History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Crom's Black Blade]

The problem being, that the simplest means of simultaneously "neutralizing" both nuclear weaponry and the current world order is their use, followed by technological regression because of logistics cascade failures and the collapse of existing nations.

I'd concur, the really bad thing is while the general technology base would likely fall due to the interconnecting systems collapsing its likely that the raw knowledge would survive so I could see humanity getting stuck in a relative short, few centuries long loop as nations redevelop nuclear technology once infrastructure starts returning leading back to us obliterating each other.

 

[Bassoe]

I'd concur, the really bad thing is while the general technology base would likely fall due to the interconnecting systems collapsing its likely that the raw knowledge would survive so I could see humanity getting stuck in a relative short, few centuries long loop as nations redevelop nuclear technology once infrastructure starts returning leading back to us obliterating each other.

The petroleum’s the problem. We need it to build industrial infrastructure in the first place but we’ve dug out everything accessible without preexisting industrial infrastructure. So if our civilization collapses, we can’t rebuild to current technological levels.

 

[Simonbob]

The petroleum’s the problem. We need it to build industrial infrastructure in the first place but we’ve dug out everything accessible without preexisting industrial infrastructure. So if our civilization collapses, we can’t rebuild to current technological levels.

Nope, fracking changes that.

There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of years worth in that.


Frankly, bio-desel exists, inefficent as it is.

 

[LordDemiurge]

Nope, fracking changes that.

There's hundreds, possibly thousands, of years worth in that.

Is it accessible to a low tech civilization?

I mean I don't know much about fracking.

 

[Simonbob]

Is it accessible to a low tech civilization?

I mean I don't know much about fracking.

Depends how low we're talking.

You could likely do it with 1980's tech, now we know how.

 

[ATP]

One wonders whether or not Alexander would have succeeded against a Great King like Cyrus.

Indeed, if I recall the Greeks initially highly regarded Persian governance and lamented how it became more "despotic" as the years went by. But further to your point, we see the same thing happen in Ancient China.

The Qin forge the first united Chinese Empire but are fascistic monsters to the point where their dynasty scarcely lasts twenty years. The Han by contrast were a far lighter touch in their method of governance.

Well,you are right here,and i am was wrong.Persian Empire,especially under Cyrus,was one of best states in which people could live.If i remember correctly,they take lessons from Assyria mistakes,and created system which was better.
And could last till our times,if not for Darius mistakes and Alexander luck.Becouse,let be frank,dude should die in first battle,considering how he behaved.

 

[Blasterbot]

Well,you are right here,and i am was wrong.

what? someone admitting they are wrong on the internet? what is going on? I don't understand. the world's laws have been broken.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

And could last till our times,if not for Darius mistakes and Alexander luck.Becouse,let be frank,dude should die in first battle,considering how he behaved.

Alexander’s issue was that he died young and almost inexplicably, without a stable line of succession. In another life he may well have simply chopped the failing Achaemenids out for the Argeads, and the Persian Empire would have trundled on without too much change.

As far as Macedonian Kings go, Alexander was quite pleasant, competent and fair.

Edit: Ironically, if he’d had his way, his rule may have ultimately brought Greece firmly into the Persian sphere of influence.

 

[ATP]

what? someone admitting they are wrong on the internet? what is going on? I don't understand. the world's laws have been broken.

Do not be sad,Rule 34/or maybe 37/ still worked when i last time checked !

Alexander’s issue was that he died young and almost inexplicably, without a stable line of succession. In another life he may well have simply chopped the failing Achaemenids out for the Argeads, and the Persian Empire would have trundled on without too much change.

As far as Macedonian Kings go, Alexander was quite pleasant, competent and fair.

Edit: Ironically, if he’d had his way, his rule may have ultimately brought Greece firmly into the Persian sphere of influence.

He was - but his methods of fighting should kill him in first battle.And you are right,his Macedonian Kingdom would become persian one,if he lived long enough.

 

[King Arts]

Depends how low we're talking.

You could likely do it with 1980's tech, now we know how.

Thats not low tech 1980 is post industrial.

If a society collapses and goes back to Stone Age the. Rises to medieval then renaissance then industrial. If we can get cracking with 1800s tech then you are right.

 

[LordDemiurge]

If a society collapses and goes back to Stone Age the.

I'm pretty sure the most likely scenario is that we'd get sent back to the 18th century. 19th and perhaps early 20th if we're lucky.

Stone age would require a disaster that would thoroughly exterminate the vast majority of the world and destroy everything we've built in the process.

 

[Skallagrim]

Alexander’s issue was that he died young and almost inexplicably, without a stable line of succession. In another life he may well have simply chopped the failing Achaemenids out for the Argeads, and the Persian Empire would have trundled on without too much change.

As far as Macedonian Kings go, Alexander was quite pleasant, competent and fair.

Edit: Ironically, if he’d had his way, his rule may have ultimately brought Greece firmly into the Persian sphere of influence.

Do not be sad,Rule 34/or maybe 37/ still worked when i last time checked !


He was - but his methods of fighting should kill him in first battle.And you are right,his Macedonian Kingdom would become persian one,if he lived long enough.

Yes, Alexander was (on average) a fairly noble figure, albeit with considerable temper issues. For his time and place, he definitely qualified as a virtuous ruler. Most within his empire regarded him as a liberator, which is always telling. The main issue is that he was a batshit crazy risk-taker who not only led from the front, but was typically "the first across the wall".

If he'd lived, I think you can just look at Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleukid Persia for an indication of what to reasonably expect. Dial up the Hellenisation, though. He was literally breeding a mixed-ethnicity "new generation" of warrior-aristocrats with Macedonian fathers and Persian mothers, who would inherit the administration of the empire. It would very much be a mixed, syncretised culture.

But ultimately, a Hellenistic monarchy writ large. Very large. It would have to be decentralist and laissez-faire by default, but the backbone of Imperial governance would be the Imperial cities (the Alexandrias) connected by the extensive network of improved and newly-built roadways that Alexander was putting in place. His military elite, of mixed heritage and identifying as "imperial citizens" more than any specific ethnos, would be able to keep things secure and running.

Hilariously, with Alexander being regarded as a divine ruler (a son of the highest god), the kind of thing we're describing here starts to sound kind of like the Imperium of Man in 40K... initially as it was in its heyday, and (going by the example of the OTL Hellenistic realms) subsequently degenerating into a more calcified and hollowed-out iteration of itself. (Presumably having also lost a lot of land along the various frontiers in the process.)



The obvious model for comparison would be the Maurya monarchy in India, which was founded around the same time, and whose originator -- Chandragupta -- was essentially the Alexander of India. Considering Alexander's place in the macro-historical model, this also answers the what-if of the "Napoleon victory scenario", because that one occupied that same place in history as well. It's an empire that remakes its world-system, but which is established too early to be able to properly "collapse" into a true universal state. We may therefore conclude that the most plausible long-term outcome of Alexander's triumph would be the permanent derailment of both Classical and Persian history. (Presumably Carthaginian history as well, since his plan was to go West and deal with them, if he'd lived.)

We'd be living in a very different world, if Alexander had been able to realise his epic ambitions.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Yes, Alexander was (on average) a fairly noble figure, albeit with considerable temper issues. For his time and place, he definitely qualified as a virtuous ruler. Most within his empire regarded him as a liberator, which is always telling. The main issue is that he was a batshit crazy risk-taker who not only led from the front, but was typically "the first across the wall".

People often lay the death of Cleitus at Alexander’s feet, but as a testament to his character Alexander would accept that judgement with so sad a look in his eyes.

And I can’t say I’d knock the risk taking. I’m familiar with the “first across the wall” incident (the one where his troops are begging him to get down from the wall and he effectively winks at them before jumping down into a throng of the enemy). The lunatic made it work and you have to admire that.

Considering Alexander's place in the macro-historical model, this also answers the what-if of the "Napoleon victory scenario", because that one occupied that same place in history as well. It's an empire that remakes its world-system, but which is established too early to be able to properly "collapse" into a true universal state. We may therefore conclude that the most plausible long-term outcome of Alexander's triumph would be the permanent derailment of both Classical and Persian history. (Presumably Carthaginian history as well, since his plan was to go West and deal with them, if he'd lived.)

We'd be living in a very different world, if Alexander had been able to realise his epic ambitions.

Epic those ambitions may have been, but there is a thought I’ve tossed and turned over in my head, especially in regard to his similarities to Napoleon. What if at the height of his powers but half drunk on his invincibility without even Hephaestion to rein him in, the Carthaginian campaign turns into his “March on Moscow”?

I know Carthage had suffered quite a few shit shows in Sicily, but I’d imagine the city’s soldiers would be far more motivated to fight if the city itself were in danger, disregarding Phoenician gold to buy some very capable mercenaries. And more importantly, the Carthaginian Navy could cause some tremendous issues for Alexander the land lubber.

 

[Navarro]

Hadn't he already had that with his invasion of India?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Hadn't he already had that with his invasion of India?

To an extent, and the march through the Gedrosian desert was a huge blunder (but well intentioned. Alexander sought the quickest land route back to Babylon, he was not punishing his soldiers), but again as testament to the great man, he knew when it was time to bail in India. He was reluctant but his army didn’t flat out die there unlike the Grand Army on its way back from Moscow. The Indians were half pacified as well so they didn’t harry and pursue him.

A failed march on Carthage would have the Carthaginians snapping at his heels all the way back to his Imperial heartlands.

 

[Skallagrim]

And I can’t say I’d knock the risk taking. I’m familiar with the “first across the wall” incident (the one where his troops are begging him to get down from the wall and he effectively winks at them before jumping down into a throng of the enemy). The lunatic made it work and you have to admire that.

Certainly. I admire Alexander very much. He sought to be Akhilles reborn, and he succeeded. A mythical hero- figure for the ages.

And like his Homeric idol, he didn't live to see old age. Such men rarely do.


‐---‐--------------------

Epic those ambitions may have been, but there is a thought I’ve tossed and turned over in my head, especially in regard to his similarities to Napoleon. What if at the height of his powers but half drunk on his invincibility without even Hephaestion to rein him in, the Carthaginian campaign turns into his “March on Moscow”?

I know Carthage had suffered quite a few shit shows in Sicily, but I’d imagine the city’s soldiers would be far more motivated to fight if the city itself were in danger, disregarding Phoenician gold to buy some very capable mercenaries. And more importantly, the Carthaginian Navy could cause some tremendous issues for Alexander the land lubber.

Hadn't he already had that with his invasion of India?

To an extent, and the march through the Gedrosian desert was a huge blunder (but well intentioned. Alexander sought the quickest land route back to Babylon, he was not punishing his soldiers), but again as testament to the great man, he knew when it was time to bail in India. He was reluctant but his army didn’t flat out die there unlike the Grand Army on its way back from Moscow. The Indians were half pacified as well so they didn’t harry and pursue him.

A failed march on Carthage would have the Carthaginians snapping at his heels all the way back to his Imperial heartlands.

My thinking is that Alexander's march into India would have been his 'Napoleonic' doom if he'd persisted. But yes, he turned back in time.

Would a campaign against Carthage be fated to end like that? They had the more experienced navy, but they lacked sheer reserves (of everything, including men). Alexander had appropriated the vast reserves of gold that the Akhaimenids had simply hoarded, and he was completely willing to spend. At the time of his death, he was planning the construction of 500 warships for the Med, 250 for the Red Sea, end another 250 for the Persian Gulf.

He had the gold for it, and he had the men. They'd need training, but that would provide ample lucrative contracts for the experienced Canaanites-- getting them invested in his cause, finally. And overall, the scale of the project would provide so many jobs in ship- building and in the navy that unemployment would be practically zip. (Piracy, ditto!)

I think that the sheer depth of Alexander's reserves, and the scope of his plan, would win him the day. He'd be able to besiega Carthage from land and sea, and starve them out. He wouldn't be in a hurry, like he was with Tyre. He'd have all the time in the world...

 

[Cherico]

Certainly. I admire Alexander very much. He sought to be Akhilles reborn, and he succeeded. A mythical hero- figure for the ages.

And like his Homeric idol, he didn't live to see old age. Such men rarely do.


‐---‐--------------------








My thinking is that Alexander's march into India would have been his 'Napoleonic' doom if he'd persisted. But yes, he turned back in time.

Would a campaign against Carthage be fated to end like that? They had the more experienced navy, but they lacked sheer reserves (of everything, including men). Alexander had appropriated the vast reserves of gold that the Akhaimenids had simply hoarded, and he was completely willing to spend. At the time of his death, he was planning the construction of 500 warships for the Med, 250 for the Red Sea, end another 250 for the Persian Gulf.

He had the gold for it, and he had the men. They'd need training, but that would provide ample lucrative contracts for the experienced Canaanites-- getting them invested in his cause, finally. And overall, the scale of the project would provide so many jobs in ship- building and in the navy that unemployment would be practically zip. (Piracy, ditto!)

I think that the sheer depth of Alexander's reserves, and the scope of his plan, would win him the day. He'd be able to besiega Carthage from land and sea, and starve them out. He wouldn't be in a hurry, like he was with Tyre. He'd have all the time in the world...

how long do you think were going to be dealing with the woke craze? 10 years 20 or 30?

 

[Poe]

Thats not low tech 1980 is post industrial.

If a society collapses and goes back to Stone Age the. Rises to medieval then renaissance then industrial. If we can get cracking with 1800s tech then you are right.

We could definitely get back to where we are without coal or oil, assuming we keep the knowledge. The reason the industrial revolution used what it did and went the direction it did was because we didn't even have any real understanding of electromagnetism prior (and a century before we didn't even have calculus) thus we had to learn the nuances of electricity, and how to to control it, as we learned to utilize the first fuel source for it. Assuming we have some knowledge still around controlling electricity starting from even solar could be feasible, we would just be starting with very little amount of electricity and bootstrapping our tech from there and we become more sophisticated.

 

[ATP]

how long do you think were going to be dealing with the woke craze? 10 years 20 or 30?

Agenda 2030 - they plan to finish that till 2030.Which mean,that we would be either dead,in gulag or free in ,let say,2035.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Agenda 2030 - they plan to finish that till 2030.Which mean,that we would be either dead,in gulag or free in ,let say,2035.

To be fair that's assuming Agenda 2030 goes like they plan which is...questionable I'd argue. Not only did the rising populist movement catch them off guard but I think they legit were not expecting some of the economic issues going on in China and Russia to occur as they have. I think they legit thought a command economy was doable and Covid was supposed to be the test to prove it. These people have been in their ivory towers so long that they don't know how things work. The question is what are they going to do when Agenda 2030 fails? Are they going to BSOD and freeze or are they going to try and burn everything down Ala Operation Cinder from Disney Era Star Wars?