I understand that the average case is pulled in either direction from multiple empires but I think it's useful to compare with empires with similar qualities and their longevity as opposed to comparing against the average case.

For example, comparing to Britain wouldn't make sense since the base of power was a much smaller landmass with a strong central governing tradition within the nation proper. Their empire was based on supreme naval and economic dominance, which was outmoded by the natural advance of technology.

EDIT: I've just noted the link below. I wouldn't say that the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist at that point but was perhaps less strong. Is the fall of an empire the decline in strength or the point in which it is no longer deemed an empire?

But I think there's a very substantial difference between empires past and the american one: Cheap, ubiquitous, high speed communications and ditto + safe travel.

Managing far-flung territories in the British and Spanish empires caused major, major friction, in a way that just isn't the case in the present day. Back then, colonial service was a life career, and you'd spend years at a time deployed overseas. Letters took weeks to turn around. Today, if you need the help of a specialist, you pick up the phone, or you could even easily fly one out and he'll be there tomorrow or the day after, and he'll be back home a few days later still.

A lot of American might is still inextricably linked with maritime power, purely because of those aircraft carriers and the support fleet that accompanies it.

In terms of the republic, I think that we're in a dangerous time. But we've been there before and came out ok.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name

Also, please explain a statement like "American capitalists helped create China". I think the Chinese would laugh at a statement like that. If anyone "helped create China", it was the Soviet Union.

Regarding creating the "new" Middle East, the 20th century Middle East was created by the UK and France and led to the formation of Israel, the definition of all the borders, and the control of strongman dictators over nearly every nation in the region. We can credit the USA for creating the dictatorship in Iran and destabilizing Iraq, but what's boiling over now is largely a result of nearly 100 years of pent-up shit that America most definitely did not put in place.

As for saying "empires on average" , i don't think it means anything. Some lasted for more than 1000 years, other less than 5. But we don't have enough statistics to assume anything is "about time".

China has to always pay attention to its neighbours. They can be economic dwarves compared to US or China but are extremely powerful when organized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessi...

I suppose the continental USA could be invaded by Mexico or Canada, in which case one would have to see a much more considerable reversal of fortunes than that being considered in the OP.

  Every generation thinks it invented sex, rebellion, and curiosity.

But, I don't think the Ottoman, Chinese, Arab, Hitite empires give us any predictive information for the longevity of the later ones.

I mean, history does show pretty convincingly that "stuff ends" eventually. It's got some examples for how, they are usually fairly specific and unclear. Europe has been obsessively theorizing about The Fall of Rome for 1500 years. All those musings really tell us about is the people doing the musings. It was because of Debauchery, Christianity, Tyranny, Civil Strife, Monetary Policy, Cultural Purity, Military Discipline etc. etc. depending on who you are.

I bet you can guess that Victorians suspected orgiastic debauchery while Marxists suspected class structure.

So yes, we can do all this stuff better, faster. It makes for a huge difference in degree and if that difference is large enough by itself it becomes a qualitative difference.

But I think the mistake is to think that a change like that is enough to significantly decrease or increase our ability to build empires or to destroy them because those forces tend to balance out (assuming both sides have roughly equal access to the technology).

That's why none of the other technological advances from the past made a huge difference either, the 'empire' that was expanding brought their technology with them, it became adapted and then was used against them or they simply regressed.

The only times it worked was when the natives were entirely slaughtered or intermixed and those countries typically ended up declaring independence.

Empire building is a losing business in the longer term, and there is no proof to date that a complete and unobstructed view of the world or instant communication are a key element to empire success (or failure).

But since you're framing the argument in terms of ignorance and such I think I'll bow out here.

Its about maintaining an empire, which i think is an important distinction.

I dont see the US waging war against anyone who is trying to dethrone them as a superpower. The ways that other countries are trying to dethrone the US are much more economic.

Economic war can be waged over the internet quite well, without any ships or smoke signals.

page 4.

also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

With those kind of figure bending you can pretty much say anything you want.

Btw, the western Roman empire ended in 476 AD. The ~200 number you mentioned probably refers to the split of the Roman empire into a western and an eastern part, in 284 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_O...