The operation of formal annexation and other dominations in order to exercise control over territory by a sovereign is widely perceived to be empire’s key characteristic. However, does this characteristic not taint empire’s legacy and overwhelm its positive establishments? Empires around the world established the creation of connections, through networks of religious or ethnic communities, colonies, …show more content…
Thus empires cannot be considered uniform, but rather flexible, despite their influence from past practices. The Mongols embraced the differences of their people as a means to establish a militarily-focused, mobile and self-sufficient empire, establishing their positioning as the largest land empire. Thus, whilst the Mongols bore similarity to other empires in terms of conquest through intimidation and violence, they differed in terms of religious and cultural freedom. This provides evidence of the varied forms of empire, which consequently influenced politics widely, particularly evidenced in the Mongols’ influence in China. This respective empire perhaps provides most evidence of the fact that empires are ultimately held together by coercion and the threat of forcible reconquest, as they are composed of peoples of different cultures and ethnic …show more content…
This is particularly evident in the Aztec and Inca empires’ demographic decline and relocation of people, following colonization, giving way to new forms of societies. However, this, in turn, greatly increased the effects and extent of transcontinental connections. The internal strife, proved overwhelming and disintegration of these empires occurred rapidly. Disintegration was exacerbated greatly by Revolutions, such as the French Revolution, which was built on the foundation that rights in a nation applied in colonies, ultimately giving rise to the freeing of slaves. Thus the collapse of empires was generally founded on the attack of what had been the considered as the most lucrative and significant aspect of empire: slavery. A movement emerged to embrace slaves no longer as exploitative objects, but as imperial subjects. Powers such as Britain and France ultimately collapsed upon recognition of the hypocritical concepts on which their home governments were based. Property was considered an inalienable right, yet slaves themselves were reduced to property. The civilizing ‘Christian’ mission caused strife due to its claim of the assurance of upliftment and progress in Africa and Asia, which starkly contrasted the colonial empires’ actual focus on the implementation of exploitation, violence and