One can argue that some resources are not equal to money -- say China's imperialist expansion into non-resource rich areas as a method of buffer zone acquisition against strong foreign powers -- e.g. resources = security model.
But from before Rome on, most empires adopt an expansionist policy as a method of acquiring resources to turn into money. Kill the inhabitants, take their stuff, everybody gets rich.
resource = money model.
Here's some relevant background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_EmpireDuring the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires bestowed, England, France and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.
Comments
What is Imperialism about then?
It's always about resource acquisition.
One can argue that some resources are not equal to money -- say China's imperialist expansion into non-resource rich areas as a method of buffer zone acquisition against strong foreign powers -- e.g. resources = security model.
But from before Rome on, most empires adopt an expansionist policy as a method of acquiring resources to turn into money. Kill the inhabitants, take their stuff, everybody gets rich. resource = money model.
Here's some relevant background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires bestowed, England, France and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.
Yes, though that's not the whole story.
Have you heard of principal-agent conflicts? What benefits certain subgroups / lobbies may not benefit the organisation as a whole.