Same reason as why the hero is never as powerful as the villain- there’s no conflict if the “good” side can easily defeat the “evil” side, or at least there isn’t an easy conflict. It’s easy to say “good is small, evil is big. Thus, the story is about good gaining enough power to miraculously triumph.” It’s harder to say “good is big, evil is small. But evil still has bad effects, and here’s a story about, I dunno, defeating the seemingly minor evil within us or something.”

The problem of having a large empire is that you can’t control everything. Small countries are easier to control because they are smaller. If you are the emperor, you have to control a series of governors/viceroys, their staff, plus all the village people. It is simply too hard to control all the corruption and what have you if it’s spread out over thousands of miles. The problem with empires like the Roman Empire was that it got too big to handle, and so they split it into the East and the West – a decision that should have been avoided, in retrospect.

On the other hand, small countries probably would be more closely knit, which would also mean more control. A small country would be easy to rule with an iron fist, because it’s physically smaller, so you don’t have to ride as far to arrest those peasants who were speaking belligerently about the king.

So yeah, a small country could be evil, but more in an organized-crime-slash-1984 way than a widespread-corruption-and-revolt way.

Well, there is a basis in reality. The empire expands expands expaaaands – and collapses. Because what goes up must come down, usually through some form of revolution or invasion, made possible when the ruling class grows incompetent and corrupt. So why do they become incompetent and corrupt? Because of a decay in ideals. Someone, a real leader of the people comes into power. He understands the people, what they want and need and uses his power to service the public as opposed to himself. Then he dies, and his second in command takes charge. Things are still steady, though perhaps not as good as before – perhaps even better though. Then this leader dies, resigns, or what have you, and so on. Eventually, the society is of a generation completely detached from its original founders. These people did not experience the crucial events that shaped their ancestors and the foundations of their society; they have forgotten what they originally stood for. The people in power begin to service themselves rather than the public, breeding corruption and incompetence. Eventually the public has enough, there is a revolution and a new regime is put in place, a regime borne of renewed ideals of Greater Good for the public… and so the cycle continues.

Guess you're right nate, but it seems that the kittens these days can take the shape of a man (a humongous kitten mecha if you will) and wander around causing havoc but the man still can't do anything. There seems to be a preference in fiction for a bunch of countries to seem better than one large one. Hmm.

All mecha kittens should be destroyed.

There seems to be a preference in fiction for a bunch of countries to seem better than one large one. Hmm.

Well…lots of people, myself included, have a preference for decentralized power, rather than having one central power over all the land.

I like constitutional monarchies. I live in one. It’s cool because we have a queen but she doesn’t do anything.

You know some of those smaller countries might be able to do a little damage to the large ones, but the large ones can wipe them from the map (al la nukes). Think about how the justice system alone treats smaller kid offenders compared to larger, adult offenders.

Yeah, but doesn’t Korea or some country like that have nukes?

So how are we defining ‘small’ then?

Ah. But any country needs some sort of power to have the ‘organised crime’ scenario, therefore making this definition pointless, right?

Yes, but I thought we were talking about size in terms of population and possible land area.

Yes, but I thought we were talking about size in terms of population and possible land area.

That depends on your level of technology. If we’re talking around medieval level, then population and land size is relevant because that’s how big of an army (a factor of power) a nation can field.

As technology goes up, the power starts shifting. True, often in people’s minds nations are judged by population and land size (old habits and all that) but with tech that’s less and less a determinate.

Think of the movie 300 (or the historical event, whichever you prefer). Now imagine Sparta has 1000+ H-bombs. Is Persia that much of a concern any more?
(“The nations of the Persian empire descend upon you.” KABOOM! “More like the dust of the Persian empire.”)

That depends on your level of technology. If we’re talking around medieval level, then population and land size is relevant because that’s how big of an army (a factor of power) a nation can field.

As technology goes up, the power starts shifting. True, often in people’s minds nations are judged by population and land size (old habits and all that) but with tech that’s less and less a determinate.

think of the movie 300 (or the historical event, whichever you prefer). Now imagine Sparta has 1000+ H-bombs. Is Persia that much of a concern any more?
(“The nations of the Persian empire descend upon you.” KABOOM! “More like the dust of the Persian empire.”)

Lol. What’s the point of this discussion then?

Thanks. I was getting confuzzled.