Democracies inherently imperialistic?

Interesting point, Elpenor. Do you suppose we could rearticulate that tired debate about no democracies ever going to war against one another, and ask, instead, whether democracies are inherently imperialistic?

Athens is the trump, of course. Freedom from intense agricultural labour for Athenian citizens required vast agricultural plantations outside Attica, in Bulgaria. Roman latifundia (sort of an internal empire) were established at the same time as the populares were passing grain bills every week; the Italian republics were almost always trying to conquer weak neighbours. In our era, French Revolutionary democracy was followed straight away by the "exporting" of revolution (which didn't go anywhere, but they tried -- sound familiar?). And the 19th-century expansion of the franchise took the French into Algeria and then Africa, the UK into much of Africa and the rest of India, the USA into Mexico & the Spanish empire. The 20th century has seen American-led Western hegemony of most of the world, whereas no non-democracy besides the USSR has had an empire. This isn't to say that you have to be a democracy to be imperial, but I can't think of a democracy that wasn't dependent on the subjection of another nation.