How do you write an empire set in a modern setting?

[ThePoarter]

I'm sure I'm not breaking any rules about this question but i don't really know how to ask or answer it. It's for a relative dystopia but it's still very much modern day.

How do you write an empire in a modern setting set in our technological levels of civilizations i.e. nukes, internet, easy travel?

What would be some ways to ensure that (in a setting with no magic) such an empire would properly dominate all it's tribute nations in a manner that they can not deny or play at?

In essence what IS an empire?

 

[crazygrox]

Okay, by empire you mean a group that doesn't have a long history of control in its acquired territories(possibly outside of the core territories), and as such rules over and extracts from subordinated but distinct regions and peoples.
Or alternatively a group that extracts from peoples with a strong enough internal culture that they are not being naturally assimilated over long periods(for example the eastern half of the Roman empire were assimilated enough that they called themselves romans and thought of all the glory of Rome as being theirs, but they were culturally different to the west and spoke Greek instead of Latin.), and either are not engaging in forcible assimilation efforts, or are failing at those efforts due to a mix of passive and active resistance.
edit: sometimes they're extracting resources or taxes(a La the conventional colonial European empire), occasionally land-based empires are extracting security, by preventing conquered peoples from organizing invasions, by gaining control of advantageous defensible border features, and by gaining troops extracted from conquered peoples. It's hypothetically possible to extract national pride/pride in the group you identify with, from subjugated peoples, but I don't think that usually works, when it does it's usually accompanied by fairly intense efforts towards assimilation.

So, did this setting go through our planet's 19th century(1800's) rise of nationalism?

The thing that resulted in people changing how they conceptualize a state. From being land that is organized as the possession of political elites, to being land that is organized as the possession of a group of people with common characteristics.
The 1848 spring of nations, inspired by the ideologies of nationalism growing out of the unfairness' perpetuated against groups of people by the Hapsburg monarchy and the 1804-17 Serbian revolt against the Ottomans could have simply not happened, or have failed radically in a way that discredits the idea.
If that had happened, the norm would still be for most nations to be authoritarian monarchical or oligarchical states, which incorporate multiple groups of peoples, and as such are states but not nation-states.
Those revolutions, and earlier proto-nationalistic ones like the French and (to a lesser extent)American revolutions, were mostly driven by the extreme costs, and thus need for taxation revenue, that was the result of increasingly expensive wars between major powers.
If there was either only one major world empire(for example China begins seaborn conquest a couple of centuries before the Europeans would have) that would remove the impetus for such revolutions(assuming otherwise-sensible empire management). If there were significant natural barriers(major deserts, mountain ranges, being on separate islands) between the core territories of the major empires, that could also reduce the likeliness that wars between them will be impoverishing or disruptive enough to core territories to provoke major social revolution.

Maybe watch this playlist and take notes: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL79SVbb9bn0RmjlsLWIq48NuXPLAG70EW
For info on how to construct an empire that works/how to write one.
and remember that some segments of conquered peoples generally have at least some positive draws to remain in the empire, even if they didn't join voluntarily. For example at least benefiting from imperial defenses and trade networks.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the reason why we don't have major European empires in some parts of the world today is because the Americans were worried that any attempt to maintain existing empires would give a major advantage to Russian-inspired communist revolutionaries, who would be pursuing globalized revolution with powerful backing, and because America had the major European empires so deep in debt that they could promise a lot in exchange for giving up overseas possessions.
In a modern world that lacked such a severe debt to motivate imperial withdrawal the process of decolonialization would be more fraught and hard-fought.
Portugal's final decolonization wars start in either 1954 or 1961(depending on whether you're measuring from the loss of enclaves and ports in territories they don't mostly rule, or only starting measuring from the rebellion of major regions of subject peoples) and only ends in 2002.
In a world without a globalizing revolutionary ideology with a powerful backer that would also remove a lot of the impetus to decolonize at all, either willingly or by revolution. And America and Russia were only really able to support that kind of ideological worldview because they were major and powerful nations who didn't have powerful and geologically distinct subject peoples. If there were no major nation without powerful and distinct subject peoples there would be no sufficient backer for global revolution.

But honestly, I think the simplest way would be for the setting to be a planet of islands, like a planetary version of Indonesia. That way there are major barriers to expensive and disruptive invasions of core territories so they wouldn't happen as often in history(both everything being islands that are difficult to invade if they're well-populated and well-developed as core territories will be, and the fact that a lot of islands have a major mountain range in the middle separating them into at least two cultures because of the historical difficulty of invading across it), and there is a lot more reason to believe that every major and powerful nation will have powerful and distinct subject peoples in their own sub-regions, and thus no one actually powerful can afford to put state resources behind a revolutionary ideology that might also afflict their territories.

edit: it needs to be noted that empires become less 'empire like' the longer they exist.
The extraction of resources from distinct peripheral peoples in favor of an imperial core is inherently unstable, and over time empires either fall, assimilate peripheral peoples into the core culture, or (rarely in humans)become more pluralistic and federalist, making peripheral regions more co-equal.

 

[ThePoarter]

Well the empire here has a population of 1.6 billion and is the biggest nation in the world. Developed as well. The population of the entire planet is 12 billion.

And it's a semi presidency democracy. But in reality it's an oligarchy.

 

[Imperator Pax]

I'm sure I'm not breaking any rules about this question but i don't really know how to ask or answer it. It's for a relative dystopia but it's still very much modern day.

How do you write an empire in a modern setting set in our technological levels of civilizations i.e. nukes, internet, easy travel?

What would be some ways to ensure that (in a setting with no magic) such an empire would properly dominate all it's tribute nations in a manner that they can not deny or play at?

In essence what IS an empire?

Click to shrink...

There are a couple of ways, though not 'modern modern' earth, my AoE timeline has what is effectively an Imperial China in the sixties and most of its soft social power is cultural, and material. That is to say that post Japanese defeat, post Chinese civil war China then involved itself in local anti colonial struggles. That is to say it sided with Vietnam against France, eventually with overt military force against the French in Indochina as well as participating in less overt actions in Indonesia, and then its wealthy social elites invested in developing Vietnam and Indonesia markets while the state invested in military assistance and anti-communist assistance to particularly Indonesia. This would eventually form a third block in Asia as an answer to the warsaw pact.

SO effectively a large industrial base able to create manufactured goods for exports, and an emphasis on creating easy travel while also heavily involving itself in its client states post war rebuilding particularly education.. Democracy isn't really necessary for a successful state, economic prosperity is all the really matters and being able to deliver that by improving rural standards of living and shaping education is effective in shaping public opinion.


An Empire is effectively a political entity with a centralized / in group identity which shapes policy and strongly influences the surrounding lesser states and serves as a counter balance to other strong states.

 

[ATP]

I'm sure I'm not breaking any rules about this question but i don't really know how to ask or answer it. It's for a relative dystopia but it's still very much modern day.

How do you write an empire in a modern setting set in our technological levels of civilizations i.e. nukes, internet, easy travel?

What would be some ways to ensure that (in a setting with no magic) such an empire would properly dominate all it's tribute nations in a manner that they can not deny or play at?

In essence what IS an empire?

Click to shrink...

Look like soviet and USA acted once,and China now.2 fallen and one existing empire.

 

[crazygrox]

Well the empire here has a population of 1.6 billion and is the biggest nation in the world. Developed as well. The population of the entire planet is 12 billion.

And it's a semi presidency democracy. But in reality it's an oligarchy.

Click to shrink...

You're probably going to want a setting where for some reason this empire is accepting that democracy is the right way to legitimize a ruler.
Either there was a popular democratic movement they wanted to appease, or there was another country they were diplomatically courting, so they moved in the direction of token democracy.

But if you want the 'empire' character to be preserved. Namely that they be an expansionist state which conquers and exploits peripheral peoples, you're going to want either formal and explicit restrictions on who can vote, or one of the forms of, usually less explicit, vote rigging to ensure that either the ruling party or the most powerful individuals are always voted in.
By Oligarchy do you mean that there's a formal or informal class system which politically privileges members of a small ruling class, or do you intend for the oligarchs to have personalities and be long-standing individuals in a ruling committee?
If the second you're going to want to not have the populace select the president, or else have the president or chairman be completely ceremonial, instead the ruling committee or the legislature would probably elect the president. Because an oligarchy doesn't want the populace having the power to elect someone over them who might act to limit their power.
While a setup with an elected president under a rigged general vote, yet with significant independent power vested in a small oligarchy, could happen it's far more likely in weak countries that recently began their current authoritarian regime, and thus had to structure a lot of their political system to appease foreign backers.

 

[TheRookIsOnFire]

Would language help to preserve the feeling of separate nations beneath an empire? Kinda like the Hispanian empire, where although the lingua franca was castillian spanish, the northern Basque regions fought hard to preserve the language and traditions of old.

Say, the Portgass Empire is old, everyone speaks Castel, but in certain places the old grocery lady is far more kind - and amenable to barter and gossip - if you greet her witha Varia Salut (old Barrasqe greeting, some describe it as a weirdly sweeping bow) and here are many good sights - bars, family restaurants, the like - and other services you won't ever find they exist if you don't speak Barrish.

Or how in certain places on the southern shores of Gian you can tell tourists from local patrons as the later tend to leave that last spoonful of food in the bowl, some old Giandian way of giving face to the ancestors of one's hosts. It involved sacrificing a bit of food in a lit brazier on certain holidays, but nowadays most Giandians who still bother with that just burn something they cooked for the occasion. They don't actually keep old leftovers to burn on Shien. Nevertheless, leaving the spoon or fork loaded with a last bit of food is seen as good manners.

Doing so on a Montren restaurant is likely to at best land you a kick in the ass and to have your pic pinned to the Blacklisted board. Even if there was no bad blood between the Gian and the Montre, wasting food is not just an insult to host and fellow patrons both, but in the eyes of the Monna religion it is outright considered a sin.

 

[Torcer]

SNIP... In essence what IS an empire?

Click to shrink...

I'm a fan of one particularly YouTube Channel called Hello Future Me which focuses on Writing. Your post reminded me of a series of his On Worldbuilding, to which I've linked three relevant videos on Empires. It's about an hours watch collectively. I'd recommend watching it them once through to enjoy the video, and a second time to take notes and make references. I hope this helps.

Spoiler: Empires - The Rise, Fall & Functions

 

[ATP]

What empire is?
classical empires,like Rome,had 2 proprieties which differ them from other states:
1.They had no fixed boundaries - other states keep their tribes,or territory,or people of one religions and no more - empires had potential claims to all people on Earth.Why? becouse of Ideas which keep their empires together.

2.Ideas. - in Roma cause,cyvilization.They gave conqered people superior cyvilization,so they should be grateful that they get conqered.And blame only themselves if they fought and get massacred.
It could be also religion,Arab created their short living empire in name of religion.Or something else,like ideology in modern times.

What differ modern empires of genociders Lenin,Sralin,Hitler and Mao from older ones ?

Utopia.They wanted create paradise on Earth,which mean,that part of population who do not belonged must die.Jews,gypsies and most of slavic people in german Empire,farmers and christians in commie empires.
Romans do not fought jews who accepted their rule.Germans must kill them all.Romans do not genocide farmers who obey,soviets must kill all.Christians for most of times ,except some periods,could live,too.If Romans decide to genocide them all,that there would be no christianity.

Current China empire,even if cosplay as commie,is Han centered.So,they do not need to genocide those who obey.

If you want write about modern empire,you knew something that potentially claim entire Earth,like soviet union,have idea/no matter which/,and genocide those who consider enemies of such idea/again,no matter which people/

 

[ThePoarter]

I'm a fan of one particularly YouTube Channel called Hello Future Me which focuses on Writing. Your post reminded me of a series of his On Worldbuilding, to which I've linked three relevant videos on Empires. It's about an hours watch collectively. I'd recommend watching it them once through to enjoy the video, and a second time to take notes and make references. I hope this helps.

Spoiler: Empires - The Rise, Fall & Functions

Click to shrink...

Actually watched that. But the thing is the only modern empire we have is America and maybe China to compare to. That's it.

 

[CILinkz]

probably like Code Geass Brittania. they conquered most of the earth with superior firepower, same as any other empire. doesnt really matter if its modern day or not, the human doesnt really change at their basic. the stronger you are, the more you can grab. maybe throw in some racism in there because it has some actual use in that kinda setting. if your citizens think they are better then all others and have a divine right to rule over them, then you wont have as much problems with internal revolutions because they have scapegoats and enemies always at the front to distract them.

 

[Sonifri]

You want to know how? Look at the USA and then imagine if the presidency was hereditary and the legislative and judicial branches derived their legitimacy through loyalty to the executive branch.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm sure I'm not breaking any rules about this question but i don't really know how to ask or answer it. It's for a relative dystopia but it's still very much modern day.

How do you write an empire in a modern setting set in our technological levels of civilizations i.e. nukes, internet, easy travel?

What would be some ways to ensure that (in a setting with no magic) such an empire would properly dominate all it's tribute nations in a manner that they can not deny or play at?

In essence what IS an empire?

Click to shrink...

A few clarification questions
1. Is this earth or a alternate planet
2. Is there a main ideology backing the empire and enforcing and perpetuating both the empire and its relative dystopia?
3. How widespread are nuclear weapons?
4. What kind of culture/cultures exist in the Empire, kinda important to detail how such a empire should be structured.
5. How was this empire first created? like what are the origins of the nation? at least in very broad strokes

 

[Elbrasch]

Hell, nix WW1 in the butt and have the alliance web in Europe slowly decay over time. You then still have land grabs as an acceptable move in international politics, get several empires/spheres of influence kicking around and can have a few major wars between empires until the invention of nukes.
Once these come into play you can see a renewed focus on gobbling up the remaining minor powers, either diplomatically or through wars. See cold war for these, through with multiple empires and less militarism due to less ideological polarization.

 

[Imperator Pax]

Hell, nix WW1 in the butt and have the alliance web in Europe slowly decay over time. You then still have land grabs as an acceptable move in international politics, get several empires/spheres of influence kicking around and can have a few major wars between empires until the invention of nukes.
Once these come into play you can see a renewed focus on gobbling up the remaining minor powers, either diplomatically or through wars. See cold war for these, through with multiple empires and less militarism due to less ideological polarization.

Click to shrink...

Thats not really possible

WW1 was pretty much unavoidable.

It was a natural outgrowth of the decline of the concert of Europe as caused by the second empire, France's loss of prestige in 1870 to a Germany who would quickly overtake England as the predominant domestic industrial manufacturer (Steel and chemicals) in the continental European sphere all but insured that France recognizing her political position would pivot to using the Russians much as how Austria had, this is why France extends those loans and investments to Russia, and thats made possibly by the legacy of Napoleon III being good for France's economy, but WW1 was basically on the wall from 1873 onward, the French began planning for a follow on war against Germany immediately after the war, they were planning for the war before German occupation troops had even left the country, before they had paid off the indemnity.

Britains involement could be avoided, there was nothing legal in the treaty sense about Britain's involvement in the entente this was not the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Parliament was not involved in the triple entente this was solely a product of Ed Gray and the Foreign ministry decided 'well we're going to ally with France' laconically because 'muh honor' Edward Gray being disgraced or Atlee telling him to fuck off or an earlier irish crisis could take him off the board, but by 1900 British power had peaked with the Boer war, it is in that period that the US becomes the largest economy on the planet by most metrics

The only way to avoid the problems of Entente versus CP [such that I see] is ironically the war starts earlier but that runs the problem of France Supports Russia, Russian against England as one example (Russia very nearly blundered into war during the Russo-Japanese war) before that there is of course the possibility of war between France and Italy, or the possibility of France versus England (egypt is a good kick off for this as is the med in general, but having France threaten suez) the first outgrowth that leads to the first world war is french belligerence in the second republic & second empire it destroys and erodes the concert of europe with France increasingly playing strongman in negotiations in exchange for concessions up until Prussia baits them into a war and sucker punches them but even then French irredentism and sacred ego (the same concepts which shape much of Italian foreign policy in this period as well) set the stage for an inevitable future conflict

You would either need an early very blood war ~1900, or people failing to honor their treaty alliances, Britain declining the entente arrangements (edward gray being told to take a hike, and thus bogging england down into Irish home rule) doesn't stop the war in Europe.

 

[ATP]

Thats not really possible

WW1 was pretty much unavoidable.

It was a natural outgrowth of the decline of the concert of Europe as caused by the second empire, France's loss of prestige in 1870 to a Germany who would quickly overtake England as the predominant domestic industrial manufacturer (Steel and chemicals) in the continental European sphere all but insured that France recognizing her political position would pivot to using the Russians much as how Austria had, this is why France extends those loans and investments to Russia, and thats made possibly by the legacy of Napoleon III being good for France's economy, but WW1 was basically on the wall from 1873 onward, the French began planning for a follow on war against Germany immediately after the war, they were planning for the war before German occupation troops had even left the country, before they had paid off the indemnity.

Britains involement could be avoided, there was nothing legal in the treaty sense about Britain's involvement in the entente this was not the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Parliament was not involved in the triple entente this was solely a product of Ed Gray and the Foreign ministry decided 'well we're going to ally with France' laconically because 'muh honor' Edward Gray being disgraced or Atlee telling him to fuck off or an earlier irish crisis could take him off the board, but by 1900 British power had peaked with the Boer war, it is in that period that the US becomes the largest economy on the planet by most metrics

The only way to avoid the problems of Entente versus CP [such that I see] is ironically the war starts earlier but that runs the problem of France Supports Russia, Russian against England as one example (Russia very nearly blundered into war during the Russo-Japanese war) before that there is of course the possibility of war between France and Italy, or the possibility of France versus England (egypt is a good kick off for this as is the med in general, but having France threaten suez) the first outgrowth that leads to the first world war is french belligerence in the second republic & second empire it destroys and erodes the concert of europe with France increasingly playing strongman in negotiations in exchange for concessions up until Prussia baits them into a war and sucker punches them but even then French irredentism and sacred ego (the same concepts which shape much of Italian foreign policy in this period as well) set the stage for an inevitable future conflict

You would either need an early very blood war ~1900, or people failing to honor their treaty alliances, Britain declining the entente arrangements (edward gray being told to take a hike, and thus bogging england down into Irish home rule) doesn't stop the war in Europe.

Click to shrink...

You forget elephant in the room - prussia.They from 7th year war was on path of conqest,and always wonted more.Napoleon stopped them,then Bismarck moderated their ambitions - but,they fired him for that,and wanted war to dominate Europe.
If they win,they would start another to dominate more.If they lost,they would start another for revenge.

And british was not honourable idiots,you mistaken them with poles.They wanted stop germany,becouse germans started building fleet capable of facing british.
You want England not intervene?
then:
1.Germans could not attack Belgium
2.Germans could not build more battleships then Italy or A-H.

And even that,british would wage war on them,if they belived that germans could dominate Europe.
That was their politic from 18th century - wage war on everybody who could unite Europe.

Results? they turnrf French Kingdom into french Republic,and then Empire.
And,when France become strong again after 1848,they let prussia conqer german states,made united Germany - which they must fight in two world wars.
Truly genius!

 

[Imperator Pax]

You forget elephant in the room - prussia.They from 7th year war was on path of conqest,and always wonted more.Napoleon stopped them,then Bismarck moderated their ambitions - but,they fired him for that,and wanted war to dominate Europe.
If they win,they would start another to dominate more.If they lost,they would start another for revenge.

And british was not honourable idiots,you mistaken them with poles.They wanted stop germany,becouse germans started building fleet capable of facing british.
You want England not intervene?
then:
1.Germans could not attack Belgium
2.Germans could not build more battleships then Italy or A-H.

And even that,british would wage war on them,if they belived that germans could dominate Europe.
That was their politic from 18th century - wage war on everybody who could unite Europe.

Results? they turnrf French Kingdom into french Republic,and then Empire.
And,when France become strong again after 1848,they let prussia conqer german states,made united Germany - which they must fight in two world wars.
Truly genius!

Click to shrink...

The problem with the Prussians is the middle class had the war bug, once the serbian crisis escalated the German foreign ministry was committed and they were oging to get their war (to the point of trying to keep wilhelm out, on the apparent belief he might accidentally tlak the country out of war, I'm skeptical wilhelm wouldn't have stuck his foot in his mouth again). And yes, certainly German unification created the pressure which ends up putting Russia, and Austria and them with no buffer zone and thats a problem

A war is inevitable (and Prussian adventureism had been getting out of hand) but my point was less avoid a war and more avoiding a 'world war' you need something more like France and Prussia go to war in 1907 over north africa escalating when neither of them have the financial reserves to sustain the war and no one can afford to float them the money and you have local early casualties on both sides and that kicks the can down the road for another decade. Then in that time period maybe russia goes after Japan again triggering the anglo-Japanese alliance so they're off the table


Basically you need a conflict earlier to go hot that prevents everyone from coming in for one reason another to stop the dominos from falling. Franz Ferdindinad succeeding his uncle maybe the Emperor dies earlier could potentially abate the Austrian side of the crisis (in that Franz is less likely to take a fateful trip if he's emperor, but thats wildly speculative).

As for the navy thing, building the kaiserliche marine at all was a waste of money thats Spee and Wilhelm thinking they needed that ego boost, "Edward has a navy," and then George, "I must have a navy," then wilhelm just continually puts his foot in his mouth when dealing with the british on top of the perceived threat a german navy posed to england's public position

My general thesis was: If the war starts earlier there are less resources and less parties involved, 1900 or 1907 are both points of potential divergence.

 

[ATP]

The problem with the Prussians is the middle class had the war bug, once the serbian crisis escalated the German foreign ministry was committed and they were oging to get their war (to the point of trying to keep wilhelm out, on the apparent belief he might accidentally tlak the country out of war, I'm skeptical wilhelm wouldn't have stuck his foot in his mouth again). And yes, certainly German unification created the pressure which ends up putting Russia, and Austria and them with no buffer zone and thats a problem

A war is inevitable (and Prussian adventureism had been getting out of hand) but my point was less avoid a war and more avoiding a 'world war' you need something more like France and Prussia go to war in 1907 over north africa escalating when neither of them have the financial reserves to sustain the war and no one can afford to float them the money and you have local early casualties on both sides and that kicks the can down the road for another decade. Then in that time period maybe russia goes after Japan again triggering the anglo-Japanese alliance so they're off the table


Basically you need a conflict earlier to go hot that prevents everyone from coming in for one reason another to stop the dominos from falling. Franz Ferdindinad succeeding his uncle maybe the Emperor dies earlier could potentially abate the Austrian side of the crisis (in that Franz is less likely to take a fateful trip if he's emperor, but thats wildly speculative).

As for the navy thing, building the kaiserliche marine at all was a waste of money thats Spee and Wilhelm thinking they needed that ego boost, "Edward has a navy," and then George, "I must have a navy," then wilhelm just continually puts his foot in his mouth when dealing with the british on top of the perceived threat a german navy posed to england's public position

My general thesis was: If the war starts earlier there are less resources and less parties involved, 1900 or 1907 are both points of potential divergence.

Click to shrink...

So,instead world war,series of smaller wars ? it should worked,unless....

I read Memories of polish Aristocrat Hipolit Korwin-Milewski - he was polish patriot and tsar subject,who known many influential aristocrats in both Russia and A-H.
In 1918 he was in Switzerland,and meet some aristocrats who run from A-H and knew things about politics there.
They claimed,that in 1908 King of England meet A-H Emperor and wanted him to join Russia-France-England alliance,claiming that Russia military reforms made them after 1916 unstoppable.
A-H told about that germans,and they help start war in 1914,becouse belived that after that it would be to late.
Korwin-Milewski do not belived in it - according to him,A-H in 1908 was arleady Berlin vassal state,and England knew that.So,they would not propose anything.

So,unless Berlin belive that they must crush Russia or Russia would crush them,your idea should worked.

P.S What about WW later,but with much stronger Russia/Stołypin reforms/ and England supporting Germany as result?
Emperor