Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall

In short, the secret ingredient to a power turning into a great `hyperpower' is tolerance. Not that being tolerant makes a nation a great power but it was essential to these already established powers to become the predominant power of their day, or as Chua defines it a `hyperpower.' More then a superpower, hyperpowers are completely dominant in their sphere of the world with no rivals. To become a hyperpower, a nation must become tolerant as a prerequisite, and pulling away from that tolerance is what causes the hyperpower to crack.Now the word `tolerance' is something that must be taken relatively. Relative to the world and civilizations around them during the hyperpowers' time period, and how the each hyperpower allows for social mobility and meritocracy."Finally, the concept is relative tolerance. In the race for world dominance, what matters most is not whether a society is tolerant according to some absolute, timeless standard, but whether it is more tolerant than its competitors. Because tolerance is a relative matter, even the tolerated groups may be subject to harshly inequitable treatment. Russian Jews in the late nineteenth century found America a haven compared to the pogroms they were fleeing, but were still subjected to anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish quotas in the United States.I am not arguing that tolerance is a sufficient condition for world dominance. No matter how tolerant, the Kingdom of Bhutan is unlikely ever to become a global hegemon. It is always a confluence of additional factors--geography, population, natural resources, and leadership, to name just a few--that leads to the rare emergence of a world-dominant power. Pure luck plays a part, too. Even in the most propitious circumstances, a society's ability to achieve and maintain global dominance will also depend, for example, on the state of the competition." p.xxivWith each case she briefly exams the history of the particular hyperpower, comparing it with the other powers that existed during its time, and following each case from their inception to the moment they rise to become a hyperpower, and there eventual downfall. Chua examines what made these powers different from others and what was their great undoing. Moreover, the continuing theme is each of these powers is they are more tolerant than their rivals are. Some of the civilizations she discuses are as follows:· The Achaemenid Persian Empire was, as Chua describes, was the world's first real hyperpower. Crushing its opponents Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, Persia was far more powerful than anyone they came across. The Persians allowed the subjects to worship their local gods; even the King of Persia would pay homage to local gods in their own lands. This increased the King's image and legitimacy with his own subjects. Even Alexander who brought that empire down would emulate that strategy.· Ancient Rome, during the period known as the High Empire, is also sighted for its tolerance of its subjects, not only allowing local populations to worship their own gods but even extending their citizenship and their very definition of what a `Roman' was. Rome was able to create a since of unity throughout their empire which allowed them to maintain their hold on such a large area.· The Tang Empire of Ancient China, how the Emperor Gaozu allowed for the Han Chinese and `barbarians' such as the Turks to intermix and marry and have it be socially acceptable. This allowed for a more inclusive empire and one that is far easier to govern.· The Mongol Empire broke down traditional clans into military units that would show loyalty to the army unit that they use to show with male blood ties. Genghis Kahn himself would recruit people into his army who had skills they lacked, regardless of that individuals background.· The Dutch World Empire, Holland in becoming a refuge for victims of religious persecution, allowed the very tiny place to assume a huge brain trust. With almost all smart and talented people from various groups, they were able to build a massive colonial empire. Although they were nowhere near as nice to their colonial subjects as they were the people at home.· The British Empire mimicked much of what the Dutch did to achieve success. This was accomplished in part because of the overthrow of King James II and replacing him with King William III* who was also the Prince of Orange and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. Great Britain, much larger than tiny Holland would assume Dutch policies and create for itself an empire to which the sun would not set.· And of course, the United States of America is the modern hyperpower. The United States attracted immigrants from all over Europe, American society allowed for a great deal of social mobility, allowing people such Alexander Hamilton to go from bastard immigrant to Secretary of the Treasury.Now any student of history knows many of these `tolerant' nations were not really that `tolerant' as we would now define it. However as previously stated what matters is relative tolerance. In addition, through most of those examples tolerance was something that involved. The United States today is attractive place for people all over the world; that might not have been the case when we practiced legalized segregation.The book also deals with what went wrong with the hyperpowers, often how turning away from their more tolerant traditions either caused or hastened their downfall. Chua also deals with some potential future hyperpowers, discussing some of their strengths and drawbacks. Whether any of these `potential powers' will one day be able to challenge the United States remains to be seen.Throughout the work, Chua also discusses her own life, family history, and relates her experiences to the material creating are very flowing narrative that intellectual but nevertheless is easy to understand. The book is very enjoyable and informative.*Technically, Queen Mary II as well but it was really more William.

Amy Chua is a professor of law at Yale Law School, but it seems that her true passion is history. In her previous book,  World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability , she did a series of case studies on market-dominant minorities and the countries in which they reside. As these countries transitioned to democracy, the minorities became targets of resentment and even violence. It was an original work showing some of the adverse consequences of rapid democratization.This new work is equally original. Now she has done a series of studies on history's hyperpowers, and how they achieved that status. Surprisingly, the key to achieving hyperpower success is not brute force and imposition of a monoculture, but tolerance and acceptance of other cultures. And, on the downside, if this diversity is not properly managed, it will lead to the hyperpower's decline.The hyperpowers studied are a diverse group. They include Achaemenid Persia, Rome's High Empire, Tang China, Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, the Ottoman and Mughal Empires, the Spanish, Dutch, British, and American Empires. With such a varied list, critics will pounce and demand a sharper definition of terms. Professional historians will be quick to point out novice mistakes.First the term hyperpower. By this term, Chua means not merely a great power or a superpower, but a world-dominant power. A power that amassed such military and economic strength that no other power on earth could challenge it. Achaemenid Persia ruled over 1/3 of the world's population, the Mongols under Genghis Khan conquered half the known world, Rome conquered most of the known world, and the British had an empire on which the sun never set. It should also be noted that all hyperpowers were technologically dominant giving them the economic and military edge.Tolerance is also a very broad term. Tolerance in today's Western democracies means something different than it did in the time of Cyrus the Great or Genghis Khan. For Chua, it means "letting very different kinds of people - regardless of ethnicity, religion, or skin color - live, work, and prosper, even if for instrumental or strategic reasons." This could be called a cynical or relative notion of tolerance. In ancient times it was more black and white: either pay tribute and allegiance or be killed. In modern times the notion is more fuzzy, more like: if you join the program, we can both benefit, if not we both suffer. Chua's notion of tolerance applies to both.Towards the end of the book, Chua takes a look at the US as a hyperpower. She examines the anti-immigrant sentiments in the light of historical notions of tolerance. This is a bit of a muddle since foreigners volutarily entering the US are different from peoples conquered in their own lands. Nevertheless, the US has always had an excellent record on immigration and assimilation, of which Chua herself is a stellar example. She argues that current anti-immigrant and islolationist impulses will lead to US decline.A little decline, she concedes, may not be such a bad thing. Deline from hyper to superpower, putting the US on a more equal footing with other great powers, will probably make the international system more balanced and, as a result, more secure. With no other hyperpowers currently on the horizon, and given a certain amount of US decline, it appears that the 21st century will be a multipolar and multilateral century.

This book really helped my views on immigration and how it benefited every country or empire that ruled the world...just wish this book came out in 2024 with everything going on now

I found this book to be very interesting and informative. Amy Chua certainly did her research on this. The thesis of the book is that successful nations evolve through the tolerance, integration, and mixture of various cultures and nationalities. Examples such as Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and even the U.S. have certainly demonstrated that. There were also examples of how purist nations such as Japan and Germany of World War II and other historical societies have fallen apart because of purism. However, it seems that there is a point where too much tolerance can also create infighting and significant power struggles which becomes a natural by-product of various growing factions. I couldn’t stop but think how fighting against our natural tribal instincts can be so difficult while at the same time acknowledging that history continues to show the complexity of it.The chapters in the book were brief, which is understandable. If would take volumes to cover each historical period and nation thoroughly. However, if you want a general but concise understanding of how empires rose and fell throughout world history, this is an excellent book to read. The chapters are very organized and packed with intriguing information. At the end of the day, it is easy to see and understand how history repeats itself.

The book arrived on time and the book is in great condition and very interesting book!

Reçu conforme à la description

Appreciate the prompt delivery. Appreciate the good condition.

Really good summary of the work done, so far, on the historical sociology of the rise and fall of hegemonic empires or civilisations.

I agree with Amy Chua`s idea, that social tolerance is a major building block of any successful society. This is true not just for great empires, but any economically successful society.I was hoping to find reasons why some societies become socially tolerant. The other big question that is never addressed in the book, why did these socially tolerant empires suddenly become intolerant? Chua just seems to state the facts that a empire falls to pieces, after becoming socially intolerant. There are no explanations, as to why this happens.She also made a factual error, in regards to British tolerance in Canada. She explains that the British peacefully handed over democratic rights to her Canadian colony. Well this only happen after an armed rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada, which the British army crushed.In short, I would say that if you are interested in a short summary of various empires, you will enjoy this book. If you are looking for reasons why some societies are tolerant, or why they become intolerant, you will not find many explanations in this text.