Empire

Empire (pronounced em-pahyuhr (sometimes om-peer if affecting to speak of things historically French)).

(1) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

(2) As First Empire, the period of imperial rule in France under Napoleon Bonaparte, 1804-1815; as Second Empire, the period of Imperial rule under Napoleon III, 1852-1870 (a decadent period).

(3) A government under an emperor or empress.

(4) The historical period during which a nation is under such a government (often initial capital letter).

(5) Supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty.

(6) Supreme control; absolute sway.

(7) A powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope, especially one controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.

(9) In fashion, of the style that prevailed during the first French Empire, in clothing being characterized especially by décolletage and a high waistline, coming just below the bust, from which the skirt hangs straight and loose (usually initial capital letter).

(10) As Empire State, a term for New York since 1834.

(11) In architecture and design, noting or pertaining to the style of architecture, furnishings, and decoration prevailing in France, emulated variously in various other places circa 1800-1830; characterized by the use of delicate but elaborate ornamentation imitated from Greek and Roman examples or containing classical allusions, as animal forms for the legs of furniture, bas-reliefs of classical figures, motifs of wreaths, torches, caryatids, lyres, and urns and by the occasional use of military and Egyptian motifs and, under the Napoleonic Empire itself, of symbols alluding to Napoleon I, as bees or the letter N (often initial capital letter).

1250–1300: From the Middle English empire (territory subject to an emperor's rule (and, in general "realm, dominion"), from the Anglo-French & Old French empire & empere (rule, authority, kingdom, imperial rule; authority of an emperor, supreme power in governing; imperial power), from the Latin imperium & inperium (a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm) from inperare & imperāre (to command) from parāre (to prepare; to make ready; order).  The construct of the Latin imperare was in- (in) (from the primitive Indo-European root en (in)) + parare (to order, prepare) (from the primitive Indo-European root pere- (to produce, procure).  A doublet of empery and imperium.

In English, the early understanding of the word was defined substantially by the knowledge (however imperfect) of the Persian and Roman (especially the latter) empires of Antiquity and though never etymologically restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor", for entirely logical reasons it did tend to be used that way.  The phrase "the Empire" (which in the UK and the British empire almost exclusively implied "the British Empire" (dating from 1772)) previously would have been supposed to be a reference to the Holy Roman Empire.  Officially, the British Empire devolved into "The Commonwealth" in 1931 because of the constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster (and the changing world view) but opinion is divided on when it really ended, most dating it from Indian independence in 1947 (when George VI ceased to be George RI (Rex Imperator (king-emperor)) and became George R) while others claim (less plausibly) that in a sense it endured until Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997.  Nobody claims that still holding the Falkland Islands an empire makes.

Always a civilizing project, the Roman Empire stopped short of Ireland and Scotland.  One has to draw the line somewhere.

Despite the modern habit, etymologically, empire was never restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor" but has been used that way for so long a meaning-shift may have happened.  In political theory, an empire is an aggregate of conquered, colonized, or confederated states, each with its own government subordinate or tributary to that of the empire as a whole but history is replete with accidents and anomalies.  Japan’s head of state is an emperor although no empire exists and the most often quoted remark about the Holy Roman Empire has long been Voltaire’s bon mot that it was "...not holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

Long pre-dating the era, the empire-line (sometimes called empire-silhouette) dress is most associated with the French First Empire (which lasted from 1804 when Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor, to his final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815) and although the look endured longer than the political construct, beginning in the 1820s, skirts widened and waistlines lowered to an extent most were no longer identifiable as the style.  The look became linked to the First Empire because it was Napoleon's first Empress, Joséphine de Beauharnais (1763–1814) who popularized it in Europe and there are fashionistas who when speaking of the style, will pronounce it as a quasi-French om-pire.  In England, Emma, Lady Hamilton's ((1765–1815); mistress of Lord Nelson (1758-1805) and muse of the artist George Romney (1734-1802)) adoption of the style was much imitated, the cross-channel exchanges of fashion continuing uninterrupted even when a state of war existed between London and Paris.  The English or American fashions of this time tend respectively to be termed "Regency" (referring to the Regency of the Prince of Wales, 1811-1820) and "Federal" (referring to the decades immediately following the American Revolution).

Gisele Bündchen in Dior empire-line dress, Academy Awards Ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2005.

Empire-line dresses featured a waistline considerably raised above the natural level with skirts which vary from the slim and columnar to the swishy and conical.  In its pure form it was characterized by (1) a columnar silhouette without gathers in front, (2) some fullness over the hips, (3) a concentration of gathers aligned with a wide centre-back bodice panel and (4), a raised waistline which reached usually to just below the bust but (occasionally) as high as the armpits.  Mass-production of the design was possible only because the industrial revolution made available new fabrics and other materials at volume and an attainable cost.  Empire- line proved appealing to women without an ideal figure because, by adjusting the parameters of the various components, a seamstress could flatter a wide variety of body types, disguising and emphasizing as required, able to create also the illusion of greater height. 

The empire-line inherently needs a lot of fabric which offers designers the possibility of using bold patterns, especially florals, which can't be displayed to the same effect in styles with less surface area.

Traditionally, most clothing had relied on the shape of the human body but new forms of corsetry, including strong yet delicate shoulder straps to provide the necessary structural integrity, combined with materials such as mull, a  soft, sheer Indian white muslin, allowed designers to create wearable outfits in which the neoclassical influence was obvious, the silhouette imitating the Classical statutes of Antiquity.  Such constructions had before existed for the rich but they were heavy, hot, rigid, uncomfortable and very expensive.  Sadly, the relative freedom women enjoyed proved short lived, evolving by the 1820s into something less simple and notably more restrictive, the hourglass Victorian styles much more prevalent in high-fashion by the mid-nineteenth century, a trend which lasted until the First World War.  The ideas of empire-line were revived for the less-constricting clothing popular in the 1920s and, although coming and going, it’s never gone away and, being somewhat hippie in its look, gained a new following in the 1960s.

Empire-line wedding dresses (left to right) by Dana Harel, Savannah Miller, Two Birds & LoveShackFancy.  Although the design and structural details differ between these, all four can be reduced to the same mathematics.  The wedding dress business seems to be one part of the industry where blonde models seem not to enjoy their usual natural advantage, photographers preferring dark hair, better to contrast and define the edges of all that white fabric.  

Lindsay Lohan in empire-line dress, Paris, 2011.

Today, empire-line dresses are still often worn and the style gained a new audience from their used in the Mad Men television series, set in upper-middle class US society during the 1960s.  One place where they've long inhabited a stable niche has been the Western wedding dress where the technical aspects of the design, the fitted bodice, high waist, and loose-fitting skirt allow the creation of silhouette that’s flattering and forgiving for a wide range of body shapes, once a genuine selling feature for brides with child who, in less accepting times, wished to conceal the bump.  However, even though the empire- line is almost uniquely  ideal at shifting focus from the waistline, it can be cut in a way to complement the slender, delivering a cinched waist.  In either case, the same mathematics are at work, the goal being to elongate and define and by creating the visual effect of the narrowest point appearing just under the bust, it can either (1) trick viewers into seeing a longer torso, diverting attention from the midriff and hips or (2) emphasise the waistline of the truly slender, making it perfect also for the petite or short.

Reich

Reich (pronounced rahyk or rahykh (German))

(1) With reference to Germany or other Germanic agglomerations, empire; realm; nation.

(2) The German state, especially (as Third Reich) during the Nazi period.

1871: From the German Reich (kingdom, realm, state), from the Middle High German rīche, from the Old High German rīhhi (rich, mighty; realm), from the Proto-West Germanic rīkī, from the Proto-Germanic rīkijaz & rikja (rule), a derivative of rīks (king, ruler), from the Proto-Celtic rīxs and thus related to the Irish rí.  The influences were (1) the primitive Indo-European hereǵ- (to rule), from which is derived also the Latin rēx and (2) the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line) with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line", thus "to lead, rule".  Cognates include the Old Norse riki, the Danish rige & rig, the Dutch rike & rijk, the Old English rice & rich, the Old Frisian rike, the Icelandic ríkur, the Swedish rik, the Gothic reiki, the Don Ringe and the Plautdietsch rikj.

Reich was first used in English circa 1871 to describe the essentially Prussian creation that was the German Empire which was the first unification of the central European Germanic entities.  It was then described simply as “the Reich” with no suggestion of any sense of succession with the Holy Roman Empire.  “Third Reich” was an invention of Nazi propaganda to “invent” the idea of Hitler as the inheritor of the mantle of Charlemagne and Bismarck.  The word soon captured the imagination of the British Foreign Office, German “Reichism” coming to be viewed as much a threat as anything French had ever been.

The term Fourth Reich was popularized by Edwin Hartrich’s (1913-1995) book The Fourth and Richest Reich (MacMillan 1980), a critique both of the modern German state and its influence on the EEC / EC which would become the EU.  The term is still sometimes used by those criticizing the German state, the not so subtle implication being Berlin gradually achieving by other means the domination of Europe which the Third Reich attempted by military conquest.  Fourth Reich is also sometimes used, erroneously to describe the two-dozen day “administration” of Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; German head of state 30 April-23 May 1945) who in Hitler’s will was appointed Reich President (and therefore head of state); the so-called “Flensburg Government”.  That’s wrong and the only difference of opinion between constitutional theorists is whether it was either the mere coda to the Third Reich or mostly a charade, the German state ceasing to exist by virtue of events on the ground, a situation the finalization of the surrender arrangements on 8 May merely documented.  The latter view, although reflecting reality, has never been widely supported, the formal existence of a German state actually required to ensure the validity of the surrender and other administrative acts.

The word "Reich" does sometimes confuse non-specialists who equate it with the German state, probably because the Third Reich does cast such a long shadow.  Murdoch journalist Samantha Maiden (b 1972) in a piece discussing references made to the Nazis (rarely a good idea except between experts) by a candidate in the 2022 Australian general election wrote:

The history of the nation-state known as the German Reich is commonly divided into three periods: German Empire (1871–1918) Weimar Republic (1918–1933) Nazi Germany (1933–1945).

It's an understandable mistake and the history of the German Reich is commonly divided into three periods but that doesn't include the Weimar Republic.  The point about what the British Foreign Office labelled "Reichism" was exactly what the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), as a "normal" democratic state, was not.  The Reich's three epochs (and there's some retrospectivity in both nomenclature and history) were the Holy Roman Empire (1800-1806), Bismarck's (essentially Prussian) German Empire (1871-1918) & the Nazi Third Reich (1933-1945).  

Sketch of the orgone accumulator.

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) was a US-based Austrian psychoanalyst with a difficult past who believed sexual repression was the root cause of many social problems.  Some of his many books were widely read within the profession but there was criticism of his tendency towards monocausality in his analysis, an opinion shared by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) in his comments about Reich’s 1927 book Die Funktion des Orgasmus (The Function of the Orgasm), a work the author had dedicated to his fellow Austrian.  Freud sent a note of thanks for the personally dedicated copy he’d been sent as a birthday present but, brief and not as effusive in praise Reich as had expected, it was not well-received.  Reich died in prison while serving a sentence imposed for violating an injunction issued to prevent the distribution of a machine he’d invented: the orgone accumulator.

The Space Ritual Alive in Liverpool and London (United Artists UAD 60037/8; referred to usually as Space Ritual) (1973).

The orgone accumulator was an apparently phoney device but one which inspired members of the SF-flavored band Hawkwind to write the song Orgone Accumulator which, unusually, was first released on a live recording, Space Ritual, a 1973 double album containing material from their concerts in 1972.  Something of a niche player in the world of 1970s popular music Hawkwind, perhaps improbably, proved more enduring than many, their combination of styles attracting a cult following which endures to this day.  

The First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire in the sixteenth century.

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that developed during the early Middle Ages, the popular identification with Germany because the empire’s largest territory after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany.  On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III (circa 760-816; pope 795-816) crowned Charlemagne (747–814; King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of the Romans (and thus retrospectively Holy Roman Emperor) from 800) as Emperor, reviving the title more than three centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  Despite the way much history has been written, it wasn’t until the fifteenth century that “Holy Roman Empire” became a commonly used phrase.

Leo III, involved in sometimes violent disputes with Romans who much preferred his predecessor and the Byzantine Empress in Constantinople, had his own reasons for wishing to crown Charlemagne as Emperor although it was a choice which would have consequences for hundreds of years.  According to legend, Leo ambushed Charlemagne at Mass on Christmas day, 800 by placing the crown on his head as he knelt at the altar to pray, declaring him Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans), in one stroke claiming staking the papal right to choose emperors, guaranteeing his personal protection and rejecting any assertion of imperial authority by anyone in Constantinople.  Charlemagne may or may not have been aware of what was to happen but much scholarship suggests he was well aware he was there for a coronation but that he intended to take the crown in his own hands and place it on his head himself.  The implications of the pope’s “trick” he immediately understood but, what’s done is done and can’t be undone and the lesson passed down the years, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) not repeating the error at his coronation as French Emperor in 1804.

Some historians prefer to date the empire from 962 when Otto I was crowned because continuous existence there began but, scholars generally concur, it’s possible to trace from Charlemagne an evolution of the institutions and principles constituting the empire, describing a gradual assumption of the imperial title and role.  Not all were, at the time, impressed. Voltaire sardonically recorded one of his memorable bon mots, noting the “…agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  The last Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II (1768–1835; Holy Roman Emperor 1792-1806) dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806, after Napoleon's creation of the Confederation of the Rhine.

The Second Reich, the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty, 1871-1919.

German Empire, 1914.

The German Empire existed from the unification of Germany in 1871 until the abdication of Wilhelm II (1859–1941; German Kaiser (Emperor) & King of Prussia 1888-1918) in 1918, when Germany became a federal republic, remembered as the Weimar Republic (1919-1933).  The German Empire consisted of 26 constituent territories, most ruled by royal families.  Although Prussia became one of several kingdoms in the new realm, it contained most of its population and territory and certainly the greatest military power and the one which exercised great influence within the state; a joke at the time was that most countries had an army whereas the Prussian Army had a country.

To a great extent, the Second Reich was the creation of Prince Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898; chancellor of the North German Confederation 1867-1871 and of the German Empire 1871-1890), the politician who dominated European politics in the late nineteenth although his time in office does need to be viewed through sources other than his own memoirs.  When Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, the Empire embarked on a bellicose new course that ultimately led to World War I and Germany’s defeat.  Following the Kaiser’s abdication, the Empire collapsed in the November 1918 revolution and the Weimar Republic which followed, though not the axiomatically doomed thing many seem now to assume, was for much of its existence beset by political and economic turmoil.  

The Third Reich, the Nazi dictatorship 1933-1945

Nazi occupied Europe, 1942.

“Nazi Germany” is in English the common name for the period of Nazi rule, 1933-1945.  The first known use of the term “Third Reich” was by German cultural historian Moeller van den Bruck (1876-1925) in his 1923 book Das Dritte Reich (The Third Reich).  Van den Bruck, a devotee of Nietzsche and a pan-German nationalist, wrote not of a defined geographical entity or precise constitutional arrangement, his work instead exploring a conceptualized (if imprecisely described) and idealized state of existence for Germans everywhere, one that would (eventually) fully realize what the First Reich might have evolved into had not mistakes been made, the Second Reich a cul-de-sac rendered impure by the same democratic and liberal ideologies which had doomed the Weimar Republic.  Both these, van den Bruck dismissed as stepping stones.

In the difficult conditions which prevailed in Germany at the time of the book’s publication, it didn’t reach a wide audience, the inaccessibility of his text not suitable for a general readership but, calling for a synthesis of the particularly Prussian traditions of socialism and nationalism and the leadership of a Übermensch (a idea from Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883) which describes a kind of idealized man who probably can come into existence only of society is worthy of him), his work had obvious appeal to the Nazis.  It was said to have been influential in the embryonic Nazi Party but there’s little to suggest it contributed much beyond an appeal to the purity of race and the idea of “leader” principle, notions already well established in German nationalist traditions.  The style alone might have accounted for this, Das Dritte Reich not an easy read, a trait shared by the dreary and repetitive stuff written by the party “philosopher” Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946).

A book channeling Nietzsche wasn’t much help for practical politicians needing manifestos, pamphlets and appealing slogans and the only living politician who attracted some approbation from van den Bruck was Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce & prime minister of Italy 1922-1943).  The admiration certainly didn’t extend to Adolf Hitler (1889-1945); unimpressed by his staging of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch (8–9 November 1923), van den Bruck dismissed the future Führer with a unusually brief deconstruction, the sentiment of which was later better expressed by another disillusioned follower: “that ridiculous corporal”.

The name “Third Reich did however briefly enter the Nazi’s propaganda lexicon.  The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich (German Empire) between 1933-1943 and Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire) between 1943 to 1945 but so much of what was fascism was fake and the Nazis were attracted to the notion of claiming to be the successor of a German Empire with a thousand year history, their own vision of the Nazi state being millennialist .  After they seized power, the term “Third Reich” would occasionally be invoked and, more curiously, the Nazis for a while even referred to the Weimar Republic as the Zwischenreich (Interim Reich) but as the 1930s unfolded as an almost unbroken series of triumphs for Hitler, emphasis soon switched to the present and the future, the pre Beer-Hall Putsch history no longer needed.  It was only after 1945 that the use of “Third Reich” became almost universal although the earlier empires still are almost never spoken of in that way.

Van den Bruck had anyway been not optimistic and his gloominess proved prescient although his people did chose to walk the path he thought they may fear to tread.  In the introduction to Das Dritte Reich he wrote: “The thought of a Third Empire might well be the most fatal of all the illusions to which they have ever yielded; it would be thoroughly German if they contented themselves with day-dreaming about it. Germany might perish of her Third Empire dream.”  He didn’t live to see the rise and fall of the Third Reich, taking his own life in 1925, a fate not unknown among those who read Nietzsche at too impressionable an age and never quite recover.

Byzantine

Byzantine (pronounced biz-uhn-teen, biz-uhn-tahyn, bahy-zuhn-tyne or bih-zan-tin)

(1) Relating to Byzantium, the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

(2) Of or about a situation deemed excessively complicated and typically involving a great deal of seemingly pointless administrative detail (usually without initial capital).

(3) A citizen of Byzantium or the Byzantine Empire.

(4) Of or belonging to the style of architecture developed from the fifth century AD in the Byzantine Empire, characterized especially by a central dome resting on a cube formed by four round arches and their pendentives and by the extensive use of surface decoration, especially veined marble panels, low relief carving, and colored glass mosaics.

(5) Of the painting and decorative style developed in the Byzantine Empire, characterized by formality of design, frontal stylized presentation of figures, rich use of color, especially gold, and generally religious subject matter.

(6) Characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue, especially for the gaining of political power or favour (usually without initial capital).

(7) In numismatics, a coin issued by the Byzantine Empire.

(8) A dark, metallic shade of violet.

1651 (in English use): From the Late Latin Bȳzantīnus (of Byzantium), the name derived ultimately from the ancient Greek city Byzantion on the Bosporus and the Sea of Marmara, said to have been named in 657 BC for it founder, Byzas of Megara.  Constantine I (circa 272–337; Roman emperor 306-337 (and the first to convert to Christianity) rebuilt the city and renamed it Constantinople.  The city fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 although the modern-day name Istanbul wasn’t (except in the Vatican and the Orthodox Church) universally adopted until the years after World War II (1939-1945).  Although in Greek legend the ancient city name Byzantion came from King Byzas, leader of the Megarian colonists, who is said to be its founder, the etymology remains uncertain although most historians of the period seem to agree it must be of Thraco-Illyrian origin and there’s no doubt Byzantium is a Latinization of the original.  Centuries later, in Western literature, the name Byzantium became the standard term with which to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire (the "Byzantine Empire” centred on the walled capital Constantinople.  For all the generations which lived while the empire stood, the term would have been mysterious and it gained currency only after 1555 when introduced by the German historian Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), a century after Constantinople had fallen and the empire had ceased to exist.  Until Wolf introduced the phrase, the word Byzantium was restricted to just the city, rather than the empire which, in the way of such things, had waxed and waned.  Byzantine is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is Byzantines.

Byzantium

A hand-painted rendition of Byzantine Constantinople after the style of medieval mapmakers.

Standing for centuries on blood-soaked soil on the Bosporus where Europe ends and Asia begins, Greek forces laid siege during the Peloponnesian war and Sparta took the city in 411 BC before it was reclaimed by the Athenian military in 408 BC.  Almost razed, by Roman forces in 196 AD, Byzantium was rebuilt by Septimius Severus (145-211; Roman emperor 193-211) and quickly regained its previous prosperity.  The location of Byzantium attracted Constantine I (circa 272–337; Roman emperor 306-337 (and the first to convert to Christianity)) who in 330 AD re-created it as an imperial residence inspired by Rome itself and after his death, it was called Constantinople (Κωνσταντινούπολις (Konstantinoupolis (literally "city of Constantine"))).  For a thousand years, it was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and a commercial, cultural & diplomatic centre and from its strategic position, Constantinople’s rulers controlled the major trade routes between Asia and Europe, as well as the passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.  On 29 May 1453, in the first example of a major city falling to a siege by artillery, Constantinople fell to the Turks, becoming the capital of the Ottoman Empire.  The great walls which for centuries had defied invaders from land and sea, crumbled to modern cannon fire.  Even then, the Turks called the city Istanbul (from the Greek eis-tin-polin (to-the-city) although it was not officially renamed until 1930, almost a decade after the Empire was dissolved and it remains Turkey’s largest and most populous city, although Ankara is now the national capital.

Lindsay Lohan meeting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; prime-minister or president of the Republic of Türkiye since 2003), Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), January 2017.

The other senses of byzantine (as often used without the initial capital): (1) “characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation, often for some nefarious purpose” and (2) “something intricate, complicated; inflexible, rigid, unyielding” are both of dubious historical validity.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), “byzantine” was first used in English in 1937 (of the impenetrable despotism of the Soviet Union which appeared to those in the Foreign Office schooled in the classics to be much the same as what they’d learned of the antics practiced in Constantinople) in the sense of “reminiscent of the manner, style, or spirit of Byzantine politics; intricate, complicated; inflexible, rigid, unyielding” but in French political scientists had earlier applied in the same figurative context, something which would surprise few familiar with the politicians of inter-war France, a generally rotten crew about whom it was remarked “they can’t keep a government for nine months, nor a secret for five minutes”.  Still, it was probably the English who lent the word its loaded meaning.  Edward Gibbon’s (1737–1794) magisterial The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (six volumes: 1776-1788) was influential for generations in forming the construct of the period in the European imagination and he caricatured the history of the empire as endless chicanery, shadyness, back-channel deals, low skulduggery, back-stabbing, and naked grabs for power.  Until late in the twentieth century, phrases like “bewildering Oriental intrigue” flowed easily from the pens of English historians and hints of the attitude, cloaked in wokish words, appear even since they’ve switched to keyboards.  Much modern scholarship though has been more forgiving and there’s now an understanding that while like everywhere, low politics and dirty deeds were sometimes done, a remarkable civilization grew on the Bosporus.

Byzantium architectural styles.

The association with needless complexity and pointless administrative duplication was probably born of the same prejudices to which was added the view the empire was infused with strange religious rituals and stubbornness in the way it clung to superstition.  Historians have of late have refined this view, suggesting words like “intricate” or even “labyrinthine” might better capture the spirit of the place which was, by any standards and certainly those of medieval Europe, a complex and highly developed society.  The loaded meaning though seems here to stay, perhaps reinforced in the public imagination by the phonetic similarity between “byzantine” & “bizarre”.  Bizarre means “strangely unconventional; highly unusual and different from common experience, often in an extravagant, fantastic or conspicuous ways” and was from the French bizarre (odd, peculiar (and formerly “brave; headlong, angry”), either from the Basque bizar (a beard (on the notion that bearded Spanish soldiers made a strange impression on the French) or from Italian bizzarro (odd, queer, eccentric, weird (and, of a horse “frisky” in the sense of the English “bolter”)) of unknown origin but thought probably related to bizza (tantrum), which may be of Germanic origin.  In summary then, the Byzantines would have had their moments but were no more nasty and duplicitous that politicians everywhere and when describing convoluted things as byzantine it might be more accurate to instead call them labyrinthine or just bizarre.

Elector

Elector (pronounced ih-lek-ter)

(1) A person who elects or may elect, especially a qualified voter (ie one correctly enrolled).

(2) A member an electoral college (chiefly US use but rarely used except in a technical context and often with initial capital letter).

(3) One of the (mostly) German princes entitled to elect the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (usually initial capital letter).

1425–1475: From the late Middle English elector & electour, from the Late Latin ēlēctor (chooser; selector) agent noun from past-participle stem of eligere (to pick out, choose), the construct being eleg- (variant stem of ēligere, second-person singular future passive indicative of ēligō (from ex- (out of, from) +‎ legō (choose, select, appoint)) + -tor (genitive -tōris), the Latin suffix used to form a masculine agent noun.  An earlier alternative form was electour but it was obsolete by the sixteenth century; the office in court documents was often described by the noun electorship and there were feminine forms, used with an initial capital letter when grammar demanded: electress, electress consort & princess-electress.  Elector & electorship are nouns; the noun plural is electors.

Elections in the First Reich

The Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Imperium Romanum in Latin; Heiliges Römisches Reich in German) endured from the crowing of Charlemagne (747–814) on Christmas day 800 until it was dissolved in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars although, technically, the imperial connection existed only since Otto I (912-973) proclaimed himself emperor in 962 and it wasn’t until the thirteenth century the term "Holy Roman Empire" came into use.  Prior to that, the empire was known variously as universum regnum (the whole kingdom (as opposed to the many regional kingdoms in Europe), imperium christianum (Christian empire) or Romanum imperium (Roman empire), but the Emperor's mystique, if not his constitutional legitimacy, was always underpinned by the concept of translatio imperii (that his supreme power was an inheritance from the old emperors of Classical Rome).

The Bishop Consecration of the Elector Clemens August by Benedikt XIII (1727) (in the New Castle Schleißheim), oil on panel in Rococo style by by George Desmarées (1697-1776). 

Accession to the throne of Holy Roman Emperor was sometime dynastic and sometimes political but from the thirteenth century, it was formalised as elective, the electoral college comprised mostly of German prince-electors, the high-ranking aristocrats who would meet to choose of their peers a King of the Romans to be crowned emperor (until 1530 by the Pope himself).  From then on, emperors, keen to assert the idea their authority was independent of the papacy, gained their legitimacy solely from the vote of the electors.  The prince-electors were known in German as Kurfürst; the heir apparent to a secular prince-elector a Kurprinz (electoral prince).  The German element Kur- was based on the Middle High German irregular verb kiesen and was related to the English word "choose" (from the Old English ceosan, participle coren (having been chosen)) and the Gothic kiusan.  The modern German verb küren means "to choose" in a ceremonial sense.  Fürst is German for “prince” but while German distinguishes between the head of a principality (der Fürst) and the son of a monarch (der Prinz), English uses "prince" for both concepts.  Fürst is related to the English first and is thus the “foremost” person in his realm, “prince” being derived from the Latin princeps, which carried the same meaning.

In modern democratic systems, there’s quite a variety of electoral systems and a handful of states even make voting compulsory.  Although political operatives and theorists have constructed elaborate arguments in favor of one arrangement or another, it’s remarkable how, over a number of electoral cycles, the pattern of outcomes produces results which are strikingly similar.  One thing which tends to be common across different systems is that the actual dynamic of the electoral contest is the battle for the votes of a relative handful, the base support of the established parties, although there’s be a general tendency of decline, not falling below a certain critical mass.  So, all the clatter of election campaigns exists to convince a small part of the population to vote differently and these are the famous “swing” voters, those who can be persuaded to change.  Swing voters can bring joy or despair to political parties and in tight contests they’re a particular challenge because they can’t all be nudged to change by the same carrot or stick; some need to be offered hope, some need to be made fearful and some wish simply to be bribed.  The other problem with swing voters is they can swing back so they need again and again to be massaged.  Consider Lindsay Lohan who in 2008 endorsed Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) only to say in 2012 she was “as of now” backing Mitt Romney (b 1947; Republican candidate for president 2012).  Once, she referred to Sarah Palin (b 1964; Republican vice presidential nominee 2008) as a “narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe” yet, presumably using the same deductive process, found Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) was “good people”, a view expressed within a year of declaring herself anti-Brexit voice, a thing Trump supported.  There is of course no reason why people have to align themselves with everything a candidate supports and it seems unknown which way Lindsay Lohan has voted or even if she votes but her seasonal shifts are indicative of the difficulties the parties face and the reason they’re so attracted to the possibilities offered by mining big data so messaging can be scoped down to individual electors.  That's merely the latest refinement in advertising which has moved in less than a century from broadcasting to all, narrowcasting to groups to now messaging to each soul what they want to hear.

Dreadnought

Dreadnought (pronounced dred-nawt)

(1) A type of battleship armed with heavy-caliber guns in turrets: so called from the British battleship HMS Dreadnought (1906); A name used by the Royal Navy for many ships and submarines.

(2) A garment made of thick woolen cloth that can defend against storm and cold.

(3) A thick cloth with a long pile.

(4) Slang a heavyweight boxer, sometime extended to the largest or heaviest in a given field.

(5) A person who fears nothing; something that assures against fear.

1800-1810: The construct is dread + nought.  Dread is from the Middle English dreden, from Old English drǣdan (to fear, dread), aphetic form of ondrǣdan (to fear, dread), from and- +‎ rǣdan (from which English picked up read); corresponding to an aphesis of the earlier adread.  The Old Saxon was antdrādan & andrādan (to fear, dread), the Old High German was intrātan (to fear) and the Middle High German entrāten (to fear, dread, frighten).  Nought is from the Middle English nought & noght, (noȝt), from the Old English nōwiht & nāwiht (the construct being nay +‎ a +‎ wight), which in turn came from ne-ā-wiht, a phrase used as an emphatic "no", in the sense of "not a thing".  In the transition to Modern English, the word reduced gradually to nought, nawt and finally not; a doublet of naught.  The alternative spelling (though never used by the Admiralty) is Dreadnaught.

The dreadnoughts

HMS Dreadnought, 1906.

Launched in 1906, HMS Dreadnought is often said to have revolutionized naval power, the design so significant it proved the final evolution of what had, by the late nineteenth century, evolved into the battleship.  Subsequent vessels would be larger, faster, increasingly electronic and more heavily armed but the concept remained the same.  HMS Dreadnought rendered instantly obsolete every other battleship in the world (including the rest of the Royal Navy) and all other battleships then afloat were immediately re-classified as pre-dreadnoughts. 

HMS Dreadnought.

Her main design features were speed, armor, steam turbine propulsion and, especially, firepower almost exclusively of weapons of the largest caliber.  In the decades after her launch, British, German, American, Japanese and other navies would build larger and heavier dreadnoughts until, during world war two, their utility was finally seen to been eclipsed by both aircraft carriers and submarines.  The last dreadnought, HMS Vanguard, launched in 1946, was scrapped in 1958 but the US Navy maintained, on either the active or reserve lists, at least one of the four battleships it retained from WW2 until 2004 when the last was decommissioned.

HMS Dreadnought, 1908.

That it was the Royal Navy which first launched a dreadnought doesn’t mean the British Admiralty was alone in pursuing the concept.  Naval strategists in several nations had noted the course of battle between the Russian and Japanese fleets in 1905 and concluded the immediate future of naval warfare lay in the maximum possible deployment of big guns, able to launch attacks from the longest possible range, subsidiary smaller caliber weapons seen even as a disadvantage in battle.  That the Royal Navy was the first with such a ship afloat was a testament to the efficiency of British designers and shipbuilders, not the uniqueness of its plans.

Much read in palaces, chancelleries and admiralties around the word was a book released in 1890 called The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783 by US naval officer and theorist Captain Alfred Mahan (1840-1914).  Published in what, in retrospect, was a historical sweet-spot (technologically and politically) for the views it espoused, it brought Mahan great fame and exerted an extraordinary influence on diplomacy, military planning and the politics of the era.  The book was not alone the cause of the naval arms-race in the decade before the First World War but was at least a sharp nudge, push or shove depending on one’s view.  Curiously though, although a work primarily about naval strategy, while many of the maritime powers seemed convinced by Mahan’s arguments about the importance of naval sea power in geopolitics, not all admiralties adopted the strategic template.  What all agreed however was they needed more ships.

The nineteenth century of Pax Britannica ("British Peace", echoing the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire), describes the century of relative great-power stability between the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and the outbreak of war in 1914 encompasses the idea of British Empire as the global hegemon, a role possible only because the Royal Navy enjoyed an unchallenged ability to patrol and protect the key maritime trade routes.  The effective control of these transport corridors not only guaranteed the security of the British Empire but it meant also the British effectively controlled maritime access to much of Asia, the Americas, Oceania the south Pacific, although, one factor in the success was it was that London ran things essentially in accordance with US foreign policy, assisting Washington in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine which upheld the US preponderance of interest in the Americas.  It can be argued the roots of the so-called "special relationship" took hold here.

The British Empire, in terms of the impression created by a map of the world on which its colonies and dependencies were colored usually in some shade of red, was deceptive, the remit of the local administrators sometimes extending little beyond the costal enclaves, even the transport links between towns not always entirely secure.  Never did the Empire posses the military resources to defend such vast, remote and disparate territories but it was the control of the sea, uniquely in history, which allowed the British for centuries to maintain what was, with no disparagement intended, a confidence trick.  The reason the empire could be maintained was not because of control of big colonies, it was all the little islands dotted around the oceans which enabled the navy to operate outposts which housed the ports and coaling stations from which ships could make repairs or provision with fuel, food and water.  All those little dots on the map were the "keys to the world".  Mahan’s book had drawn its influential conclusions from his study of the role of sea power during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; what the British did was take advantage of the circumstances of the nineteenth century and deploy their sea power globally, in competition when necessary, in cooperation when possible and in conflict when required.  The practical expression of all this was British naval policy: that the Royal Navy must be of sufficient strength simultaneously to prevail in war against the combined strength of the next two biggest navies, either in separate theatres or as a massed fleet.

By the early twentieth century, economic and geopolitical forces combined to render the policy impossible to maintain, Britain no longer able to operate in “splendid isolation” (another somewhat misleading phrase of the era), needing alliances to spread the load of imperial defense.  It wasn’t just the rapid growth of the German fleet which had changed the balance of power but that alone was enough for the British and the French to reach an accommodation which is remembered as the Entente Cordiale (Cordial Agreement) of 1904 which may or may not have been an alliance but was enough of one for the admiralties in Paris and London cooperatively to organize the allocations of their fleets.  It certainly illustrated Lord Palmerston's (1784–1865) doctrine that the country had neither eternal allies nor perpetual enemies but only permanent interests for despite the centuries of enmity between Britain and France, the self-interest of both dictated the need to align against the German threat.

Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS New Zealand, 1911.

It was in this atmosphere the great naval arms race took place, plans for which were laid before the Wright brothers had flown a hundred–odd feet, barely off the ground, torpedoes were in their infancy and submarines were little threat more than a few miles from the coast.  The measure of a fleet was its battleships and their big guns and whichever side could put to sea the most firepower was winning the race.  It intrigued the navalists, strategists and theorists who knew from history that such a race, if left to run, could end only in war, the great, decisive set-piece battle of which would be the clash of massed fleets of battleships on the high seas, trading shell-fire at a range of twenty miles (32 km), before closing for the kill as the battle climaxed.  Dreadnought was one strand of the theorists’ imagination but there were others.  There was a school of thought which favored an emphasis on radio communications and a greater attention to the possibilities offered by the torpedo and, most influentially, what seems now the curious notion of a complimentary range of faster capital ships, essentially battleships with the big guns but little armor, the loss of protection off-set by the few knots in speed gained; these ships were called battlecruisers.  The argument was they could fight at such range nothing but a battleship would be a threat and those the battlecruiser could outrun because of their greater speed.  It seemed, to many, a good idea at the time.

Super Dreadnought: HMS Iron_Duke, Port Said, 1921.

But it was the Dreadnoughts which captured the imagination and defined the era.  Impressive though she was, HMS Dreadnought was not long unique as navies around the world launched the own and, as happens in arms races, the original was quickly out-classed and the next generation of ships, bigger and more heavily gunned still, came to be known as super dreadnoughts.  War did come but the grand battle on the high seas which the navalists had, for a quarter century been planning, never happened.  There were smaller clashes of squadrons but the imperative of the Royal Navy was more practical and traditionally British: avoid defeat.  As Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty (minister for the navy), emphasized to the First Sea Lord (the navy’s senior admiral), against a continental empire like Germany, while the Royal Navy couldn’t in a year win the war, because Britain’s empire was maritime, they could lose it in one afternoon.  Accordingly, the Royal Navy made no sustained attempts to induce a massed battle, focusing instead on a blockade, keeping the German fleet confined to its ports.  It was the German admirals who attempted to force the British to a set-piece battle, venturing into the North Sea in May 1916 with a fleet of nearly a hundred, including sixteen dreadnoughts and five battlecruisers.  Against this, the British assembled a hundred and fifty odd with twenty-eight dreadnoughts and nine battlecruisers.  The action came to be known as the Battle of Jutland.

German battlecruiser SMS Goeben, 1914.

On paper, although the result described as inconclusive, it was a tactical success for the Germans but strategically, the British achieved their goal.  The dreadnoughts barely engaged, most of the action confined to the battlecruisers and, unlike the smaller Battle of Tsushima (May 1905) in the Far East, fought by pre-dreadnoughts a decade earlier between the Japanese and Russian fleets, there was no winner in the traditional sense of naval warfare.  The German's tactical success in retrospect was something of a Dunkirk moment but the strategic implications were profound.  British losses were heavier but their numeric advantage was such they could absorb the loss and had the financial and industrial capacity to restore the fleet’s strength.  Damage to the German fleet was less but they lacked the time or capacity to build their navy to the point it could be used as a strategic weapon and it remained confined to its ports.  Both sides learned well the inherent limitations of the battlecruiser.

WWI era German U-Boot (Unterseeboot (under-sea-boat)), anglicized as U-Boat.

After Jutland, the German admirals concluded that to venture again against the British Home Fleet would either be an inconclusive waste or lead to the inevitable, decisive defeat.  They accordingly prevailed on the politicians and eventually gained approval to use the only genuinely effective weapon in their hands, the submarine.  It was the consequences of unrestricted submarine warfare which would bring the United States into the war in 1917 as a belligerent and without that intervention, the war would certainly have followed a different course and reached perhaps a different conclusion.

Although HMS Dreadnought lent her name to an era and remains one of the most significant warships built, she's remembered for the geopolitical reverberations around her launching rather than any achievement at sea, missing even the anti-climatic Battle of Jutland because of a scheduled re-fit.  Indeed, her only achievement of note in combat was the ramming and sinking of German U-Boat SM U-29 on 18 March 1915 although that remains a unique footnote in naval history, being the only time a battleship deliberately sank an enemy submarine.  Dreadnought was decommissioned in 1920 and scrapped the next year.  Later, under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty which sought to prevent another naval arms race, most of the surviving dreadnoughts were scrapped or scuttled but many of the super-dreadnoughts remained in the fleets, some not scrapped until after World War II.  The name has a strong resonance in the halls of the Admiralty (now the Navy Command in the Ministry of Defense) and has been chosen for the class of vessels to replace the existing Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines.  Now under construction, the first of the Dreadnought class boats is expected to enter service early in the 2030s.