Are there historical examples of lesser nations nitpicking the great regional powers over asinine shit? I notice this happens a lot now with the US, and I'm wondering if this happened with the lesser polities who lived around the time of the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, etc.
Some examples:
>Why is atheism so weird in Rome? I worship Jupiter, but I'm just wondering.
>Those stupid Romans. Why do they eat their bread this way?
>Can you believe the manner in which those dumb Mongols braid their hair? lel they're so gay for it.
I think some historical examples of this would be pretty amusing.
>Can you believe how dumb the Mongols are for losing to a bunch of peasants in Hungary? lel nice "empire" you got there Genghis
literally always. Its not even just confined to states and nations, this is a human behavior that comes from a very primal form of humaness
>>446101
That's interesting. I subscribe to the theory that there's nothing new under the sun. I'm hoping someone can contribute examples from old writings or inscriptions.
>>446093
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
>>446093
Britain got ton of shittalking back in the day.
>>446093
Are there historical examples of empires that never collapsed? Because if there arent, your image is retarded.
>>446093
>Are there historical examples of lesser nations nitpicking the great regional powers over asinine shit?
There has been banter ever since Mesopotamia
There was always those who could not handle the banter. But those that could -- these were the ones that were the greatest.
>>446621
That's really not the point of the picture, though. Smack yourself on the mouth for me, moderately hard.
>>446093
>asinine shit
Yeah, obliging the Emperor of China to make opium legal and turning thousands into junkies, causing two Opium Wars is definitely nitpicking on CHina's part of the British Empire.
>>446621
it's a really strange picture anyway, since all of those countries' respective empires have already collapsed
>>446633
yeah, funny how the Goths sacked everything in their way BEFORE entering Rome or how the Ottomans subjugated every part of the eastern roman empire before entering constantinople.
>>446093
Sure; but so far the Americans have been the most insecure about it, and the whiniest.
>>446636
are you comparing civil unrest and a refugee crisis to organized military action (ie war)
>>446648
are you really claiming that the eurozone is a hegemonic empire, rather than a convenient economic alliance that prevents the euros from slitting each others' throats for the time being
dude what
>>446648
The instability happens just before the crash, and modern instability feels much different than nomads raiding you. You dont get to say "oh we arent being invaded, this the empire will last another century".
>>446648
Which there isn't right now, if you call America's "circumference" Western Europe and co.
>>446651
no, I 'm claiming that Europe is an american province.
>>446658
You are proving yourself to be quite the moron.
>>446658
You stupid
>>446658
You could potentially make that claim during the Cold War, but even then there were pretty significant exceptions (France) and West Germany was also seen as politically unreliable in an armed conflict. Now that it's over, there's even less cohesion, aside from meaningless shit like bombing ISIS
>>446093
> American
> Empire
>
>comparing your redneck shekel chasing barbarian nation to romans
arrogance is a sign of stupidity and we all know what happens with stupids
![voltaire[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/ZUGaQxK.png "voltaire[1].png")
>>446093
>United
>States
>of America
>>446665
>>446672
prove me wrong
>what is NATO?
>what were american military bases in Germany?
>who are the greatest trade partners of the u.s.a.?
>>446675
>pretty significant exceptions (France)
you mean the "non,non,non, we want our nukes, we secede from the military branch! come on, please let us join again!" France?
and even today, greatest trade partners.
They form part of the western world, the 1st world, who is the superpower then? It's retarded not to agree that the u.s. is an empire and its major provinces are in western europe.
>>446093
This reminds me of that scene from Rome where the Ptolemaic eunuch and tutor are trying to convince the reluctant general to take on Caesar. The old tutor says something like "In ten years Rome will be a forgotten ruin"
>>446686
>being allies means being servants
lol
USA is a province of Germany. Prove me wrong.
>what is NATO?
>what were german settlements in America
>who are the greatest trade partners of the Germany?
>>446686
trade is a thing. But if trade determined things like politics and defense affiliation the Hanseatic League wouldn't have fallen apart. And like I said, those american military bases were at the height of the Cold War, and more or less existed because it was expected that the West Germans would capitulate instantly in case of a Soviet attack.
>NATO
What is the Warsaw Pact? Imagine if the Americans sent troops into France after they elected a socialist. Part of the reason the Americans won the Cold War in the first place is they didn't have to constantly maintain armed strength and conduct counter-coups in their highest GDP allies. NATO as an organization was purely military in nature, and purely in response to the Russian empire. One of the major limiting factors cited by most "Cold War gone hot" analyses is the lack of coordination and cohesion between NATO member countries and the Russians, who more or less used the Poles and East Germans as feudal vassal armies.
Good troll, by the by.
That picture is very nitpicky OP
>>446698
are you serious?
NATO is an "alliance" formed with the INITIATIVE and under the military doctrine of the u.s. foreign policy. SO historically, it begins with the u.s.
Just because states fight for their interests, doesn't mean they succeed: Germany lsot two world wars and the 2 superpowers divided the land.
When you say "german settlements in America" do you mean Pennsylvania?
the answer to your third question is the u.s., but is irrelevant to the question of hegemony, because trade relations were established under the post-war status quo which was constructed by the u.s.. Germany's rebuilding was based on the Marshall Plan.
>>446686
The US has influence, to varying degrees, over her allies in the West but nothing like control. A province is something you directly administer. At the end of the day if France of the UK doesn't want to do something we want them to do, we have no means of forcing their hand.
This is why the US is often referred to as a "hegemon" rather than an "empire". Hegemons "rule" through a softer form of power than an Empire.
>>446713
Detroit doesnt exist. Nobody is protesting to enact inane policies in universities. There was no near civil war situation with ranchers any time soon. Stop eurosplaining.
>>446718
USA is an alliance formed with the initiative and under the military doctrine and support of France.
See, your arguments are retarded, which is why they are so easy to turn around.
>>446719
>a softer form of power
>nothing like control
two times they attempted to destabilise Italy, they succeeded the 2nd, with many dead.
I guess the concentration camps and the torture of political prisoners until 1974 in Greece counts as "soft control".
Wasn't Franco's Spain a u.s. ally?
And of course the germans could always reunite their land, it's just that they didn't want to.
>we have no means of forcing their hand
...except for the nukes they are keeping for you
>>446722
swag
>>446720
>eurosplaining.
>>446738
is it? I think he means it.
>>446718
For real? NATO was a continuation of the east verses west battle that had been going on since the imperial age. It was just more prevelent because communism.
>>446742
anybody who claims shit like >>446737 >>446722 and attacks the method of argument instead of the actual claim isn't being serious. This is 4chan, so that's more or less to be expected. It would make my day if he was serious though.
>>446737
There's no disputing that the US had literal puppet governments (of which Spain was not one, it was just an awkward position to clean up). What is disputable, however, is that the major NATO powers (IE the UK, France, The US, Canada, the Netherlands) were all independent of each other. If the US would have tried to launch a coup in the UK, there would have been global thermonuclear war.
>>446740
>that gettyimages on the fruit salad man
My sides are annexing Ukraine.
>>446750
Mate every single thing you wrote in this thread reads like a 2/10 bait. The France post makes more sense than yours.
>>446752
>literal puppet governments (of which Spain was not one
I didn't claim Spain was one.
I wasn't arguing about puppet governments.
But what is come to be known as "soft power" is achieved through blatant force. The balance was/is kept through subjugation.
Rationalising it to a form of science (international politics) is just the way of the superpower to justify itself.
>>446759
lol. i really like how you ignored the counterpoint i wrote to that france post >>446706
keep on keepin' on
>>446767
It depends. I would argue that US foreign policy being counter-domino as it were like most of the Cold War isn't a really valid way of describing international power balance anymore. "Subjugation" takes a great deal of forms, but coercion is not always the threat of violence.
>Rationalising it to a form of science (international politics) is just the way of the superpower to justify itself
Is that why that same "science" of international politics decries the United States as "imperialist" or "warmongers" every time they use military force?
Obviously the American government uses the framework of international relations to justify its actions, but so does every other nation in the world. See: Russian annexation of Crimea, for example.
>>446798
>Is that why that same "science" of international politics decries the United States as "imperialist" or "warmongers" every time they use military force?
It doesn't decry it at all. At the end of the day, the lesson is one: might makes right and what the u.s. is doing every state would be doing if in the position.
Which is viewing Power throughout history as something moving independently of the developments of the world.
>>446782
that wasn't him. that was me. I don't know what the Hanseatic League is. But I will say this: trade benefits the economy. Of course, it is not the sole factor to take under consideration in history, that's why I didn't exclusively concentrate on that and lsited it among two other things.
>>446782
>this fucking thread
There are 4 people posting, 2 on each side, and it turned into a free for all, with friendly fire more common than actual advances. War is hell.
>>446828
Maybe I used too many big words. To be honest most of /his/ barely reads much better than a Cracked article, so I'm not sure this is where I should be unloading my autism
>>446839
>Maybe I used too many big words
don't be so arrogant. I refuted based on arguments, not memes. The conversation is going well I 'd say.
>>446839
I read plenty, just not in english, and thus I find it hard to argue in english. Ho aкo дoйдeш y Люлинo чe ти cчyпим глaвaтa мoмчeeee.
Regardless, since the argument is about one person being silly, and others are being silly just to show him his silliness, and then they confuse each other's silly silliness as genuine silliness... you get the drill.
>>446621
American empire m8.
>>446852
>USA
>Empire
You're a hegemony m8
>>446865
because I don't know the Hanseatic League? I admit my lackings. Here is your chance to teach me something.
And if I don't know some things, I compensate by knowing others, it's not that I 'm completely ignorant either.
>>446865
Well my english is better than my russian, so I doubt I'd fare better. I'm with the balkan slavs.
And I still thin, without being sure, that we arent arguing against each other here, more like we are confused. My arguments so far have been, in a simplified form:
>no empire lasts forever, so the OP is arrogant and silly
>other empires have lasted longer than the USA has
>the USA isnt even a proper empire, although they did attempt it after the world wars
>USA efforts to assume control of states around the world have had mixed results at best, and even their successful attempts are slipping away (Japan, for example, with its recent rise in nationalism and military buildup)
>NATO and various other anti-Russia organizations are alliances, not USA+its colonies, and while the USA has the strongest vote, it isnt a master leading slaves
>USA has many internal problems and saying collapse is impossible isnt fair, especially considering the hatred between south and north, and that Texas declaring independence is even a popular meme there, spoken out casually
The mention I made of France, which I guess started this, was that the argument that modern Europe is a colony of the USA, founded with the help of and shaped by the USA, can be returned, by just replacing a couple of words, to USA is a colony of France, founded with the help of and shaped by France. It was a joke, showing that the original post is so basic and simple, that it can be turned back and the person would have to argue against himself to disprove it.
I didnt mean it, I meant that this is exactly as stupid as the original claim, and exactly as much a patched up network of half truths.
>>446887
I'm good. Take some initiative and teach yourself. Frankly reading your post regarding power as some sort of independent entity in foreign relations sounded like you hadn't really bothered with conventional history and analysis, and there's not much point in "teaching" (inasmuch as one can do on an imageboard) you anything if you're thinking of history in strange paradigms like that.
>>446911
did you even understand my post?
I said exactly that Power should not be regarded as something indpendent of the developments of the world, but in the context of history.
>NAME AN EMPIRE THAT NEVER COLLAPSED
>America
>THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY STILL EXIST
Yes niggers, they still exist because they never collapsed.
>>446929
you can't tell until the end of history
>>446939
Then the entire debate is pointless?
>>446929
Roman, Ottoman, etc empires lasted several hundred years of greatness, then collapsed.
The American Empire hasnt lasted even a hundred years, thus its unreasonable to assume it will last much longer than the old ones, if as much.
You can even argue it ended with the Cold War ending, as all of its allies have been moving away from them, as seen with the minimal support of American military action in the Middle East, while just a couple of decades ago everyone would be joining them.
>>446909
Fair enough. I was talking about /his/ in general, though. Remember this is an anonymous imageboard, I had no idea which posts were yours.
Most of your points make sense, but I'd like to point out that Japanese nationalism is actually in the interest of the US since they won't have to spend money on military bases there (or as much money, rather) if the Japanese militarize again, regardless of nationalist rhetoric (nationalists are easily manipulated anyway). Also the Americans hate each other, but the Civil War was a long time ago. The Vendee caused a ton of problems for the French revolutionaries and Napoleon, but that passed too. Same for the Catholics in England (Fawkes et al, Mary of Scots). Every country has issues like this.
The thing about the Texan independence meme is that Texas was originally part of Mexico, but revolted, became independent, and joined the US after a fair bit of political controversy from both major American political parties at the time (who did not want another slave state and a potential Mexican war).
It's certainly not impossible for the US to collapse. It's more likely it'll just decay anyway like most empires.
>>446923
Sure. Nobody was talking about that though.
>>446944
not at all. Otherwise there would be no point in studying history. Which is what all powers want from the people; to think that the current status quo is eternal.
>>446953
you 're not the same person I responded. I bet they left the thread.
>>446969
yeah. I just take everyone as a different person on 4chan unless they quote a post as support.
Then again >arguing on 4chan
>>446953
>Japanese nationalism is actually in the interest of the US since they won't have to spend money on military bases there
Yes, but they would also have less control over Japan. It seems impossible today that Japan would move against American interests, but political climate changes all the time, and in that region there are quite a few big players - Japan, China, Russia. America really wants Japan as its own base of operations to control the region, and losing it also means losing Korea, since its protection is no longer guaranteed.
>Also the Americans hate each other, but the Civil War was a long time ago.
Nowadays its mostly about the hard southerners, who are real men and do all the work, and those northern intellectuals who just consume what the south cooks up and write books and boycott universities.
This is a real divide, or at least so my American friends tell me, greater than similar moods in England or the comparable rivalry between German provinces.
>>446953
>texan independence meme
Some people do take it seriously, and everyone at least considers it seriously, as Texas is responsible for so much of the government budget. I am told the state makes more money than its allowed to spend, literally funding other less productive states. Of course it wont be allowed to leave the USA, even if everyone agreed to, under military threat. Thats not the point. The point is that people seriously consider it, and there are arguments for it.
Just because such arguments for it exist, and just because its being considered as something more than a joke, already makes it a dangerous precedent. I too dont think it will happen, it doesnt make sense for the USA government to allow it, but some time in the future some division can be made to ensure the economy remains strong, then further division down the line, and over time the USA can become like a union of a few smaller federations, some clearly more powerful than others, etc. So decay, yes.
>>446974
well, that's why people call you retarded
>>446706
>What is the Warsaw Pact? Imagine if the Americans sent troops into France after they elected a socialist. Part of the reason the Americans won the Cold War in the first place is they didn't have to constantly maintain armed strength and conduct counter-coups in their highest GDP allies
Nigger they've funded assassins to kill communist party members in Italy because they were leading the polls in the 80's.
>>446975
Korea would never ever ever try to kick the Americans out. The Koreans like the Americans after all, considering the whole Korean War thing and how the North has been preparing for 50 years to wipe out Seoul with all sorts of NBC and conventional weaponry (and they definitely can).
Japan would also never withdraw from the Security Treaty. They may renegotiate its terms, but they understand that they would not survive against China if they were alone, and they have no allies in Asia (partly thanks to their awful conduct and multiple human rights abuses during WW2, partly thanks to being an American ally in a mostly Communist/nonaligned area). I don't think the Americans particularly care about how much control they have over Japan so long as they don't cause any international incidents. The American form of empire is fairly efficient in that way.
Where are the Americans you talk to live? These divisions have been present since the Revolutionary War, but it's hardly as serious as it was in 1865, when the economy of the South was at stake. That's a very interesting POV, I wonder what they'd say about this chart: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#red-vs-blue
Texas is not responsible for much of the government's budget, just so you know. It does make a profit, but it's less profitable than, say, California, New Jersey or Massachusetts. The people who seriously consider things like Jade Helm are, in essence, idiots. Texas barely even has any oil left, aside from shales.
If anything, the American government has become more centralized since WW2.
You have interesting friends.
>>446996
Aha.
Assassins are completely different from armed occupation, as the Soviets did in 1956 in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring, in Poland during Solidarity, etc.
Ironically enough, the Soviets had a much worse track record with political assassinations and regime change than NATO. The US fucked with South America so hard that it indirectly fucked them over, the ripples were so big. And all of that was perpetrated by Eisenhower's Secretary of State and his brother in the CIA for their law firm's client United Fruit Company.
Not to mention that Italy is one of those neat countries that is almost worthless economically, politically and militarily, but occupies a pretty critical strategic position in Europe.
>>447017
>Assassins are completely different
morals
>Italy is one of those neat countries that is almost worthless economically, politically and militarily, but occupies a pretty critical strategic position in Europe.
you 're confusing it with greece
>>446621
British?
>>447071
Joking?
>>446621
Rome didn't collapse.
It metastasized.
>>447055
morals have no place in international politics.
>>446999
South Koreans have been getting closer to China lately
They have been turning into a "Neutral" Country for a while now and China is getting sick and tired of NK being NK and views S Korea as the better Partner
South Korea isn't going to become Anti American anytime soon nor is it going to become a Chinese puppet but Americas influence on it isn't the same as it was during the Cold War
>>446685
Dank as fuck
Most passive-aggressive thread of the week.
>>447396
Got to a /phil/ or /rel/ thread to see dank shitposting and really butthurt fedoras. On all sides
>>446621
China
yank got butthurt lmao
>be american
>eat at KFC
>go outside
>eat lead
can't make this up
9/11 best day of my life
losing Vietnam to farmers with AK's kekistan
Oswald was innocent
>>446718
NATO fell into lines with West Euro. foreign policy, it is even based on a 1948 agreement which the US wasn't a member of; it's the US which decided to join in on a European initiative with Nato.
Countries have convergent interests, and the US does have quite a lot of weight in Western Europe, but it's far from the level of influence you seem to be suggesting, and it's not even the most influential power in the region; Germany is the regional "superpower", which impulses and influences all policies in the region, not the US anymore.
>>446621
>all empires collapse except the ones that haven't collapsed yet!
shiggydyggy tautology
