History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Zyobot]

I've heard comparisons with Rome pretty much my entire life. It wasn't an educated comparison, it was people saying "all empires fall, we are an empire, we look like we might fall". In that sense, I think people are probably pretty savvy but just lack the data points needed to connect the dots.

Yeah, but as you said, that’s probably because it’s the most convenient example — not because most people can really identify genuine parallels, or even know what specific customs, language, or other practices the Romans passed down to their Western successors.

That, and there’s the common misconception about present-day America being a New Roman Empire (TM), even though (going by Skall’s outline) we’re really more of a New Roman Republic (TM) in the process of becoming the actual Empire. Sadly, not many people know Rome was once a Republic, and even less that it started off as a kingdom before Tarquin was deposed.

 

[Cherico]

Yeah, but as you said, that’s probably because it’s the most convenient example — not because most people can really identify genuine parallels, or even know what specific customs, language, or other practices the Romans passed down to their Western successors.

That, and there’s the common misconception about present-day America being a New Roman Empire (TM), even though (going by Skall’s outline) we’re really more of a New Roman Republic (TM) in the process of becoming the actual Empire. Sadly, not many people know Rome was once a Republic, and even less that it started off as a kingdom before Tarquin was deposed.

hopefully our shitty educational system will be fixed under the princip.

 

[stevep]

hopefully our shitty educational system will be fixed under the princip.

Why would it? If you assume an empire like the Roman principal, with no realistic external threats then the incentive is to reduce education further not improve it? For such a state your desire is that the bulk of the population are sheep not wolves.

This assumes that there is enough left to rebuild a viable state of that sort of size after several rounds of major civil wars as most are assuming. Coupled with the greater vulnerability of modern societies that is a significant issue,

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Why would it? If you assume an empire like the Roman principal, with no realistic external threats then the incentive is to reduce education further not improve it? For such a state your desire is that the bulk of the population are sheep not wolves.

The Romans didn't quite have a public education system like ours, but it wasn't non-existent. Non-totalitarian systems either couldn't give less of a toss or were actively in favour of education. Who do you think founded all the great universities in the first place?

 

[stevep]

The Romans didn't quite have a public education system like ours, but it wasn't non-existent. Non-totalitarian systems either couldn't give less of a toss or were actively in favour of education. Who do you think founded all the great universities in the first place?

Because to maintain the suggested empire your effectively stripping the bulk of the population of any real say in their future. Furthermore at some time or another the state will anger a fair number of the population. Its one thing for serfs/peasants - many in the Roman example being non-Romans - who aren't really used to such idea and also have little capacity for resistance. For a population that is used to having a say , even if many people would argue they had a lot less than they think that will be a serious issue.

Similarly even in the original Julio-Claudian dynasty of 5 emperors two died of assassination - Caligula and Claudius - and Nero would probably have suffered a similar fate if he hadn't committed suicide. Similarly as things deteriorated after ~180AD a fair number more emperors died a violent death outside battle. This was largely from fellow members of the elite or in some cases family but the weapons of the day meant you needed close access to the target. Imagine if rifled weapons and the knowledge to use them are commonplace? Let alone more powerful stuff. A lot easier for a disgruntled pleb to at least attempt to remove an official, or even an emperor their upset with.

Its a different matter if this American empire isn't a universal state, which I think is the general term used in such a discussion. Note that this didn't mean, in the case of Rome or other examples it was the only state. It meant it was unchallenged by states within range of it. By the time Octavian crushed the last opposition to his power with the death of Anthony and Cleopatra the empire only had weak barbarian neighbours other than to its east where Parthia was a powerful state but nothing on the level of Rome. In the example of an American empire, which is likely to seek to expand direct or indirect control over most of the Americas its unlikely it won't be without peer rivals. Unless the collapse some are lusting after is even worse elsewhere. The sheer destructiveness of modern weapons means that even a medium level power such as Britain or France, provided they maintain nuclear deterrents could pose a serious threat to the US empire if pushed while there could be much larger states, depending on what happens in places like China, India and continental Europe as a whole in the catastrophe. Peer rivals could create a clear external 'threat' and enable the empire to create a cold-war type situation which might mean they can persuade the bulk of their subjects that the external threat requires the continued existence of the empire and its costs. Not necessarily talking about a 1984 level of control and misinformation but possibly more like the USSR in the post-1945 period. This would enable not just securing the loyalty of the population without re-writing history totally but also some incentive to not only maintain but even advance technology.

 

[Bassoe]

isreal

Either way, I doubt our "Mithridatic Wars" will stop with Israel and the West going to war with the Islamic World, so much as spiral into a chaotic shit-fight where the Western-backed Israelis are also faced with the Turks and their Arab and Iranian rivals jockeying for power and bashing each others' heads in along the way. Could go in all sorts of crazy directions, really.

Why? The American evangelicals who need Israel to exist so it can be destroyed in their end times prophecy are a dying demographic, with younger generations seeing Israel as monstrous apartheid occupiers picking on the poor innocent little Palestinians (left) or the assholes bribing our neoconservative politicians to use us as cannon fodder in their wars (right). Not saying Israel's gonna be destroyed, their nuclear arsenal has got to be one of the worst-kept secrets of geopolitics so if worst comes to worst they've got MAD deterrence, but I imagine any kind of populist American regime whether left or right throwing them under the bus to widespread acclaim at the end of the middle eastern forever war and cheap oil from grateful middle easterners.

I guess you could have them supported by the Europeans, who, after whatever chaos Merkel's migrants inevitably caused, had an understandable grudge against Islam as a whole and decided to fight it at the source?

 

[Cherico]

Quoting this here because I'd otherwise participate in derailing another thread.

I'm pretty curious what you mean. Spengler certainly got things wrong, but he cottoned on to what a failure Hitler was pretty early on (in fact, when most foreign leaders were still cheer-leading for Der Führer). Spengler remarked that Hitler had "read the entire title of my book" (implying Hitler knew fuck-all about what Spengler intended). Later on (just a year before his own death at a relatively young age) Spengler mentioned "in ten years, the thousand-year Reich won't exist anymore".

Nine years and eleven months later, Hitler put a bullet through his own brain. So as far as predictions go, that one was pretty accurate!

Sure, early on, Spengler hoped the Nazis would bring about national re-invigoration. So did a lot of people, and the smart ones figured out early on it wasn't going to happen. Spengler among them.

So what civilization do you think has the worst chance of surivial and biggest chance of being wiped out?

 

[Bassoe]

what civilization do you think has the worst chance of survival and biggest chance of being wiped out?

EU and western europe in general. Actively destroying what little industries they've got left, dependent on hostile foreigners for fuel, with a native birthrate below replacement and different hostile foreigners being imported en mass who are already set up to demographically become the new majority and the state religion is a cultural suicide cult which wants the followers to destroy themselves for the sins of their ancestors and supports all this.

On a related note, it's actually impressive how badly Putin screwed up by invading Ukraine now. If he hadn't, and had just kept Russia going and relatively functional for a few more decades, they could've Operation Paperclipped their pick of economically useful refugees from the inevitable chaos to the south, then backed puppet regimes in reconquering their nations and ended up the dominant military and economic power on the continent.

 

[stevep]

So what civilization do you think has the worst chance of surivial and biggest chance of being wiped out?

A hell of a lot depends on which way multiple factors go. If Europe gets its act together its got a lot going for it but would have to find a functional alternative to the EU. In which case much of western Islam - i.e. that west of Iran is going to be in for a very bad time when the shit hits the fan. Widespread economic collapse will hut everybody hard, probably far worse than many expect. However much of the Muslim world is overly dependent on a few exports and also very dependent on imports while much of its population is poorly educated and its going to be hit very hard by the growing global warming issue which without a short pause from say a limited nuclear war or other event is going to cripple much of the tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world. More likely I fear the exodus from the ME is likely to overrun a fair chunk of southern and SE Europe before their withstood and hopefully thrown back.

Russia, nukes aside - which is a BIG uncertainty admittedly - is pretty much a spent force. Its last real chances for progress have been sunk by Putin's corrupt kleptocracy, worsened by his war on Ukraine which highlighted the flaws in his regime. Its possible, especially if an egotistical idiot like Trump regains power that he could still conquer as Putin knows how to manipulate Trump's ego and the latter is also likely to seek to end support for Ukraine from the US simply out of spite. Even so its going to be a poisonous chalice for Russia.

Unclear what might happen with S Asia. Hear India is the giant if it avoids either massive collapse or falling into a theocratic state. However even so what happens with China and the fact Pakistan has its own nuclear arsenal could make things grim for India even if they 'win' an exchange with the latter.

China could go in any number of ways.

The general opinion on this thread is that the US will be split by a number of conflicts and bitter civil wars before some Octavian like figure establishes a military dictatorship, linking up with what's left of the old oligarchy. Also that this will take 2-3 generations at least. Not sure if this path was followed it would last that long, especially with the much greater vulnerability of modern urban centres especially. After that the assumption seems to be a conquest spree although, while attempts were made in Octavian/Augustus's reign [and afterwards] lasting conquests of lands which weren't already protectorates or puppets were limited. Plus if Europe has gotten its act together the route east would almost certainly be blocked.

More likely would be attempt to restore control over much of Latin America, although possibly in a clearly military way rather than largely indirect influence. If the American interregnum is ~50 years or more a period this long largely outside US control could see a lot of development there and it could end up with the bulk of the region between moderate socialist and hard communists rule, with the former being far, far better off than the latter.

Those all assume that a world wide collapse occurs which is a matter of question. One section, especially China or the US going tits up would shake things in many areas but collapse of some of the other areas is far from certain as opposed to retrenchment or possibly it serving as the catalyst for reform.

 

[Skallagrim]

hopefully our shitty educational system will be fixed under the princip.

The Romans didn't quite have a public education system like ours, but it wasn't non-existent. Non-totalitarian systems either couldn't give less of a toss or were actively in favour of education. Who do you think founded all the great universities in the first place?

I'm delivering a series of lectures on behalf of an ill colleague, so I'm on the road a lot. Long replies aren't possible, so sorry for this rather short answer (and for the inevitable dylexia-inflicted spelling errors):

Ceteris paribus, education under the Principate improves compared to the previous situation. (Comparing education 2000 years ago to education now is obviously deliberate and malicious presentism-- so even though you occasionally hear that kind of commentary, it can be safely ignored because it isn't soundly reasoned.)

Our current situation suffers from 'over-education', directly related to egalitarianism. If everybody is encouraged to go to uni, then uni becomes worthless. Dumbed down into oblivion.

The Principate will benefit from renewed stratification. Top education becomes 'top' again. People who have no business in academia will have yo learn a trade, and it had better be a useful one. Even at uni, nonsense studies will disappear. Something like sociology will become a hobby for the idle rich-- which is the only thing it should be.

In general, the Principate will be far more 'practically minded' than our current age. Look at the Romans, compared to the Greeks. Less navel gazing (again excepting the rich who are philosophically inclined, and they do it on their own dime), and more engineering skills.

Basically, expect a renaissance of applied science. Philosophy will be shorn of excessive solipsisms. Society will be far more hands-on, with far less in the way of 'soft sciences' that the current age offers by the dozens...

 

[Skallagrim]

So what civilization do you think has the worst chance of surivial and biggest chance of being wiped out?

The map is deceptive, in how macro-historians classify civilisations. Is this Huntington's division? Can't tell on my phone screen

Anyway, the West and China have excellent chances. India has a very good chance, but does still have to re-orient itself. Once it solves its identity issue ("Hindu/Dharmic imperialism or non-religious imperialism"), it can get started on that. Survival is easy here, but success is not.

China's peripheral states are fucked. They will most probably get swallowed and culturally dominated greatly.

Russia is dying. After this century, it will not exist. Orthodoxy will get absorbed back into the Principate's universalist Christendom.

Islam is currently a stagnated and retarded mess. If they reform in Europe and form a Euro-Islam that embraces logic, that can be the nexus of a rebirth. More probably, they are simply becoming meaningless Felkaheen, to be crushed by others without serious consequence.

Sub-Saharan Africa is no High Culture. It's still in the pre-formative stage. They may have a future as the barbarian entity that dedtroys future empires by overwhelming them demographically.

Latin America is only a potential High Culture, but is currently not yet coalesced. It may also get absorbed into the West.

 

[Skallagrim]

It should be noted that I see a massive misapprehension in this thread just now, which I must correct so readers aren't accidentally mis- informed:

The Principate is very much NOT a military dictatorship. In fact, although its sovereign is in practice rather absolute (though far from fully so), the Principate represents the restoration of formal and civilian control, following the era of civil war, during which control was often informal and militarist/warlordist. The Principate turns the military (used against civilians previously!) outward on purpose, to give the soldiers something non-harmful to do. The Principate then cuts back on replacing any losses, and in so doing reduces the size of the military.

Anyone who doesn't grasp this point has fundamentally misunderstood both the nature and the underlying motives of and for the Principate and its formation. That misunderstanding impedes all sound historiography, so it's vital to correct such misapprehensions.

 

[stevep]

It should be noted that I see a massive misapprehension in this thread just now, which I must correct so readers aren't accidentally mis- informed:

The Principate is very much NOT a military dictatorship. In fact, although its sovereign is in practice rather absolute (though far from fully so), the Principate represents the restoration of formal and civilian control, following the era of civil war, during which control was often informal and militarist/warlordist. The Principate turns the military (used against civilians previously!) outward on purpose, to give the soldiers something non-harmful to do. The Principate then cuts back on replacing any losses, and in so doing reduces the size of the military.

Anyone who doesn't grasp this point has fundamentally misunderstood both the nature and the underlying motives of and for the Principate and its formation. That misunderstanding impedes all sound historiography, so it's vital to correct such misapprehensions.

History largely says otherwise. It was established by Octavian's army and while he kept a velvet glove in his lifeline it was the primary source of imperial power. The remains of the senate had a formal role in the government but it was pretty much powerless when push came to shove and changes of power even under the Principate were overwhelmingly by the army. This became clearer in the Dominate after Septimius Severus took power but that was simply because that velvet glove was removed.

 

[Skallagrim]

History largely says otherwise. It was established by Octavian's army and while he kept a velvet glove in his lifeline it was the primary source of imperial power. The remains of the senate had a formal role in the government but it was pretty much powerless when push came to shove and changes of power even under the Principate were overwhelmingly by the army. This became clearer in the Dominate after Septimius Severus took power but that was simply because that velvet glove was removed.

Steve, you'll note that I haven't talked to you for nearly two months. In that period, you've posted about a dozen long rants full of personal attacks. You'll have to forgive me for the fact that I really desire no further interaction with you. No hard feelings, I just refuse to talk to people who act like that and then show zero remorse, nor any desire to improve on such behaviour

In light of this, regarding Augustus, I'll only write to heartily recommend Goldsworthy's biography. Great starter level text, and still capably outlines how he reduced military authority and lowered the number of legions substantially. Hope it'll prove educational on the matter. Cheers now.

 

[stevep]

Steve, you'll note that I haven't talked to you for nearly two months. In that period, you've posted about a dozen long rants full of personal attacks. You'll have to forgive me for the fact that I really desire no further interaction with you. No hard feelings, I just refuse to talk to people who act like that and then show zero remorse, nor any desire to improve on such behaviour

In light of this, regarding Augustus, I'll only write to heartily recommend Goldsworthy's biography. Great starter level text, and still capably outlines how he reduced military authority and lowered the number of legions substantially. Hope it'll prove educational on the matter. Cheers now.

I have never made personal attacks on you! The converse has been true for quite a while. Your have been personally abusive repeatedly throughout that time. I have made factually accurate statements about your behaviour in response to those attacks. I think the only points in which this failed were:
a) Once as a typo I referred to 1950 rather than 1850.
b) I referred to your arguments as moronic because of your repeating false statements again and again. That was wrong because such a definition suggests limited intellect on uour part. You seem decently intelligent at least but lack either judgement or morals from your behaviour.

If anyone wants to know the actual details I suggest they read post 614 on this thread when I go through in detail the early part of an exchange between us when I, in stating knowledge of British economic and social history, trod on one of Skallagrim's sacred cows and he responsed in increasingly irrational posts while were empty of actual facts or arguments, relying on argument by assertion and continued insults and false statements which showed how little he knew about both the subject and about me.

 

[Cherico]

Steve, you'll note that I haven't talked to you for nearly two months. In that period, you've posted about a dozen long rants full of personal attacks. You'll have to forgive me for the fact that I really desire no further interaction with you. No hard feelings, I just refuse to talk to people who act like that and then show zero remorse, nor any desire to improve on such behaviour

In light of this, regarding Augustus, I'll only write to heartily recommend Goldsworthy's biography. Great starter level text, and still capably outlines how he reduced military authority and lowered the number of legions substantially. Hope it'll prove educational on the matter. Cheers now.

I think the problem with the Augustus figure is that there always with us, its just seems like people are not ready for them until things have gone completely tits up.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think the problem with the Augustus figure is that there always with us, its just seems like people are not ready for them until things have gone completely tits up.

Agreed. I've noted before that any number of people who can fill a given 'notable role' in history are always alive. But the chance (for one of the 'candidates') to actualise their potential only comes when the time is right.

The hour reveals the man.

And for an Augustus... that man's hour comes after the old clock has run out.

Fortunately, the end of a clock is not the end of time, and the end of an era is not the end of history.

 

[Cherico]

Agreed. I've noted before that any number of people who can fill a given 'notable role' in history are always alive. But the chance (for one of the 'candidates') to actualise their potential only comes when the time is right.

The hour reveals the man.

And for an Augustus... that man's hour comes after the old clock has run out.

Fortunately, the end of a clock is not the end of time, and the end of an era is not the end of history.

and yet we still hear the refrain.

This time its different this time were special.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Hate to be that guy, but it seems like this thread conversation has hit a wall and is going into a loop.

 

[ATP]

Agreed. I've noted before that any number of people who can fill a given 'notable role' in history are always alive. But the chance (for one of the 'candidates') to actualise their potential only comes when the time is right.

The hour reveals the man.

And for an Augustus... that man's hour comes after the old clock has run out.

Fortunately, the end of a clock is not the end of time, and the end of an era is not the end of history.

But,sometimes end of cyvilization.
In China dynasties changed,but China cyvilization remained the same till 1949.

When in Egypt,Sumer and Babylon their cyvilization died.

And,we have cases when cyvilization died,but leaved it successor - like with anciemt Crete,Greece,and Rome.
Interesting,what would happen after current Europa fall?

Would our cyvilization be replaced,just like in Egypt,or new cyvilization would be partially our ?