3 ms·

I'm not sure it makes sense to argue that a state "falls" when it reorganizes its administrative structure, makes big changes to its currency and fiscal policie

by whakim 5y ago

I'm not sure it makes sense to argue that a state "falls" when it reorganizes its administrative structure, makes big changes to its currency and fiscal policies, and goes through a period of violent upheaval. By those standards, the United States "fell" in the late 19th and early 20th century with the civil war and the vast expansion of the role of the state.

notahacker 5y ago
I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. (At the other end of the scale there are people willing to argue that the Eastern Roman Empire was just an administrative reorganisation and consolidation so the Empire didn't really fall until 1453. Some people measure terminal declines from the peak, some people won't acknowledge falls until something finally ceases to exist)
- whakim 5y ago
  > I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. But this isn't at all what happened with regards to the late Roman Empire. The Western Empire recovered substantially from the crisis of the second century. The administrative changes that were made weren't the root causes of what happened in the late 4th and 5th centuries; they were actually what allowed (most of) the 4th century to be such a success. It's also emphatically not true that the Roman Empire of, say, the 370s, "sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion" (even if you accept the notion of "foreign," which doesn't really apply to Rome's military relationship with many of its "barbarian" neighbors).

by whakim 5y ago

notahacker 5y ago

I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. (At the other end of the scale there are people willing to argue that the Eastern Roman Empire was just an administrative reorganisation and consolidation so the Empire didn't really fall until 1453. Some people measure terminal declines from the peak, some people won't acknowledge falls until something finally ceases to exist)

whakim 5y ago
> I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. But this isn't at all what happened with regards to the late Roman Empire. The Western Empire recovered substantially from the crisis of the second century. The administrative changes that were made weren't the root causes of what happened in the late 4th and 5th centuries; they were actually what allowed (most of) the 4th century to be such a success. It's also emphatically not true that the Roman Empire of, say, the 370s, "sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion" (even if you accept the notion of "foreign," which doesn't really apply to Rome's military relationship with many of its "barbarian" neighbors).