3 ms·
That's a very literal abd misleading reading. The collapse in the West had very specific observable results including: * A trade crash across the Western empir
by TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
That's a very literal abd misleading reading. The collapse in the West had very specific observable results including:
* A trade crash across the Western empire
* A crash in manufacturing
* Widespread famine
* A retreat from cities and villas
* The withdrawal of the military
* The withdrawal of centralised government influence
* Their replacement by regional warlords
* A huge decrease in civil stability
* A huge increase in petty violence and lawlessness
The millions of people living in the area certainly didn't experience continued expansion and prosperity.
And most writings from Ancient Greece and Rome were lost to the East. Only fragments survived. Byzantium wasn't enough of an outpost to preserve the rest.
What was left in Europe until the Renaissance was a kind of Christianised cargo-cult of the original empire, with most of the knowledge and working features lost. After the Renaissance there was a superficial rediscovery of some of the writing, the architecture, and the history, and it had an influence on modern European culture. But again in a kind of cargo-culty way which eventually turned into something else entirely in every area except politics. (A Roman senator would understand exactly how the US political system works, while being baffled by the technology.)
You can argue that empire building continued elsewhere, but that's a different argument. There were empires in India, China, and the Middle East, but they were distinct and unrelated entities. If anything they've been even more forgotten.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y agoTo steel-man parent's post, usually it's not that civilization per se collapses, the collapse is better characterized as a loss of state capacity. The important distinction being - technology wasn't lost. This framing is also relevant to present-day conversations. Claiming that our civilization is collapsing makes people eyes roll. Claim that we're losing state capacity is a message people are more receptive to.
- mellavora 5y agoexcept a great deal of technology was lost. One of Hobbs insights is that in an era with a non-functional state, the rewards of technological investment are few. Also loss of state capacity has severe impact on international trade; recognize that trade also brings ideas and innovation. And any technology that relies on supply chains becomes challenging, any technology that relies on high levels of education becomes challenging.
- ardit33 5y agowhat does collapse look at you? People dying in mass? To many, civilization collapse means the collapse of advanced 'civic' functions, from trade, to order, to normal civic functions (regulations, laws and order, registrations/admmin functions, coinage etc). It is replaced by a completely archaic/primitive way of living, with petty kindoms, local warlords, and more. Also, in parts of europe, whole populations got ravaged by the justinian plague that came later, and eventually new people moved in as mass migration, somme cocqureing to completely replace the previous population. (e.g south slavs in the balkans). their culture, was much more aggrarian and primitive commpared to the one they did replace. Cities fell in ruins and disrepari, aquaducts stopped working, and whole thriving towns and citiess turned into piles of ruble or forgoten ruins. This process took about 200 years and it didn't happen overnight. (470ad to 670ad), but the decline was remarkable. So, yeah, 'ciivilization' collaped, to be replaced by a more archaic primitive way of living. It is like rolling the clock back few hundreds of years of progress and going back to 500bc. way of living.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoThe Roman civilization in Europe may have collapsed but there is a huge difference between saying that "a civilization" collapsed and that "civilization" collapsed.