History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[stevep]

Quite the salient points from @LordDemiurge, but because this one's particularly germane to my own take:



Little fanciful and "spoiler-ish", but in my latest outline, Neo-Augustus unironically assumes the title of "Lord Executive". In large part, it's a reaction to how "POTUS" was disgraced by Neo-Sulla's excesses — and consequently, fell out of favor in much the same way that "Consul" lost its prestige with the demise of the Roman Republic.

But the other (and more important) component to this is how my take on Imperial America is more of a voluntary, pan-Western mercantile league with various parallels to the Hanseatic example. That is, an easygoing confederation in which a smorgasbord of locales, mini-states, and “free zones” assume a voluntary membership where they agree to provide payment (and perhaps, manpower) in exchange for common defense, free trade and travel, and general adherence to the Lord Executive's new and improved Constitution.

Granted, it funds quite a few agencies and functions the original Hanseatic League did not: a league-wide military, treasury, and administrative directorate, for starters. Otherwise, it's very "transactional" and business-minded in its outlook, which even extends to the various titles it grants ranking officials and the prominence of American merchant families in its middle and upper echelons. Hence, the head-of-state as "Lord Executive", in the sense of Neo-Augustus (and of course, his successors) being the CEO and public face of the American mercantile league (more or less).

Indeed, a distinctly "American" approach to becoming the Mercantile Empire of the West, given the US's distinct entrepreneurial spirit and tendency towards commercial ventures as it stands. To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge: "The chief business of the American people is business." — an adage that Neo-Augustus (or at least, the version who emerges on top in my outline) very much takes to heart.

That would be interesting. Makes me think of the early years of the Delian League although whether it would then fairly quickly convert to a more explicit American empire as the Athenian version did. The Hanseatic League was more of an 'alliance' of at least roughly equal power rather than with one state being/becoming overwhelmingly dominant as in the Athenian case. I think most posters are thinking of a much more centralized power system such as Augustus set up and then somehow it becoming a more decentralized feudal medieval system rather than the growing centralization of Rome until it collapsed under its own weight.

Anyway the rugby is starting so my attention will be elsewhere for a couple of hours.

 

[ATP]

@Skallagrim The mess had begun in 1900. or so. Second World War is merely an epilogue of the First, and situation right now is a direct consequence of the Second World War. But civilization takes time to collapse, hence why the worst of the consequences are only now becoming apparent.

Yep.20th century is ending now,just like 19th century ended in 1914.
But,becouse fiat dollar must fall about 2040,we do not have time till 2090 for changes.It would fall earlier.
And,when we could have refprmed Europe and USA,we could get muslim world instead,too.

 

[Skallagrim]

@Skallagrim The mess had begun in 1900. or so. Second World War is merely an epilogue of the First, and situation right now is a direct consequence of the Second World War. But civilization takes time to collapse, hence why the worst of the consequences are only now becoming apparent.

To some extent, periodisation can be viewed in multiple ways. Right now, we're in the period that's equivalent to what is (with hindsight) viewed as the 'decline and fall of the Roman republic'. That starts with the Gracchi, and that's about the situation we're in right now.

The World Wars, much like the Punic Wars, were defining conflicts that solidified the supremacy of the ascendant power in the world-system (Rome then, America now).

But before that, we have the culmination of the great social conflict between the old land-holders and a new, more urban elite. (Finalised in the Lex Hortensia and in the post-Civil War amendments, respectively). We may well argue that the road to the later grand-scope wars begins in the very tenets of that social settlement.

And of course we can trace all the political issues of "modernity" back to the period of revolutions; which are in turn the practical application of the more radical Enlightenment ideas.

(But the Enlightenment, in turn, could not have come to pass without the Reformation. So I'm left asking: where does the mess begin?)


------------------------------------------------------

But,becouse fiat dollar must fall about 2040,we do not have time till 2090 for changes.It would fall earlier.

Never under-estimate the resilience of a corrupt system. It doesn't just disappear when it reasonably 'should'. It clings on, long after it should have decayed to nothing.

And,when we could have refprmed Europe and USA,we could get muslim world instead,too.

When I look at the lack of organisation or coherent messaging among Muslims in Europe, I strongly doubt this. It is an outlier possibility, I've even spent some comments on how this would play out (I think earlier in this thread).

The main issue is that Islam retarded itself philosophically. It's like a civilisation that gave itself brain damage. (The issue: they doctrinally rejected reason and turned "against the philosophers".) There were some Christians who hated Thomas Aquinas and wanted to brand him a heretic. They lost, and Aristotelianism was adopted into Christianity. In Islam, it turned the other way, and Islam became an anti-reason cult.

If they want to build something that can compete, some European Muslim leader will have to dramatically reform Islam to form a sort of "Euro-Islam" that embraces reason. A sort of neo-Mu'tazilism.

I see not even any hints of this. So the more likely outcome is that poorly-integrated, un-eductated adherents of an anti-reason cult continue to just be a problem in Europe. When the collapse comes, the cities of Western Europe will briefly turn into little mini-caliphates that resemble ISIS. And then the food runs out, and they just turn to rampant looting.

Those of them that manage to gain something of a foothold through sheer violence will have to be exterminated by Neo-Caesar, I imagine. As I've said, Christmas 2099 may well see an American soldier and a Polish soldier shaking hands on the Rhine, both covered to the knees in the blood of Muslim insurgents and proscripted left-wingers, and greeting each other with whatever their equivalent of "Ave Caesar" will be.

 

[ATP]

To some extent, periodisation can be viewed in multiple ways. Right now, we're in the period that's equivalent to what is (with hindsight) viewed as the 'decline and fall of the Roman republic'. That starts with the Gracchi, and that's about the situation we're in right now.

The World Wars, much like the Punic Wars, were defining conflicts that solidified the supremacy of the ascendant power in the world-system (Rome then, America now).

But before that, we have the culmination of the great social conflict between the old land-holders and a new, more urban elite. (Finalised in the Lex Hortensia and in the post-Civil War amendments, respectively). We may well argue that the road to the later grand-scope wars begins in the very tenets of that social settlement.

And of course we can trace all the political issues of "modernity" back to the period of revolutions; which are in turn the practical application of the more radical Enlightenment ideas.

(But the Enlightenment, in turn, could not have come to pass without the Reformation. So I'm left asking: where does the mess begin?)


------------------------------------------------------




Never under-estimate the resilience of a corrupt system. It doesn't just disappear when it reasonably 'should'. It clings on, long after it should have decayed to nothing.




When I look at the lack of organisation or coherent messaging among Muslims in Europe, I strongly doubt this. It is an outlier possibility, I've even spent some comments on how this would play out (I think earlier in this thread).

The main issue is that Islam retarded iself philosophically. It's like a civilisation that gave itself brain damage. (The isue: they doctrinally rejected reason and turned "against the philosophers".) There were some Christians who hated Thomas Aquinas and wanted to brand him a heretic. They lost, and Aristotelianism was adopted into Christianity. In Islam, it turned the other way, and Islam became an anti-reason cult.

If they want to build something that can compete, some European Muslim leader will have to dramatically reform Islam to form a sort of "Euro-Islam" that embraces reason. A sort of neo-Mu'tazilism.

I see not even any hints of this. So the more likely outcome is that poorly-integrated, un-eductated adherents of an anti-reason cult continue to just be a problem in Europe. When the collapse comes, the cities of Western Europe will briefly turn into little mini-caliphates that resemble ISIS. And then the food runs out, and they just turn to rampant looting.

Those of them that manage to gain something of a foothold through sheer violence will have to be exterminated by Neo-Caesar, I imagine. As I've said, Christmas 2099 may well see an American soldier and a Polish soldier shaking hands on the Rhine, both covered to the knees in the blood of Muslim insurgents and proscripted left-wingers, and greeting each other with whatever their equivalent of "Ave Caesar" will be.

I hope that you are right.But,if it last so long,there could be nobody in Europe to save,even in Poland.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

And of course we can trace all the political issues of "modernity" back to the period of revolutions; which are in turn the practical application of the more radical Enlightenment ideas.

(But the Enlightenment, in turn, could not have come to pass without the Reformation. So I'm left asking: where does the mess begin?)

It is probably the Enlightenment when the really bad ideas come to the fore. “State of nature” doesn’t quite exist in Protestantism, and most of these catastrophically flawed ideas come from hyper Catholic France.

I don’t think Martin Luther is the originator of Rousseau.

 

[Skallagrim]

It is probably the Enlightenment when the really bad ideas come to the fore. “State of nature” doesn’t quite exist in Protestantism, and most of these catastrophically flawed ideas come from hyper Catholic France.

I don’t think Martin Luther is the originator of Rousseau.

Not Luther himself, but we can trace a lot of Rousseau's ideas back to the less savoury iterations of Platonism, and where do those re-enter mainstream European thought? Well, via Italy, but from there, these heresies (occasionally even neo-gnostic; see Savonarola) went on to inform what would become Protestantism.

Nothing ever just arises without antecedents. Philosophically speaking, I see Protestantim as a Platonism-informed backlash against the (both real and imagined) faults of the Catholic Church, which had hitched its wagon to Aristotelianism. The Enlightenment is, in that sense, the ultimate "philosophical consequence" of the Reformation. That doesn't imply that Luther meant for that. I do believe that Luther, among all his peers, was most genuine in originally wanting a true reformation of the Church, rather than a schism.

(If the Church had been properly reformed, preventing Protestanism and retaining religious universalism in the West, then I do think that this wave of reforms would still have had philosophical ramifications a few centuries later-- but different ones, and quite probably less harmful ones.)

My statement here is not something so crude as "Reformation BAD", but more "one thing leads to another".

 

[Lord Sovereign]

My statement here is not something so crude as "Reformation BAD", but more "one thing leads to another".

One thing does lead to another, but I must say the Enlightenment did end up falling flat on its face.

 

[Skallagrim]

One thing does lead to another, but I must say the Enlightenment did end up falling flat on its face.

Well, certainly! And that, too, is a consequence. Just not a happy one.

 

[stevep]

One thing does lead to another, but I must say the Enlightenment did end up falling flat on its face.

Well you could have possibly have had bigotry, barbarism and ignorance continuing to dominate Europe but there would be a hell of a lot less people in the world now and they would have much inferior lives.

 

[stevep]

Yep.20th century is ending now,just like 19th century ended in 1914.
But,becouse fiat dollar must fall about 2040,we do not have time till 2090 for changes.It would fall earlier.
And,when we could have refprmed Europe and USA,we could get muslim world instead,too.

ATP does touch on one points that's been ignored. While the US is spending a generation or two tearing itself apart what's happening in the rest of the world and how does it react to the chaos in the US? At the comparative point ancient Rome was pretty much dominant in the region it controlled and Parthia was the only state in contact with it that could possibly influence events inside it.

In the present day, not only would the chaos be a hell of a lot more destructive but the rest of the world is going to have a say in events. Unless your assuming that everywhere collapses into chaos at pretty much the same time which:
a) Is unlikely
b) Greatly increases the probability that things get far, far worse. In which case at best you might have tribal level groups trying to rebuild rather than a number of military dictatorships along the line of early imperial Rome.

 

[ATP]

Well you could have possibly have had bigotry, barbarism and ignorance continuing to dominate Europe but there would be a hell of a lot less people in the world now and they would have much inferior lives.

Depend on which catholics would win.If Cisterian-like minded,then you would have science developed without enlinghtened costs.
But,we could remain as bigger Japan,too.

ATP does touch on one points that's been ignored. While the US is spending a generation or two tearing itself apart what's happening in the rest of the world and how does it react to the chaos in the US? At the comparative point ancient Rome was pretty much dominant in the region it controlled and Parthia was the only state in contact with it that could possibly influence events inside it.

In the present day, not only would the chaos be a hell of a lot more destructive but the rest of the world is going to have a say in events. Unless your assuming that everywhere collapses into chaos at pretty much the same time which:
a) Is unlikely
b) Greatly increases the probability that things get far, far worse. In which case at best you might have tribal level groups trying to rebuild rather than a number of military dictatorships along the line of early imperial Rome.

Sadly true.Muslims,India and China would not vanish into thin air when our cyvilization would be collapsing.
They could take over world,or at least over part of world.
In worst case scenario,all we would have in the end would be hunter-gatherers nomad tribes.

WAIT.WORST CASE IS LEFTIST WINNING AND EARTH AS ONE BIG HAPPY GULAG.

 

[Aldarion]

Well you could have possibly have had bigotry, barbarism and ignorance continuing to dominate Europe but there would be a hell of a lot less people in the world now and they would have much inferior lives.

If you really think that is what Middle Ages were, you're pretty clueless.

 

[Skallagrim]

If you really think that is what Middle Ages were, you're pretty clueless.

It is a regrettable fact that the exact kind of people who know fuck-all about the period, and are motivated by a deep hatred of the Church, invariably feel compelled to spout their ill-informed opinions. Not only that, even: but to do it in a manner that seems aimed at (again) derailing a discussion with their own fixations...

Depend on which catholics would win.If Cisterian-like minded,then you would have science developed without enlinghtened costs.
But,we could remain as bigger Japan,too.

Europe 'remaining' as Tokugawa Japan strikes me as unlikely, since it wasn't like that to begin with. Despite there inevitably being many differing (under)currents in something so vast as Western Christendom, the overall tendency was about the most supportive of science as any culture has ever been in history. (Indeed, in many ways, more open to honest inquiry than is typically the case today! Since present-day biases are very much there, simply not -- yet -- recognised for what they are...)

Anyway, the Reformation (unlike the stupid myth that ill-educated men believe) didn't foster science in any way whatever. The potential for positive reform was in its opposition to (unfortunately very real) corruption in the Church. However, this potential for good was rapidly over-taken by a far more concrete actualisation of evil, when the Reformation turned corrupt itself, and turned into a political power-play.

In the long run, it achieved no net positive. (However, I say again: if the impulses driving it could have been turned towards true reform, within the Church, that could very well have been a good thing. But as far as science is concerned, it would make no meaningful difference.)

 

[ATP]

It is a regrettable fact that the exact kind of people who know fuck-all about the period, and are motivated by a deep hatred of the Church, invariably feel compelled to spout their ill-informed opinions. Not only that, even: but to do it in a manner that seems aimed at (again) derailing a discussion with their own fixations...



Europe 'remaining' as Tokugawa Japan strikes me as unlikely, since it wasn't like that to begin with. Despite there inevitably being many differing (under)currents in something so vast as Western Christendom, the overall tendency was about the most supportive of science as any culture has ever been in history. (Indeed, in many ways, more open to honest inquiry than is typically the case today! Since present-day biases are very much there, simply not -- yet -- recognised for what they are...)

Anyway, the Reformation (unlike the stupid myth that ill-educated men believe) didn't foster science in any way whatever. The potential for positive reform was in its opposition to (unfortunately very real) corruption in the Church. However, this potential for good was rapidly over-taken by a far more concrete actualisation of evil, when the Reformation turned corrupt itself, and turned into a political power-play.

In the long run, it achieved no net positive. (However, I say again: if the impulses driving it could have been turned towards true reform, within the Church, that could very well have been a good thing. But as far as science is concerned, it would make no meaningful difference.)

1.True
2.Also true - unless either King of France,or HRE emperor manage to turn pope into his pet,and create feudal system covering entire Europe.
Or Turn Europe in one big ERE empire.
Highly unlikely,i doubt any ruler have enough dakka for that.

Protestants - all true,if Luther become another Saint Francisco,it would worked.Unfortunatelly,pride was his downfall,and he ended as super pope who decided which books in Bible are real,and which fake.

And german princes was interested in stealing church property and making what was left part of their state,then reforming anytching.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If you really think that is what Middle Ages were, you're pretty clueless.

If you were alive in a time other than 1347, there were worse places to be than Medieval Europe. It was a far more colourful and sophisticated society than many give it credit for.

Come to think of it, isn’t the whole “illiterate peasants” thing a meme? I heard somewhere that peasants couldn’t write but they could read, and understood their legal rights well enough.

 

[Zyobot]

Anyway the rugby is starting so my attention will be elsewhere for a couple of hours.

No problem.

Hope the match was fun.

That would be interesting. Makes me think of the early years of the Delian League although whether it would then fairly quickly convert to a more explicit American empire as the Athenian version did. The Hanseatic League was more of an 'alliance' of at least roughly equal power rather than with one state being/becoming overwhelmingly dominant as in the Athenian case. I think most posters are thinking of a much more centralized power system such as Augustus set up and then somehow it becoming a more decentralized feudal medieval system rather than the growing centralization of Rome until it collapsed under its own weight.

In fairness, I still think what was once the US (and probably also neighboring, highly similar Canada) would have the most sway, per my example being predicated this an American Empire that was by and large established by an American "Augustus" figure. Not that I expect it to be nearly as into direct conquest or subjugation, so much as offering up membership in a decentralized, mostly voluntary "Commerce League" whose epicenter is clearly headquartered in North America.

More "overt" Anglo-American cultural, legal, and linguistic influences would either trickle down over time or be assumed as a precondition of League membership later, though in any case, I'm quite sure they'll be adopted by everyone else. So, Neo-Augustus's constitution and universally spoken English (or perhaps, "American") among the Empire's citizens, for example? Pretty much par for the course here, I'd say, even if it's not imposed "by the sword" or the Emperor's fiat, as it were.


But yeah, even playing to the general macro-historical outline, I think it's rather silly that some people here are copy-pasting European examples onto what an American Empire would look like — precisely because the forms and structures they suggest aren't very "American", even with more fundamentally traditional norms and forms of governance being reinstated. After all, what more "American" a way to envision the Universal Empire than as a laissez-faire, quasi-corporate mercantile confederation where the Emperor (or rather, "Lord Executive") is more of a "CEO statesman" than anything else?

 

[Bassoe]

So the more likely outcome is that poorly-integrated, un-eductated adherents of an anti-reason cult continue to just be a problem in Europe. When the collapse comes, the cities of Western Europe will briefly turn into little mini-caliphates that resemble ISIS. And then the food runs out, and they just turn to rampant looting.

You've got the wonder if that was the intention in letting them in the first place. Everyone knows that if rule of law ever broke down, they'd run amok, therefore everyone who doesn't want that has to support the preexisting system since it's the only thing keeping the barbarian hordes which the system itself imported vaguely under control.

Basically the same situation as the middle east every time a secular dictator gets overthrown by neocons and everything goes completely to hell.

 

[Cherico]

You've got the wonder if that was the intention in letting them in the first place. Everyone knows that if rule of law ever broke down, they'd run amok, therefore everyone who doesn't want that has to support the preexisting system since it's the only thing keeping the barbarian hordes which the system itself imported vaguely under control.

Basically the same situation as the middle east every time a secular dictator gets overthrown by neocons and everything goes completely to hell.

and yet the center can not hold and the bottom must fail and their time in the sun will end.

 

[LordDemiurge]

I must say the Enlightenment did end up falling flat on its face.

However, this potential for good was rapidly over-taken by a far more concrete actualisation of evil

Can I ask you to elaborate on this?

The Enlightenment and the aftermath Reformation pretty much covers the course of the last 5-300 years of history. Isn't it a bit extreme to call it a massive mistake and a net negative on the world?

I mean I can of course gesture to the problems plagueing current state of the modern world, but then again everything manmade eventually succumbs to entropy and collapses.

 

[Doomsought]

We have gone through multiple cycles of romantic and rational philosophy since the enlightenment. Also, you have to completely differentiate the french vs anglo-american branches of philosophy at that time. They are polar opposites, the Anglo-american enlightenment was rationalist, while the French revolution was romantic.

Skipping two hundred years you get to our current troubles which come from the romantic post-modernist movement replacing the rationalist positivist movement (which was where the Scientific method came out of)