Empire and Invasion: Inevitable?

[Gethelred]

This thread is brought about because of a conversation between RCAB and kranky al, concerning the historicity of a claim made early on: in any 50 year bloc of human history, a stronger nation has invaded a weaker one.

If you have any opinions or evidence to put forth for or against, grab your lances and get to jousting!

 

[sr36]

To be honest I interpreted it that way.

It wasn't Kranky's finest piece of prose, but pretty clear that he wasn't claiming that no powerful nation has ever gone 50 years without invading someone.

 

[RCAB]

I’ve also posted this chalkenge on various fora from reddit to Quora and never had this response.

I swear this guy is a carringbush alias….

Can name a single invasion between 2600 and 2200 BCE where a stronger, centralized state invaded a weaker foreign polity?

 

[sr36]

Can name a single invasion between 2600 and 2200 BCE where a stronger, centralized state invaded a weaker foreign polity?

You might won't to branch out to Asian history - unless you are trying to use some particular definition of "centralized" - or a version of "foreign" that uses current borders to define domestic and foreign or perhaps some culturally dodgy definition of "polity" But you will find lots of examples of a stronger military invading what was a different groups land at the time.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’ve also posted this chalkenge on various fora from reddit to Quora and never had this response.

I swear this guy is a carringbush alias….

That's a nice compliment there krank, can confirm RCAB is NOT an alias of mine.

 

[RCAB]

You might won't to branch out to Asian history - unless you are trying to use some particular definition of "centralized" - or a version of "foreign" that uses current borders to define domestic and foreign or perhaps some culturally dodgy definition of "polity"

Why don’t you tell me…

I’m sure you can tell me whether Longshan China, Harappan India, Southeast Asia, or Korea had a centralized, militarily dominant state between 2600 and 2200 BCE that invaded a weaker foreign polity.

 

[sr36]

Why don’t you tell me…

I’m sure you can tell me whether Longshan China, Harappan India, Southeast Asia, or Korea had a centralized, militarily dominant state between 2600 and 2200 BCE that invaded a weaker foreign polity.

I don't know how you're defining many of terms that you appear to be trying to set up as disqualifiers. But I can tell you that lots of prinicpalities had armies that invaded and conquered other principalities during this period - in areas now known as Iran, India and china - and probably most of the other modern countries of the world.

 

[kranky al]

Kranky, we’ve gone in circles long enough.

You keep restating your revised claim (that there's never been a 50-year period anywhere on Earth without a stronger country invading a weaker one) as if that's what you originally said. It wasn’t.

You began with:





That’s a far more specific, directional claim (about power, motive, and inevitability) and I addressed it with counterexamples, context, and actual historical intervals.

You dismissed those examples not by disproving them, but by switching to a statistical inevitability argument:





If that’s your standard, then your claim becomes unfalsifiable. It’s like saying, “In every 50-year period, someone somewhere got sick — therefore all societies are doomed.”

If I’d just left it at that you might have a point - but then I provided details of the countries they have invaded / occupied.

The country they have flat out said they will invade.

The fact they are undergoing the largest peacetime military buildup in world history.


And a wise man puts all that together with an authoritarian dictatorship that crushes all dissent with torture and murder and thinks….. there’s just a chance that these folk may not be benign..

It’s not analysis. It’s entropy dressed up as insight.

If your concern is geopolitical... say that. If you want to talk about deterrence theory, US decline, and China’s posture, I’m game. But if you're just going to repackage a vague pattern of human conflict as historical determinism, then yeah, I’m probably not great fun at your kind of party.

Thread's yours if you want it, I’ve made my case

There’s no vague pattern - human history is littered with constant invasions of other countries…. So overwhelming that if you ask chat gpt to list them all you get this:






That’s not a vague pattern. The vague pattern would be the years there isn’t a war.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The vague pattern would be the years there isn’t a war.

Perhaps this is the question you should be asking the pretend intelligence engine?

 

[RCAB]

I don't know how you're defining many of terms that you appear to be trying to set up as disqualifiers. But I can tell you that lots of prinicpalities had armies that invaded and conquered other principalities during this period - in areas now known as Iran, India and china - and probably most of the other modern countries of the world.

Fair enough — but if you “don’t know how I’m defining the terms,” then how can you claim they’re disqualifiers?

Let’s make it simple. Here’s what I’m asking for:

Between 2600 and 2200 BCE, can you name a single example of:

A stronger, centralized state

Invading a weaker foreign polity

With clear evidence of conquest or subjugation




Not internal feuds between local principalities. Not speculation.
A named state. A named target. A known campaign.

Because so far, all we have are generalizations:

“Probably most of the modern countries of the world…”

That’s not history, that’s assumptions.

If your claim is that “lots” of principalities were invading each other all over the place, then just name one. Pick your example from Iran, India, or China, and show the receipts.

If not, kranky al the history buff, can help you out.

 

[sr36]

Fair enough — but if you “don’t know how I’m defining the terms,” then how can you claim they’re disqualifiers?

Let’s make it simple. Here’s what I’m asking for:

Between 2600 and 2200 BCE, can you name a single example of:

A stronger, centralized state

Invading a weaker foreign polity

With clear evidence of conquest or subjugation




Not speculation.
A named state. A named target. A known campaign.

Because so far, all we have are generalizations:





That’s not history, that’s assumptions.

If your claim is that “lots” of principalities were invading each other all over the place, then just name one. Pick your example from Iran, India, or China, and show the receipts.

If not, kranky al the history buff, can help you out.

For a start, Ancient History is assumption. It's inference based on evidence.

There's clear evidence that Longshan cities had ramparts, non-hunting weapons and various other suggestions of warfare. Most historians think there was a heap of war during this period of a small part of Modern China's history as well as in other regions of what is now China.

It's a pretty standard assumption that Krankys original claim of: "a militarily stronger nation" invading "a weaker nation to steal their shit." occured during this era.

Sure you can try to impose a modern view of nationhood to try to discredit it, which basically makes the vast majority of the world irrelevant during this period. However it'd be pedantic, missing the point and very Eurocentric.

You said this: "Not internal feuds between local principalities." So does that mean that WW1 doesn't count either - or are we judging what is a local principality as opposed to a separate principality by today's borders?

You misinterpreted Krankys post and are just digging deeper and trying to use qualifiers to rule out most of the world that hadn't really united into the modern version of nations. There were armies invading and stealing shit. There's heaps of evidence pointing to it. Just drop it.

 

[RCAB]

For a start, Ancient History is assumption. It's inference based on evidence.

There's clear evidence that Longshan cities had ramparts, non-hunting weapons and various other suggestions of warfare. Most historians think there was a heap of war during this period of a small part of Modern China's history as well as in other regions of what is now China.

It's a pretty standard assumption that Krankys original claim of: "a militarily stronger nation" invading "a weaker nation to steal their shit." occured during this era.

Sure you can try to impose a modern view of nationhood to try to discredit it, which basically makes the vast majority of the world irrelevant during this period. However it'd be pedantic, missing the point and very Eurocentric.

You said this: "Not internal feuds between local principalities." So does that mean that WW1 doesn't count either - or are we judging what is a local principality as opposed to a separate principality by today's borders?

You misinterpreted Krankys post and are just digging deeper and trying to use qualifiers to rule out most of the world that hadn't really united into the modern version of nations. There were armies invading and stealing shit. There's heaps of evidence pointing to it. Just drop it.

Let’s clarify what just happened here.

1. You say ancient history is “assumption” but then insist there’s “heaps of evidence” for invasions during this period.
Which is it? If it's assumption, you can't assert your side with certainty either.


2. You refer to Longshan ramparts and weapons as evidence of warfare.
Sure, internal warfare, possibly tribal feuds or local conflicts.
But the challenge was not “was there violence?” It was...

Can you name a case between 2600 and 2200 BCE where a stronger, centralized state invaded a weaker, foreign polity with intent to conquer or extract?

You haven’t. You’ve just stated that “there was probably war,” which we all agree with but that doesn’t prove Kranky’s claim.

3. You criticize modern definitions of “state” but Kranky made the claim using modern terms:

“a militarily stronger nation invading a weaker one to steal their shit.”

So if you're now rejecting that framing, you’re disagreeing with him, not me.



4. You bring up WWI (a war between massive modern empires with formal declarations and global records) to compare with undocumented tribal conflict 4,500 years ago.
It’s a false equivalence.


5. And finally, you end with:



“Just drop it.”



Which tends to happen when a challenge is issued, no one can meet it, and instead of evidence we get meta-theory and accusations of pedantry.


Not denying violence or loot acquisitions in human history, I'm refuting tornarci claim that in every 50-year period ever, a stronger state has always invaded a weaker one.

And if, after all this, no one can name a single such case from 2600–2200 BCE, then the original claim is disproven.

No need to “drop it.” It’s already done.

 

[sr36]

Let’s clarify what just happened here.

1. You say ancient history is “assumption” but then insist there’s “heaps of evidence” for invasions during this period.
Which is it? If it's assumption, you can't assert your side with certainty either.


2. You refer to Longshan ramparts and weapons as evidence of warfare.
Sure, internal warfare, possibly tribal feuds or local conflicts.
But the challenge was not “was there violence?” It was...







You haven’t. You’ve just stated that “there was probably war,” which we all agree with but that doesn’t prove Kranky’s claim.

3. You criticize modern definitions of “state” but Kranky made the claim using modern terms:




So if you're now rejecting that framing, you’re disagreeing with him, not me.



4. You bring up WWI (a war between massive modern empires with formal declarations and global records) to compare with undocumented tribal conflict 4,500 years ago.
It’s a false equivalence.


5. And finally, you end with:



“Just drop it.”



Which tends to happen when a challenge is issued, no one can meet it, and instead of evidence we get meta-theory and accusations of pedantry.


Not denying violence or loot acquisitions in human history, I'm refuting tornarci claim that in every 50-year period ever, a stronger state has always invaded a weaker one.

And if, after all this, no one can name a single such case from 2600–2200 BCE, then the original claim is disproven.

No need to “drop it.” It’s already done.

I didn't criticise modern definitions of state. I'm saying using them as a way of dismissing feudal warfare as not being relevant to the claim that invasion to steal has occured right throughout history is utterly ridiculous.

You misunderstood Kranky and went on a rant. And are still going. Just accept you misunderstood - who cares - and stop looking for a technicality to be right.

And yes forming a belief based on evidence is assumption.

 

[RCAB]

I didn't criticise modern definitions of state. I'm saying using them as a way of dismissing feudal warfare as not being relevant to the claim that invasion to steal has occured right throughout history is utterly ridiculous.

You misunderstood Kranky and went on a rant. And are still going. Just accept you misunderstood - who cares - and stop looking for a technicality to be right.

And yes forming a belief based on evidence is assumption.

So let’s be clear...

You’re defending a claim that used modern terms:

“a stronger nation invading a weaker one to steal their shit.”

Now you're saying we should count tribal raids, local skirmishes, and feudal border feuds as proof of that same claim, even when no centralized state, no clear power asymmetry, and no named conquest exists?

If everything counts, then nothing can be falsified. That’s not a universal pattern, that’s a story.

Meanwhile, here’s the record for 2600–2200 BCE, across the major civilizations:

Egypt (Old Kingdom): Internally focused. No recorded invasions.

Harappan Civilization: Urban, peaceful, no weapons iconography, no military conquest.

Mesopotamia: City-state rivalries, but no empire-to-weak-polity conquest in that window.

Longshan China: Fortified settlements, yes but... no centralized state, no known external campaign, no named targets.

No state, anywhere on Earth, is recorded invading a weaker foreign polity.


And after all the smoke, still, no one’s named one. Not you. Not Kranky. Not even the AI you both quoted.

If you still believe in the claim, name the invasion. Otherwise, the claim is finished, and your omission is proof.

 

[sr36]

Let’s clarify what just happened here.

1. You say ancient history is “assumption” but then insist there’s “heaps of evidence” for invasions during this period.
Which is it? If it's assumption, you can't assert your side with certainty either.


2. You refer to Longshan ramparts and weapons as evidence of warfare.
Sure, internal warfare, possibly tribal feuds or local conflicts.
But the challenge was not “was there violence?” It was...







You haven’t. You’ve just stated that “there was probably war,” which we all agree with but that doesn’t prove Kranky’s claim.

3. You criticize modern definitions of “state” but Kranky made the claim using modern terms:




So if you're now rejecting that framing, you’re disagreeing with him, not me.



4. You bring up WWI (a war between massive modern empires with formal declarations and global records) to compare with undocumented tribal conflict 4,500 years ago.
It’s a false equivalence.


5. And finally, you end with:



“Just drop it.”



Which tends to happen when a challenge is issued, no one can meet it, and instead of evidence we get meta-theory and accusations of pedantry.


Not denying violence or loot acquisitions in human history, I'm refuting tornarci claim that in every 50-year period ever, a stronger state has always invaded a weaker one.

And if, after all this, no one can name a single such case from 2600–2200 BCE, then the original claim is disproven.

No need to “drop it.” It’s already done.

"Nations" is also used to describe cultural groups from the ancient world.

Cultural groups, fiefdoms, and principalities were the closest thing in that era to nations. Yet you're trying to use it to mean one empire.

If we are to use a modern definition of nations, your era is irrelevant to the claim as there were no nations.

Your chosen era is one where a small percentage of the planet was controlled by an empire that had previously used military force to expand but switched to using it to hold control. Meanwhile invasions and battles for land and resources almost certainly raged on in other parts of the world.

 

[kranky al]

Fair enough — but if you “don’t know how I’m defining the terms,” then how can you claim they’re disqualifiers?

Let’s make it simple. Here’s what I’m asking for:

Between 2600 and 2200 BCE, can you name a single example of:

A stronger, centralized state

Invading a weaker foreign polity

With clear evidence of conquest or subjugation




Not internal feuds between local principalities. Not speculation.
A named state. A named target. A known campaign.

Because so far, all we have are generalizations:





That’s not history, that’s assumptions.

If your claim is that “lots” of principalities were invading each other all over the place, then just name one. Pick your example from Iran, India, or China, and show the receipts.

If not, kranky al the history buff, can help you out.

Going back that far - many nations were city / states

And yes for instance you had Uruk in approximately the 2500BC mark conquered Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur, ruling over all of Sumer.

Eannatum (Sumerian: 2450 BC) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash. He established one of the first empires in history, subduing Elam and destroying the city of Susa, and extending his domain over the rest of Sumer and Akkad.

King Kun-Damu of Ebla defeated Mari in the middle of the 25th century BC. The war continued with Išhtup-Išar of Mari's conquest of Emar at a time of Eblaite weakness in the mid-24th century BC.

There’s quite a few more?

 

[RCAB]

Going back that far - many nations were city / states

And yes for instance you had Uruk in approximately the 2500BC mark conquered Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur, ruling over all of Sumer.

Eannatum (Sumerian: 2450 BC) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash. He established one of the first empires in history, subduing Elam and destroying the city of Susa, and extending his domain over the rest of Sumer and Akkad.

King Kun-Damu of Ebla defeated Mari in the middle of the 25th century BC. The war continued with Išhtup-Išar of Mari's conquest of Emar at a time of Eblaite weakness in the mid-24th century BC.

There’s quite a few more?

Finally you're actually bringing some actual examples to the table but unfortunately you created a standard and I'm going to hold you to that.

“A militarily stronger nation invading a weaker one to steal their shit.”

So let’s examine:



Uruk “conquering” Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur

These are Sumerian peer city-states, all operating within the same cultural, technological, and military framework.
This is not a stronger empire invading a weaker foreign polity. It’s intra-system rivalry, like Athens vs. Sparta or Rome vs. Veii.
They were equals fighting for dominance, not imperial asymmetry.



Eannatum of Lagash subduing Elam and destroying Susa (c. 2450 BCE)

Better. Elam is arguably external to Sumerian core culture.

But...

Eannatum’s campaigns are recorded mostly through later interpretations and the Stele of the Vultures, which focuses on conflict with Umma... again, a peer city-state.

The reference to Elam and Susa is real, but details are vague, and some historians question whether it was a punitive raid or full conquest.


It’s the closest thing to a potential counterexample but still not a clear, lasting imperial occupation or conquest of a weaker state.

Even if you count this, that’s one example in a 400-year window - not proof that it always happens, but that it might have happened once.


Ebla vs. Mari / Emar

Again... city-state conflict between peer polities.

Mari and Ebla were contemporaries in the Amorite and early Semitic cultural spheres. Their warfare was cyclical, reciprocal, and in no way a case of one being a clearly dominant state invading a primitive neighbor.

This is again like arguing France invaded Germany in WWI as proof that a stronger nation always invades a weaker one. It’s a conflict between equals not asymmetrical conquest.


This is all you have?

One possible conquest by Eannatum, a few city-state rivalries between equals, and no sustained imperial campaigns against clearly weaker foreign polities???



This not proof that this happens in every 50 year period throughout all of history.

Appreciate the effort, but the bar was "always happens."
You’ve now shown that it might have happened once or twice in 400 years, and that’s all that was needed to disprove the absolutist claim.

 

[kranky al]

3270 BC. : The siege of Naqada was both a land and naval battle between the forces of King Scorpion I and Naqada. The war was on Naqada's northernmost frontier.

The upshot of this was a finally unified Egypt under King Scorpion 1 (how could he lose with that name eh? Not even fair)


Back when I cbf with some more.

 

[kranky al]

Finally you're actually bringing some actual examples to the table but unfortunately you created a standard and I'm going to hold you to that.





So let’s examine:



Uruk “conquering” Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur

These are Sumerian peer city-states, all operating within the same cultural, technological, and military framework.
This is not a stronger empire invading a weaker foreign polity. It’s intra-system rivalry, like Athens vs. Sparta or Rome vs. Veii.
They were equals fighting for dominance, not imperial asymmetry.



Eannatum of Lagash subduing Elam and destroying Susa (c. 2450 BCE)

Better. Elam is arguably external to Sumerian core culture.

But...

Eannatum’s campaigns are recorded mostly through later interpretations and the Stele of the Vultures, which focuses on conflict with Umma... again, a peer city-state.

The reference to Elam and Susa is real, but details are vague, and some historians question whether it was a punitive raid or full conquest.


It’s the closest thing to a potential counterexample but still not a clear, lasting imperial occupation or conquest of a weaker state.

Even if you count this, that’s one example in a 400-year window - not proof that it always happens, but that it might have happened once.


Ebla vs. Mari / Emar

Again... city-state conflict between peer polities.

Mari and Ebla were contemporaries in the Amorite and early Semitic cultural spheres. Their warfare was cyclical, reciprocal, and in no way a case of one being a clearly dominant state invading a primitive neighbor.

This is again like arguing France invaded Germany in WWI as proof that a stronger nation always invades a weaker one. It’s a conflict between equals not asymmetrical conquest.


This is all you have?

One possible conquest by Eannatum, a few city-state rivalries between equals, and no sustained imperial campaigns against clearly weaker foreign polities???



This not proof that this happens in every 50 year period throughout all of history.

Appreciate the effort, but the bar was "always happens."
You’ve now shown that it might have happened once or twice in 400 years, and that’s all that was needed to disprove the absolutist claim

In 2600 BC, the world's population was still relatively small, and the concept of "nations" in the modern sense was not fully developed.

Instead, there were various organized civilizations and societies, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the Indus Valley civilization, and the emergence of Sumer in Mesopotamia. It's difficult to give an exact number of nations at the time, as the lines between independent states and larger regional powers were not always clear.



So to dispute my claim about nations, you go back to a time when there were very few nations as we know them.


*slow claps

So much winning….

 

[RCAB]

3270 BC. : The siege of Naqada was both a land and naval battle between the forces of King Scorpion I and Naqada. The war was on Naqada's northernmost frontier.

The upshot of this was a finally unified Egypt under King Scorpion 1 (how could he lose with that name eh? Not even fair)


Back when I cbf with some more.

Lol

King Scorpion I. Naqada. 3270 BCE?

Respectfully, Kransky...

It's now well outside the challenge window (which was 2600–2200 BCE) and deep into pre-dynastic Egypt, where evidence is limited and fragmented.

The unification of Egypt likely involved violence, (no historian disputes that), but if we’re now reaching back before writing, and tomb motifs as records of conquest, then the standard has shifted from:

“A stronger state invading a weaker one to steal their shit.”

…to:

“A powerful-sounding name might have fought someone and that probably proves everything.”

Otherwise ur just throwing cool sounding Bronze Age warlords into the void and hoping it sticks. If even you have to go “back when I cbf with some more”... that’s the real answer, isn’t it?

 

[RCAB]

In 2600 BC, the world's population was still relatively small, and the concept of "nations" in the modern sense was not fully developed.

Instead, there were various organized civilizations and societies, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the Indus Valley civilization, and the emergence of Sumer in Mesopotamia. It's difficult to give an exact number, as the lines between independent states and larger regional powers were not always clear.

So to dispute my claim about nations, you go back to a time when there were very few nations as we know them.


*slow claps

You’re the one who framed the claim universally:

“There has never been a 50-year period in recorded human history where a stronger power didn’t invade a weaker one.”

So yes... I tested it in recorded human history. The earliest we have. That’s how logic works.

If you now want to revise the claim to only apply to certain eras with “enough” states for you to feel it counts, that’s fine. But then you’re admitting the original claim was overstated, and the standard I tested was valid.

You can’t declare a historical law, then complain when someone checks whether it holds at the start of history... and it doesn’t.

 

[kranky al]

You’re the one who framed the claim universally:





So yes... I tested it in recorded human history. The earliest we have. That’s how logic works.

If you now want to revise the claim to only apply to certain eras with “enough” states for you to feel it counts, that’s fine. But then you’re admitting the original claim was overstated, and the standard I tested was valid.

You can’t declare a historical law, then complain when someone checks whether it holds at the start of history... and it doesn’t.

So a stronger power now..


Well then my point stands. The strong invade the weak… so going back to the op.

China is a real and present threat.


Oh and remiss of me, when we were talking about the Chinese aggressive wars which you insisted didn’t amount to much I forgot one.

They invaded Vietnam in 1979 as well.

 

[RCAB]

So a stronger power now..


Well then my point stands. The strong invade the weak… so going back to the op.

China is a real and present threat.


Oh and remiss of me, when we were talking about the Chinese aggressive wars which you insisted didn’t amount to much I forgot one.

They invaded Vietnam in 1979 as well.

Read the sign...

RCAB kranky al

Please take it to an appropriate thread or PMs

 

[RCAB]

So a stronger power now..


Well then my point stands. The strong invade the weak… so going back to the op.

China is a real and present threat.


Oh and remiss of me, when we were talking about the Chinese aggressive wars which you insisted didn’t amount to much I forgot one.

They invaded Vietnam in 1979 as well.

So now “always” just means “often.”

Cool. Let me know when China annexes Hanoi again.

 

[kranky al]

So yes you’ve got me.

Pinned in a corner.

Back in history when the first city / states started to form what is considered (by some) to be the first ever nation…. Egypt

I am unable at this stage to find another nation for them to invade or be invaded by…..

Woe is me….

I have to wait till the next nation forms…..

Vietnam?

So now “always” just means “often.”

Cool. Let me know when China annexes Hanoi again.

Mate you had to back to a period of time when there was one., maybe two counties in the world trying to prove that countries havnt invaded each other throughout human existence - and even then city states invading each other…..before city states tribes were attacking other tribes.



Sit tf down

 

[Cyclops]

kranky al if you want to say "China is going to try to invade WA" fair enough,.but it's not about two nations (we're both multi ethnic polities-one a republic, the other a commonwealth) and past performance isn't necessarily an indication of future performance.

Individuals and groups seek resources, and China has a big appetite. Your point is broadly apposite.

China actively stakes out the South China Sea and Taiwan. Taiwan has strategic value, probably even more propaganda value. The Amur Basin is another strategic objective.

China's asset allocation would seem to indicate these are their objectives. Fully controlling all three seems a long way off.

WA isn't in the same class of objectives, AFAIK China may have allocated some trolls.

Force projection is hard. Right now only the US has the capability to invade Australia.

Even in a "no US alliance" scenario a Chinese invasion is still decades away. Time to build a regional alliance.