4 ms·

The TL;DR quote: "Instead, I think the stronger point here ... is that the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West – while it was a catastrophe for those peop

The TL;DR quote: "Instead, I think the stronger point here ... is that the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West – while it was a catastrophe for those people living at the time – was less a product of ‘hoards of barbarians’ coming over the frontier ... and instead a product of actors within the political system, within the empire, tearing it apart out of the pursuit of their own interests, deceived by the assumption that something so old could never simply vanish…until it did. The consequences of their decisions and of their failure to recognize the fragility of the clockwork machine that suspended them above the poverty to come (and that it was already damaged) were great and terrible." But I highly recommend walking through all the data and discussion of exactly what that clockwork machine was. And then think about if/how today's society is different.

e4e78a06 5y ago
I think the author fails to adequately discuss the impact of climate change on the economy. We know from modern history that recessions lead to political change. It's not implausible that an agrarian economy like that of Rome would be greatly impacted by climate change reducing crop yields, causing political upheaval. Those actors in the political system didn't just decide one day to depart from 200 years of stability to overthrow the government, there had to be some motivating factor.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Is unchecked corruption not a motivating factor? Greed?
- Spellman 5y ago
  I think the shifts in agriculture could definitely spark something, but robust political institutions and state capacity would have allowed them to weather the issues and adapt. Instead political fractures grew into much bigger problems bringing instability causing a downward spiral. Not to mention some of the biggest political shifts that happen around that era. The shift to the Late Roman empire is marked with a series of assassinations of the Emperor. Partially because of consolidation of the position's power and prestige. And in contrast other empires to the East and West organized and grew in power.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Not just climate - their poor farming practices created deserts in North Africa! As a young student I always was impressed by and admired Rome. I think a big part of that was because much of the history came from British Imperial types seeking to link to past greatness. As I’ve aged and thought about it though, Rome seems like a real horror.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Consider that 536, "the worst year in history", fell right into the century of steepest decline.
Spooky23 5y ago
It’s definitely a sobering thought exercise. The need for growth was important because Roman growth led to “civilizing” creative activity and exchange. Growth stopped and the activity stopped. The institutions of government/power couldn’t adapt. There’s alot of parallels. How much economic growth now is really squeezing more blood from the rock?
- kiba 5y ago
  On the contrary, we have an embarrassment of riches along with severe misallocation of resources. We could even be richer than our forebearers ever dreamed of.
  - codyb 5y ago
    Hahaha, I’ve been slipping “embarrassment of riches” into conversations ever since I first saw it on my favorite band’s forum. The boys would definitely approve
- ksdale 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's the lesson, based on this post, it sounds like the institutions were vital to the prosperity more than the growth. In a sense, growth is prosperity, but both were the result of institutions, and I'm not sure that growth was necessary for the maintenance of the institutions. I think the big takeaway is that people thought of the institutions are sort of an immutable fact of the world, when in reality, they were very break-able. Though that is also a sobering thought exercise as well.
ReptileMan 5y ago
Well that does not bode well for Pax Americana. The dissolution of the social fabric is underway and accelerating.

e4e78a06 5y ago

I think the author fails to adequately discuss the impact of climate change on the economy. We know from modern history that recessions lead to political change. It's not implausible that an agrarian economy like that of Rome would be greatly impacted by climate change reducing crop yields, causing political upheaval. Those actors in the political system didn't just decide one day to depart from 200 years of stability to overthrow the government, there had to be some motivating factor.

xeromal 5y ago
Is unchecked corruption not a motivating factor? Greed?
Spellman 5y ago
I think the shifts in agriculture could definitely spark something, but robust political institutions and state capacity would have allowed them to weather the issues and adapt. Instead political fractures grew into much bigger problems bringing instability causing a downward spiral. Not to mention some of the biggest political shifts that happen around that era. The shift to the Late Roman empire is marked with a series of assassinations of the Emperor. Partially because of consolidation of the position's power and prestige. And in contrast other empires to the East and West organized and grew in power.
Spooky23 5y ago
Not just climate - their poor farming practices created deserts in North Africa! As a young student I always was impressed by and admired Rome. I think a big part of that was because much of the history came from British Imperial types seeking to link to past greatness. As I’ve aged and thought about it though, Rome seems like a real horror.
pfdietz 5y ago
Consider that 536, "the worst year in history", fell right into the century of steepest decline.

Spooky23 5y ago

It’s definitely a sobering thought exercise. The need for growth was important because Roman growth led to “civilizing” creative activity and exchange. Growth stopped and the activity stopped. The institutions of government/power couldn’t adapt. There’s alot of parallels. How much economic growth now is really squeezing more blood from the rock?

kiba 5y ago
On the contrary, we have an embarrassment of riches along with severe misallocation of resources. We could even be richer than our forebearers ever dreamed of.
- codyb 5y ago
  Hahaha, I’ve been slipping “embarrassment of riches” into conversations ever since I first saw it on my favorite band’s forum. The boys would definitely approve
ksdale 5y ago
I'm not sure that's the lesson, based on this post, it sounds like the institutions were vital to the prosperity more than the growth. In a sense, growth is prosperity, but both were the result of institutions, and I'm not sure that growth was necessary for the maintenance of the institutions. I think the big takeaway is that people thought of the institutions are sort of an immutable fact of the world, when in reality, they were very break-able. Though that is also a sobering thought exercise as well.

ReptileMan 5y ago

Well that does not bode well for Pax Americana. The dissolution of the social fabric is underway and accelerating.