This is one of the reasons I think the original Star Wars Expanded Universe handled the downfall of the Galactic Empire way better than the new canon has. In the original EU, the Empire doesn't fall overnight. Killing the Emperor and destroying the second Death Star is a tremendous blow to them, and helps to finally tilt the scales between the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance more towards even terms, rather than the rebels being the desperate underdogs. But the Empire was still very much a threat. You had several high-ranking admirals and Grand Admirals, Grand Moffs, dark Jedi Executors, and the head of Imperial Intelligence all try to take control of the Empire that was left. There was tons of infighting, and the Empire split into multiple factions, each led by warlords who either had enough direct control over Imperial resources to hold onto their power, or who formed strategic alliances with other Imperial leaders that led to alliances that were stronger than the sum of their parts. And in the end, the Empire didn't even die. Once the infighting between factions died down and the survivors finally reorganized themselves, they had changed enough in ideology that they were able to form a peace treaty with the New Republic. They finally became a government that, while still fairly totalitarian, could no longer be considered "evil," as such. They were even able to form lasting alliances and share resources with the New Republic in the long-term. Overall, it just felt like a much more realistic way for things to end for the Empire than "They just changed their name and came back way later with even bigger superweapons and star destroyers and did the exact same thing they failed at before."
Uh, no..? If you bothered to look outside the movies, the empire was not immediately destroyed in the actual canon. (No matter how badly you wanted it, the EU was never truly canon just because George Lucas let random people write books.) The First Order is called that because it is the first exemplary union of the empire’s remnants. Up to that point, the empire had split amongst itself and had constant infighting. So there is a very natural progression that simply doesn’t appear in the movies, because that isn’t the focus of theme or story
@@WalkinStereotype The First Order gets its name from this line "It's time to start over. That is our first order. To begin again. And to get it right, this time." and nothing else. It is also not the first remnant to unify.
@@WalkinStereotype And in the Disney canon, Palpatine made sure that the Empire would not last long past his death, believing that an Empire that couldn't keep him alive did not deserve to exist.
"Even the Nazis had a PR department" That's an understatement, they coined half the terms we use for PR and basically created the modern mechanisms we use today for it by both governments and private entities.
No, not really. They mostly just copied the Britts and the Americans there as they only realized its importance due to how lacking the German empire was in that department in WW1 (Their propaganda at predicting what the entente would do to Germany and Austria-Hungary if they lost to them, was if anything, underestimating just how far the entente wanted to go in screwing them over.), and even trying as hard as they could, their propaganda was still not as heavy handed or effective.
Trevak: well that's why he shouldn't rule any longer. He's dead. As a story I think the Emperor of Man is a great villainous leader figurehead, inspiring blind devotion for sod all. Personally I would never be able to follow such a tyrannical system.
@Hornyshark yes they were khans, but that's like saying a kingdom was fractured and a bunch of people with lands in that kingdom call themselves kings... The empire was fractured after the khan's death... As for Alexander's empire, it was fractured in 4-5 kingdoms ruled and fought over by his mother, wife and generals
Lullaby Dragon my idea is like a Mega corporation that peacefully take over the world to srpead their good philosophies, but then the Reading may ask: is this really good?
Probably the thing most people overlook about historical empires - aside from a few exceptions, wholesale destruction and oppression of local populations was generally used as a last ditch retaliation to be used against those who consistently rebelled or resisted. Even a brutal empire like the Assyrians was more or less willing to leave countries be with their power structures more or less in tact as long as they paid tribute and submitted to Assyrian demands. The brutality and war crimes of many empires is usually a means of sending a message: if you cooperate, you live, if you resist, you die horribly. There are exceptions obviously (the empire Nazi Germany was attempting to build is the obvious example), but most empires have usually been aware of the fact that it's easier to peacefully annex a nation as a tributary state rather than to just march in and slaughter everyone and/or try to forcefully suppress their culture.
I kind of agree, with the tweek that conquerors have had a tendency to focus on the Political power of their opponent rather than the Economics, and therefore gladly ravaged or destroyed the Capital of the opponent - as a symbol of that state and rulers power - and their ruling elite. Alexander burned the Persian capital, the Romans destroyed Carthage and Corinth to make an example, the Mongols destroyed Babylon for the same reason. I think Economics in the old days seemed more like a question of who controlled the largest areas of farmed lands, not who controlled the centers of commerse - because cities could be rebuilt or moved.
@@54tisfaction many of those examples are more examples of cases where conquerors decided to make an example of their enemies. Rome was more than willing to peacefully annex other territories, or at least leave their ruling class in place in instances where there was not heavy resistance. Carthage was an old rival that they made an example of. Similarly, Alexander didn't burn down every nation he conquered, he mainly just made an example of the Persians, the ones who resisted the most. Also, that's a pretty narrow view of ancient economics. Controlling raw materials like gold, iron, lumber, etc was extremely important, as was craftsmanship. Farming would give local power, but not necessarily international economic power (although having adequate farmland was obviously important for sustaining the population). Also there are examples of cities that built wealth more on the basis that they were situated on key trade routes (many of which couldn't easily be re-routed). There are numerous examples of ancient societies who built their power based on trade, whether that was controlling key resources or having access to major trade routes (either major ports, key points along rivers, or midpoints between two powers that need each others resources).
@@thehulkster9434 I get what you mean, and am not arguing against your points about economics. But my point was that those aspect was not neceessarily the focus (or what mattered) to some of the more agressive (and famous) conquerors of these battling empires. The prime focus was at first always to conquer your opponent and destroy their resistance. After a while, when the new rule was established, the Romans re-built Carthage after all, and Corinth too, because by then economic and social matters could be prioritized. Making a Fantasy "antagonistic" empire should reflect that. It does not simply fall into the category "evil" by sacking towns on campaigns (it could be a mistake, poor control of the soldiery, or some such...), or "good" by leaving great centers of civilization to prosper even if they have the power now.
*TIME STAMPS for "How to Worldbuild: Evil Empires":* @01:34 - Part 1: Forms of Control; @05:33 - Part 2: Conquest and Expansion; @09:37 - Part 3: Evil-ness; @12:12 - Part 4: The Fall; @13:18 - Conclusion.
Are you talking about the Foundation pentalogy? The Empire there was good mainly in the sense that it lessened conflict. I don't believe its ever mentioned as explicitly 'good.'
The reason why the term "evil empire" is not tautological is because in fiction, there is such a thing as a benevolent, or at least indifferent empire. Often the protagonists will be part of an empire which is presented as good, or simply not referenced much, and these are clearly distinct fictional entities from "evil empires". Empires can often inspire ideas of loyalty, pride and honour that characters fighting for a republic or simply for themselves simply don't, which is why authors use them for the good guys.
@Wind Rose True, but that applies in both republics and monarchies, which, actually, who decides a country is the mother or father land? Is it just a matter of the preference of whoever starts saying it?
I think the case of the Galactic Empire was that it was largely the Emperor’s personal project. He ran it from the start, he centralized it almost entirely on him and with no clear line of succession, it was bound to tear apart. This was all done because the Emperor never intended to die. He, in hubris, was going to live forever until his apprentice slayed him. Then once he did die, the Empire basically collapsed because he was dead, Vader was dead, many of the higher up officers were dead and each other high-ranking officer was trying to hold onto whichever piece he held, which is how it was designed.
@@saudade7842 yeah, they're shit by virtue of being seats of imperialism, idk if this person understands that you need to conquer people to form an empire
Demon Hunter they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen I think that is a oversimplistic view on the topic; especially when we people in the modern world directly benefit from Imperialism. Globalization would not have been possible without Imperialism. A universal ban on slavery and even the establishment of concepts like universal human rights would not have been possible without Imperialism. Even the spread and proliferation of democratic values are bec. of Imperialism. I was born into a country where our tribal ancestors were killing each other in tribal warfare before the arrival of the Spanish.
@@Gadget-Walkmen As if small, unassuming 'anti-imperial' states don't use their organized militaries to subjugate their own people. All states trade in violence and we, collectively as a species, decided that the security and continuity gained from allowing this was worth the trade. Imperialism is the default mode of governance for post-agriculture mankind.
@@Mae_Dastardly "There is a chance that, perhaps, if we are willing to examine the Siths' positions in relation to absolutes, with a certain frequency, they'll be more inclined to deal in absolutes than not" here I fixed that for you now Obi Wan is still a Jedi.
The Empire didn't intend to go around blowing up its own planets and taxpayers with the Death Star. They intended to use it to coerce rebellious planets into surrendering. They thought they could just place it in orbit above any planet and the people would capitulate in terror. If this was successful, then it might actually cut costs since they wouldn't need to maintain an enormous army to occupy planets. Edit: Also, the Empire fell apart relatively quickly. So it's not like it's supposed to be a depiction of a successful and stable state.
I think he was just making it an example of how even though the empire fell, the ideas continued on in the First Order, not saying it is an empire just a continuation.
Although the pure evilness of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars may seem ridiculous, it is credible since the empire functions under the whim of the self-centered megalomaniac emperor Palpatine, who kills his own citizens because under Sith philosophy when people cease to be useful then they are to be disposed of. Because of that wasteful governing mentality, the empire suffered tremendous setbacks when the death star was destroyed during battle and he still didn't care but waste more money on a second superweapon. After his death, many imperials expressed disgust over how the emperor mishandled the empire's resource for his own personal goals.
The super weapons were also an expression of sith ideology. The sith hate sharing power so the more centralized it can be, the better. Theoretically, with a death star you only need the deathstar crews loyalty to dominate the galaxy, which are significantly fewer people than you need to maintain a galaxy spanning armada
@RageTyrannosaurus The legion was not sexist, they were realists. They operate under traditional gender rules that maximize the effectiveness of men and women within their society. This is how great societies were built. Keeping women as essentially slaves kept them out of the battlefield and allowed the legion to control reproduction. Having alive women available for breeding is important for building a society, especially given how few people were left alive in the wasteland.
@Somali Kid I said "another" downside, I neither implied that it was the only downside nor the greatest. I was adding to your list. Edit: By your list I am referring to your criticism of their disdain for technology. This is in addition to other negative aspects of the Legion identified in other comments.
It's worth mentioning that some historical empires would conscript soldiers from recently conquered lands and ship them off to other territories/provinces in order to better prevent uprisings.
"The mongols tried invading Vietnam." China, Mongolia, France, Japan, America, Cambodia, China again... who has not tried to invade Vietnam and *eventually* been overthrown?
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko We did invade Laos and Cambodia though. Additionally, there was no North and South distinction between Vietnam, that's just what we call them. ADDITIONALLY, the US also brutalized many Southern Vietnamese sympathizers. We invaded Vietnam (we also didn't like the Southern government either, nobody did).
Hyperion Technically, the Republic of Vietnam ( or South Vietnam ) was born in 1955 ( recognized internationally ) while the North was officially called Democratic Republic of Vietnam ( born in 1954 ). All of it is written in the Geneva Accord. They were supposed to unite thanks to elections, but the south withdrew from them. Therefore, the North invaded the south to unify the country by force. Also, Cambodia and Laos were invaded because the Vietcongs crossed the borders of said countries to hide, regroup and counterattack. So, they were basically the playground of both sides. Not to mention that Vietnam invaded Cambodia soon after. So...
Only after the Golden Bull of 1356 where the pope and emperor had their powers reduced and the prince-electors gained more power. After this the HRE can be considered a monarchial confederacy.
@@biliminsrlar5752 Almost every country in Europe had Roman land. The Catholic monarchs also could be considered holy and empires. Spain and Portugal would've been considered Holy Roman Empires for these reasons ontop of both actually speaking Latin ontop of Spanish and Portuguese. But they are all overshadowed by one man. *The Pope*
Theres an elemental thing about conquered people especially in times when patriotism not yet existed: "Tell a man that he has a new master and he will shrug, but tell a man that his new master wants a fifth of his annual income and the man will go find his pitchfork." Warmaster Horus Lupercal Primarch of the Luna Wolves Legion Favoured Son of the Emperor
>An absolute ruler sounds great on paper and can make for an intimidating villain. >TheHolyEmperorOfMankind.iconography Careful James. I sense heresy in your video.
Something worth mentioning is that Empire's often get away with crimes they commit by spreading complicity in the crimes as widely as possible. Many otherwise good people participate in the running of Empires because it is too late to make a different choice, fear of the Empire is good, but fear of the consequences of the fall of an Empire is better. You also could have expanded on the idea that Empire's aren't even usually a single polity, but usually a collection of subject allies, occupied territories, the metropole (core homeland) and often colonies of the core population outside the metropole to make the occupied territories of the empire easier to control. Empire's like the Persian Empire, the Athenian Empire, the Alexandrian Empire in Greece and the early Republican Roman Empire were mainly based on subject allies that were autonomous but obligated to provide troops and money.
To some degree, yes. But he didn't just strip away the Achemenid Empire. He studied their political structure and incorporated it into his own, just with his people in place. This is one reason the Diadochi were able to establish dynasties after his death. They were already installed into an existing power structure that allowed for a degree of autonomy, they just exercised more than was originally intended.
@@Gadget-Walkmen or what? You're going to tell me that I'm stupid? The thing is empires may start as somebody conquering something but if empire lives long enough (and it's not a see empire like England was for example) such methods become stupid and all the conquering stuff becomes just this. Moving further, finding tribes that don't have real states yet, building infrastructure for trading with them, helping them fight their enemies, including their authority in the chain of empire's authority, welcoming their aristocracy in empire's aristocracy and so on and so on. Heck, even when empire does conquer some land do you think that people living there would be all killed or something? Well that's not true or else empire of Napoleon would just kill people in places he conquered not you know esteblish his law over territory and connect it to the France. The only empire ever that established wiping out people that lived at the territory they wanted as a goal was the Third Reich. And look where they are now. And that's the end of our conversation because I don't even think that you would read my whole commentary. Have a nice day
Ashy Roy Or you could just trade with them? Like a normal human being? Rather than forcing them into an arbitrary hierarchy for your own wealth and collective ego? You do know that is an option right?
My advice is to recognize the reality that there is no such thing as an “Evil Empire” (I hate using that term) just individuals and states acting in their own best interest regardless of whether that be good or bad and what others consider moral. If your writing a fictional empire then you should definitely keep that in mind. Also because you mentioned it, SIEG ZEON #zeondidnothingwrong
The slavery, genocide, brutality and rape they committed on a regular basis would suggest otherwise. So would their constant internal backstabbing and general racism. Not to mention their habit of parading defeated leaders as a means of humiliation before slaughtering them.
Most societies view what they find acceptable as being "Good" and what they find unacceptable as "Bad". Slavery is an example, pretty much the moment agriculture was discovered it became worthwhile to use slaves. From that point until within a Century or so ago (in the West at least) slavery is outlawed and seen as totally evil. Yet for the greatest part of human history most accepted it. You had states with slave soldiers and slave civil servants. A Slave's life could be horrific or it could be better than the life of the poor free citizen. Slaves who gained their freedom often went on to own their own slaves. Slavery sometimes had a racial element while other times it was just the result of losing a war or being taken by raiders. So in effect you can have multiple competing forces, all who see themselves as the good guys and the others as the baddies. Sometimes there are no good guys. An evil Empire will not see itself as evil. Instead it is bring stability and civilization to a world in need. Peace after a period of endless war. Reducing the number of entities robbing for taxes down to one. Bringing in the rule of law. Imposing the will of God / the Gods. Holding the forces of chaos at bay. Holding open the trade routes. Sure they need to brutally murder the odd person or two here and there but it's all for a just cause.
@Biao Long they were pretty racist actually.For Romans every Barbarian/non Roman was undeveloped nations that would one day be conquered by glorious Rome.Han Dynasty calles Romans their equals while Romans saw them as just another barbarian nation.
StarShade they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
MarvAlice they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen 1st of all no. That is simplification to the point 9f dishonesty. 2nd of all, the act of being an empire does not necessitate imperialism. To be an empire you simply need to have multiple cultures under your preview. The federal government of the United states is an empire by virtue of it having authority over the states. The European Union is an empire for the same reason. China is _absolutely_ an empire. Assuming that the only tool an empire has is violence is just that. An assumption. Most empires expand because people _want_ to be a part of them. Saying they are always unethical is basically saying government is always unethical. And that's not even getting into the act of unpacking the idea that imperialism is always evil which is a whole other can of worms we can open.
@@marvalice3455 hm yes all those are empires and all those enact imperialist policies. The EU has policies which could be described as economic imperialism (lower import taxes on raw materials as opposed to finished products etc). The USA is famous for toppling regimes and installing right-wing groups to power when it is convenient to them, that is if they want something from the region. However, I do not understand how imperialism is not evil. While it benefits the economic system, there is no doubt that it hinges on the subjugation and exploitation of vulnerable people. Therefore it is morally reprehensible. I am not looking to change your opinion, I only wish to hear it.
@@Amerisal I won't argue that imperialism has been mis used and caused incredible pain. I feel this is self evident. However, I will argue that this was unnecessary. That it _could_ have been different. The USA may misuse imperialism in Latin America and Asia, but what about the states? These are their own cultures with their own government which are beholden to the federal government. The EU is nominally all voluntary. Imperialism is a very powerful tool that can do a great amount of harm, but that doesn't mean it always does that harm
@@Amerisal imperialism is the dominant form of government most of the world has lived under through out all of human history. If you believe imperialism is evil then you believe civilization itself is evil. Every major ethnic group in the world today, and all of their advances have been the result of imperialism. If you reject that idea then go live in a hunt with 30 other people and murder 80% of all people you encounter (yes the death rate for inter tribal warfare is worse than world war two).
Interact with the children of rich people for any length of time and you'll realize why empires fall. Empires, and wealth, are often built by greatness. Greatness creates privilege and privilege creates weakness. Among the rich this manifests as the weakened predecessors eroding the fortune accrued by their ancestors while among empires it manifests as a the decadent upper caste dismantling and destroying the empire their once great ancestors built. This is why smart rich people are careful about what they give their children and smart empires force their upper caste through mandatory military service. See Rome's Cursus Honorum.
Damn. Sounds like Murica. The WWII generation boomed the economy and the boomers busted it. Now us young people are put through the neoliberal hunger games.
Privilege can create weakness, like never struggling leading to never developing coping mechanisms for stress. But it can also create strength. Lack of head injuries and lead poisoning and being trained by privately hired tutors can lead to a great intellect. We have seen empires built by people from harsh lives, like Ghengis Khan. But we have also seen empires built by people who came from privileged backgrounds, like Alexander The Great. Also, the Cursus Honorum was in place when Rome was a Republic and it collapsed before it became an Empire. I think what you are thinking of is Regression to the mean. Sometimes, Greatness is a fluke that you cannot reproduce in the next generation. www.statisticshowto.com/regression-mean/
virgilio moncada they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen, not necessarily. A well managed empire will be mutually beneficial to all its members, so states will elect to join an empire. This often occurs at the conception of an Empire, but it can happen later on as well. Military and economic security are big selling points for joining an Empire. Empires open up trade routes and cover a wider area than the state itself, so a famine or drought is not as big a risk, and trade is more profitable. And empires tend to have larger standing armies, so are less vulnerable from attack from their neighbours. This means that empires lead to higher wealth, and better communication, which increases standard of life, education, and technology. Empires have benefits, and are NOT always evil.
@@matthewparker9276 Holy Roman Empire wasn't exactly doing all that much imperialism, Rome was but the benefits far outweighed the costs, and many other examples I cannot be bothered to remember as of right now.
@@HellsingMayCry I'm pretty sure the gauls weren't getting raided by the neighboring tribe every two weeks while under Roman Rule. It not like the Roman got out of their way to opress their population in the worse way possible. Also, wealth.
Slavery can be anything between Roman slavery where sometimes slaves were better off than free plebs to 19th century American style slavery or spartan helot system. These are few examples you can research on your own easily. If you cant wait for possible video.
Definitly. Slaves were wery different between empires, in rome they weren't free but atill treated like a human. In ottoman they used to create armies, harems and usually part of palace. Western slavery was more like treating those people like animals etc
"imagine if there was a terrorist cell in houston texas and the american military destroyed all of the south with a barrage of nuclear missiles" pretty based ngl
The thing is that with the Galactic Empire in Starwars, Palpatine did not set up a line of succession if in the case he were to die. He thought that if his subjects could not protect him they did not deserve to have the Empire, which is why realistically it would (and did in legends), break up into a bunch of smaller nations
If the Empire was under better management, then probably the Death star would pretty much never be used... like at all... just shoot an uninhabited planet to say "hey you! Dont f&@* with us got it!" And then tell the people "see our enemies don't f&!* with us, so y'all are safe!"
You mean like how the USA used the nukes on uninhabited islands and told the Japanese "Don't fuck with us, got it!", and then the Japanese surrendered?
No really any fault of his own especially considering he couldn't say announce a general as the next heir because he was betrayed multiple times and the only dude he trusted was dead
@@alanpennie8013 he did marry and had several concubines as well; his harem just murdered one another's would be heirs; his heir apparent was sidelined and controlled by one of his generals
It was worse than that. It wasn't JUST that he died young, but that literally everybody else on his literal list of people to succeed him died as well, leaving a bunch of ultra-powerful and experienced warlords with their own loyal formations having no unifying thing they could all agree to be loyal to. And while a few of those deaths are suspicious it does sort of underline how Alex gets more of a bad rep than he deserves.
I disagree about Star Wars, destroying a planet using a Death Star is noting more then burning a big ancient city (but on a galactic scale) Rebell and we put you all to the sword, hence it is in your best intrest to be loyal to the empire, and ENSURE your kin/neighbors/frends are to. Most empire is built on that philosophy, but I agree its totaly stuipd evil to break your word like Tarkin did, becuse the Empire must also be merciful toward the peoepl that do submite.
@@georgethompson913 There were also Millions of businesses, taxpayers and farms that went up in smoke. Alderaan had trade agreements, and deals with other planets as well, what kind of effect would it have on the galactic economy?
Onsen tamago eggs are great. Poached, but in water that has been cooled down, so kind of like sous vide without the extra appliance. Raw eggs are great for dipping noodles or thinly-sliced beef.
@4:07 That map of the Aztec Empire IS AWSOME!!! Where did you find it? I looked EVERYWHERE for a map of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica with that much detail and couldn't find one to save my life!
An Empire isn't inherently evil unless you believe that universal enfranchisement and the myth of equality are moral goods, which they aren't. What even is evil anyway? Just a word we use to justify violence against people whose view of reality and government is different than ours.
The empire in starwars did actually have some degree of 'non pure evilness" ie. People join them because they bring order to places like the outer ring and put a stop to alot of crime so humans do have a reason to join some.
@Dottoman he didn't (at least it isn't known) because there were almost none alive, and those who were were in hiding (I think he also had a servant dragon)
5:40 The Mongol Empire lasted from 1206-1294, longer than the Soviet Union. Their collapse just looks "immediate" from our perspective centuries later.
Valyria was not an empire though, it was a "freehold" in which Martin describes the state running in a similar fashion to the Roman Republic, except of course all the senate had dragons. Valryia also despite it's name was an economy that ran on slavery, true citizenship and quasi-democratic rights were reserved for those of the valyrian bloodline. But there was no central authority, some families were more powerful than others as the Targaryens are described as being of a "minor" family within valyrian politics before the Doom and Aegon's conquest.
"Even the fucking Nazis had a PR department" , that's the best advice I've ever gotten. Also watch out 'Merica we the "Digiorno Empire " have Necromancers.
In my worldbuilding, there is an empire that is completely destroyed, and an empire that is fractured. The empire that was destroyed was taken down after centuries of stagnation and a master planner subverting the military to deliver half a millennium's worth of revenge in the course of one day. The empire founded in the aftermath lasted almost 500 years after that under their "immortal" ruler, who turned out not to be immortal. After his death, his chosen heir was fought for the throne, and one of the other heirs was revealed to have been responsible for his death. There were three heirs, and one took a large chunk of the military to carve out his own fiefdom, one was presumed dead only to come back with legions of genetically-engineered monsters, and the chosen heir reorganized the empire as a constitutional monarchy, declaring himself "protector of the realm".
This just kinda shows you don’t have a very good understanding of the nuances of politics or history. An empire isn’t anymore evil than any other form of government. Evil is a fairly subjective term for starters. Evil deeds are done in the name of empire but empires have also provided security, stability and help for people. How many times did the grain from Egypt prevent a famine in Gaul or Italy or Greece in the Roman Empire. How many lives were saved from nomadic raiders by the Sassanid empire. While many may die in forming and maintaining one. the organization and consolidation of resources that happens plus rule of law and social stability normally out ways that for the people living in it. Empires are also usually pretty accepting of foreign people as long as you pay taxes.
Zeon and Ceasers Legion however actually are able to function or work in some form. Zeon appeals to many colonists and those wanting independence from the Earth Goverment, where as Ceasers Legion keeps stability within its borders and has alot of free traders and citizens (providing they are men) within the legions territory. Though yes they from first glance do not seem coolr or functional and they will eventually collapse.
"All Empires are evil!" Ghandi: *creates an Empire of followers peacefully* (yes ik its not called an Empire but still) Rome: *creates the entirety of Occidental history, pacifically unifies the people (the Land not quite as peacefully) making them have the same religion and sharing each Others culture, making so that present Europe Is at peace* China: *passes half his history splitting and beeing conquered, and still Is a whole today thanks to his ppl* Ancient Greece (Sparta and Athens): *Protects Europe from the invaders and, despite the difference between their culture, unifies to protect their lands, even If by doing so they are also defending their own rivals* All the Above: *ARE WE A JOKE TO YOU?!*
Rome started as a republic. When it became an empire it committed genocide against gualic tribes, persecuted christians, and invaded everyone around them. All while being ruled by emperors who would do things like murder their own mother, or hide lions in visitors rooms in the palace.
Ancient greece was not an empire. They were city states. They didn't give a shit about Europe viewing them as barbarians, and Sparta even had support from the achaemenid empire during the pelopenesian war when they took out Athens.
@@blackearl7891 a tiiiny bit late, but: Athens had imperialistic tendencies, and altought Their "allies" were technically Independent, practically they would have been murdered if they fell out of line and/or betrayed Athens itself.
Good example of empire is Caesar’s legion (fallout) he maintains absolute control by worship of him as a Demi/god, brainwashing, and fear. his empire will collapse if he cannot find a equally competent successor.
Let me just say that you have been very helpful, more so than many others would be, especially when you outline several things people tend to have ideas about when doing fictional universes, from top to bottom you cover a great detail of detail and show great amount on knowledge with regards to were their original source material was derived from, Funny enough in the og. lore of Star Wars D.Vader actually protested against both the building and using of the Death Star, so much so that he vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction to Palpatine more then once, even trying to persuade him to have it guard and escorted by capital ships with carriers all manned by senior members of the 501st and other pure clone battle-hardened veterans, as opposed to the enlisted men, and even then they would have to pass Clone Army training course qualifications which not possible were really hard.
Technically the Macedonian Empire didn't evaporate entirely after Alexander's death. Instead, it broke apart into numerous Successor States, the Diadochi, like Ptolmaic Egypt, the Seleucids, the Antigonids, and Epirus, just to name a few, that all claimed legitimacy of the Macedonian throne. So if an empire was held together by a singular ruler, like Alexander, and he dies (Either by stumbling down a flight of stairs, by a stray arrow in a battle, or after being shanked by some teen), his Generals and high officials would scramble to consolidate their claims and territories and fight amongst eachother AND the faction that killed their leader, in order to fill the power vacuum left by the leader's death.
they ALL are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
Dragons in got were defeated by guerrilla tactics in Dorne, but the rest of the realms didnt employ similar tactics for cultural reasons. when the targaryens went to dorne, the towns and castles they flew their dragons to were always completely empty - therefore they couldn't kill anyone. then when the dragons would land to eat, sleep, or drink, they'd be assailed by archers who would invariably disappear back into the dunes.
i have a very easy propaganda method for a medieval setting. religion. it was done in real life after all. i mean during the reformation the catholic church essentially held a massive religious propaganda war fuelled by art.
"Too many fictional empires are just straight up evil. [...] I mean that the writers go out of their way to make them as brutal and warcrimey as possible" Sparta: ritually declared war to their own slaves. Every year. Also Sparta: "The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished."
As for Aldderan, Leia makes it pretty clear that their tightening grip won’t work, but Tarkin doesn’t see it that way. He needs a target and Aldderan is perfect as it is a prominent bastion of rebel activity. Even when they blow it up, propaganda starts immediately calling it a terrorist act done by rebels, etc. It does blow up in their faces eventually but many times empires are irrational. Look at the Roman persecution of Christians.
Granted, killing of Palpatine was more question of regime change, not overthrowing the empire as a state. Again, you can´t take anything in SW seriously.
Star Wars (the original trilogy, at least) follows the formula for a fairy tale (yes, there is such a thing), so yeah, not intended to be taken seriously in that kind of way. If you want more plausible politics in your space opera there is Babylon 5. Actually, let me be clear, just go watch Babylon 5! (You can still love Star Wars and/or Trek too)
Umm... about Alderan, Obi-Wan states "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." It was used on Alderan to instil fear in the rebels, also Alderan was known to support the rebels
Empires are not all necessarily evil, in the long run. Example: Leto Atreides II's empire is evil in its means (total submission, enslavement etc etc), yet its ultimate goal (its own disgregation to avoid the stagnation of humanity) is kind of hard to rationalise as 'evil'.
I think medieval Europe would be a decent example of that, since despite the various kongdoms being more than willing to kill each other for one reason or another, as soon as the papacy spoke the word they would put aside their differences and go do the bidding of their God's mouthpiece. Ancient Egypt and Japan would also be a good parallel since their rulers were supposedly the incarnation or decendents of their gods and to go against them would be blasphemy.
@@samuelbedsole5089 *Laughs in Philippe IV le Bel sending knights to Rome to arrest the Pope, bring him to France to be judged by a council of the gallican church* Pope died of shock before it was all done though
@Dawid It all depends on where you place the bar of theocracy. Most if not all great states have used religion as a justification for power. So all empires are theocratic to some extent. The most purely original "theocratic regime" would be one where birth means nothing ; only climbing up the ranks of the hierarchy matters. Funny thing is, the best historical example might very well be the soviet union.
Yeah its funny how the Romans carved their empire on top of bloody corpses, populations enslaved, and killed the Son of God, but later on they officially abolished slavery (the rich still had house slaves but they weren't to be called that specifically), created some of the earliest institutions of paid free-men labor, and declared themselves the realized Regency for the very Messiah they killed centuries prior. Thank Trajan for setting a fixed border extent for the empire so they could develop their internal economy and not always rely on conquest looting to fuel their economy.
In New Vegas the Caesar's legion does make some sense why it can function because it has something's to offer to the people. The main thing being is safety and protection from the raider gangs and war tribes the control most of the land. Making the trade routes in the territory completely safe for people to trade resource such as food. Something even the NCR wasn't able to accomplish. Though it's implied that the legion would fall apart after trying to take over the west due to being able to support the interconnected towns that rely on the government.
“You can’t just murder people into submission and conquer everyone who disagrees with you”
* laughs in necromantic theocracy *
*Laughs in Inquisition*
@Trevak D'hal
They still would've collapsed. Purging entire populations isn't good for political stability.
*laughs in Daenarys Targaryen*
that statement really doesn't make sense xD
@@ninjabreadman22 It is if the populations you're purging are on distant islands.
Damn. Now I can't have my teenage protagonist kill the ancient evil Empire and fulfil the love triangle that has been in focus since chapter 1.
Roban Oh god. A fellow Beaubien follower? This is amazing!
@@diegogelinck8665 Praise the great master Baubien. May he deliver his ancient knowledge and wisdom in the language of Sarcasm.
Roban With his videos brught to us by the holy sponsor Skillshare!
@@diegogelinck8665 Until someone steals it!
Sarah j. Maas: What do ya mean??
All Empires are evil? By Akatosh, you dare insult the Empire!
Skyrim belongs to the Nords.
James Tullos skyrim belongs to mighty ottoman empire
@@JamesTullos And Nords are part of the empire, ergo Skyrim belongs to the Empire.
Nah the Cyrodiil empire are just cowards.
Alt-Centrist NeoBuddhist-AnarchoBonapartist how dare you calling the holy land serbian!İnfidelll!!
This is one of the reasons I think the original Star Wars Expanded Universe handled the downfall of the Galactic Empire way better than the new canon has. In the original EU, the Empire doesn't fall overnight. Killing the Emperor and destroying the second Death Star is a tremendous blow to them, and helps to finally tilt the scales between the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance more towards even terms, rather than the rebels being the desperate underdogs. But the Empire was still very much a threat. You had several high-ranking admirals and Grand Admirals, Grand Moffs, dark Jedi Executors, and the head of Imperial Intelligence all try to take control of the Empire that was left. There was tons of infighting, and the Empire split into multiple factions, each led by warlords who either had enough direct control over Imperial resources to hold onto their power, or who formed strategic alliances with other Imperial leaders that led to alliances that were stronger than the sum of their parts.
And in the end, the Empire didn't even die. Once the infighting between factions died down and the survivors finally reorganized themselves, they had changed enough in ideology that they were able to form a peace treaty with the New Republic. They finally became a government that, while still fairly totalitarian, could no longer be considered "evil," as such. They were even able to form lasting alliances and share resources with the New Republic in the long-term.
Overall, it just felt like a much more realistic way for things to end for the Empire than "They just changed their name and came back way later with even bigger superweapons and star destroyers and did the exact same thing they failed at before."
I gotta agree with you, the story of the Empire was far more interesting in the Expanded Universe. I especially love Warlord Zsinj.
Uh, no..? If you bothered to look outside the movies, the empire was not immediately destroyed in the actual canon. (No matter how badly you wanted it, the EU was never truly canon just because George Lucas let random people write books.) The First Order is called that because it is the first exemplary union of the empire’s remnants. Up to that point, the empire had split amongst itself and had constant infighting. So there is a very natural progression that simply doesn’t appear in the movies, because that isn’t the focus of theme or story
@@WalkinStereotype The First Order gets its name from this line "It's time to start over. That is our first order. To begin again. And to get it right, this time." and nothing else. It is also not the first remnant to unify.
spartanpawn007 I didn’t say it was the first. I said it is the first exemplary unification
@@WalkinStereotype And in the Disney canon, Palpatine made sure that the Empire would not last long past his death, believing that an Empire that couldn't keep him alive did not deserve to exist.
"Even the Nazis had a PR department"
That's an understatement, they coined half the terms we use for PR and basically created the modern mechanisms we use today for it by both governments and private entities.
Source for this?
@@Gadget-Walkmen A history book.
Vahlen specifically which one. There are some really bad history books with misinformation.
No, not really. They mostly just copied the Britts and the Americans there as they only realized its importance due to how lacking the German empire was in that department in WW1 (Their propaganda at predicting what the entente would do to Germany and Austria-Hungary if they lost to them, was if anything, underestimating just how far the entente wanted to go in screwing them over.), and even trying as hard as they could, their propaganda was still not as heavy handed or effective.
@@_Muzolf they didn't invent the concept, but They did revolutionize it into the modern public relations departments we see today
"An absolute ruler sounds great on paper and can make for an intimidating villain..."
Shows the Emperor of Mankind.
Inquisition intensifies!
Also interesting video as always
Irony about the Imperium's Emperor being portrayed as a villain when he doesn't even realize how his underlings screwed up.
YOUR A HERITC !
More like
[[[THE INQUISITION WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION]]]
Trevak: well that's why he shouldn't rule any longer. He's dead. As a story I think the Emperor of Man is a great villainous leader figurehead, inspiring blind devotion for sod all.
Personally I would never be able to follow such a tyrannical system.
"Dont have the empire collapse with the death of one person"
Alexander the "Great": am I a joke to you?
Genghis Khan: Hey, Alex. I wasn't a joke either.
I mean yes?
@Hornyshark it collapsed just as much as Alexander's... Split into smaller kingdoms
@Hornyshark but Alexander did have an, he was just sidelined real quick
@Hornyshark yes they were khans, but that's like saying a kingdom was fractured and a bunch of people with lands in that kingdom call themselves kings...
The empire was fractured after the khan's death...
As for Alexander's empire, it was fractured in 4-5 kingdoms ruled and fought over by his mother, wife and generals
All empires are evil you say? *Titus, get the cross!*
Forget the cross
Grab the fifty
Flavius?
Honestly him saying that left a bad taste in my mouth.
Glory to the Kaiser!
@Lloyd Nix The video says most pre modern societies were oppressive and authoritarian by modern standards.
I dont think thats a very hot take.
I had no villian in my story, then I realize,, the main character *is the villain*
Sounds like an interesting story
Tell me more
Lullaby Dragon my idea is like a Mega corporation that peacefully take over the world to srpead their good philosophies, but then the Reading may ask: is this really good?
@@mollof7893 Sounds like a cool morally gray story. I can see alot of cool themes in it.
Lullaby Dragon thanks!
“All empires are evil” Caesar has marked you for death and the legion obeys prepare to fight
Ave, true to Caesar!
Michael Goldsmith Death to Caesar!
@@0816M3RC watch your toung, you're speaking to Caesar, -the true high king of the Mojave-
VENI VIDI VICI
@Mikhail G RETRIBUTION!
All Empires are Evil. by the Emperor that is awfully heretical, Im calling the Inquisitor
I disagree with you, Eli Chalfant. Not all empire are evil some of can be good and some can be bad
@@michaelhoffee303 You must be some kind of dumb xeno to not get it
All empires are evil except us the tau, *cocks pulse pistol* now about your planet's alcohol supply
Probably the thing most people overlook about historical empires - aside from a few exceptions, wholesale destruction and oppression of local populations was generally used as a last ditch retaliation to be used against those who consistently rebelled or resisted. Even a brutal empire like the Assyrians was more or less willing to leave countries be with their power structures more or less in tact as long as they paid tribute and submitted to Assyrian demands. The brutality and war crimes of many empires is usually a means of sending a message: if you cooperate, you live, if you resist, you die horribly. There are exceptions obviously (the empire Nazi Germany was attempting to build is the obvious example), but most empires have usually been aware of the fact that it's easier to peacefully annex a nation as a tributary state rather than to just march in and slaughter everyone and/or try to forcefully suppress their culture.
I kind of agree, with the tweek that conquerors have had a tendency to focus on the Political power of their opponent rather than the Economics, and therefore gladly ravaged or destroyed the Capital of the opponent - as a symbol of that state and rulers power - and their ruling elite. Alexander burned the Persian capital, the Romans destroyed Carthage and Corinth to make an example, the Mongols destroyed Babylon for the same reason.
I think Economics in the old days seemed more like a question of who controlled the largest areas of farmed lands, not who controlled the centers of commerse - because cities could be rebuilt or moved.
@@54tisfaction many of those examples are more examples of cases where conquerors decided to make an example of their enemies. Rome was more than willing to peacefully annex other territories, or at least leave their ruling class in place in instances where there was not heavy resistance. Carthage was an old rival that they made an example of. Similarly, Alexander didn't burn down every nation he conquered, he mainly just made an example of the Persians, the ones who resisted the most.
Also, that's a pretty narrow view of ancient economics. Controlling raw materials like gold, iron, lumber, etc was extremely important, as was craftsmanship. Farming would give local power, but not necessarily international economic power (although having adequate farmland was obviously important for sustaining the population). Also there are examples of cities that built wealth more on the basis that they were situated on key trade routes (many of which couldn't easily be re-routed). There are numerous examples of ancient societies who built their power based on trade, whether that was controlling key resources or having access to major trade routes (either major ports, key points along rivers, or midpoints between two powers that need each others resources).
@@thehulkster9434 I get what you mean, and am not arguing against your points about economics. But my point was that those aspect was not neceessarily the focus (or what mattered) to some of the more agressive (and famous) conquerors of these battling empires. The prime focus was at first always to conquer your opponent and destroy their resistance. After a while, when the new rule was established, the Romans re-built Carthage after all, and Corinth too, because by then economic and social matters could be prioritized.
Making a Fantasy "antagonistic" empire should reflect that. It does not simply fall into the category "evil" by sacking towns on campaigns (it could be a mistake, poor control of the soldiery, or some such...), or "good" by leaving great centers of civilization to prosper even if they have the power now.
@@54tisfaction The Persian capital was revenge for when the Persians burned Athens.
@@captaindak5119 That was simply the justification given to the Greeks.
*TIME STAMPS for "How to Worldbuild: Evil Empires":*
@01:34 - Part 1: Forms of Control;
@05:33 - Part 2: Conquest and Expansion;
@09:37 - Part 3: Evil-ness;
@12:12 - Part 4: The Fall;
@13:18 - Conclusion.
bump this guys; this is a great way to make a video better
Does replying make the comment go up?
@@mimikal7548
I'm not sure, but if it does... here's my reply!
thank you !
Just commenting to make sure this stays near to the top, of top comments. 🙂👍
The Empire in Asimov’s books was explicitly a good thing, to the point where the protagonists try to start a new one after the fall.
Are you talking about the Foundation pentalogy? The Empire there was good mainly in the sense that it lessened conflict. I don't believe its ever mentioned as explicitly 'good.'
The reason why the term "evil empire" is not tautological is because in fiction, there is such a thing as a benevolent, or at least indifferent empire. Often the protagonists will be part of an empire which is presented as good, or simply not referenced much, and these are clearly distinct fictional entities from "evil empires". Empires can often inspire ideas of loyalty, pride and honour that characters fighting for a republic or simply for themselves simply don't, which is why authors use them for the good guys.
That and... well yelling "for the president!" is nowhere near as rousing as yelling "FOR THE KING" before charging to your collective deaths,
@@thethirdsicily4802 For the elected representatives of the population!
@@HereTakeAFlower just doesn't have the same ring to it.
@Wind Rose True, but that applies in both republics and monarchies, which, actually, who decides a country is the mother or father land? Is it just a matter of the preference of whoever starts saying it?
I think the case of the Galactic Empire was that it was largely the Emperor’s personal project. He ran it from the start, he centralized it almost entirely on him and with no clear line of succession, it was bound to tear apart.
This was all done because the Emperor never intended to die. He, in hubris, was going to live forever until his apprentice slayed him. Then once he did die, the Empire basically collapsed because he was dead, Vader was dead, many of the higher up officers were dead and each other high-ranking officer was trying to hold onto whichever piece he held, which is how it was designed.
I’m going to write a benevolent empire just to spite you lmao
Star trek
Tales of Vesperia the empire is good but there is some corrupt nobles
I'm afraid he will end up liking it as soon as you mind geographical accuracy and coherent cause-effect chains.
How can you do so? Empires are inherently immoral.
@@saudade7842 yeah, they're shit by virtue of being seats of imperialism, idk if this person understands that you need to conquer people to form an empire
All Empires are evil?
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
Demon Hunter they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen I think that is a oversimplistic view on the topic; especially when we people in the modern world directly benefit from Imperialism. Globalization would not have been possible without Imperialism. A universal ban on slavery and even the establishment of concepts like universal human rights would not have been possible without Imperialism. Even the spread and proliferation of democratic values are bec. of Imperialism.
I was born into a country where our tribal ancestors were killing each other in tribal warfare before the arrival of the Spanish.
@@Gadget-Walkmen As if small, unassuming 'anti-imperial' states don't use their organized militaries to subjugate their own people. All states trade in violence and we, collectively as a species, decided that the security and continuity gained from allowing this was worth the trade. Imperialism is the default mode of governance for post-agriculture mankind.
Saying only a sith deals in absolutes is in itself an absolute. Obi Wan confirmed a sith
@@Mae_Dastardly "There is a chance that, perhaps, if we are willing to examine the Siths' positions in relation to absolutes, with a certain frequency, they'll be more inclined to deal in absolutes than not" here I fixed that for you now Obi Wan is still a Jedi.
"The whole thing is overrun by necromancers from dijorno and everyone dies."
Americans: *I'm in danger.*
maybe Digiorno has weapons of mass deliciousness*
-spoiler: they don't
They apparently have necromancers though. Maybe Murica attacked Digiorno because of the rampant necromantic attacks?
Even if they did, they had no way to deliver.
You mean confections of mass deliciousness.
They supported November nine
Have you ever seen GER, dude?
The Empire didn't intend to go around blowing up its own planets and taxpayers with the Death Star. They intended to use it to coerce rebellious planets into surrendering. They thought they could just place it in orbit above any planet and the people would capitulate in terror. If this was successful, then it might actually cut costs since they wouldn't need to maintain an enormous army to occupy planets.
Edit: Also, the Empire fell apart relatively quickly. So it's not like it's supposed to be a depiction of a successful and stable state.
I don’t think the First Order is an Empire, just more of a Rouge Nation
The writers didn't put much thought into it, so doing it yourself is a fool's errand.
I think I red that wrong.
A rouge nation, where everybody wears too much blush and they aren't willing to admit it
It's a bunch of brainwashed goons led by an AI (i mean Palpatine being the AI)
I think he was just making it an example of how even though the empire fell, the ideas continued on in the First Order, not saying it is an empire just a continuation.
Digiorno: It's not delivery,. it's thermonuclear annihilation.
4yr old comment ik, but tbf nuclear weapons do need an effective delivery system, ie SLBMs and ICBMs to function.
5:29
God Emperor of Mankind
Villain
WHAT HERESY HATH THINE SPOKEN!
Someone get me the inquisition, we need exterminatus stat.
the urge to purge BEGINS TO SURGE
He is technically a villain. Most of the chaos shit wouldn't happen if big E Talked/helped his primarchs
Although the pure evilness of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars may seem ridiculous, it is credible since the empire functions under the whim of the self-centered megalomaniac emperor Palpatine, who kills his own citizens because under Sith philosophy when people cease to be useful then they are to be disposed of.
Because of that wasteful governing mentality, the empire suffered tremendous setbacks when the death star was destroyed during battle and he still didn't care but waste more money on a second superweapon. After his death, many imperials expressed disgust over how the emperor mishandled the empire's resource for his own personal goals.
The super weapons were also an expression of sith ideology. The sith hate sharing power so the more centralized it can be, the better. Theoretically, with a death star you only need the deathstar crews loyalty to dominate the galaxy, which are significantly fewer people than you need to maintain a galaxy spanning armada
@Wind Rose The German economy was already screwed before the Nazis took over. And last time I checked, the Nazis turned things around for the country.
"Imagine an empire called Murica" *sweats in CIA*
To be fair to the Legion, they do clean the Wasteland of raiders and other monsters.
Damn profligates.
GabisonStudios Oh please.. they are just glorified LARPing raiders/slavers.
Somali Kid But bad in so many other ways.
@Somali Kid
The Legion is also, unfortunately, rather sexist which is another downside.
@RageTyrannosaurus The legion was not sexist, they were realists. They operate under traditional gender rules that maximize the effectiveness of men and women within their society. This is how great societies were built. Keeping women as essentially slaves kept them out of the battlefield and allowed the legion to control reproduction. Having alive women available for breeding is important for building a society, especially given how few people were left alive in the wasteland.
@Somali Kid I said "another" downside, I neither implied that it was the only downside nor the greatest. I was adding to your list.
Edit: By your list I am referring to your criticism of their disdain for technology. This is in addition to other negative aspects of the Legion identified in other comments.
By the God Emperor sieze this infidel!!
It's worth mentioning that some historical empires would conscript soldiers from recently conquered lands and ship them off to other territories/provinces in order to better prevent uprisings.
"The mongols tried invading Vietnam."
China, Mongolia, France, Japan, America, Cambodia, China again... who has not tried to invade Vietnam and *eventually* been overthrown?
Peter Smythe
To be fair, America didn’t invade Vietnam, it was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnam.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko We did invade Laos and Cambodia though. Additionally, there was no North and South distinction between Vietnam, that's just what we call them. ADDITIONALLY, the US also brutalized many Southern Vietnamese sympathizers.
We invaded Vietnam (we also didn't like the Southern government either, nobody did).
Hyperion
Technically, the Republic of Vietnam ( or South Vietnam ) was born in 1955 ( recognized internationally ) while the North was officially called Democratic Republic of Vietnam ( born in 1954 ). All of it is written in the Geneva Accord. They were supposed to unite thanks to elections, but the south withdrew from them. Therefore, the North invaded the south to unify the country by force.
Also, Cambodia and Laos were invaded because the Vietcongs crossed the borders of said countries to hide, regroup and counterattack. So, they were basically the playground of both sides. Not to mention that Vietnam invaded Cambodia soon after. So...
@@hyperion3145 WTF?
The HRE is the most decentralized empires of all time, to the point where calling it an empire is under debate
Only after the Golden Bull of 1356 where the pope and emperor had their powers reduced and the prince-electors gained more power. After this the HRE can be considered a monarchial confederacy.
Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire. Yay!
Ottomans were the real HRE because:
They were a centralized Empire.
They had Roman lands.
They were a Caliphet so Holy.
It was not holy, not Roman, and definitely not an empire.
@@biliminsrlar5752 Almost every country in Europe had Roman land. The Catholic monarchs also could be considered holy and empires.
Spain and Portugal would've been considered Holy Roman Empires for these reasons ontop of both actually speaking Latin ontop of Spanish and Portuguese. But they are all overshadowed by one man.
*The Pope*
Theres an elemental thing about conquered people especially in times when patriotism not yet existed: "Tell a man that he has a new master and he will shrug, but tell a man that his new master wants a fifth of his annual income and the man will go find his pitchfork." Warmaster Horus Lupercal Primarch of the Luna Wolves Legion Favoured Son of the Emperor
>An absolute ruler sounds great on paper and can make for an intimidating villain.
>TheHolyEmperorOfMankind.iconography
Careful James. I sense heresy in your video.
7:24 are we just gonna not mention Ronald McDonald with a machine-gun in the background?
Something worth mentioning is that Empire's often get away with crimes they commit by spreading complicity in the crimes as widely as possible. Many otherwise good people participate in the running of Empires because it is too late to make a different choice, fear of the Empire is good, but fear of the consequences of the fall of an Empire is better.
You also could have expanded on the idea that Empire's aren't even usually a single polity, but usually a collection of subject allies, occupied territories, the metropole (core homeland) and often colonies of the core population outside the metropole to make the occupied territories of the empire easier to control. Empire's like the Persian Empire, the Athenian Empire, the Alexandrian Empire in Greece and the early Republican Roman Empire were mainly based on subject allies that were autonomous but obligated to provide troops and money.
He did address this in his example of the Aztec empire. It is a d centralised empire that functions via tributary and vassal states.
@@StarlasAiko You didn't read my comment. I said "expanded".
Christopher Dawson my mistake, sorry
"I love democracy, I love the Republic."
7:22 “The ‘Muricans can’t just have their army occupy the new territory forever” but they sure are giving it their best shot
Alexander is sorta the exception to every rule, I guess.
He is a lesson about hubris also do like his policy about create a new people with interculturell marriages. That didn't work out thou.
Was disappointed it wasn't the mongols.
Unless you are the Mongols.
*Mongols
To some degree, yes. But he didn't just strip away the Achemenid Empire. He studied their political structure and incorporated it into his own, just with his people in place.
This is one reason the Diadochi were able to establish dynasties after his death. They were already installed into an existing power structure that allowed for a degree of autonomy, they just exercised more than was originally intended.
well in some cases that thought behind the real empire was just "hey what if my country was. really big." and then it was
Nikolaj Steffensen by conquering other people’s land and territory.
@@Gadget-Walkmen no, by traveling to some small obscure tribes and bribing them with medicine new food and better laws
@@ashyroy9454 LMAo this better be sacrasm because that's all forms or ridiculous if it's not.
@@Gadget-Walkmen or what? You're going to tell me that I'm stupid? The thing is empires may start as somebody conquering something but if empire lives long enough (and it's not a see empire like England was for example) such methods become stupid and all the conquering stuff becomes just this. Moving further, finding tribes that don't have real states yet, building infrastructure for trading with them, helping them fight their enemies, including their authority in the chain of empire's authority, welcoming their aristocracy in empire's aristocracy and so on and so on. Heck, even when empire does conquer some land do you think that people living there would be all killed or something? Well that's not true or else empire of Napoleon would just kill people in places he conquered not you know esteblish his law over territory and connect it to the France. The only empire ever that established wiping out people that lived at the territory they wanted as a goal was the Third Reich. And look where they are now. And that's the end of our conversation because I don't even think that you would read my whole commentary. Have a nice day
Ashy Roy Or you could just trade with them? Like a normal human being? Rather than forcing them into an arbitrary hierarchy for your own wealth and collective ego? You do know that is an option right?
My advice is to recognize the reality that there is no such thing as an “Evil Empire” (I hate using that term) just individuals and states acting in their own best interest regardless of whether that be good or bad and what others consider moral. If your writing a fictional empire then you should definitely keep that in mind.
Also because you mentioned it, SIEG ZEON #zeondidnothingwrong
Holy shit, finally someone that is intelligent. There are waaaay to many people who try to impose modern standards of morality on historical empires.
The slavery, genocide, brutality and rape they committed on a regular basis would suggest otherwise. So would their constant internal backstabbing and general racism. Not to mention their habit of parading defeated leaders as a means of humiliation before slaughtering them.
Most societies view what they find acceptable as being "Good" and what they find unacceptable as "Bad". Slavery is an example, pretty much the moment agriculture was discovered it became worthwhile to use slaves. From that point until within a Century or so ago (in the West at least) slavery is outlawed and seen as totally evil. Yet for the greatest part of human history most accepted it. You had states with slave soldiers and slave civil servants. A Slave's life could be horrific or it could be better than the life of the poor free citizen. Slaves who gained their freedom often went on to own their own slaves. Slavery sometimes had a racial element while other times it was just the result of losing a war or being taken by raiders.
So in effect you can have multiple competing forces, all who see themselves as the good guys and the others as the baddies. Sometimes there are no good guys.
An evil Empire will not see itself as evil. Instead it is bring stability and civilization to a world in need. Peace after a period of endless war. Reducing the number of entities robbing for taxes down to one. Bringing in the rule of law. Imposing the will of God / the Gods. Holding the forces of chaos at bay. Holding open the trade routes. Sure they need to brutally murder the odd person or two here and there but it's all for a just cause.
@Biao Long they were pretty racist actually.For Romans every Barbarian/non Roman was undeveloped nations that would one day be conquered by glorious Rome.Han Dynasty calles Romans their equals while Romans saw them as just another barbarian nation.
Bilimin Sırları Yes, the very Han dynasty which saw other nations as barbarian nations. A very good argument, yes yes.
"All Empires are Evil!"
Empire of Angels would like a word with you...
StarShade they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen You love the "Copy and Paste" function, don't you?
Firekeeper is waifu you bet your ass I do. As long as my point still stands abs valid.
@@Gadget-Walkmen Empire of Angels is a music band you simpleton.
@@ayylmao575 How the fuck was I supposed to know that shit?
I don't know shit about music bands and their drumming.
"All Empires are Evil" The Inquisition would like a "polite chat" about why insulting the God-Emperor's Imperium of Man is just really bad manners.
Lesser evil is still evil
@@dynamicworlds1 ...Oh boy this is some SERIOUS Heresy going on here.
(Reaches for Exterminatus Button)
@@randomcenturion7264 I'm hiding on Holy Terra
Your move
@@dynamicworlds1 (Calls the Bucket-Heads) Arbites, find that Heretic!
"All Empires are evil"
Oh boy, there's a lot to unpack here...
MarvAlice they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen 1st of all no. That is simplification to the point 9f dishonesty.
2nd of all, the act of being an empire does not necessitate imperialism. To be an empire you simply need to have multiple cultures under your preview.
The federal government of the United states is an empire by virtue of it having authority over the states.
The European Union is an empire for the same reason.
China is _absolutely_ an empire.
Assuming that the only tool an empire has is violence is just that. An assumption. Most empires expand because people _want_ to be a part of them. Saying they are always unethical is basically saying government is always unethical.
And that's not even getting into the act of unpacking the idea that imperialism is always evil which is a whole other can of worms we can open.
@@marvalice3455 hm yes all those are empires and all those enact imperialist policies. The EU has policies which could be described as economic imperialism (lower import taxes on raw materials as opposed to finished products etc). The USA is famous for toppling regimes and installing right-wing groups to power when it is convenient to them, that is if they want something from the region.
However, I do not understand how imperialism is not evil. While it benefits the economic system, there is no doubt that it hinges on the subjugation and exploitation of vulnerable people. Therefore it is morally reprehensible.
I am not looking to change your opinion, I only wish to hear it.
@@Amerisal I won't argue that imperialism has been mis used and caused incredible pain. I feel this is self evident.
However, I will argue that this was unnecessary. That it _could_ have been different.
The USA may misuse imperialism in Latin America and Asia, but what about the states? These are their own cultures with their own government which are beholden to the federal government.
The EU is nominally all voluntary. Imperialism is a very powerful tool that can do a great amount of harm, but that doesn't mean it always does that harm
@@Amerisal imperialism is the dominant form of government most of the world has lived under through out all of human history. If you believe imperialism is evil then you believe civilization itself is evil. Every major ethnic group in the world today, and all of their advances have been the result of imperialism. If you reject that idea then go live in a hunt with 30 other people and murder 80% of all people you encounter (yes the death rate for inter tribal warfare is worse than world war two).
Interact with the children of rich people for any length of time and you'll realize why empires fall. Empires, and wealth, are often built by greatness. Greatness creates privilege and privilege creates weakness. Among the rich this manifests as the weakened predecessors eroding the fortune accrued by their ancestors while among empires it manifests as a the decadent upper caste dismantling and destroying the empire their once great ancestors built. This is why smart rich people are careful about what they give their children and smart empires force their upper caste through mandatory military service. See Rome's Cursus Honorum.
@Dottoman And the cycle goes on....
Damn. Sounds like Murica. The WWII generation boomed the economy and the boomers busted it. Now us young people are put through the neoliberal hunger games.
Privilege can create weakness, like never struggling leading to never developing coping mechanisms for stress. But it can also create strength. Lack of head injuries and lead poisoning and being trained by privately hired tutors can lead to a great intellect. We have seen empires built by people from harsh lives, like Ghengis Khan. But we have also seen empires built by people who came from privileged backgrounds, like Alexander The Great. Also, the Cursus Honorum was in place when Rome was a Republic and it collapsed before it became an Empire. I think what you are thinking of is Regression to the mean. Sometimes, Greatness is a fluke that you cannot reproduce in the next generation. www.statisticshowto.com/regression-mean/
Good old strong people create welcoming environments that create weak people who create bad environment that creates strong people.
>All empires are evil
That's a mighty subjective view you have there bud.
virgilio moncada they are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
@@Gadget-Walkmen, not necessarily. A well managed empire will be mutually beneficial to all its members, so states will elect to join an empire. This often occurs at the conception of an Empire, but it can happen later on as well.
Military and economic security are big selling points for joining an Empire. Empires open up trade routes and cover a wider area than the state itself, so a famine or drought is not as big a risk, and trade is more profitable. And empires tend to have larger standing armies, so are less vulnerable from attack from their neighbours.
This means that empires lead to higher wealth, and better communication, which increases standard of life, education, and technology.
Empires have benefits, and are NOT always evil.
@@matthewparker9276 Holy Roman Empire wasn't exactly doing all that much imperialism, Rome was but the benefits far outweighed the costs, and many other examples I cannot be bothered to remember as of right now.
@@thethirdsicily4802
>Rome was but the benefits far outweighed the costs
Yeah. For THEM.
@@HellsingMayCry I'm pretty sure the gauls weren't getting raided by the neighboring tribe every two weeks while under Roman Rule. It not like the Roman got out of their way to opress their population in the worse way possible. Also, wealth.
Video request, could you do a video on how slavery works within empires or governments in general?
Ohhhh! You make good noise!
Yes. This... Boss man, plz hear him! Make this thing!
Stephen Williams It varies a lot from one empire to other...
Slavery can be anything between Roman slavery where sometimes slaves were better off than free plebs to 19th century American style slavery or spartan helot system. These are few examples you can research on your own easily. If you cant wait for possible video.
Definitly. Slaves were wery different between empires, in rome they weren't free but atill treated like a human. In ottoman they used to create armies, harems and usually part of palace. Western slavery was more like treating those people like animals etc
A Doulocracy like in Islamic Egypt.
"imagine if there was a terrorist cell in houston texas and the american military destroyed all of the south with a barrage of nuclear missiles" pretty based ngl
“All empires are evil”
Get the flamer brother
The HEAVY flamer
Just to point out: There's a reason why the Star Wars Empire lasted only 25 years.
The thing is that with the Galactic Empire in Starwars, Palpatine did not set up a line of succession if in the case he were to die. He thought that if his subjects could not protect him they did not deserve to have the Empire, which is why realistically it would (and did in legends), break up into a bunch of smaller nations
If the Empire was under better management, then probably the Death star would pretty much never be used... like at all... just shoot an uninhabited planet to say "hey you! Dont f&@* with us got it!" And then tell the people "see our enemies don't f&!* with us, so y'all are safe!"
You mean like how the USA used the nukes on uninhabited islands and told the Japanese "Don't fuck with us, got it!", and then the Japanese surrendered?
@@liamjm9278 it would have been worth a shot and if it worked it would have probably made it easier to take over in the making friend part.
@Kit Duguay So using your new weapon against your opponent in war is a test, and not an attack.
Alexander managed fine the problem was he died young meaning no obvious direct heir so it split up to his generals
No really any fault of his own especially considering he couldn't say announce a general as the next heir because he was betrayed multiple times and the only dude he trusted was dead
@@mondaysinsanity8193
His fault for not marrying and bearing a son before he began his campaign of conquest.
@@alanpennie8013 he did marry and had several concubines as well; his harem just murdered one another's would be heirs; his heir apparent was sidelined and controlled by one of his generals
It was worse than that. It wasn't JUST that he died young, but that literally everybody else on his literal list of people to succeed him died as well, leaving a bunch of ultra-powerful and experienced warlords with their own loyal formations having no unifying thing they could all agree to be loyal to. And while a few of those deaths are suspicious it does sort of underline how Alex gets more of a bad rep than he deserves.
@@vandeheyeric dude conquered the known world in about the time it takes to walk it. Anyone who thinks him stupid or incompetent is thd stupid one
I disagree about Star Wars, destroying a planet using a Death Star is noting more then burning a big ancient city (but on a galactic scale) Rebell and we put you all to the sword, hence it is in your best intrest to be loyal to the empire, and ENSURE your kin/neighbors/frends are to. Most empire is built on that philosophy, but I agree its totaly stuipd evil to break your word like Tarkin did, becuse the Empire must also be merciful toward the peoepl that do submite.
I mean, they are based heavily on the Nazi's, who broke their word all the time, so not exactly without precedent.
@@georgethompson913
There were also Millions of businesses, taxpayers and farms that went up in smoke. Alderaan had trade agreements, and deals with other planets as well, what kind of effect would it have on the galactic economy?
@@jonathancampbell5231 this was about worldbuilding a empire, lucky the Nazi empire is a anomaly of a empire.
@@liquidfolly8980 you think to smale, remember its a galaxtic empire, the destruction of Alderaan is to burn a city.
@@kirgan1000 Point was, it has some real-world basis, and it's a basis that Lucas intentionally emulated.
Star Wars actually addresses a lot of how destroying Alderaan was the single dumbest move and what truly sealed their fate
All Empires are evil?
*Cyrus the Great has entered the chat*
"What have the romans ever done for us?"
An Evil Empire is a copy of Rage Against the Machine’s second album.
Love that your editing keeps getting better! It helps proves your points and looks much more professional.
Could you review the Goldenbaum Empire from Legends of the Galactic Heroes? It's one of my favorite empires, and has a really good set up.
@Dave Sergio this can be fixed
“No one would want to be part of them”
> caesar’s legion
James you’ve never met the fallout fanbase have you
~3:29 Achaemenid is generally pronounced "Uh-Kay-Muh-Nid", but should technically be pronounced "Uh-Key-Muh-Nid"
Did not expect to see Zeon here. Lmao
That said...
I love it
Onsen tamago eggs are great. Poached, but in water that has been cooled down, so kind of like sous vide without the extra appliance.
Raw eggs are great for dipping noodles or thinly-sliced beef.
@4:07
That map of the Aztec Empire IS AWSOME!!! Where did you find it? I looked EVERYWHERE for a map of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica with that much detail and couldn't find one to save my life!
"Tzintzuntzan" sounds funny
An Empire isn't inherently evil unless you believe that universal enfranchisement and the myth of equality are moral goods, which they aren't.
What even is evil anyway? Just a word we use to justify violence against people whose view of reality and government is different than ours.
The empire in starwars did actually have some degree of 'non pure evilness" ie. People join them because they bring order to places like the outer ring and put a stop to alot of crime so humans do have a reason to join some.
Yeah Aegon the Conqueror was cool but Tiber Septim is the true conqueror
@Dottoman he didn't (at least it isn't known) because there were almost none alive, and those who were were in hiding
(I think he also had a servant dragon)
LUKA The Nord who said that was just a dumbass, lol.
5:40 The Mongol Empire lasted from 1206-1294, longer than the Soviet Union. Their collapse just looks "immediate" from our perspective centuries later.
Also that "collapse" was more of slow process of various parts of empire slowly drifting apart.
Valyria was not an empire though, it was a "freehold" in which Martin describes the state running in a similar fashion to the Roman Republic, except of course all the senate had dragons. Valryia also despite it's name was an economy that ran on slavery, true citizenship and quasi-democratic rights were reserved for those of the valyrian bloodline. But there was no central authority, some families were more powerful than others as the Targaryens are described as being of a "minor" family within valyrian politics before the Doom and Aegon's conquest.
"Even the fucking Nazis had a PR department" , that's the best advice I've ever gotten. Also watch out 'Merica we the "Digiorno Empire " have Necromancers.
All empires are evil? What a plebeian.
Loving how the quality for these videos is getting higher and higher
The Terran Empire. is the collection conquer planets Under the Terran (Earth) Planet.
In my worldbuilding, there is an empire that is completely destroyed, and an empire that is fractured. The empire that was destroyed was taken down after centuries of stagnation and a master planner subverting the military to deliver half a millennium's worth of revenge in the course of one day. The empire founded in the aftermath lasted almost 500 years after that under their "immortal" ruler, who turned out not to be immortal. After his death, his chosen heir was fought for the throne, and one of the other heirs was revealed to have been responsible for his death. There were three heirs, and one took a large chunk of the military to carve out his own fiefdom, one was presumed dead only to come back with legions of genetically-engineered monsters, and the chosen heir reorganized the empire as a constitutional monarchy, declaring himself "protector of the realm".
You're assessment of the Mongols and their conquest was woefully misinformed.
This just kinda shows you don’t have a very good understanding of the nuances of politics or history. An empire isn’t anymore evil than any other form of government. Evil is a fairly subjective term for starters. Evil deeds are done in the name of empire but empires have also provided security, stability and help for people. How many times did the grain from Egypt prevent a famine in Gaul or Italy or Greece in the Roman Empire. How many lives were saved from nomadic raiders by the Sassanid empire. While many may die in forming and maintaining one. the organization and consolidation of resources that happens plus rule of law and social stability normally out ways that for the people living in it. Empires are also usually pretty accepting of foreign people as long as you pay taxes.
Zeon and Ceasers Legion however actually are able to function or work in some form. Zeon appeals to many colonists and those wanting independence from the Earth Goverment, where as Ceasers Legion keeps stability within its borders and has alot of free traders and citizens (providing they are men) within the legions territory. Though yes they from first glance do not seem coolr or functional and they will eventually collapse.
“All empires are evil” Exterminatus intensifies
"All Empires are evil!"
Ghandi: *creates an Empire of followers peacefully* (yes ik its not called an Empire but still)
Rome: *creates the entirety of Occidental history, pacifically unifies the people (the Land not quite as peacefully) making them have the same religion and sharing each Others culture, making so that present Europe Is at peace*
China: *passes half his history splitting and beeing conquered, and still Is a whole today thanks to his ppl*
Ancient Greece (Sparta and Athens): *Protects Europe from the invaders and, despite the difference between their culture, unifies to protect their lands, even If by doing so they are also defending their own rivals*
All the Above: *ARE WE A JOKE TO YOU?!*
Rome started as a republic. When it became an empire it committed genocide against gualic tribes, persecuted christians, and invaded everyone around them. All while being ruled by emperors who would do things like murder their own mother, or hide lions in visitors rooms in the palace.
@@randomboy3m98 eh. Yea i Guess that's true.
but Hey, if you ask those Lions, Rome Is for the win.
Ancient greece was not an empire. They were city states. They didn't give a shit about Europe viewing them as barbarians, and Sparta even had support from the achaemenid empire during the pelopenesian war when they took out Athens.
@Wind Rose still is, the crown is the sovereign ruler of many of the countries within it.
@@blackearl7891 a tiiiny bit late, but: Athens had imperialistic tendencies, and altought Their "allies" were technically Independent, practically they would have been murdered if they fell out of line and/or betrayed Athens itself.
Good example of empire is Caesar’s legion (fallout) he maintains absolute control by worship of him as a Demi/god, brainwashing, and fear. his empire will collapse if he cannot find a equally competent successor.
Let me just say that you have been very helpful, more so than many others would be, especially when you outline several things people tend to have ideas about when doing fictional universes, from top to bottom you cover a great detail of detail and show great amount on knowledge with regards to were their original source material was derived from,
Funny enough in the og. lore of Star Wars D.Vader actually protested against both the building and using of the Death Star, so much so that he vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction to Palpatine more then once, even trying to persuade him to have it guard and escorted by capital ships with carriers all manned by senior members of the 501st and other pure clone battle-hardened veterans, as opposed to the enlisted men, and even then they would have to pass Clone Army training course qualifications which not possible were really hard.
It was difficult not to mention US foreign policy in this comment.
Cool video.
Technically the Macedonian Empire didn't evaporate entirely after Alexander's death. Instead, it broke apart into numerous Successor States, the Diadochi, like Ptolmaic Egypt, the Seleucids, the Antigonids, and Epirus, just to name a few, that all claimed legitimacy of the Macedonian throne. So if an empire was held together by a singular ruler, like Alexander, and he dies (Either by stumbling down a flight of stairs, by a stray arrow in a battle, or after being shanked by some teen), his Generals and high officials would scramble to consolidate their claims and territories and fight amongst eachother AND the faction that killed their leader, in order to fill the power vacuum left by the leader's death.
Not all empires are evil.
Chris Wicker Most are though.
they ALL are. Imperialism is evil by default. Your basically going to some place just declaring,”HEY! this is my shit now. Fucking fight me if you got a problem with that.” As you say with a massive threatening army.
Dragons in got were defeated by guerrilla tactics in Dorne, but the rest of the realms didnt employ similar tactics for cultural reasons. when the targaryens went to dorne, the towns and castles they flew their dragons to were always completely empty - therefore they couldn't kill anyone. then when the dragons would land to eat, sleep, or drink, they'd be assailed by archers who would invariably disappear back into the dunes.
i have a very easy propaganda method for a medieval setting. religion. it was done in real life after all. i mean during the reformation the catholic church essentially held a massive religious propaganda war fuelled by art.
"Too many fictional empires are just straight up evil. [...] I mean that the writers go out of their way to make them as brutal and warcrimey as possible"
Sparta: ritually declared war to their own slaves. Every year.
Also Sparta: "The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished."
As for Aldderan, Leia makes it pretty clear that their tightening grip won’t work, but Tarkin doesn’t see it that way. He needs a target and Aldderan is perfect as it is a prominent bastion of rebel activity.
Even when they blow it up, propaganda starts immediately calling it a terrorist act done by rebels, etc. It does blow up in their faces eventually but many times empires are irrational. Look at the Roman persecution of Christians.
I’m glad you mentioned Zeon and their acts of cruelty. Too many people in the Gundam fandom adopt the “Zeon did nothing wrong” philosophy.
Granted, killing of Palpatine was more question of regime change, not overthrowing the empire as a state. Again, you can´t take anything in SW seriously.
Star Wars (the original trilogy, at least) follows the formula for a fairy tale (yes, there is such a thing), so yeah, not intended to be taken seriously in that kind of way.
If you want more plausible politics in your space opera there is Babylon 5.
Actually, let me be clear, just go watch Babylon 5! (You can still love Star Wars and/or Trek too)
@@dynamicworlds1 Correct. And I have seen most of Babylon 5.
Umm... about Alderan, Obi-Wan states "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." It was used on Alderan to instil fear in the rebels, also Alderan was known to support the rebels
Empires are not all necessarily evil, in the long run. Example: Leto Atreides II's empire is evil in its means (total submission, enslavement etc etc), yet its ultimate goal (its own disgregation to avoid the stagnation of humanity) is kind of hard to rationalise as 'evil'.
I saw the thumbnail on Tumblr, and knew this was gonna be good.
It was.
@@Yzarro hardly though - very simplistic view on the world. It is much more complicated than "democracy - good, authoritarianism - bad"
First.
I like this new format. keep up the good work, man.
commander31able SECOND
How is this comment from 2 days ago when this was uploaded 5 minutes ago
SlothMan27 black magic.
In short:
Do not 👏 Kill 👏 Your own 👏 Goddamn 👏 Taxpayers👏
I'd like to know how you'd build a Theocracy regime. Like all power of kings really belongs to church.
I think medieval Europe would be a decent example of that, since despite the various kongdoms being more than willing to kill each other for one reason or another, as soon as the papacy spoke the word they would put aside their differences and go do the bidding of their God's mouthpiece.
Ancient Egypt and Japan would also be a good parallel since their rulers were supposedly the incarnation or decendents of their gods and to go against them would be blasphemy.
@@samuelbedsole5089
*Laughs in Philippe IV le Bel sending knights to Rome to arrest the Pope, bring him to France to be judged by a council of the gallican church*
Pope died of shock before it was all done though
@Dawid It all depends on where you place the bar of theocracy.
Most if not all great states have used religion as a justification for power. So all empires are theocratic to some extent.
The most purely original "theocratic regime" would be one where birth means nothing ; only climbing up the ranks of the hierarchy matters. Funny thing is, the best historical example might very well be the soviet union.
Another somewhat-example is China under the Mandate of Heaven. That's if you want to give your theocracy a hint of corruption.
@@MadManchou Yup. Because Communism is just another religion. One that worships man as God.
Heresy! Call the inquisition! In the name of the god emperor!
The Byzantine Empire wasn't TOO bad. It was my favorite of the empires.
Well at the time of its existence it was called simply the Roman empire. It was during the renaissance that the term byzantine started to be used.
@@Jasmin_Pepelko I know, I just like saying Byzantine more than Eastern Roman Empire lol.
@@The_Cosmic_Navigator
Yep. Pretty humane as empires go.
Yeah its funny how the Romans carved their empire on top of bloody corpses, populations enslaved, and killed the Son of God, but later on they officially abolished slavery (the rich still had house slaves but they weren't to be called that specifically), created some of the earliest institutions of paid free-men labor, and declared themselves the realized Regency for the very Messiah they killed centuries prior. Thank Trajan for setting a fixed border extent for the empire so they could develop their internal economy and not always rely on conquest looting to fuel their economy.
@@RC15O5
The Empire did seem to improve as time went on. Impressive how much the Gauls came to identify as Gallo - Romans
In New Vegas the Caesar's legion does make some sense why it can function because it has something's to offer to the people. The main thing being is safety and protection from the raider gangs and war tribes the control most of the land. Making the trade routes in the territory completely safe for people to trade resource such as food. Something even the NCR wasn't able to accomplish. Though it's implied that the legion would fall apart after trying to take over the west due to being able to support the interconnected towns that rely on the government.
12:15 my favorite artist! And my second favorite work by him. I prefer desolation.