Many pre modern empires were of course agrarian empires. Because prior to 1860 england. Most of the economy was agrarian. That being said the abasids are a poor example of a feudal empire since the abassid revolution was in many ways alinged with the interests of urban elites and mercantile acumulation. But thats another topic.
What i was comenting on was the institutional forms of empire wich depend on the disparity of power. Most imperialusm in history was constrained by the fact that there was not a significant technological gap between eurasian regions. Chinise and middleastetn colonies in indonesia could only go so far.
So large land empires were constrained by their goverment systems. Wich are more nuanced than a feudal heirachy. These empires often had to rule people in situations were there was a significant varaety of ethnic ecological anf productive conditions. These conditions imply diferent material interests that have to be balanced because again there is not a significant gap in power betwen the core and perifery.
These institutions evolved in competition with each other. So that there is a growth trend in the size and complexity of the largest emires at any given time up until the middle ages. In contrast the northern europeans had a tradition of small homogenous kingdoms so institutions of empire did not develop. And when they made their empires thre was a technological gap so their institutions are stunted. This is why liberalism is parrochial and insestous. And why unless it remains ideological untempered by materialism, it will decay into facism.
compare the constitution of medina wich is legaly pluralistic in order to acomodate all these varied interests with modern legal systems.
A good example haplened in parts of mughal india there were complicated arrangments in order to mantain agricultural infrastructure. Once the british arrived and changed these institutions in favor of more british ones, things like irrigation systems decayed.
Many pre modern empires were of course agrarian empires. Because prior to 1860 england. Most of the economy was agrarian. That being said the abasids are a poor example of a feudal empire since the abassid revolution was in many ways alinged with the interests of urban elites and mercantile acumulation. But thats another topic.
What i was comenting on was the institutional forms of empire wich depend on the disparity of power. Most imperialusm in history was constrained by the fact that there was not a significant technological gap between eurasian regions. Chinise and middleastetn colonies in indonesia could only go so far.
So large land empires were constrained by their goverment systems. Wich are more nuanced than a feudal heirachy. These empires often had to rule people in situations were there was a significant varaety of ethnic ecological anf productive conditions. These conditions imply diferent material interests that have to be balanced because again there is not a significant gap in power betwen the core and perifery.
These institutions evolved in competition with each other. So that there is a growth trend in the size and complexity of the largest emires at any given time up until the middle ages. In contrast the northern europeans had a tradition of small homogenous kingdoms so institutions of empire did not develop. And when they made their empires thre was a technological gap so their institutions are stunted. This is why liberalism is parrochial and insestous. And why unless it remains ideological untempered by materialism, it will decay into facism.
compare the constitution of medina wich is legaly pluralistic in order to acomodate all these varied interests with modern legal systems.
A good example haplened in parts of mughal india there were complicated arrangments in order to mantain agricultural infrastructure. Once the british arrived and changed these institutions in favor of more british ones, things like irrigation systems decayed.