>>The success of empires did not necessarily equate to the success or the flourishment of its citizenry.
>
>I agree. Though I wasn't referring to individuals, but the success of a country or empire as a whole.
>
>>Therefore, they ultimately failed.
>
>Come one Mark (:-)) these empires were around for 100's or 1000's of years. Hardly failures.

But you are defining the success of an empire by its longevity and of its government. I define success along the lines of the people being governed and how successful they are as a whole. I consider any country a failure if all that country's wealth is tied up in or by the government instead of its people. The Soviet Union was a prime example of this. Cuba is another example. Military governments are also hideous and oppressive.