Show Less
Restricted access

The Empire. Between dispute and nostalgia

Edited By Emanuel Plopeanu, Gabriel Stelian Manea and Metin Omer

The book examines how different imperial models of diplomacy, administration, economics, and cultural and religious policies were challenged or, on the contrary, defended during and after the collapse of the Empires that promoted them. It provides an overview from multiple perspectives of the imperial phenomenon in all its dimensions, and the studies published in this volume address broad chronological segments and geographical areas relevant to the imperial idea.

Show Summary Details
Restricted access



One hundred years have passed since the collapse of four empires considered intolerant, little or not at all adapted to modernity, lacking vision in regional and European politics. However, the peace treaties negotiated and signed in the City of Lights buried only the matter of the Empire, not the concept. For a hundred years humanity has experienced new imperial formulas, some pretentiously named, as in the case of the Third Reich, others transformed as a result of internal pressures, such as the dissolution of the British Empire. In the first case, the temptation of the empire was irresistible, but necessary to legitimize a repressive and dehumanizing political elite.

The concept also becomes applicable in the absence of material features: territory, borders, administration. The forced link between the metropolis and the territories – sovereign and independent, apparently – receives the same definition, and the “Soviet Empire” is the best reference in this regard. This case is atypical from another point of view. Throughout history, the formation of empires started from a centre, from a metropolis that could display and impose the highest political, economic, cultural standards and models in the controlled territory. Rome, Constantinople, London were, for their empires, the guiding light, they were on the highest peaks of the civilization of their time and in this way, they could justify the imperial claims. Moscow, on the other hand, cannot claim the same for the ideological “empire” it has built exclusively through force and terror. The imperial control of...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.