Could an empire rise by economic power?

Question

In my world, which is similar to Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages, a state is situated around a strait between two large seas. Mountains make this strait the only feasible way to travel between the two seas, giving the state a copious amount of trade.

The state, flush with cash and headed by a strong, centralized monarchy*, starts making agreements with other states, absorbing them into its orbit if not outright annexing them. My thought is that over time, with this economic power occasionally supplemented by military power when necessary, the state should become a powerful empire.

Is this possible? Could an empire form primarily due to economic strength rather than primarily military strength?

Answer 1

Yes: the Athenian Empire is one such example

A Hegemony is an alliance or confederation where a single state holds all of the practical power and say-so. A Hegemony is not formed by conquest, but instead is formed when one member has or grows in power and influence until they become the de facto leader of the alliance, effectively absorbing its own allies through superior used of soft-power.

A classical example of this was Ancient Athens. Athens exerted considerable control over 150-300 other city states without having to conquer a single one. Yes, they had a decent military, but it was their wealth and control of trade across the Aegean Sea that made other city states fall in line behind them.

Athens was a founding member of the Delian League which was an alliance of city states created on the principle of opposing the Persia. Although the Delian League was supposed to be a confederacy by design, as time went on, the economic supremacy and cultural influence of Athens guaranteed that other city states in the Delian League slowly fell more and more under the control of Athens being forced to adopt laws, currencies, and policies which clearly favored Athens, which lead to a better funded and stronger Athens which further grew Athens's power in the league. Athen's control over the alliance became so complete that over time the Delian League also came to be known as the Athenian Empire or the Athenian Hegemony.

Unless you mean can a traditional empire form from an economic empire, then the answer is also yes. Rome is one such example

Most military empires began as economic/political hegemonies. Even Rome was a hegemony before it was an empire. Take this map of Rome from the First Punic War, it looks like Rome controls most of Italy, but in reality, Rome was a city state and Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum, The Apulians, the Lucanians, the Samnites, etc. were their allies. Many parts of Italy, Greece, and the Balkans were never actually conquered by Rome. They were allies and trade partners that were absorbed into the Roman Republic (and subsequent Roman Empire) over time.

Answer 2

It's a sort of chicken and egg problem: to fuel an army, you need a supporting economy, and to defend a strong economy you need a supporting army.

So, yes, economic strength is a good starting point for the formation of an empire. The military strength will follow up close in time, because it won't take long for the nation to attract the interested ambitions of its neighbors and therefore need means to first defend itself and then prevent aggression by taking prophylactic measures.

I think that if you look back in history many lasting empires have started from a city with a good trade position (Rome and Carthage just to mention 2).

Answer 3

Well, yes, obviously

"Could an empire form primarily due to economic strength rather than primarily military strength?" Of course. Sure. Plain obvious. Because, you see, military strength requires economic strength. A country can only have a powerful army if it has a strong economy: because in the end soldiers are nobility, unproductive members of the society who must be supported by the productive civilians. Soldiers need to be paid, they need to be fed, they need to be clothed, they need shelter, they need fancy expensive equipment which is not really useful for anything much, and it is the rest of the society who must pay or provide for their pay, their food, their uniforms, their barracks and fortresses, their armor and weapons.

The best, strongest and richest economy of the Classical World was the Roman Empire; their economy was so strong that by the 1st century CE they could afford to maintain maybe 5% to 6% of their men in the army, which nobody else could. But then, by the 3rd century things started to go downhill, and when the Middle Ages came there was no king in Europe who could even dream of maintaining 1% of his men in the army. The best example I can think of is the Battle of Hastings, which is the medieval battle with the most far-reaching and world-changing consequences; in this pivotal battle, each of the two sides fielded maybe about 10,000 men, that is to say, about the strength of two Roman legions.

This is not say that each and every country with a strong economy will chose to also develop great military strength; other paths are available to ensure security, for example by finding and maintaining alliances with powerful allies. Modern Germany and Japan come to mind, countries with very strong economies which for quite some time have chosen to forego developing strong armed forces based on their relationship with the USA. (There are signs that this might changing. Both countries are increasing defence spending.)

Counterexamples?

But wait, an informed reader might say, aren't the Soviet Union and China counterexamples? Were they not poor countries who held the USA at bay and even defeated her in actual wars?

The Soviet Union was many things, some of them good, many of them bad, but it was definitely not poor. Yes, the average Soviet citizen had a standard of living much lower than the average Hollywood American citizen, but the country was enormously large, had endless natural reserves, and had a very strong industrial base.

OK, OK, the Soviet Union was not really poor. But the People's Republic was dirt poor, and yet she still defeated the Americans in the Korean War, didn't she? Not really. First, the outcome of the Korean War was basically the restoration of the status quo ante bellum; and, if we look closely, South Korea actually made some small territorial gains. Second, by and large the Korean War a successful defence of South Korea by United Nations (mostly American) forces. Third, the defence of South Korea was the objective of the USA in the war; they achieved their objective. What is important to note is that when the People's Republic did try an all out offensive into South Korea they were repulsed with catastrophic losses.

Enough theory, what about practice?

In practice, we have two examples of medieval (or at least medieval-ish) European powers holding an essential maritime waterway: Denmark¹, who held the Sound connecting the Baltic with the North Sea, and the (Eastern) Roman Empire who held the Bosporus and the Dardanelles connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean.

^{¹) Well, the political history of the Nordic Countries is complicated. The Sound Dues were introduced in 1429 by Eric of Pomerania, who was king of the Kalmar Union, which comprised what are today Denmark, Norway, Sweden and most of the inhabited part of Finland. But Sweden seceded in the second half of the 16th century, taking Finland with it; the united Danish-Norwegian kingdom endured until 1814.}

• Denmark successfully enforced passage tolls on ships transiting the straits between the North Sea and the Baltic. This made for a nice tidy stream of revenue from the 14th to the 19th century. But while the Sound Dues did contribute a considerable sum to the Danish Royal treasury, they did not make Denmark sufficiently rich to become a great military power.

  The point being that taxing the passage through a strait is not a suitable economic base. Yes, it can pay for some nice buildings and maybe a great Academy and such; but it cannot pay for an army and fleet.

• The (Eastern) Roman Empire held the Bosporus and the Dardanelles for hundreds and hundreds of years, from the late Antiquity to the end of the 13th century or thereabouts. They did get a certain amount of income from taxes on trade, but those were mostly import and export taxes. The incomed derived from transit taxes was never a significant contribution to the imperial treasury, because it was the Middle Ages.

  Yes, Genoa did do some trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and yes, they did pay some small sums to the Empire. But it was the Middle Ages. Long distance trade was feeble, and a few percent of a feeble stream of trade is not something an empire can base its economy on.

The Middle Ages were medieval

When the question says that the story is set in a world "similar to Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages" the first thing which comes to my mind is that there is very little long distance trade. Because it's the Middle Ages, nobody has enough agricultural productivity to be exporting large amounts of food, nobody has enough industrial productivity to be exporting large amouts of manufactured goods, and nobody has any incentive to built large ships to carry the non-existent freight.

The second thing which comes to my mind is that there is basically no trade at all between the northern and the southern shores of the Mediterranean, because the Christians on the northern shores and the Muslims on the southern shores are almost always at war and they definitely don't do much commerce.

Answer 4

The Dutch empire originated primarily through economic means. The Dutch East India company especially was an economic entity that gained influence in the East Indies through contracts with local leaders, who then hired the company to provide them with things like weapons, training, and advise. The company ships were armed, and carried armed troops, both to deter piracy and to a degree to fight off hostile natives.

It wasn't until much later that the national government became involved and started stationing troops in the archipelago (this in part at least as a counter to British, Portuguese, and other countries encroachment on Dutch trading posts).

It was slightly more ambiguous in the West Indies and South America, but there too the leading force was the economic interests, in this case those of the West Indies Company.

Answer 5

Viva San Marco!

There used to be a tiny town in northern Italy placed in a flat lagoon... then the traders from there rescued the bones of evangelist Marcus and went on a spree of becoming an economic hub by means of being the southern end point of one of the easiest transalpine routes from Germany, the northern end of the Adriatic trade routes, and becoming the most western end of the Silk Route. Yes, the tiny town of Venice evolved into a trade empire first and only then turned into a powerhouse of the Mediterranean by buying the Peloponnese and some other islands from Byzantium and churning out Galleys on floating production-streets set up for mass production before 1500.

In a particular stunt, the arsenal managed to outfit a ship from a basic, tarred hull (which they had on the ready in hundreds) with all equipment, mast, and guns during the course of a single extended meal under the watchful eyes of an Austrian noble. And to compound it: on average, one well-serviceable hull was finished to the storage yards per day, and in crunchtime, 2 crappy ones hit the water.

Cetero Censeo Carthaginem Delendam Esse...

Once upon a time at the Levante, the Phoenicians owned the "little" Punic trade empire. Then came overlords that incorporated their home and they simply moved all of their operations to the other side of the Mediterranean, re-founding their empire as Carthage. And their ships ruled literally all naval trade in the western Mediterranean. Their power was only broken when their self-declared rival of Rome reverse-engineered shipbuilding from a wreck and then went to war against them trice.

VOC

The Dutch used to be a tiny plot of land owned by Burgund, then Spain, then some others... and then they founded the Honorable East India Company VOC. And that trade company went pretty much Economy Go BRRRRRRRR and put them in a unique situation where they had enough money to just pay off neighboring lords.

Military first? Forget it, the Dutch started with militia and were first economists, and military far down the road at 10 or something, after tulip farmers. And they booted Spain out (most) of their South-East Asian colonies. And they kept owning that stuff till WW2 was over.

Answer 6

Could an empire form primarily due to economic strength rather than primarily military strength?

False dichotomy, IMO.

The purpose of a military is to extract wealth, i.e. is economic. Examples:

• Pax Romana: a powerful military existed to coërce/intimidate Europe into paying tax to Rome.

• Age of Colonialism: Britain extracted $45 trillion (economically) from India by military might.

• Neocolonialism: the paper 'Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015' estimates that (militarily strong) imperial powers extracted $10.8 trillion from (militarily weak) Africa etc.

• Mali Empire had the most organised, professional military in the region and "Mali's wealth in gold did not primarily come from direct rule of gold-producing regions, but rather from tribute and trade with the regions where gold was found.

Economic systems are set up by the strong to get resources from the weak. The alternative view where the economic system just kind of pops into existence like a law of physics, but that's a worldbuilding sin, IMO.

Answer 7

What's the motive?

Yes, your wealthy state is well-positioned to rise in power, but the normal state for such states is to milk the trade and sit fat and happy. And non-expansionist.

Why does it make such arrangements? What's in it for them?

It's perfectly possible to blunder into empire by annexing regions one by one, each for its own motive. This country is being threatened by nomads who haven't got the sense to keep their fragile and lucrative manufacture going, and needs the protection you can hire, which you aren't doing for free. That one can't contain its pirates, and you have to insist on rights to enable you to put them down. This other one has a princess who married your king and then became the sole survivor of the royal family.

Answer 8

The simplest way to achieve that scenario is to have your Empire's security depend on something else than military might.

You almost nearly answered your own question. If the Economic Powerhouse sits astride a narrow, but extremely important strait, surround by steep, unscalable mountains and cliffs on both sides, and have the resources of many client states at their call, then assaulting them is borderline impossible, without extremely advanced Navy with very powerful cannons.

Imagine a situatation: there is this Merchant Kingdom sitting across the Gibraltar Strait, except in this reality the Strait is so narrow you can throw a rock across it, and both sides of it are giant cliffs. The Merchant Kingdom economically controls every West African and West European petty kingdom. Then they just invest a billion gold coins into turning Gibraltar into a gargantuan, unassailable fortress-port, and cork the strait with warships and countersiege barges. The Mediterranean kingdoms would be powerless to do anything about them, the Merchant Empire would essentially own the Atlantic for all practical means, and could call the shots, without needing to fire any shots.

They could easily hold the western hemisphere economic hostage without ever attacking anyone, just denying trade to belligerents, and supporting their allies.

Answer 9

Euroatlantic Empire

The Empire started as the technological development in the late medieval has made possible a never seen explosion in research, commerce and science. That has lead to the emergency of a new political elite, whose power was based on commerce and money, instead as the land area.

They revived the ancient ideas about democracy, humanity and similar concepts from the late archaic world, simultanously in many countries.

Although the Empire waged the most brutal wars of the history of the Humanity, its ruling ideology was to prefer commerce and freedom to slavery and rule by power, and that was also the primary means of its expansion.

The Empire is currently on the way of the ancient Athene, or of the late Roman Republic, to transfer from a democracy into a classical empire, kept together by blood and iron.

The long-term fate of the Empire is yet unknown. Currently it looks unlikely that a collapse could happen without a global nuclear war, opening an entirely blank page in the history of the Humanity.

Answer 10

there are a lot of canonical examples and serious analyses that answer your question somewhat philosophically already, so I'm gonna throw in something a bit more alt: the Rajneeshpuram community (quote and unquote depending on what you believe) what attempted to build sovereignty by throwing money at land and working through American empire legal loopholes.

what's relevant for your world is that maybe you can think about what else is at this state's disposal to exploit. That is what growing an empire through economic power really is - exploiting disadvantages in order to gain power. The military (or money/resources) does not hold power, it facilitates. A state does not need to exercise their military power to maintain their powerful position (case in point, Cuban missile crisis).

If the rest of your world is resistant to economic exploitation (other states having strong naval militaries, no need for trades, etc.), then it wouldn't work. In our world, for example, the country of Ethiopia has never been colonized in a militaristic sense, but that doesn't stop the US and the Europeans from targeting it in terms of economics and political propaganda. Or in the case of Rajneeshpuram, they failed because they really did not have the narrative on their side and they had rich and powerful white people (Bill Bowerman and the US attorney general, etc.) hiding behind the quiet small town farming community coming at them with more resources.

But, if other states in your world are susceptible to falling under control of this state, like the Delian League was to Athenian empire, as someone mentioned above, then this state might be able to maintain power in the world. I don't know if this fits into your project but maybe, say, the state-in-question is the only state that has the technology to build boats and sail and establish their initial dominance based on that. Since they are geographically sequestered and like you said has a strong and centralized monarchy, they might be able to prevent the sharing of that technology through their dictatorship for a while before other states catch up, thus giving them the time to build military power as they need. Just off the top of my head, not well thought out lol, feel free to rip it apart and poke holes at it.