3 ms·

I've definitely decided that fishing for parallels is counter-productive. It's worthwhile to educate yourself on history (and Duncan's book is a great read) but

by pfraze 5y ago

I've definitely decided that fishing for parallels is counter-productive. It's worthwhile to educate yourself on history (and Duncan's book is a great read) but I personally do my best to quell that anxiety-response "Is this us?" question while I read. History is path-dependent and all stories are retro-actively told. There are a lot of cases where it depends on the people in the room, or the sentiment of the people in the room that day, or even something so random as taking a wrong turn and coming across a group of anarchists ready to throw some bombs (WW1). When looking at Rome, it's better to draw broad parallels with little weight.

_8j50 5y ago
I can get behind that reasoning.
edgyquant 5y ago
I find people who constantly look for parallels insufferable. Yes you can look two a few factors and say they look like some other society but the buck stops there. America isn’t Rome and won’t go the same path regardless. There’s a certain type of person I see on my social media who equates every single bad thing in history with the current day. Nazi Germany and now Ukraine “giving you their guns” is the goto. Rome has an allure to it, I get it I feel it myself, but history doesn’t repeat itself and groups of humans (especially civilizations) have so much more nuance to them it’s a disservice to both Rome and American history.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I get it I feel it myself, but history doesn’t repeat itself and groups of humans (especially civilizations) have so much more nuance to them it’s a disservice to both Rome and American history. I agree, it's imprudent to try and draw direct parallels between the US and any other historical empire, including Rome. That said, we can learn much from history. And in the US and Europe, we can learn even more from the history of the "West." As Eugen Weber[0] put it[1]: ...But where should we start? Perhaps the first thing to ask is what the scope of a series on the history of Western Civilization should be? And the best way to think of it is that we are going back to the old country. We're going back to where many of our ancestors came from. To see where their stories came from, and their memories and their habits and the way they are, which has made us the way we are. This is what history is about. Where we come from. What lies behind the way we live and act and think. How our institutions, our religions, our laws were made. As the old saw goes, "history doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes." Understanding the thoughts, fears, triumphs and failures of our forbears is an important window on our human nature and the things that have driven us since time immemorial, and continues to drive us to this day. Whether it's the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and the many civilizations of the Levant/Fertile Crescent as well as Rome, the Abrahamic[2] religions and the thinkers/ideas of the ensuing millenia, they all have something important to teach us about the world we live in now. They did, after all, birth many of our core beliefs, ideas and institutions. While it's generally not productive to point at specific issues and exclaim "This is just like Rome!" or something similar, understanding the culture and practices of our ancestors can give us insight into our current world. But that's not enough. While human nature is human nature which hasn't really changed in a couple hundred thousand years, times do change. And when they do, we need to, as Lincoln pointed out[3]: The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. tl;dr: While it's dumb to see history as a blueprint for the future, it is a wonderful trove of knowledge and information about the human condition and its response to a vast array of stresses. As we are keenly reminded by Paul M.M. Cooper and his Fall of Civilizations[4] podcast. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Weber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Weber [1] https://archive.org/details/western-tradition-01-the-dawn-of-history/Western+Tradition+01+The+Dawn+of+History.mp4 https://archive.org/details/western-tradition-01-the-dawn-of... (timecode: 06:35) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [3] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congres... [4] https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ Edit: Fixed formatting/transcription issues.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    For sure I’m not saying there aren’t lessons, just that the type of people who cherry pick a few examples and take them as given proof of some historical trend aren’t likely to find these lessons.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >For sure I’m not saying there aren’t lessons, just that the type of people who cherry pick a few examples and take them as given proof of some historical trend aren’t likely to find these lessons. Apparently, I'm on a tour of "old saws," so here's another one: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Or, more caustically, but more apropos given the subject matter: You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think. That leaves history and its lessons to those of us who would heed Santayana's warning[0]. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana#Vol._I,_Reason_in_Common_Sense https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana#Vol._I,_Reaso...
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        That may be a very uncharitable reply to and about edgyquant, but I'll go with the more charitable interpretation that it's a realistic observation about unspecified others; those who fixate on one or two historic parallels and leap to the conclusion that "OMG this is exactly the same, our realm[1] is 100% for certain going to fall just like Rome in 471!". From an onlooker's perspective, it feels like you guys are pretty much in what used to be called "violent agreement" on Usenet, when flamewars broke out between participants who actually agreed on almost everything, but through miscommunication didn't realise this. I think if one[2] of you could just a bit more explicitly acknowledge that you are not saying "OMG this is EXACTLY the same, America is 100% for certain going to fall just like Rome in 471!" but only "there are quite a few parallels here, here, and there, so it might well behoove us to keep an eye on this, this, and that"; and/or the other could apply this more charitable reading -- which seems to be the precise point they're arguing -- to what the first is saying, then it looks to me like there really isn't any (or at least, not much) actual disagreement between you at all. Or is it just me that's totally misreading one or both of you? Hey BTW, thanks for that second more caustic formulation of the saying; hadn't seen that one before. I may, when sufficiently exasperated, use it in future... But there is actually a bit of optimism to it: While you can't cure stupidity, you may be able to at least alleviate ignorance -- one issue and one fool at a time. (After the fool in question has been led to knowledge on issue X, he won't need to think about it for himself any more; while still in general a fool, hopefully he won't, armed with newfound knowledge as he now is, act like one on this issue in the future.) __ [1]: Not being an American, "America is going to fall...!" doesn't have the same direct relevance for me, but I can see the same parallels being applied to other realms -- and AFAIK, they have been used like that about lots of nations, since about forever. [2]: nobody9999? Not sure; possibly getting who is on which side of the argument mixed up since I see only the comment I'm directly replying to on this input screen. Could be the other way around.
groby_b 5y ago
Yes and no. To take your anarchists with bombs - sure, the specific moment and way to start WW1 depended on that. But at the same time, the network of defense agreements led to a rise of regional power blocs (increasing polarization). The Anglo-German arms race led to a surplus of military, and an increasing rift between the German and the British bloc. The Russo-Japanese war caused a shift of Russian interests to the Balkans, which also mattered to Austria (sort-of part of the German bloc). The insults of 1870 and the Marocco crisis led to a deepening rift between Germany and France. The Italo-Libyan war exposed that the Ottoman empire was extremely shaky, further stoking interests in colonial expansion. Which promptly happened with the Balkan Wars. Those anarchists with bombs were the particular match to a powder keg sitting around. Chances are there would've been a different match on a different day, had this not happened. Maybe there still would've been a small path away from the conflagration if the assasination and consequences hadn't happened. But each previous event narrowed that path. History may be path-dependent, but there are some paths that are narrowing down the options you can consequently take. The same holds for Rome - the actions taken increasingly narrowed down the possible ways forward. (And that, I'd argue, are the main lessons to draw from any collapse - what actions narrowed the solution space, which ones broadened it)

by pfraze 5y ago

_8j50 5y ago

I can get behind that reasoning.

edgyquant 5y ago

I find people who constantly look for parallels insufferable. Yes you can look two a few factors and say they look like some other society but the buck stops there. America isn’t Rome and won’t go the same path regardless. There’s a certain type of person I see on my social media who equates every single bad thing in history with the current day. Nazi Germany and now Ukraine “giving you their guns” is the goto. Rome has an allure to it, I get it I feel it myself, but history doesn’t repeat itself and groups of humans (especially civilizations) have so much more nuance to them it’s a disservice to both Rome and American history.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I get it I feel it myself, but history doesn’t repeat itself and groups of humans (especially civilizations) have so much more nuance to them it’s a disservice to both Rome and American history. I agree, it's imprudent to try and draw direct parallels between the US and any other historical empire, including Rome. That said, we can learn much from history. And in the US and Europe, we can learn even more from the history of the "West." As Eugen Weber[0] put it[1]: ...But where should we start? Perhaps the first thing to ask is what the scope of a series on the history of Western Civilization should be? And the best way to think of it is that we are going back to the old country. We're going back to where many of our ancestors came from. To see where their stories came from, and their memories and their habits and the way they are, which has made us the way we are. This is what history is about. Where we come from. What lies behind the way we live and act and think. How our institutions, our religions, our laws were made. As the old saw goes, "history doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes." Understanding the thoughts, fears, triumphs and failures of our forbears is an important window on our human nature and the things that have driven us since time immemorial, and continues to drive us to this day. Whether it's the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and the many civilizations of the Levant/Fertile Crescent as well as Rome, the Abrahamic[2] religions and the thinkers/ideas of the ensuing millenia, they all have something important to teach us about the world we live in now. They did, after all, birth many of our core beliefs, ideas and institutions. While it's generally not productive to point at specific issues and exclaim "This is just like Rome!" or something similar, understanding the culture and practices of our ancestors can give us insight into our current world. But that's not enough. While human nature is human nature which hasn't really changed in a couple hundred thousand years, times do change. And when they do, we need to, as Lincoln pointed out[3]: The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. tl;dr: While it's dumb to see history as a blueprint for the future, it is a wonderful trove of knowledge and information about the human condition and its response to a vast array of stresses. As we are keenly reminded by Paul M.M. Cooper and his Fall of Civilizations[4] podcast. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Weber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Weber [1] https://archive.org/details/western-tradition-01-the-dawn-of-history/Western+Tradition+01+The+Dawn+of+History.mp4 https://archive.org/details/western-tradition-01-the-dawn-of... (timecode: 06:35) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [3] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congres... [4] https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ Edit: Fixed formatting/transcription issues.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  For sure I’m not saying there aren’t lessons, just that the type of people who cherry pick a few examples and take them as given proof of some historical trend aren’t likely to find these lessons.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >For sure I’m not saying there aren’t lessons, just that the type of people who cherry pick a few examples and take them as given proof of some historical trend aren’t likely to find these lessons. Apparently, I'm on a tour of "old saws," so here's another one: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Or, more caustically, but more apropos given the subject matter: You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think. That leaves history and its lessons to those of us who would heed Santayana's warning[0]. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana#Vol._I,_Reason_in_Common_Sense https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana#Vol._I,_Reaso...
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      That may be a very uncharitable reply to and about edgyquant, but I'll go with the more charitable interpretation that it's a realistic observation about unspecified others; those who fixate on one or two historic parallels and leap to the conclusion that "OMG this is exactly the same, our realm[1] is 100% for certain going to fall just like Rome in 471!". From an onlooker's perspective, it feels like you guys are pretty much in what used to be called "violent agreement" on Usenet, when flamewars broke out between participants who actually agreed on almost everything, but through miscommunication didn't realise this. I think if one[2] of you could just a bit more explicitly acknowledge that you are not saying "OMG this is EXACTLY the same, America is 100% for certain going to fall just like Rome in 471!" but only "there are quite a few parallels here, here, and there, so it might well behoove us to keep an eye on this, this, and that"; and/or the other could apply this more charitable reading -- which seems to be the precise point they're arguing -- to what the first is saying, then it looks to me like there really isn't any (or at least, not much) actual disagreement between you at all. Or is it just me that's totally misreading one or both of you? Hey BTW, thanks for that second more caustic formulation of the saying; hadn't seen that one before. I may, when sufficiently exasperated, use it in future... But there is actually a bit of optimism to it: While you can't cure stupidity, you may be able to at least alleviate ignorance -- one issue and one fool at a time. (After the fool in question has been led to knowledge on issue X, he won't need to think about it for himself any more; while still in general a fool, hopefully he won't, armed with newfound knowledge as he now is, act like one on this issue in the future.) __ [1]: Not being an American, "America is going to fall...!" doesn't have the same direct relevance for me, but I can see the same parallels being applied to other realms -- and AFAIK, they have been used like that about lots of nations, since about forever. [2]: nobody9999? Not sure; possibly getting who is on which side of the argument mixed up since I see only the comment I'm directly replying to on this input screen. Could be the other way around.

groby_b 5y ago

Yes and no. To take your anarchists with bombs - sure, the specific moment and way to start WW1 depended on that. But at the same time, the network of defense agreements led to a rise of regional power blocs (increasing polarization). The Anglo-German arms race led to a surplus of military, and an increasing rift between the German and the British bloc. The Russo-Japanese war caused a shift of Russian interests to the Balkans, which also mattered to Austria (sort-of part of the German bloc). The insults of 1870 and the Marocco crisis led to a deepening rift between Germany and France. The Italo-Libyan war exposed that the Ottoman empire was extremely shaky, further stoking interests in colonial expansion. Which promptly happened with the Balkan Wars. Those anarchists with bombs were the particular match to a powder keg sitting around. Chances are there would've been a different match on a different day, had this not happened. Maybe there still would've been a small path away from the conflagration if the assasination and consequences hadn't happened. But each previous event narrowed that path. History may be path-dependent, but there are some paths that are narrowing down the options you can consequently take. The same holds for Rome - the actions taken increasingly narrowed down the possible ways forward. (And that, I'd argue, are the main lessons to draw from any collapse - what actions narrowed the solution space, which ones broadened it)