Teknoloji ve Hegemonya: Roma’dan Dijital Çağa Küresel Güç Modellerinin Tarihsel Evrimi

Öz

Bu makale, Roma İmparatorluğu’ndan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ne kadar tarih boyunca hegemonyanın inşasında teknolojinin belirleyici rolünü incelemektedir. Küresel liderliğin yalnızca askeri ve ekonomik güç dengeleriyle açıklanamayacağını; teknolojik yeniliklerin aynı zamanda lojistik üstünlük, etkili iletişim ağları ve ideolojik meşruiyet de sağladığını savunmaktadır.

Pax Romana döneminde Roma İmparatorluğu, ekonomik ve sosyal entegrasyonu teşvik ederken, geniş topraklar üzerindeki otoritesini pekiştirmek için yol sistemleri, su kemerleri ve askeri lojistikten yararlanmıştır. Deniz teknolojisi, buharlı gemiler ve telgrafla Britanya İmparatorluğu, 18. ve 19. yüzyıllarda küresel ticaret ağlarının merkezi haline gelerek "üzerinde güneşin hiç batmadığı" bir imparatorluk kurmuştur. Çağdaş dönemde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, internet, GPS ve yarı iletkenler gibi dijital altyapıların kontrolü üzerinde hakimiyetini kurmuş ve Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemin en belirleyici küresel düzen kurucularından biri haline gelmiştir.

Makale, iki temel soruyu ele almak için Hegemonik İstikrar Teorisi, neo-realizm ve tarihsel sosyolojiyi bir araya getirmektedir: Teknolojik üstünlük, hegemonya inşasında maddi güç kadar belirleyici midir? Roma, Britanya ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri arasında hangi süreklilik ve kopuş noktaları mevcuttur?

Bulgular, teknolojinin yalnızca askeri ve ekonomik avantaj için bir araç olmadığını, aynı zamanda küresel normların ve meşruiyetin stratejik bir itici gücü olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, tarihsel hegemonya tartışmalarına disiplinlerarası bir bakış açısı getirmekte ve özellikle Çin’in 5G, yapay zeka ve uzay teknolojilerindeki artan etkisi olmak üzere günümüzün zorluklarına ışık tutmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hegemonya
• Teknolojik Üstünlük
• Tarihsel Sosyoloji
• Küresel Liderlik Modelleri
• Dijital Ağlar

Technology and Hegemony: The Historical Evolution of Global Power Models from Rome to the Digital Age

Öz

This article explores the decisive role of technology in the construction of hegemony throughout history, from the Roman Empire to the United States. It argues that global leadership cannot be explained solely by military and economic balances of power; technological innovations also generate logistical superiority, effective communication networks, and ideological legitimacy.

During the Pax Romana, the Roman Empire utilized road systems, aqueducts, and military logistics to consolidate its authority over vast territories, while fostering economic and social integration. The British Empire, with maritime technology, steamships, and the telegraph, became the hub of global trade networks in the 18th and 19th centuries, establishing an empire “on which the sun never sets.” In the contemporary era, the United States has built its dominance on control of digital infrastructures such as the internet, GPS, and semiconductors, becoming the most decisive global order-builder of the post–Cold War period.

The article integrates Hegemonic Stability Theory, neo-realism, and historical sociology to address two key questions: Is technological superiority as decisive as material power in constructing hegemony? What points of continuity and rupture exist between Rome, Britain, and the United States?

Findings indicate that technology is not merely a tool for military and economic advantage but a strategic driver of global norms and legitimacy. The study contributes an interdisciplinary perspective to debates on historical hegemony and provides insight into contemporary challenges, particularly China’s rising influence in 5G, artificial intelligence, and space technologies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hegemony
• Technological Superiority
• Historical Sociology
• Global Leadership Models
• Digital Networks

Kaynakça

1. Allan, B. B., Vucetic, S., & Hopf, T. (2018). The distribution of identity and the future of international order: China’s hegemonic prospects. International Organization, 72(4), 839–869. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26569499
2. Allen, R. C. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective (New Approaches to Economic and Social History series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817225
3. Anadolu Ajansı. (2025). 5G teknolojisinde Çin büyümeye, ABD güvenliğe odaklanıyor. https://www.aa.com.tr
4. Asuquo-Ekpo, B. (2024). China’s Economic, Military, Science and Technological Emergence in International Politics: Implications for United States’ Hegemony. World Journal Of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(3), 804–814. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.3.1791
5. Bader, J. (2019). To sign or not to sign: Hegemony, global Internet governance, and the International Telecommunication Regulations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15(2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/ory016
6. Baltrusch, E., Czeguhn, I., Esders, S., Kopp, H. G., Möller, C., Schmidt, M. G., & Wendt, C. (2016). Infrastructures, mobility and water management: The Iberian Peninsula in the Imperial and Post Imperial Context. In G. Graßhoff & M. Meyer (Eds.), Space and Knowledge. Topoi Research Group Articles (eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 6, pp. 220–249). Berlin: Exzellenzcluster 264 Topoi. https://doi.org/10.17171/5 6 7
7. Bekker Nielsen, T. (2021). Roman roads and transport. In R. Scodel (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Classics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195389661 0358
8. Betz, F. (2016). Financial hegemony: British Empire. In Stability in International Finance (pp. 113–128). SpringerBriefs in Economics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26760-9_7

9. Bradford, A. (2023). The Battle for Technological Supremacy (pp. 183–220). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197649268.003.0006
10. Brzezinski, Z. (2004). The choice: Global domination or global leadership. Basic Books.
11. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12. Chandani, S. K. (2017). Digital hegemony and digital divide: Looming threat and possible remedies (with special reference to India & USA). SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2985717. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2985717
13. Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
14. Cox, R. W. (1996). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method (pp. 162–175). In R. W. Cox & T. J. Sinclair (Eds.), Approaches to world order (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Vol. 40). Cambridge University Press.
15. Çiftçi, K. (2009). Soğuk savaş sonrasında ABD: “Rıza”ya dayalı hegemonyadan “imparatorluk” düzenine. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(10), 203–219.
16. Demir, S. (2011). ABD’nin Küresel Gücünün Britanya ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Dönemi ile Karşılaştırılması. Genelkurmay SAREM Stratejik Araştırmalar, 9(17), 41 96.
17. DeNardis, L. (2015). The Global War for Internet Governance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Edmundson, A., Feamster, N. G., Ensafi, R., & Rexford, J. L. (2018). Nation state hegemony in internet routing. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS 2018) (Article 3211887, pp. 1–11). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209811.3211887
19. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over Freedom and Security (Monograph). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77d1f
20. Ferguson, N. (2004). Empire: The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/empire00nial
21. Gavris, M. (2021). Revisiting the fallacies in Hegemonic Stability Theory in light of the 2007–2008 crisis: The theory’s hollow conceptualization of hegemony. Review of International Political Economy, 28(3), 739–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1701061
22. Gentry, R. S. (2015). The Vehiculatio in Roman Imperial Regulation: Particular Solutions to a Systematic Problem. Madison Historical Review, 12, Article 6, 1–14. Retrieved from https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol12/iss1/6
23. Gill, S. (2003). Power and resistance in the new world order. Palgrave.
24. Giuntini, A. (2022). Imperial Science: Cable Telegraphy and Electrical Physics in the Victorian British Empire by Bruce J. Hunt (review). Technology and Culture, 63(2), 576–577. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2022.0083
25. Gruia, G. (2006, July). Hegemony and stability of the international economy. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 5(500), 91–94. Retrieved from http://store.ectap.ro/articole/99.pdf
26. Headrick, D. R. (1988). The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850–1940. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/tentaclesofprogr0000head
27. Hingley, R. (2005). Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire (1st ed., 224 p.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203023341
28. Ikenberry, G. J. (2002). America’s Imperial Ambition. Foreign Affairs, 81(5), 44-60.
29. Kang, J., & Im, Y. (2021). Competition for technology hegemony between the U.S. and China from a Geopolitical Point of View. Journal of Instrumentation, 6(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.22471/MILITARY.2021.6.1.20
30. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
31. Keyman, E. F. (1997). Globalleşme, uluslararası ilişkiler ve “hegemonya” sorunu. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 8(27), 25–30.
32. Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
33. Klikauer, T. (2022). The society of media capitalism. In Media capitalism: Hegemony in the age of mass deception (pp. 259–301). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87958-7_6
34. Kolb, A. (Ed.). (2019). Roman roads: New evidence – new perspectives (vi, 434 s.). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.
35. Laurence, R., & Adams, C. (Eds.). (2001). Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203995594
36. Lanoszka, A. (2016). Russian hybrid warfare and extended deterrence in Eastern Europe. International Affairs, 92(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12613
37. Judd, D. (1996). Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present. London: HarperCollins. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/empirebritishimp0000judd_d8g1
38. Jun, O. (2022). Chinese dream of digital hegemony. Asia-Pacific Review, 29(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2022.2055408
39. MacDonald, W. L. (1986). The architecture of the Roman Empire: An urban appraisal (Vol. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40. Matthijs, M. (2022). Hegemonic leadership is what states make of it: Reading Kindleberger in Washington and Berlin. Review of International Political Economy, 29(2), 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1813789
41. McShane, T. W. (2002). Blame it on the Romans: Pax Americana and the rule of law. Parameters, 32(2). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031 1723.2094
42. Meardon, S. (2013). On Kindleberger and hegemony: From Berlin to M.I.T. and back (Economics Department Working Paper Series No. 4). Bowdoin College, Economics Department. Retrieved from https://economia.uniandes.edu.co/sites/default/files/seminariocede/Meardon.pdf
43. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. Norton.
44. Mukherjee, A. (2010). Empire: How colonial India made modern Britain. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(50), 73–82. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764217
45. National Maritime Museum (Great Britain) (Eds.). (2004). Maritime Empires: British Imperial Maritime Trade in the Nineteenth Century (229 s.). Woodbridge; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781846152450
46. Nye, J. S. Jr. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
47. O’Hara, G. (2010). New Histories of British Imperial Communication and the “Networked World” of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries. History Compass, 8(7), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1478-0542.2010.00694.X
48. OECD. (2023). Digital economy outlook 2023. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org
49. Okur, M. A. (2015). Gramsci, Cox ve hegemonya: Yerelden küresele, iktidarın sosyolojisi üzerine. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12(46), 131–151.
50. Olshanetsky, H. (2024). Logistics and Crises: Understanding Roman Military Logistics and Procedures from the Unit Level and Upwards in 2nd to 4th Centuries CE Egypt Using the Surviving ‘Paperwork’. Klio, 106(1), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1515/klio-2023-0014
51. Pallaver, M. (2011). Power and its forms: Hard, soft, smart (MPhil thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science). London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/220/
52. Parmar, I. (2012). Foundation Networks and American Hegemony. European Journal of American Studies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/EJAS.9476
53. Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/greatdivergence0000unse
54. Rathmann, M. (2014). Der Princeps und die viae publicae in den Provinzen: Konstruktion und Fakten eines planmäßigen Infrastrukturausbaus durch die Reichszentrale [Full text, KU Eichstätt-Ingolstadt publication]. Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. https://edoc.ku-eichstaett.de/17369/
55. Razzaq, A. A. (2024). US-China technological hegemony: Analyzing the digital colonialism in South Asia. 3(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.71085/sss.03.04.189
56. Redford, D. (2014). The Royal Navy, sea blindness and British national identity. In D. Redford (Ed.), Maritime History and Identity: The Sea and Culture in the Modern World (pp. 61–78). I. B. Tauris.
57. Roth, J. P. (1999). The logistics of the Roman army at war (264 B.C.–A.D. 235). Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, Vol. 23. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill Academic Publishers. xxi, 399 paged, 8 plates. ISBN 978-9004112711. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004236325
58. Sarieddine, T. (2023). The Slippery Pearl: A World-Systems Assessment of China’s Economic Hegemony in the United Arab Emirates. Middle East Critique, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2023.2245296
59. Schmalz, S. (2024). Varieties of digital capitalism and the US–China rivalry: The rise of competing technological spheres. Critical Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205241291645
60. Silvia, S. J., & Stanaitis, M. (2013, August). Is economic hegemony necessary for maintaining open trade? An empirical challenge to the hegemonic stability theory (APSA Annual Meeting Paper). American Political Science Association.
61. Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39(4), 579–614. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706716
62. Spence, D. O. (2015). A history of the Royal Navy: Empire and imperialism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
63. Standage, T. (1998). The Victorian Internet: The remarkable story of the telegraph and the nineteenth century’s on line pioneers. New York, NY: Walker & Company. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/victorianinterne00toms
64. Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2024). AI Index report 2024. Retrieved from:https://aiindex.stanford.edu
65. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
66. Waltz, K. N. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: “More may be better.” Adelphi Papers (No. 171). London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. Retrieved from https://theasrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/kenneth-waltz.pdf
67. World Bank. (2023). Annual report 2023: A new era in development.Retrieved from: https://www.worldbank.org
68. Winseck, D. R., & Pike, R. M. (2007). Communication and Empire: Media, Markets, and Globalization, 1860–1930 (American Encounters / Global Interactions). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. xv + 345 pp. https://doi.org/10.1177/S1467222700007321
69. Winseck, D. R. (2019). Internet infrastructure and the persistent myth of U.S. hegemony. In B. Haggart, K. Henne, & N. Tusikov (Eds.), Information, Technology and Control in a Changing World: Shifting Power Structures in the 21st Century (pp. 93–120). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_5
70. Valdés Matías, P. (2017). La logística del ejército romano durante la República Media (264 188 a.C.) [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona]. Universitat de Barcelona Repository. Retrieved from http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/116745/1/PVM_TESIS.pdf
71. Vučetić, S. (2022). China and its region: An assessment of hegemonic prospects. Journal of Regional Security, 17(2), 155–186. https://doi.org/10.5937/jrs0-32643
72. Zakaria, F. (2008). The Future of American Power, How America Can Survive, The Rise of the Rest. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 18-43.