The formation of the Russian Empire happened on October 22, 1721 according to the old style, or November 2. It was on this day that the last Russian Tsar Peter 1 the Great declared himself Emperor of Russia. This happened as one of the consequences of the Northern War, after which the Senate asked Peter 1 to accept the title of Emperor of the country. The state received the name “Russian Empire”. Its capital became the city of St. Petersburg. During all this time, the capital was moved to Moscow for only 2 years (from 1728 to 1730).
Territory of the Russian Empire
When considering the history of Russia of that era, it is necessary to remember that at the time of the formation of the empire, large territories were annexed to the country. This was made possible thanks to the successful foreign policy country led by Peter 1. He created new story, a history that returned Russia to the ranks of world leaders and powers whose opinions are worth taking into account.
The territory of the Russian Empire was 21.8 million km2. It was the second largest country in the world. In first place was the British Empire with its numerous colonies. Most of them have retained their status to this day. The country's first laws divided its territory into 8 provinces, each of which was governed by a governor. He had full local power, including judicial power. Subsequently, Catherine 2 increased the number of provinces to 50. Of course, this was done not through the annexation of new lands, but through fragmentation. This increased quite a lot state machine and quite significantly reduced the efficiency of local government in the country. We will talk about this in more detail in the corresponding article. It should be noted that at the time of the collapse of the Russian Empire, its territory consisted of 78 provinces. Largest cities the countries were:
- Saint Petersburg.
- Moscow.
- Warsaw.
- Odessa.
- Lodz.
- Riga.
- Kyiv.
- Kharkiv.
- Tiflis.
- Tashkent.
The history of the Russian Empire is full of both bright and negative aspects. This time period, which lasted less than two centuries, included a huge number of fateful moments in the fate of our country. It was during the period of the Russian Empire that the Patriotic War, campaigns in the Caucasus, campaigns in India, and European campaigns took place. The country developed dynamically. The reforms affected absolutely all aspects of life. It was the history of the Russian Empire that gave our country great commanders, whose names are on the lips to this day not only in Russia, but throughout Europe - Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov and Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov. These famous generals forever inscribed their names in the history of our country and covered Russian weapons with eternal glory.
Map
We present a map of the Russian Empire, a brief history of which we are considering, which shows the European part of the country with all the changes that occurred in terms of territories over the years of the existence of the state.
Population
Already by the end of the 18th century, the Russian Empire was largest country world by area. Its scale was such that the messenger, who was sent to all corners of the country to report the death of Catherine 2, arrived in Kamchatka 3 months later! And this despite the fact that the messenger rode almost 200 km every day.
Russia was also the most populous country. In 1800, about 40 million people lived in the Russian Empire, most of them in the European part of the country. Just under 3 million lived beyond the Urals. National composition the country was motley:
- East Slavs. Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians (Little Russians), Belarusians. For a long time, almost until the very end of the Empire, it was considered a single people.
- Estonians, Latvians, Latvians and Germans lived in the Baltic states.
- Finno-Ugric (Mordovians, Karelians, Udmurts, etc.), Altai (Kalmyks) and Turkic (Bashkirs, Tatars, etc.) peoples.
- Peoples of Siberia and Far East(Yakuts, Evens, Buryats, Chukchis, etc.).
As the country developed, some of the Kazakhs and Jews who lived on the territory of Poland became its subjects, but after its collapse they went to Russia.
The main class in the country were peasants (about 90%). Other classes: philistinism (4%), merchants (1%), and the remaining 5% of the population were distributed among the Cossacks, clergy and nobility. This is the classic structure of an agrarian society. And indeed, the main occupation of the Russian Empire was agriculture. It is no coincidence that all the indicators that lovers of the tsarist regime love to be so proud of today are associated with agriculture(we are talking about the import of grain and butter).
By the end of the 19th century, 128.9 million people lived in Russia, of which 16 million lived in cities, and the rest in villages.
Political system
The Russian Empire was autocratic in its form of government, where all power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the emperor, who was often called, in the old manner, the tsar. Peter 1 laid down in the laws of Russia precisely the unlimited power of the monarch, which ensured autocracy. Simultaneously with the state, the autocrat actually ruled the church.
An important point is that after the reign of Paul 1, autocracy in Russia could no longer be called absolute. This happened due to the fact that Paul 1 issued a decree according to which the system of transfer of the throne established by Peter 1 was abolished. Peter Alekseevich Romanov, let me remind you, decreed that the ruler himself determines his successor. Some historians today talk about the negative aspects of this document, but this is precisely the essence of autocracy - the ruler makes all decisions, including about his successor. After Paul 1, the system returned in which the son inherits the throne from his father.
Rulers of the country
Below is a list of all the rulers of the Russian Empire during the period of its existence (1721-1917).
Emperor |
Years of reign |
|---|---|
| Peter 1 | 1721-1725 |
| Ekaterina 1 | 1725-1727 |
| Peter 2 | 1727-1730 |
| Anna Ioannovna | 1730-1740 |
| Ivan 6 | 1740-1741 |
| Elizabeth 1 | 1741-1762 |
| Peter 3 | 1762 |
| Ekaterina 2 | 1762-1796 |
| Pavel 1 | 1796-1801 |
| Alexander 1 | 1801-1825 |
| Nikolay 1 | 1825-1855 |
| Alexander 2 | 1855-1881 |
| Alexander 3 | 1881-1894 |
| Nikolay 2 | 1894-1917 |
All the rulers were from the Romanov dynasty, and after the overthrow of Nicholas 2 and the murder of himself and his family by the Bolsheviks, the dynasty was interrupted and the Russian Empire ceased to exist, changing the form of statehood to the USSR.
Key dates
During its existence, which is almost 200 years, the Russian Empire experienced many important points and events that had an impact on the state and people.
- 1722 – Table of Ranks
- 1799 – Suvorov’s foreign campaigns in Italy and Switzerland
- 1809 – Annexation of Finland
- 1812 – Patriotic War
- 1817-1864 – Caucasian War
- 1825 (December 14) – Decembrist uprising
- 1867 – Sale of Alaska
- 1881 (March 1) assassination of Alexander 2
- 1905 (January 9) – Bloody Sunday
- 1914-1918 – First World War
- 1917 – February and October revolutions
Completion of the Empire
The history of the Russian Empire ended on September 1, 1917, old style. It was on this day that the Republic was proclaimed. This was proclaimed by Kerensky, who by law did not have the right to do this, so declaring Russia a Republic can safely be called illegal. Only the Constituent Assembly. The fall of the Russian Empire is closely connected with the history of its last emperor, Nicholas 2. This emperor had all the qualities worthy person, but had an indecisive character. It was because of this that the unrest occurred in the country that cost Nicholas himself 2 his life, and the Russian Empire its existence. Nicholas 2 failed to strictly suppress the revolutionary and terrorist activities of the Bolsheviks in the country. There were indeed objective reasons for this. The main one is the First World War, in which the Russian Empire was involved and exhausted in it. The Russian Empire was replaced by new type government system countries - USSR.
September 19, 2006
"Foreign Policy", USA
http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/230004.html
The imperial states of the mid-20th century largely dug their own grave
Empires are the locomotives of history. But in the last century they turned out to be very short-lived - not a single empire saw the beginning of a new century. Today there are no empires on the political map - at least officially. But this situation may soon change if the United States - and even China - follows the call of its imperial destiny. Will they be able to avoid the fate that befell their predecessors?
The course of events in the world has always been determined by empires, not nation states. What we call the history of mankind is in many ways a chronicle of the deeds of 50-70 empires, in different time who ruled vast areas and many peoples in different regions planets. However, over time, their “lifespan” began to decrease. Compared to their predecessors in antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times, the empires of the last century turned out to be surprisingly short-lived. Reduction " life cycle"Empires have a profound influence on the events of our days.
Officially, empires do not exist today - there are only 190-odd “ordinary” states. However, the ghosts of the empires of the past still roam the planet. Regional conflicts on different continents - from Central Africa and the Middle East to Central America and the Far East - are easily - and often demagogically - explained by the sins of previous empires: there the border was drawn incorrectly, here they sowed inter-ethnic strife, following the principle of “divide and conquer”.
Moreover, in many influential states of today's world, the features of the empires that gave birth to them are unmistakably discerned. Let's take Russian Federation: Russians make up less than 80% of its population. And Great Britain today is essentially an “empire of the British.” Modern Italy and Germany were not born national movements, and the expansion of Piedmont and Prussia. The legacy of empires is even more evident outside Europe. Today's India, for example, was largely shaped by the Mughal era and British colonial rule. (An Indian officer once told me: “The Indian Army today is more “English” than the British Army.” As we passed through the cantonment at Madras, I realized that he was right: hundreds of khaki-clad infantrymen stood at attention at the sight of the officer. line and saluted). Today's China is a direct descendant of the Middle Kingdom. In the New World, the legacy of empire is visible from Canada in the North to Argentina in the South: in Canada the British monarch remains the official head of state, and the Falkland Islands still belong to England.
In short, in today's world former empires or their colonies occupy the same place as nation states. Even the organizations created in 1945 to reshape the international system bear a clear imperial imprint. Doesn't the institution of permanent members of the UN Security Council resemble a "gentlemen's club" former empires? And what are “humanitarian interventions” if not a more politically correct formulation of the concept of the “civilizing mission” of the former Western empires?
How long do empires last?
It is generally accepted that the “life cycle” of empires, great powers and civilizations follows certain predictable patterns. However, what is most striking about the empires of the past is the enormous variation not only in the size of their possessions, but also in the duration of their existence. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the “life” of modern empires turns out to be much shorter than that of their ancient and medieval predecessors.
Take, for example, the three Roman Empires. The Western Roman Empire arose in 27 BC, when Octavian called himself Caesar Augustus and became emperor in all respects except the title itself. Its end came with the death of Emperor Theodosius in 395, when Constantinople officially became the "rival" capital of the Roman state: it thus existed for 422 years. At the same moment, the Eastern Roman Empire was born, which lasted 1058 years - until the defeat of Byzantium by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Holy Roman Empire existed from 800, when Charlemagne was crowned, until 1806, when Napoleon nailed its coffin the last nail. Thus, the "average life expectancy" for the Roman Empires is 829 years.
Such calculations, while approximate, make it possible to compare the “life cycles” of different empires. The three Roman empires in this sense turned out to be “long-livers.” So, average for the Middle Eastern empires (Assyria, the Abbasid state, the Ottoman Empire) is a little more than 400 years, in Egypt and Eastern Europe empires existed for an average of 350 years, for China - if you separate each of the main dynasties into a separate “imperial cycle” - a similar figure is more than 300 years. Various empires in Persia, India and Western Europe"lived" mainly from 200 to 300 years.
After the capture of Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire lasted the longest - 469 years. The Eastern European empires of the Habsburgs and Romanovs lasted for more than three centuries. The Mughals ruled most of what is now India for 235 years. The reign of the Safavid dynasty in Persia lasted almost as long.
The exact dating of the “maritime” empires with metropolises in Western Europe is a more difficult task, since there are different points of view regarding the chronology of their existence. However, it is safe to say that the British, Dutch, French and Spanish empires lasted approximately 300 years each, and the Portuguese - almost 500.
The empires that emerged in the 20th century, by contrast, had a relatively short “life cycle.” The Bolshevik USSR existed for less than 70 years (1922-1991) - by historical standards, not long at all; however, the People's Republic of China has not yet overcome even this milestone. The Japanese colonial empire, which began with the annexation of Taiwan in 1895, barely lasted half a century. Hitler's Third Reich turned out to be the most short-lived of the empires of the 20th century: its expansion beyond the borders of Germany began in 1938, but by the beginning of 1945 it was expelled from all occupied territories. Formally, the Third Reich existed for 12 years, but it was an empire in the true sense - i.e. a state governing other nations - he was only half of this term. Only Benito Mussolini turned out to be an even more unlucky “imperialist” than Hitler.
Why were the empires of the 20th century so fragile? The answer is partly due to their desire for unprecedented centralization of power, control of the economy and social homogeneity.
The new empires that emerged after the First World War were not satisfied with an effective but improvised administrative system, characteristic of traditional colonial empires, including the indiscriminate mixing of imperial and local laws and the delegation of certain powers and status to certain indigenous ethnic groups in the colonies. From the nation-state builders of the 19th century, they inherited an insatiable thirst for uniformity; as a result, these entities are more likely to be defined as “imperial states” rather than classical empires. The new empires discarded traditional religious and legal norms that limited state violence. They persistently built on the site of existing social structures new hierarchical system, they took pleasure in breaking the old political institutions. But most importantly, they turned cruelty into the highest virtue. In pursuit of their goals, they waged “total” wars, directed not only against armed and specially trained representatives of the enemy state, but also against entire social or ethnic groups. Here is one fact typical of the new generation of “emperor candidates”: Hitler accused the British of being “soft” towards the Indian national movement.
The imperial states of the mid-20th century largely dug their own grave. The Germans and Japanese asserted their power over other peoples with such cruelty that they completely undermined the possibility of cooperation with the local population and created the preconditions for the development of the Resistance Movement. This was a reckless policy, since many of those whom the Axis powers had “liberated” from previous rulers (Stalin in Eastern Europe, European empires in Asia) initially welcomed their new masters. At the same time, the territorial ambitions of these imperial states were so limitless - and their overall strategy so illusory - that they very quickly gave birth to an indestructible coalition of rival empires - Britain, the USA and the USSR.
Why are we fighting
An empire cannot survive for long if it does not have a long-term base among the local population, or if it allows rival empires to unite into a hostile coalition that is superior in strength. The critical question is: have the behavior of today's world powers changed compared to their imperial predecessors?
Publicly, the leaders of the American and Chinese republics deny that they have any imperial aspirations. Both states were born during revolutions, and have long “anti-imperialist” traditions. But at some point the mask is dropped. Thus, the cards that US Vice President Dick Cheney sent to friends for Christmas in 2003 contained an eloquent quote from Benjamin Franklin: “If a sparrow does not fall to the ground without God noticing it, is it possible for an empire to arise without His help?” ?". In 2004, a senior adviser to President Bush told journalist Ron Suskind, "We are an empire now, and by our actions we shape man-made reality... We move history." Perhaps similar thoughts come to Chinese leaders. But even if this does not happen, nothing prevents the republic from behaving “imperially” in practice, continuing to swear allegiance to republican virtues.
By historical standards, the United States is still a very young empire. Its expansion on the American continent itself in the 19th century was overtly imperialistic in nature. However, the relative ease with which the initial federation of states absorbed vast but sparsely populated territories prevented the formation of a truly imperial mentality and did not pose any problems for the existence of republican political institutions. On the contrary, the overseas expansion of the United States, the beginning of which can be considered the Spanish-American War of 1898, was accompanied by much greater difficulties, and it is for this reason that during this period the specter of the transformation of the presidential seat into the “imperial throne” more than once appeared on the horizon. If we leave out American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, which became permanent US dependencies, American interventions abroad, as a rule, lasted relatively short.
In the 20th century, the United States occupied Panama for 74 years, the Philippines for 48 years, Palau for 47 years, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands for 39 years, Haiti for 19 years, and the Dominican Republic for 8 years. The official occupation of West Germany and Japan after World War II lasted 10 and 7 years, respectively, although in these countries, as in South Korea, American troops are still deployed. In addition, starting in 1965, an impressive American contingent was sent to South Vietnam, but by 1973 it was withdrawn.
Such historical experience reinforces the popular belief that the post-U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan presidential term George W. Bush will not last long. Today's empires - especially if they do not recognize themselves as such - are fragile, but for special reasons that distinguish our era from previous ones.
In the case of the American empire, its ephemerality is associated primarily not with the hostility of the conquered peoples or the threat from rival powers (which caused the collapse of other empires of the 20th century), but with internal political restrictions. These limitations come in three main forms. The first can be called a “troop shortage.” When Britain successfully crushed a major uprising in Iraq in 1920, it deployed a sizeable force: there was one British soldier for every 23 people in the country. Today the United States is clearly unable to ensure such a balance of forces: there are 210 Iraqis for every American soldier.
The problem, contrary to popular belief, is not purely demographic in nature. The United States has plenty of healthy young people (the number of men aged 15 to 24 is many times larger than Iraq or Afghanistan). The fact is that the size of the US armed forces is a very small proportion of the population - 0.5%. In addition, only a small, best-trained part of these armed forces takes part in combat operations in overseas theaters.
Soldiers from elite units are too cherished to be sent to their deaths without hesitation. And replacing the dead is not easy. Every time I read in the newspapers about the tragic death of another American soldier in battle, the lines of Rudyard Kipling, the greatest of the British “imperial” poets, come to mind:
Random battle in Afghanistan,
In the gorge of the mountains there is a damp dawn,
Two thousand education
He dumped the jezail for five coins -
The beauty and pride of the squadron
In the saddle, shot like a crow.
["Arithmetic of the Afghan border", translation by F. Tolstoy]
The second limiting factor for the American “unofficial” empire is the US budget deficit. The cost of the war in Iraq has been far greater than the administration predicted: it has already totaled $290 billion since the invasion began in 2003. In relation to the volume of US GDP, this figure does not look so impressive - only 2.5%, but the treasury was not able to allocate more funds for the accelerated post-war reconstruction of Iraq, but this could have prevented the flaring up in the country. civil war. Other spending priorities - such as funding the government's Medicare obligations - prevented the Marshall Plan for the Middle East from being realized, as some Iraqis had hoped.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the American public is less enthusiastic about imperial policies. Empires of the past had no trouble generating public support for even the most protracted military conflicts. Their descendant - the United States - has clearly lost such skills. Just a year and a half after the invasion of Iraq, the majority of American voters, according to polls from the polling service Gallup, considered it a mistake. For comparison, disappointment in the Vietnam War reached the same proportions only in August 1968 - when three years had already passed since the entry of a large American contingent into the country, and US losses in killed were approaching 30,000 people.
There are a lot of hypotheses designed to explain the shortening of the “life cycle” of empires in our era. Some argue that because of the ubiquity of the news media, would-be "emperors" are no longer able to secretly abuse power. Others insist that advanced military technology no longer gives the United States undeniable advantage: homemade landmines - like primitive jezail guns “for five coins” in Kipling’s time - reduce it to zero, since the most powerful and ultra-modern weapons are often simply unsuitable for fighting partisans.
However, the real reasons for the fragility - and indeed the very “unofficialness” - of modern empires are not connected with this. Whether we like it or not, empires become the driving force of history because the format allows for "economies of scale." Thus, most nation states can only put a limited number of people under arms. The empire, in this regard, has greater “free hands”: one of its most important functions is the mobilization and equipment of powerful armed forces consisting of representatives of many nations, as well as the collection of taxes and the provision of loans to finance them - again supported by the resources of numerous colonies.
But why are these wars needed at all? The answer, again, has to do with economics. Among the “selfish” goals of imperial expansion are the vital need to ensure the security of the metropolis by defeating external enemies, replenishing the treasury through taxes and other payments levied on conquered peoples, and, of course, material “trophies” - new lands for colonization, raw materials , precious metals. To justify the expense of conquering and colonizing new lands, an empire must typically obtain all of these resources at more than low prices than is possible in the course of free trade with independent peoples and other empires.
At the same time, the empire often provides its citizens with “public goods” - i.e. benefits that extend not only to the colonialists themselves, but also to the conquered peoples - and third countries too. This could be peace and order in the sense we understand of the Pax Romana, increased trade and investment, improved education (sometimes, but not always, associated with conversion to a particular religion), or improved material living conditions.
Imperial rule rests not only on bayonets. Not only soldiers, but also civil servants, settlers, public organizations, businessmen and local elites in various ways ensure the implementation of the decisions of the center in the periphery. Moreover, the benefits of empire extend beyond its rulers and their “clients.” Colonists from low-income sections of the population of the metropolis also often take advantage of its benefits. Even for those who do not go overseas, the victories of the Imperial Legions in foreign lands become a source of pride. Among those who benefit from the empire are often local elites in the colonies.
Thus, an empire arises and exists if, in the eyes of the imperialists themselves, the benefits of ruling other peoples exceed the associated costs, and in the eyes of the conquered peoples themselves, the benefits of subjugation foreign power outweigh the “costs” associated with resistance to the colonialists. Indirectly, such calculations also include “lost profits” in the event of the transfer of power over a particular territory to another empire.
All things considered, the costs of running Iraq and Afghanistan today seem "excessive" to most Americans, the benefits dubious at best, and no rival empire able or willing to test them there. own strength. And because America's republican institutions, while under pressure, remain intact, today's United States bears little resemblance to 1st century BC Rome. And the current president, although he strives to expand the powers of the executive branch, is not like Octavian.
However, all this could change. On our increasingly overpopulated planet, where sooner or later there will inevitably be a shortage of certain types of raw materials, all the main prerequisites for imperial rivalry remain. Look at the energy with which China Lately seeks “special relationships” with commodity-rich countries in Africa and other regions. Or ask yourself the question: even if “neo-isolationism” prevails in America, how long will it be able to distance itself from events in the Muslim world in the face of new attacks by Islamist terrorists?
Let us admit: today empires are not only embarrassed to be called such, but they are also not in “demand.” However, the experience of history suggests that tomorrow the pendulum of the balance of power may swing again towards them.
Empire- when one person (monarch) has power over a vast territory inhabited by numerous peoples of different nationalities. This ranking is based on the influence, longevity and power of various empires. The list is based on the assumption that an empire should, most of the time, be ruled by an emperor or king, this excludes the modern so-called empires of the United States and the Soviet Union. Below is a ranking of the ten greatest empires in the world.
At the peak of its power (XVI–XVII), the Ottoman Empire was located on three continents at once, controlling most of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. It consisted of 29 provinces and numerous vassal states, some of which were later absorbed into the empire. The Ottoman Empire was at the center of interaction between the eastern and western worlds for six centuries. In 1922, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.
The Umayyad Caliphate was the second of four Islamic caliphates (systems of government) created after the death of Muhammad. The empire, under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty, covered more than five million square kilometers, making it one of the largest in the world, as well as the largest Arab-Muslim empire ever created in history.
Persian Empire (Achaemenid)
The Persian Empire basically united all of Central Asia, which consisted of many different cultures, kingdoms, empires, and tribes. It was the most big empire in ancient history. At the peak of its power, the empire covered about 8 million square kilometers.
The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire was part of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. Permanent capital and civilizational center Byzantine Empire was Constantinople. During its existence (more than a thousand years), the empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural and military forces in Europe despite setbacks and losses of territory, especially during the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Arab wars. The Empire received its death blow in 1204 on the fourth Crusade.
The Han Dynasty is considered the golden age in Chinese history in terms of scientific achievements, technological progress, economic, cultural and political stability. Even to this day, most Chinese call themselves Han people. Today, the Han Chinese are considered the largest ethnic group in the world. The dynasty ruled China for almost 400 years.
The British Empire covered more than 13 million square kilometers, roughly equivalent to about a quarter of our planet's land area. The empire's population was approximately 480 million people (approximately one-fourth of humanity). The British Empire is by far one of the most influential empires to ever exist in human history.
During the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire was considered the "superpower" of its time. It consisted of eastern France, all of Germany, northern Italy and part of western Poland. It was officially dissolved on August 6, 1806, after which there appeared: Switzerland, Holland, the Austrian Empire, Belgium, the Prussian Empire, the principalities of Liechtenstein, the Confederation of the Rhine and the first french empire.
Russian empire existed from 1721 until the Russian Revolution in 1917. She was the heir to the kingdom of Russia, and the predecessor Soviet Union. The Russian Empire was the third largest state that ever existed, second only to the British and Mongol empires.
It all started when Temujin (later known as Genghis Khan, considered one of the most brutal rulers in history), vowed in his youth to bring the world to its knees. The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in human history. The capital of the state was the city of Karakorum. The Mongols were fearless and ruthless warriors, but they had little experience in ruling such a vast territory and the Mongol Empire quickly fell.
Ancient Rome made major contributions to the development of law, art, literature, architecture, technology, religion and language in the Western world. In fact, many historians consider the Roman Empire to be the "ideal empire" because it was powerful, fair, long-lasting, large, well-defended, and economically advanced. The calculation showed that from its foundation to its fall, a whopping 2214 years passed. It follows from this that the Roman Empire is the most great empire ancient world.
Share on social media networks
Almost immediately after the death of Alexander the Great, the struggle for his great and ownerless inheritance began. And soon this struggle resulted in the division of territories, which was started by Ptolemy, who spoke in favor of division and the creation of a “federation of satrapies.”
At first they did not support him, having agreed on a compromise: there remained a ghostly royal power, which was given to the feeble-minded and easily controlled Arrhidaeus, but the satraps had already distributed to themselves parts of the empire, in which they felt more and more independent, as if thereby justifying the proposal of Ptolemy, who managed get yourself Egypt - the most profitable part of the empire, rich and quite isolated.
Then a bloody struggle for power and territory began, in which the entire reigning house died, including Arrhidaeus, Olympias, Alexander’s mother, Alexander’s widow Roxana, and many of Alexander’s associates also died. The civil strife seemed endless and became bloodier. The empire had already completely disintegrated into the destinies of the most successful of the surviving commanders of the great king. Actually, it actually began to disintegrate even under him - he fought for too long somewhere on the edge of the country and did not build enough of a state building. He enlarged this building too much, not caring that by adding a new one, he had not yet achieved a monolith in the old one. And now the shortcomings of the original design have come to light. Even Ptolemy forgot about the idea of "federation".
All the new rulers accepted royal titles, and each built their own independent destinies and powers, without thinking about the past. Only clashes continued between these heirs of Alexander, but these were purely wars of conquest - those who felt powerful wanted to chop off a piece from their weaker neighbor. No one thought that they were fighting against their yesterday’s brother.