of a temporary advantage in military technology, wealth, and political will. Beneath the self-justifying rhetoric of benevolent paternalism and cultural superiority lay economic exploitation and the desire for power. Yet imperial ambitions still appear viable in the twenty-first century, Parsons shows, because their defenders and detractors alike employ abstract and romanticized perspectives that fail to grasp the historical reality of subjugation.
Writing from the perspective of the common subject rather than that of the imperial conquerors, Parsons offers a historically grounded cautionary tale rich with accounts of subjugated peoples throwing off the yoke of empire time and time again. In providing an accurate picture of what it is like to live as a subject, The Rule of Empires lays bare the rationalizations of imperial conquerors and their apologists and exposes the true limits of hard power.
Parsons uses imperial examples that stretch from ancient Rome, to Britain's "new" imperialism in Kenya, to the Third Reich to parse the features common to all empires, their evolutions and self-justifying myths, and the reasons for their inevitable decline. Parsons argues that far from confirming some sort of Darwinian hierarchy of advanced and primitive societies, conquests were simply the products of a temporary advantage in military technology, wealth, and political will. Beneath the self-justifying rhetoric of benevolent paternalism and cultural superiority lay economic exploitation and the desire for power. Yet imperial ambitions still appear viable in the twenty-first century, Parsons shows, because their defenders and detractors alike employ abstract and romanticized perspectives that fail to grasp the historical reality of subjugation.
Writing from the perspective of the common subject rather than that of the imperial conquerors, Parsons offers a historically grounded cautionary tale rich with accounts of subjugated peoples throwing off the yoke of empire time and time again. In providing an accurate picture of what it is like to live as a subject, The Rule of Empires lays bare the rationalizations of imperial conquerors and their apologists and exposes the true limits of hard power.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published May 13, 2010
29 people are currently reading
440 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 27, 2011
The Rule of Empiresw uses examples of the Roman Empire in Britain, the Islamic occupation of Spain, the Spanish conquest of the New World, British India, the Napoleonic empire in Europe, British East Africa, and the Nazi occupation of Europe to show what empires are and how they work. And he shows how each of these examples are related. With each succeeding chapter and progression through history Parsons demonstrates how each of these example empires mirror each other by using the same techniques. All empires are about the exploitation of the land they take over and administer. All empires feature a tribute paid in some manner by the subject peoples and an extraction of whatevr wealth the region holds. In addition, the subject labor is used for the greater good of the empire, even as slaves. The rule of empires is often harsh. Parsons writes, "There is no such thing as a liberal empire."
Though one of my complaints is that the book isn't well-written, Parsons does keep an objective and level tone throughout, at least to the mid-20th century. While insisting that the Nazi occupation of France demonstrates all the features of traditional empires, he also blames the Franch people for being too passive. In fact, he claims during the war they acted exactly as Asian and African subject peoples in the previous century and that it made the German administration and exploitation of France that much easier.
All the time I was reading I kept in the back of my mind how imperial behavior relates to America. Parsons confirms my opinion that America has never sought empire, except during the brief period of the Spanish-American War when they took the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico from Spain. However, his final chapter, "Conclusions," is about America's conduct of the Iraq War. And he convincingly explains how that adventure in nation-building and its attempt to extract Iraqi oil and change the balance of Middle Eastern power was clearly an example of empire. An example ending in failure, chiefly because the U. S. failed to achieve the cooperation of tghe Iraqi people. The cooperation of the subject peoples, almost always secured through harsh methods, is one of the most important features of empire. In our current transnational world, though, Parsons writes, nations acting unilaterally to use whatever harsh means necessary to subdue a subject population for exploitation won't be tolerated, and so the age of empires is finally over.
Though one of my complaints is that the book isn't well-written, Parsons does keep an objective and level tone throughout, at least to the mid-20th century. While insisting that the Nazi occupation of France demonstrates all the features of traditional empires, he also blames the Franch people for being too passive. In fact, he claims during the war they acted exactly as Asian and African subject peoples in the previous century and that it made the German administration and exploitation of France that much easier.
All the time I was reading I kept in the back of my mind how imperial behavior relates to America. Parsons confirms my opinion that America has never sought empire, except during the brief period of the Spanish-American War when they took the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico from Spain. However, his final chapter, "Conclusions," is about America's conduct of the Iraq War. And he convincingly explains how that adventure in nation-building and its attempt to extract Iraqi oil and change the balance of Middle Eastern power was clearly an example of empire. An example ending in failure, chiefly because the U. S. failed to achieve the cooperation of tghe Iraqi people. The cooperation of the subject peoples, almost always secured through harsh methods, is one of the most important features of empire. In our current transnational world, though, Parsons writes, nations acting unilaterally to use whatever harsh means necessary to subdue a subject population for exploitation won't be tolerated, and so the age of empires is finally over.
April 27, 2011
Very scholarly, a wee bit dry in some places and admittedly I struggled with some of the subject matter, but that is of my own doing as I was not familiar with the Muslim Empire of Spain, nor British Kenya. The chapters were extremely long without transition so I had to set aside significant time chapter by chapter. So, as I found that the first six chapters were rather taxing, I thoroughly enjoyed the chapter regarding the Nazi occupation of France and the Epilogue regarding America in Iraq. Essentially empires fail because of abhorrent explotation of resources subjugation of the conquered. Eventually the conquered rise up and incidentally in the case of France who was once conquerors become the conquered. As well, the length of empires has shortened over time and although they may appear different in scope, they often carry the same foundations principally of extraction, manipulation, subjugation and unfortunately genocide. Although his analysis of Iraq is erudite, Parsons clearly leans to his liberal side in his unabashed criticism of Bush and to say that Iraq was an unmitigated failure is because of the human toll, but nonetheless premature as its future is still to be decided and by all accounts seems to becoming more secure. At any rate, the lessons here should not be ignored, but unfortunately likely will be regarding future conquests because humans are not good students of history.
September 15, 2012
I wanted to like this more than I did, but the writing style alternates too much between (1) absorbing, (2) smug, and (3) rambling. A more consistent presentation of a fascinating subject would have made me a happier man...but your own mileage may vary.
April 18, 2022
Rings painfully actual reminders
February 6, 2020
This book takes a really negative look at empires, as may be evident by the book's subtitle, but at least to me, this book proves too much in painting such a starkly negative view of empires. It may be true that all empires are exploitative and depend on the difference between internal citizens and external subjects whose wealth and resources are siphoned off for a corrupt elite, but if that is true for all empires, then it is also true of any socialist state. Indeed, the author's exploration of why it is that empires inevitably fail is simultaneously a discussion of why it is that any socialist state will also inevitably fail, and that is perhaps something that the author did not intend. Sometimes in proving our points we can prove too much by putting such a starkly negative and harsh view of how empires behave that we forget that such behaviors are also true of other states which similarly have corrupt and privileged elites and a great deal of oppressed masses yearning to be free of tyrannical and totalitarian rule but which may strenuously wish to avoid being called empires.
This book is a massive set of case studies on imperialism that demonstrate the author's hostility and his selectivity in choosing cases. The book begins with acknowledgements as well as an introduction that gives the author's firm intent to write about imperialism as much as possible from the point of view of the oppressed subaltern subjects of empire rather than from the more sanitized and favorable elites of the empire. After that the author provides seven cases of imperialism in world history, demonstrating in these cases that anyone can find themselves as the subject of empire and that the most suitable targets of empires are other empires who have already trained their populace in the ways of extraction and domination by corrupt elites. The author discusses the case of Roman Britian as evidence of an absence of Rome's civilizing mission (1), then turns to Muslim Spain and the problem that empires have when they blur the line of subject to the point where people escape extraction and make imperialism unprofitable (2). After that the author looks at the franchise empire that Spain set up in Peru through the conquistadors (3) and then the private and corporate empire building that took place in India under the East India company (4) through their successful efforts at tax farming. A chapter on Napoleonic Italy (5) provides an example of abortive empire building before the author looks at the short life of the New Imperialism in Kenya (6). After that the author discusses France under the Nazis as being a discussion of how brutal imperialism fails when it antagonizes everyone (7) as well as a look at the "end" of imperialism in the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan in a conclusion, after which there are the usual notes and an index.
It appears that the author is mainly interested in attacking the conservative or right-wing tendency for people who fared relatively well under empires to be nostalgic for imperial orders in the messy and corrupt aftermath of the fall of such empires. Yet it is not hard to see that an empire which did siphon the wealth of a nation but which actually did provide some sort of infrastructure in terms of education and roads and railroads and conversion from heathen worship to something at least not totally remote to biblical Christianity would be viewed by many (myself included) as better than corrupt rentier elites in a post-imperial world. We are not dealing with ideals here, but merely which unpleasant reality is to be preferred. The author, in his idealistic hostility towards empires and in his gleeful discussion of how they inevitably fall because they fail to achieve buy-in or eventually blur the lines between citizen and subject to the extent that they are no longer successful in their extractive mission, fails to realize that extraction and the politics of difference are at the heart of the leftist and socialist states that he generally avoids critiquing, and whose failures are equally relevant to our contemporary world as the nostalgic longing for empires past among right-wing Europeans and their (former) settler colonists.
This book is a massive set of case studies on imperialism that demonstrate the author's hostility and his selectivity in choosing cases. The book begins with acknowledgements as well as an introduction that gives the author's firm intent to write about imperialism as much as possible from the point of view of the oppressed subaltern subjects of empire rather than from the more sanitized and favorable elites of the empire. After that the author provides seven cases of imperialism in world history, demonstrating in these cases that anyone can find themselves as the subject of empire and that the most suitable targets of empires are other empires who have already trained their populace in the ways of extraction and domination by corrupt elites. The author discusses the case of Roman Britian as evidence of an absence of Rome's civilizing mission (1), then turns to Muslim Spain and the problem that empires have when they blur the line of subject to the point where people escape extraction and make imperialism unprofitable (2). After that the author looks at the franchise empire that Spain set up in Peru through the conquistadors (3) and then the private and corporate empire building that took place in India under the East India company (4) through their successful efforts at tax farming. A chapter on Napoleonic Italy (5) provides an example of abortive empire building before the author looks at the short life of the New Imperialism in Kenya (6). After that the author discusses France under the Nazis as being a discussion of how brutal imperialism fails when it antagonizes everyone (7) as well as a look at the "end" of imperialism in the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan in a conclusion, after which there are the usual notes and an index.
It appears that the author is mainly interested in attacking the conservative or right-wing tendency for people who fared relatively well under empires to be nostalgic for imperial orders in the messy and corrupt aftermath of the fall of such empires. Yet it is not hard to see that an empire which did siphon the wealth of a nation but which actually did provide some sort of infrastructure in terms of education and roads and railroads and conversion from heathen worship to something at least not totally remote to biblical Christianity would be viewed by many (myself included) as better than corrupt rentier elites in a post-imperial world. We are not dealing with ideals here, but merely which unpleasant reality is to be preferred. The author, in his idealistic hostility towards empires and in his gleeful discussion of how they inevitably fall because they fail to achieve buy-in or eventually blur the lines between citizen and subject to the extent that they are no longer successful in their extractive mission, fails to realize that extraction and the politics of difference are at the heart of the leftist and socialist states that he generally avoids critiquing, and whose failures are equally relevant to our contemporary world as the nostalgic longing for empires past among right-wing Europeans and their (former) settler colonists.
March 9, 2018
Really good stuff from my favorite professor in college. Best when in his places of expertise (Kenya and South Asia), weakest in description of modern US history.
March 14, 2022
I couldn't finish this. Parsons starts with an agenda and bends facts to fit that agenda. I'm sorry I bought this.
September 30, 2012
... This book covers Roman Britain, Muslim Spain, Spanish Peru, the East India Company, Napoleonic Italy, British Kenya and Hitler’s France. It is at times a heavy, meaty read and can take the reader into some winding back allies. Parsons addresses many historical themes. One not covered here but discussed extensively in the book is the differentiation of subjects and citizens and how the moving wispy line separating the castes prolongs or accelerates the decline of the conquering empire. This book destroys the myth of the civilizing empire along with the myth that the fall of an empire can be an act of quick, sterile, surgery. As damaging as empire is, perhaps more damaging are the systems created that condition people to life under empire. An empire can go bankrupt and choke on its own largess, but people conditioned to be subjects, slaves and slavers will seek out new masters to replace the vanquished.
Read the entire review here: http://boldbookworm.com/roe070412.html
~ BB
http://boldbookworm.com
Read the entire review here: http://boldbookworm.com/roe070412.html
~ BB
http://boldbookworm.com
June 19, 2016
The only book I have never been able to finish to the end. There is no clear purpose to this book - the author does not stick to his thesis and instead goes on unnecessarily long descriptions of seemingly irrelevant events and circumstances of different empires throughout history. Add to that the obvious bias the author has towards Roman civilization (essentially every civilization is compared to Ancient Rome) and you end up with a very disorganized, poorly written book.
July 4, 2010
The author made a strong case for his contention that "defenders and detractors alike employ abstract and romanticized perspectives that elide the brutal reality of subjugation." In his view, empires are ultimately unsustainable, as well as unjust.
January 27, 2015
I expected the strong anti-empire bias given the title of the book, but not the rampant editorializing and frequent digressions that buried the historical facts in a sea of opinionated dross. It was an un-enjoyable chore to read.
October 28, 2016
From Rome to the America in Iraq - Parsons examines how empires work from the bottom up, mostly to the detriment of the conquered. Well worth the read.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews