How does previous empires like the United States acts towards friends? 美國等以前的帝國是如何對待朋友的?

Of course. This is a fascinating and complex topic. The way previous empires acted towards “friends” was rarely based on modern concepts of mutual respect and shared values. Instead, these relationships were almost always transactional, strategic, and hierarchical.

An empire’s “friends” were typically one of three things:

1. Client States/Vassals: Weaker states under the empire’s protection and influence.
2. Allies of Convenience: Other major powers where interests temporarily aligned.
3. Useful Internal Groups: Powerful factions within the empire that were co-opted for support.

Here’s a breakdown of how empires typically behaved towards these “friends,” supported by historical examples.

---

1. The Principle of Hierarchy: “Friends” are Inferiors

The core of imperial ideology was supremacy. Therefore, a true equal was rare. Most friendships were with lesser states, creating a patron-client dynamic.

· Example: Ancient Rome
  · Behavior: Rome established relationships with neighboring tribes and kingdoms as socii (allies). However, these allies were expected to provide soldiers for Rome’s armies and adhere to Roman foreign policy. In return, they received protection and a share of the spoils of war.
  · The Reality: This “friendship” was non-negotiable. If an ally tried to break away or act independently (e.g., the city of Corinth or various Italian allies before the Social War), Rome would brutally crush them to reassert dominance. The relationship was one of controlled benevolence with an implicit threat of violence.

2. Instrumental and Transactional Relationships

Friendships were maintained only as long as they served the empire’s strategic, economic, or security interests.

· Example: The British Empire
  · Behavior: Britain forged alliances with various local powers to secure its holdings, particularly in India. They made “friends” of some princely states to use them against rivals like the French or the Maratha Empire.
  · The Reality: These friendships were tools. The moment a former ally was no longer useful or threatened British interests, the relationship was discarded. After using the Nawab of Bengal as a commercial partner, the British overthrew him after the Battle of Plassey (1757) when he became a threat. Similarly, alliances with local Maori iwi (tribes) in New Zealand were used to control other iwi.

3. Co-opting and Assimilation

Empires often befriended powerful elite groups within conquered territories to stabilize their rule. This “friendship” came with benefits but required assimilation into the imperial system.

· Example: The Achaemenid Persian Empire
  · Behavior: Persia was a master of administration. After conquering a region (like Lydia or Babylon), they would often leave the local elite in place as long as they pledged loyalty to the Persian King (“The King of Kings”), paid taxes, and provided soldiers. They respected local customs and religions to keep the peace.
  · The Reality: This was a pragmatic friendship. By making “friends” of the local powerful classes, Persia prevented revolts and administered its vast empire efficiently. The moment these elites rebelled, however, they were swiftly replaced.

4. The “Divide and Rule” Strategy

Empires often fostered friendships with certain groups specifically to undermine or balance against other, more powerful rivals. This prevented unified opposition.

· Example: (Again) The British Empire
  · Behavior: This strategy was used globally. In India, the British leveraged Hindu-Muslim and princely state rivalries. In Rwanda, they favored the Tutsi elite over the Hutu majority. In the Middle East, they made alliances with specific tribes to control the region.
  · The Reality: These friendships were deliberately divisive. They created long-lasting animosities and conflicts that served the empire’s goal of maintaining a fragile balance of power that only they could manage. The “friend” was a pawn in a larger game of control.

5. Betrayal and Absorption

The ultimate fate of many imperial “friends” was betrayal and annexation once they outlived their usefulness or became too weak to resist.

· Example: The Aztec Empire
  · Behavior: The Aztecs ruled through a system of client states who were forced to pay massive tributes (including human sacrifices). These “allies” deeply resented the Aztecs.
  · The Reality: This is a perfect example of how not to treat friends. When Hernán Cortés arrived, these subjugated states (like the Tlaxcalans) saw an opportunity and eagerly allied with the Spanish to destroy their Aztec overlords. The Aztec’s oppressive “friendships” became their greatest weakness.

---

Summary: The Imperial Playbook Towards Friends

Strategy Description Example
Patron-Client Dynamic Treating allies as inferior partners who provide resources (soldiers, money) in exchange for protection. Rome and its Italian socii.
Transactional Alliance Maintaining the relationship only as long as it serves a direct strategic or economic interest. Britain allying with princes in India.
Co-optation Befriending and empowering local elites to ensure stability and smooth administration. Persia allowing local satraps and kings to rule.
Divide and Rule Playing different “friendly” groups against each other to prevent a unified challenge to imperial authority. Britain in India, Rwanda, and the Middle East.
Eventual Betrayal/Absorption Annexing or destroying the ally once they are no longer useful or are too weak to resist. Aztecs with their tributary states.

Conclusion:

For most empires, the concept of “friend” was a misnomer. These relationships were better described as “useful subordinates,” “temporary allies,” or “controlled assets.” The guiding principle was always the enhancement of imperial power, security, and wealth. Loyalty was expected, but rarely reciprocated in the way a modern nation would understand it. The history of empires shows that their “friendships” were often the first step towards domination or a temporary tactic on the path to conquest.