By the dark powers of necromancy, I bring this thread back from the netherworld, for WhatIfAltHist has made a video about this. And then
@Cherico made me watch it. (So this is all cherico's fault, obviously.) And then I had throughts about that video, to which this thread is well-suited. And why make a new thread if we've got this one already?
The video:
My thoughts:
First of all, it's always nice to see when someone is interested in macro-historial analysis. So my overall sentiment towards this video is very positive, and I find WhatIfaltHist's takes on things to generally be interesting (even if I don't always agree, and typically don't agree
completely). This commentary will focus on my quibbles and caveats, so I wanted to make that clear first.
Now, as to the issues I have with this video and its arguments: the main one is the same that I've previously mentioned when discussing another WhatIfAltHist vid (about the future of Russia, I believe): he almost always presents contradictory views in the same video, without any real effort to clear up the resulting confusion. For instance, in this video he likens the World Wars to the Peloponnesian War and then later to the Punic Wars, but obviously those comparisons can't
both be legitimate.
This is caused the underlying issue that he doesn't really seem willing to "syncretise" the various models and sources that he uses (Turchin, Spengler, Strauss & Howe...) and instead sort of picks-and-chooses from them "as needed" for whatever argument he's making at any given moment. This fits into his style of presenting various "possibilities" or "scenarios", sure-- but he rarely distinguishes which ideas truly inform which scenario. Result: a video that contains mutually contradictory statements.
That causes confusion, and makes it easier for critics of macro-historical analysis to point out the logical flaws and say "See, that PROVES it's not true!" (All while refusing to engage with the broader argument, of course.) In that sense, a "muddled" take on macro-history might actually be worse than no take at all.
As for specific quibbles and examples of needless internal contradictions:
-- This starts off when he equates the Protestant Reformation with Orphism and Dionysianism. In this, he follows Spengler (via Riencourt; I don't get the impression he's actually read Spengler). I've previously argued that we shouldn't always follow Spengler slavishly, since various ideas of his were based on (now-)outdated scholarship. This is one of these ideas. It would be wiser to make the evident connection between certain philosophical "reforms" in Greece (for there were indeed reforms several centuries before Sokrates!), not in the least because Greek elite culture was often more philosophy-guided than cult-guided. The conflicts between philosophical schools (and their socio-political implications) can be regarded as analogous to the conflicts between different religious strains in Christendom (which also had major socio-political consequences).
-- WhatIfAltHist even makes that connection on some level, when he segues to the analogy between (pre-)Sokratic philosophical renewal, and the Enlightenment. He goes on later to mention the importance of philosophy to Greek intellectual culture, but he doesn't make the connection that certain religious struggles in the West (where Christianity dominated intellectual circles) should then be viewed as analogous to philosophical struggles in Greece (where
philosophia dominated intellectual circles).
-- It would be particularly useful here to also look at the Peloponnesian War on the one hand, and the great European Wars on the other. Then you get a better grasp of their remarkably analogous context, and of the underlying analogies between the involved civilisations. It's not just about the change in methods of warfare, but about an escalation in what is very much an emerging "competing states" system. Compare the Greek states of the Peloponnesian War to the Westphalian system and examples such as the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years' War. Again: obvious analogies that should be highlighted, because they tell us a lot about the kind of developments that are going on. (But WhatIfaltHist doesn't make this comparison, because he's later going to make another -- incorrect -- one regarding the Peloponnesian War.)
-- WhatIfAltHist goes on to equate Sokrates and Rousseau. I find this quite obviously wrong-headed. The timing hardly lines up, either. If you want a rough analogy that fits better, Sokrates is more like Voltaire. Both lived through the latter stages of the grat Greek and European "brother wars", respectively, and then became the leading figures of intellectual renewal. And subsequently, we see prominent philosophers in the
tradition of these leading figures arising afterwards. Judging by their historic roles, Rousseau is most akin to Plato (the most inclined to prescribe ideal visions of how a state should be organised, and generally a utopian presenting a vision of an otherworldly ideal), and Montesquieu might be viewed as a rought counterpart to Aristoteles (more of an omni-disciplinary scientist with a preoccupation towards knowledge, systems, and understanding of the world).
-- At this point, WhatIfAltHist also follows Spengler in reasoning that this moment (Sokratic philosophy taking over in Greece and Enlightenment philosophy in the West) as the transition point between "Culture" and "Civilisation". But note that Spengler is quite vague and contradictory about that process, and regularly implies that it's more of a
process. WhatIfAltHist recognises that a bit later on, but then argues that it started in the 15th century. That's... not supported by Spengler or other macro-historians in his tradition. Rather, Spengler's ultimate argument can be boiled down to the idea that Classical Culture started the process of becoming a true Civilisation with Sokrates (intellectually) and Alexander (politically), and finished it with the victory of Augustus. So we have three centuries of transition, covering the whole Hellenistic Period.
-- This phase began in the West with the Age of Revolutions and with that meteoric conqueror, Napoleon (analogous to Alexander), which also tells us how long we still have to go. (Not all that long.) WhatIfAltHist, however, omits reference to Napoleon here, and later dismisses the idea of the Alexander-Napoleon analogy altogether "because Napoleon didn't play the same role". That really bothers me. Both these men overthrow the old state-system (dominance of the poleis and the Wesphalian system) and the traditional political order. Both left behind a new international order of larger, more organised states with bigger governments and larger armies. Both introduced a model of more active, expansive government that embraced new ideal of what constitutes proper rulership. Seems plenty similar to me.
-- An aside: WhatIfAltHist is wrong about different civilisations using "different logical systems". Logic
is, in fact, universal. Different cultures have different
premises, which leads them to arrive at different
conclusions even though they may well use the same logical "calculations". It's like using the same formula, but inputting different values(!) and thus getting different outcomes. That's a better way to put that. Just thought I'd mention it.
-- His assumption of the Classical World being inherently aristocratic and the West being fundamentally egalitarian is not correct. Both have an ongoing struggle between these impulses. He forgets that in the Classical world, Rome -- and not Greece -- ultimately won. He makes the explicit comparison that Classical civilisation is like a world in which "the Kaiser won [World War I]", but that's not accurate. Because in in Antiquity, the Hellenistic states lost to Rome. Just as the Kaiserreich lost the the Anglo-American power.
-- He goes on to make the "technology stagnated because of slavery!" claim. I've
previously dismantled that claim, because it's just utter nonsense. The cultural reasons he mentions directly afterwards were far more important.
-- What really baffles me is that he links Alexander's conquest to the European imperialism of the late 19th century. I have no idea where he gets that, since all macro-historians from Spengler onwards have thoroughly explained the almost self-evident analogy between Alexander and Napoleon. WhatIfaltHist's model is insanely skewed here, and his comparison between the Classical and Western civilisations works less well because of it. (The timing doesn't add up properly because if his deviating notions, whereas it did add up properly in Spengler's work!)
-- He now compares the war of the Hellenistic states (took up 300 years) to the "Great Game" of the late 19th century colonial powers (took only a few decades). That doesn't add up.
-- Then he compares the Peloponnesian War to the World Wars. Obviously incorrect. The Peloponnesian War preceded (and informed!) the Sokratic Revolution, just as the great European (Religious) Wars preceded (and informed!) the Enlightenment. The proper comparison for the World Wars is, obviously, the Punic Wars and the concurrent Macedonian War. He later goes on to
also make
that comparison, though!
...I can go on a bit longer, but the issue should by now be clear. WhatIfAltHist has very interesting ideas, but some of his interpretations of macro-history just go completely off the rails. It comes across as someone who's read on the subject, but hasn't read the actual "foundational texts" of the school (Spengler and Toynbee). Something gets lost in translation, I think, and this causes some really weird comparisons that don't actually make much sense. Overall, it's definitely a worth-while video, but if you're not already well-versed in macro-historical analysis, I'm afraid this could lead you to some pretty wrong-headed conclusions...