The Ottoman Empire was Based, and I'm tired of pretending it wasn't!

Question

The Ottoman Empire was Based, and I'm tired of pretending it wasn't!

Was researching ancient empires lately (worldbuilding for a story I have in mind), and to my surprise, the Ottoman Empire, in its golden age really turns out to be among the very best empires of history (along with the Romans, Byzantines, Chinese and Achaemenids).
Hear me out. The Ottoman Empire:
-promoted high-culture, scholarship and science
-brought order, prosperity and peace to the chaos & degeneracy of the late-Byzantine empire in the lands they ruled.
-effectively managed the internal ethnic strife they inherited (see the Millet system)
-were know for their diplomacy, and respected treaties & alliances far better than any empire since the Roman Empire, and better than any empire since.
Apart from the religious undertones, why is the Ottoman Empire, AS A SYSTEM, not recognized as one of the best in history? Perhaps, it is no accident that Frank Herbert, in Dune uses the title "Padishah Emperor" (an Ottoman title) in his galactic empire?

In my research 3 empires stand-out as the most effective: Roman, Ottoman, & Chinese; with the Byzantine & Achaemenid close behind?

If you had to choose, which imperial SYSTEM, aside for religion, would you favor for a strong, stable and prosperous future for humanity?

btw, picrel is Mihrimah Sultan, daughter of Suleiman the Magnificent and Ottoman princess, from a vid by Equator AI.

fuck is that picture supposed to be of, a native hattic?

If it was so good then why did it fail? Ww1 doesn’t count, it was basically already a walking corpse by then.

It was one of the few certifiably evil empires that ever existed.
Abducting millions of children solely for rape and brainwashing is the height of evil. And this was an official government policy of the Ottomans.

They all fall, but some though never perfect, were better than others.

most civilizations are good during their golden age. thats why its called a golden age
fucking retard

certifiably evil

The Romans did no less in their conquest of Gaul, and for far more short-sighted and mercenary reasons. Ottomans at least seem to have had a more eugenic aim in mind, and did incorporate the "abductees" into the ruling spheres (see Janissaries) of their system. I agree this was not "good" in se, and would never say the Ottomans were a picture of morality, but there seems to have been a method to the madness, and a desire to make the empire strong and functional. Let's not impose our morality to the past. I'm interested in their system overall. Certainly they are not the worst.

but some empires have SOVL like the ottoman empire while some have no SOVL like the neo-assyrian empire

Not all are even capable of a "golden age." I find in the Ottomans (but not only) at least a desire to build a resilient system, not aimed solely at immediate gain.

The Ottoman Empire was Based

brought order, prosperity and peace

get raped

Exactly! The Ottoman Empire (like the Roman, Achaemenid, Chinese, etc...) was certainly not perfect or free from stains, but at least they seem to have genuinely been driven by a an ideal and/or principles beyond the immediate; and awareness of a "Mandate of Heaven" as it were. I did not know or even think much about them, but in my research, I came to appreciate their achievements and aspirations, desu.

Yeah, it was impressive in certain regards. My question is, how are Turks somehow exempt from the indictments of colonialism? They were fairly brutal and despotic in their variant of imperial colonialism.

I understand your reaction as a Bulgarian, and can share it when we look at the European experience. Nevertheless, as a SYSTEM of empire, I think it was not bad AS A MODEL (subject to improvement). Europe could have had a good model in the Holy Roman Empire, but the Catholic Church undermined it at every step. Don't forget that many European nations were also very much abused by European empires in history.

Turkey has lots of show about the Ottoman Empire, everyone is white of course

Filinta
Kuruluş
Diriliş
Fatih

youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8dvAN22Gs

You'll get no argument from me on that score. My point is not to indict Europe and whitewash the Ottomans or any other. I am simply looking broadly at imperial SYSTEMS, that would be good to learn from in a hypothetical future. Remember, I came upon this in the process of world-building for a story I have in mind about the future.

ASides from their mongol cousins, I don't think there 's a worst empire than the turkish one

abduct kids by the thousands, if they can't steal them from other countries, they steal from the people they vassalized

muslim so non-muslims are basically slaves (except for Greeks)

turns everything they occupy into poor shitholes (levant, balkans)

mafia style diplomacy: gives us money or we invade you

And I could keep going forever.

As other anons said, it's a joke european colonization is condererd evil when turks gets a free pass. Goes to show it just boils down to white hating policies.

Bartolomej Dordevic (1510-1566) wrote two documents about his experience in Turkish hands. His description of child slaves from European battlefields to Turkey:
Slave buyers followed Turkish armies, each dealer marching 50 to 60 children on foot back to Turkey, manacled hand and foot. At night one suffered at hearing the moans and tears of the boy chosen to endure the slave-merchant's lust. Even those as young as seven could not protect themselves from violation, save for the most beautiful 10% who were reserved as gifts for the Sultan. Of these, the ruler took his pick for his own "pleasures against nature"; the rest were presented to friends, put into houses of male prostitution, or sold in the marketplaces.

Some historians suggest that Bayezid 1 (1360-1403) discovered the delights of boys, and sent his soldiers all over the areas of conquest to find the most charming European youngsters for his harem. From his example, the practice of taking boys sexually spread in the army, among government officials, and through the nobility.

One reason why the Turks continued and expanded their wars of conquest was reputedly to keep up the supply of young boys - especially for the beautiful, and most highly desired European children.

Let me restate my question. I was not trying to get into any debate about the Ottomans, per se, or any other empire.
But, if human civilization tends to "empire" (as it seems to), what are some characteristics of such empire that would make it efficient, successful, long-lived, and responsive to human aspiration?
If you agree that "empire" is a model that we collectively tend towards, what characteristics do you think it should have in a hypothetical future?

Literally every empire fails, but some last longer than others.

600 years is a great run, the average is like 300ish.

butthurt belt myths

They didn't do anything worse than what any other empire did, slavery was the norm and still is but only for elites now.

Infact they actually gave a good deal of religious freedom since they could use non-muslim tax money as they please, while muslim tax money has stricter rules.

This is why the ottomans barely bothered preaching Islam in the balkans.

neo-assyrians were evil but their armor was drip and we all know it.

the original bulgars were turks, who migrated to europe and took local women as brides.

at the end of the day you are just like the turks and magyars.

Ali Pasha, Turkish governor of Ioannina in Greece, whose agents combed the dominion for the most beautiful children - killing the parents who refused to allow their sons to serve the governor. West European visitors, including Lord Byron have described Ali's court, where beautiful boys in long curly hair strutted about in crimson petticoats or paraded naked. Ali regularly bled his boys to keep them "docile, pale and beautiful". These "smooth-limbed young ganymedes" entertained visitors with lewd songs and dances.

It is said that Ali could not kiss nor fondle without hurting, and that he and his son, in cruel sport, tried out the various horrors described by Marquis de Sade. Boys who displeased Ali were sewn in sacks and tossed into the lake or put into a leopard's cage for the amusement of the court. Ali took pleasure in torturing his boys and in giving them gifts. In the end his downfall came from the Sultan's jealousy. Gossip has it that the Sultan was enraged at Ali's imitating an imperial prerogative by insisting that when a boy came to his bed, he must crawl up from the bottom on his belly.

Gregory Palamas (14th century):
They live by their bows and swords, rejoicing in enslavement, raiding, looting, wantonness, adultery, sodomy. And not only do they indulge in such practices, but they think that God approves them.

Leonard of Chios (15th century):
Mehmet II got drunk on the wines of Cyprus and, having a soft spot for young boys, sent for the firstborn of the Greek Orthodox Grand Duke Notaras. A fourteen-year-old adolescent known for his beauty. In front of everyone he raped him, and after the rape he sent for his family. His parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins were beheaded in front of him. One by one.

Mikhael Doukas (15th century):
In Prusa [Bursa], Bayezid enjoyed the many fruits of good fortune and revelled in the daily homage of many nations.

He lacked nothing that was beautiful from the coffers of nations. Boys and girls, selected for their unblemished bodies and beauty of countenance, were there - young and tender youths, and girls who outshone the sun. From where did they come? Romans, Serbs, Vlachs, Albanians, Hungarians, Saxons, Bulgarians and Latins, each speaking his own language and all there against their will. And Bayezid, living idly and wantonly, never ceased from lascivious sexual acts, indulging in licentious behavior with boys and girls.

that is a conspiracy theory not substantiated by most sources that are against the ottomans, its obvious they were not gay in the early period.

Later sultans may have had issues like that but the early ones were turkic nomads, and enemies like the byzantines who had way more contact with the turks didn't report widespread homosexuality.

The butthurt belt wishes to explain their butthurt is from sodomy, but in reality you got your asses kicked.

Theodore Spandounes (15th century):
They are the most self-indulgent men in the world. They keep many women because their law encourages the propagation of children. But they also cohabit with quantities of men. For all that Mohamet explicitly forbade sodomy and recommended the stoning of those guilty of it, this vice is commonly and openly practiced without fear of God or man.

Bertrandon de la Broquiere (1459) about Murad II:
His [Murad's] next greatest pleasure [after drinking wine] is women and young boys. He has three hundred wives or more, and twenty-five or thirty young men who are always with him, more frequently than his wives. When the boys grow up he gives them great gifts and lordships. To one of them he gave his sister as wife and twenty-five thousand ducats.

Can I kill you and take your kids as slaves?

Henry Blount (17th century):
Although they were after the Turkish manner muffled that nothing but the eye could appear: beside these wives, each Basha hath as many, or likely more Catamites, which are their serious loves; for their wives are used (as the Turks themselves told me) but to dress their meat, to laundress, and for reputation; The boys likely of twelve, or fourteen years old, some of them not above nine, or ten, are usually clad in Velvet, or Scarlet, with guilt Scymitars, and bravely mounted, with sumptuous furniture, to each of them a soldier appointed, who walks by his bridle, for his safety: when they are all in order, there is excellent Sherbets given to any who will drink: then the Basha takes Horse, before who ride a dozen.

Turkroaches

Opinion Discarded.
Sage
/Thread

James St. John (19th century):
Most of the Europeans in Cairo, who, leaving their own countries without any fixed opinions, easily adopt those of the Orientals, endeavour to palliate the deformities of slavery by dwelling on the habitual kindness of the Turks towards their dependents. But should they on the contrary, be cruel, what is to prevent them? It is known with what design young and beautiful boys are purchased.

Is this what is called being kind and indulgent? We are, indeed, told, as a presumptive proof of the humanity of the Turks, that, on all occasions, their youthful slaves display the utmost fidelity and attachment towards their owners; but, degraded, humiliated, infamous, with no place, save their master's house, wherein to hide their heads, they are constrained to nourish some kind of attachment for that house, the only one on earth where their infamy is no bar to advancement. This is the origin of their fidelity. Among the youths, the greater number are Greeks.

It is reported that ten thousand individuals of this unhappy nation still remain in slavery in Egypt, notwithstanding the delusive professions of the Pasha and his family who, when they pretended, a few years ago, to deliver up their Greek slaves, are said to have made an exception of all those possessing youth or beauty.

I have seen, in Cairo, young men and boys, kidnapped in their infancy, who, though the names of their parents, and the place of their birth, had been obliterated from their memory, still cherished the recollection that they were of the Greek race.

The Ottoman practice of Koceks was a cultural phenomenon. They were more sought after than their female counterparts (the cengi belly dancers). Koceks were a combination of dancer, clown, crossdresser and child prostitute found throughout Turkish territory. Before and during performances, Turkish men would compete and kill each other vying for the boys sexual attention. They consisted of young White boys who were taken from their families to be trained as entertainers and sexual objects for Turks and other Asiatics alike.

After the 1492 Alhambra Decree most of the expelled Jews move into the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Navy is sent to bring Jews over to Turkey. Sultan Bayezid II said: "Ferdinand and Isabella are fools; for they gift me, their enemy, Spain's national treasure, the Jews."

April 22, 1822: The Massacre of Naoussa, Greece
poal.co/s/Greece/521335

Although the Turks fled, the Greeks did not conquer the city, and they soon learnt that the Governor of Thessaloniki, Mehmed Emin Pasha (Abdul Empou Loumpout) mobilized 15,000 soldiers and 12 cannons to confront them.
In this expeditionary corps, 600 Jews followed. The Jews paid the Turks for the acquisition of rights over potential Greek slaves and the selling of them in Afro-Asiatic slave-markets.

Around 5,000 thousand Greek families from the surrounding areas arrived in Naoussa to protect themselves from the Asiatics. Despite the month-long resistance Abdul Empou encountered, he reached Naoussa on April 11, 1822. The Greek garrison of 400 fighters defended the town until the Ottomans took it over on April 22, 1822. For five days onwards Naoussa became a killing field at the hands of Turks and Jews.

Most women opted to drown with their children by plunging themselves into the waterfall of Arapitsa, which runs into Lake Palaiopyrgos, and from that time onwards it was renamed Black Water or Black Lake.

Abdul Empou had arranged a gift for the Sultan. He had his soldiers gather around 1,500 Greek men, women and children in a place called Kioski, and this is where the Jews took over and killed them all. The victim's decapitated heads were sent to Constantinople as proof of their victory.

As of today, the complicit people working in the Greek Ministry of Education, as well as the so-called historians, work to erase this historical memory, among many others, and silence the truth under the auspices of combatting racism and anti-Semitism.

No.
But that was not my point. All historical empires did stuff like this. Here you are, a Viking "pot" calling the Ottoman "kettle" black. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE OBVIOUS DEGENERACY OF THE OTTOMANS! My concern was to look at certain positive aspects of "imperial systems" from our past to see what a good empire in the future might look like and emulate to be better.

If you had to choose, which imperial SYSTEM, aside for religion, would you favor for a strong, stable and prosperous future for humanity?

Singular race. Probably roman since I know the most about them due to my autistic roman empire study phase in high school. I strongly believe if not for the influence of kikes and allowing barbarian mercenaries then they would have lasted for hundreds if not thousands of year longer.

Good info! Now, we know what absolutely to avoid in an "empire." So...what "imperial model" from the past do you think did the best job in being not only effective, but also "moral?" Are we back, albeit imperfectly, to the Roman & Chinese empires? Or, maybe the Achaemenids? Or do you think the Holy Roman Empire, with its "elector" system, represent the best we could have been? Does the Catholic Church bear heavy responsibility in undermining it?

white slave trade

kidnapped, enslaved, raped our women

stole our genes

worships our genes

Fuck the turkroaches and every other shitskin

ottoman empire be like:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köçek

I tend to agree with you. Were it not for the nefarious influences you mention, we might have seen the "SPQR" flag planted on the Moon by now. How does an empire resist subversion? As you can tell, by now, I am trying to rethink a "new and improved" "Plato's Republic" (which I do not per se like btw) of sorts, for the future.

How would your "ideal" empire look like? ... Electoral, confederated, symbolic, secular, theocratic, martial, etc., etc.?

the fact you keep pretending other empires (especially at the time period) were just as bad shows you're completely deluded on the topic

OP is a faggot as usual. Nothing new here. The only good Muslim is a dead one.

I do no such thing! I merely say that we can discard ALL empires if we focus on their degeneracy, and that none had a monopoly on that. That said, think that some imperial systems in our history did some things right as a SYSTEM, and that we can use those lessons to imagine something better. Brainstorm with me. What empires do you like and why?

If you were the kid who wanted to be Indian instead of the Cowboy, you failed at life.
If you wanted to be the commie vs the grunt protecting his precious bodily fluids, you did it wrong.
If you wanted to be Ottoman, instead of the Crusader, same deal.
This is why so many kids become trannies now. They've been indoctrinated to see validity and "good" in failed shit. In every subject, they're pushed to emphasize with rejects and mutants. Then eventually, they chop their own dicks off and join them.

Your favorite empire, sir?

Byzantium. It lasted longer than anyone else's empire at least. That's something It influenced some of the good things of both Western Europe and Islam alike too (more the art and architecture with Muslims).
And they weren't pedos. Although they had a lower marriage age than now.

For that matter, Rome was apparently pretty brutal with pedo crimes too. Byzantium just adapted it. But Byzantium also executed fags unlike Rome.

Nobody gives a fuck what you pretend and how tiresome you claim to find your own act.

This. It was basically the first dystopia. Every citizen was a slave.

I notice no one even approaches the "Chinese Empire" possibility I mentioned....So it seems that Westerners are more interested in cutting each other down (out of their own historical, parochial and biased perspectives), rather than learning from past experience, and exploring the idea of what a great imperial system might look like. Once again, from all this, it seems that the the Chinese Model "does nothing" and wins; by default?
Why are Westerners like this?
t. a Westerner.

What do you guys make of the concept of the "Mandate of Heaven?" Should it be a component of a "good" imperial system? Is it better or worse than any other criteria of imperial legitimacy? Why or why not?

The Roman Empire was fucking atrocious after Julia Ceaser. It turned into a shit hole at break neck speed.

Empires are great for the first 3 rulers then they just degrad after that and you have to wait a lifetime to hope the retard dies.

jizya is a tax

Read the Quran. It is there to subjugate and humiliate non-muslims.
They didn't want to convert people to Islam because if they did they wouldn't get money from the non-muslims

certifiably evil empires that ever existed.

lol, and you're such a good and moral person, coming from the line of nicest people ever. And tell me how is that going for your people?
You know of all the empires in human history to own slaves, it's only yours thats infested with niggers. maybe if you guys weren't so nice, things could have been better

British and Roman, but with some new practices.

Brown hands types this

And the CC wants Civitas Dei across the Earth, Rome got/gets in the way of that.

They were very historically significant and powerful and brought a ton of advancements in artillery.
Still, they were sandniggers, and I'm glad Jan Sobieski blew the fuck out of them.
A shame that they turned all of eastern Europe into Turkroach mutts and now all Balkanoids can't even be considered white anymore.
That's their real legacy, poisoning the bloodlines of eastern Europe.

C'mon now. The CONCEPT of a "jizya tax" (exceptional tax) on persons not participating in the burdens of empire, and not being subject to all obligations in the maintenance of the empire is nothing new. In fact, it is not exceedingly onerous given the advantages such status (i.e., subject vs. full citizen) may confer. Even, Heinlein in, for instance, "Starship Troopers" envisages such multi-tiered status for different types of classes and members in an imperial polity. Aside from its historical religious connotations, is this such a very bad concept? C'mon, now, Anon Babble, you disappoint me in your contradictions. Make it make sense!

yum

Whiter than yours, you evolutionarily challenged, faggot. But seriously, brother-Anon, what do you really think? What empire is close to your heart; the Portuguese?

chinese are all eternally corrupt rats and their systems are creepy and alien to me.

Yes, I think so. "Civitas Dei" is a laudable goal, and I would indeed argue an emergent property of a "Mandate of Heaven" empire, but, yes, in Europe it was a "bridge too far" and one which prevented Europe from achieving the coherent unity it needed to go forward under a "Holy Roman" ethnarch. This failing, since then, has thwarted all efforts by "European Civilization" to become a locus of power in the present (and future) world.
In short, for short-term advantage the CC, in "torpedo-ing" a united European polity, prevented Europe from coalescing into the "civilizational state" it could have become. (See Laurent Guyenot's, "L'Empire Rate" ("The Missed Empire").
I posit that, for good or ill, "empire" is the name-of-the-game, and that Europe for all its advantages and promise, "missed the train." And why, Russia & Orthodoxy (writ-large), for all its faults, may be the only-game-left-in-town for European civilization as a whole; as it retains an imperial, universalist ethos to this day. Comments?

im creeped out cuz that cgi ho looks like my ex but with darker hair

but to be fair i have another ex that's literally from turkey, in that northern central region on the coast

she had a sweet ass but kept pressuring me to marry her and getting all shitty and weird about it when otherwise she was nice as could be and sweet

Sounds like you've been getting high on Sino-Russian propaganda.

And the CC is not obliged to work with any part of Europe or Europe as a whole, since the CC is a network power rather than a land or sea power.

If Europe were to consolidate, but not necessarily federate all states into one like America or Russia, the two best modes would be a new Anglo/British and Roman model. But the personnel simply aren't there and the elite is general is completely judaized.

Are they though? In their ideal? Meritocracy, relationship and fidelity (Confucianism), "Mandate of Heaven" (objective legitimacy of the ruler), common good, civilizational aspirations (as opposed to barbarity), etc. etc. Are all these concepts, so bad?
To my dismay, I discover that my European peers are so taken with irrational historical biases, greed, avarice, hubris, and ideological blindness, that they cannot distill the very best from their glorious experiences (and mistakes) to imagine a new better way for the future. In this I am truly perplex.
If anyone can do it, I would hope that we .... Anon Babble Anons, can do it, or at least begin to discuss it!
Do not let me down, you bastards!

Vlad Tepes was based and I'm tired of pretending he wasn't.

I will never forgive the Arabians for taking Constantinople

You sound like someone interested in history who hasn't read many books. Read more books. Real books, not pop history bullshit. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying you sound way more surprised than you should.

Oh, yeah, right! I'm the neo-Achaemenian, proto-Varangian (i.e., Russian) "SHILL" your granny was warning you about all this time! Wow!
How about we, together, as brotherly Anon Babble Anons, once and for all tackle the problem of what a future, workable and glorious human empire might look like in the future, near or far? How about that?
C'mon, now. We can do it! None of us would be here today (on Anon Babble) if we did not, in the midst of our shared sense of doom, each of us doggedly retain an indomitable & stupidly stubborn HOPE in humanity's future; /our/ future!
Please work with me here; let's come up with a better alternative than idiot Plato's Republic.

Achaemenian

What's good about it?

read historical work that says positive things

believe everything about it is positive

don't critically examine or question the text you are reading

it's like reading about the Bantu and how wonderful their society is, without asking crucial questions like, how they expanded such a vast amount in such a small period of time? By genociding everyone they met, the great Bantu.
Or like reading about how great and fabulous the Mali empire was, without the context that this was a puppet-regime of the Caliphate who was using them as a source of slaves.

those weren't arabs

they were turkeys

LAND BACK

flag checks out

Ok, Anon. Be all that as it may, how can we make the future better, what lessons can we draw from the past, how can we structure our polities to make them better in accord with human nature and aspirations? This seems to me a rich field of speculation; much like that in which our American Constitutional fore-fathers took keen interest in? If they could do it in their time, so can we in ours; esp. as the stakes now, have never been higher!
You would show true greatness of soul, if you did not so much quibble with my humble, in-artful questioning, but told us all, what best lesson we might take from history, for the good of all!

While you're at it, get a couple historiography books. They will give you much to think about regarding why and how you should study history. Three lessons I can give you are 1. no one really knows what they're doing, everyone who looked like some farsighted genius was mostly winging it. 2. predicting the future is a notoriously unreliable endeavor. 3. all your study of history won't save you from the idiots around you.

Flag this, flag that...this is exactly the blind, self-referential, solipsist, ideoogical, "cul-de-sac" mentality that modern Europeans seem to be incapable of going beyond anymore. Much to my dismay, this has been the same "stonewall" I have encountered with members of my own European family. What happened to entertaining IDEAS, guys; is that "passe" now; did I miss the memo?

Instead of "eruditely" and "pedantically lecturing me, like a faggot, why don't you give your ideas, so we can actually discuss?

based

culture of rape and slaughter brown shitskin

Look in the mirror, you treacherous, hypocritical, self-deluded, holier-than-thou, muh "EuroPeaN valUes," kike spell-bound, end-of-history faggot, nigger! If Europe has a future, it will certainly be without you.

bump so I can post later

I appreciate your attempt to learn from past empires to create a new larger structure, but I don't think that mixing the past will be sufficient.
Empires, and governments in general, are influenced by how the people of the region react to their environment, economic model, and existing social order. Since modernity has changed those, we will have to begin with the introduction of the following modern phenomena and how they will effect imperial governance:
-The Internet creating global communication, business, and social relations.
-Service Sector economies and their propensity to grow into tournament economies that concentrate wealth in the hands of a smaller share of the population.
-Planetary and Interplanetary transportation that ensures that conflicts will reach wherever humans exist: no one can be outrun.

An empire that has to deal with the internet will need to control the infrastructure of it of course (in air, sea, land, space, and cyberspace) but they will also need to set the rules of how the internet could be used. This would mean creating a self-altering court system to arbitrate disputes about internet usage.
First discovered required trait: iterative adaptability.

In the 21st century, an empire would necessarily have a service sector economy due to the returns that services provide compared to industrial manufacturing. This would inevitably result in immense economic inequality that tips power in favor of the wealthy victors of service economy capitalism. An empire would have to prevent these new power players from taking over or destroying the government. This inequality would also cause instability by encouraging aspiring politicians to utilize the frustrations of the majority who would not have access to the wealth of the rich and would have their lives distorted by the immense spending of the few (think of people buying houses as an investment thus increasing the price because of it). To mitigate both problems, an empire would have to deliberately intervene in the emergent hierarchies of the economic system they use; not out of fairness, but out of pruning usurpers and demagogues.
Second discovered required trait: economically merciful technocracy.

Expanded transportation around the world and across celestial bodies would guarantee that conflict could not be escaped by distance, and that all humans would be included in a conflict as all of their actions can potentially influence the outcome: if you can attack from anywhere, you can defend from anywhere, or assist from anywhere. The technology used to achieve this level of travel would also be translated into pure destructive power, and the ability to harness Joules for movement can instead be harnessed for demolition. This would mean that the maximum capacity for damage in a conflict will increase, eventually to the point of being suicidally destructive for the human species: see nuclear weapons.
As different factions obtain these tools, an empire that seeks to disincentivize activity cannot escalate to its maximum power in all circumstances as it would normalize maximum destruction and retaliation, if not from foreign enemies, then from rebels in a civil war. To avoid this, an empire will have to learn to control its will to lash out at defiance and utilize an escalating gradient of force, while simultaneously be willing to remove that force and begin cooperation should their adversary alter their behavior.
Third discovered required trait: tit-for-tat retaliation with a minimalist view of force.

I'm going to rest here for now, but of course there would be more traits to discover.