4 ms·

CHAP. II seems to indicate that what the world is experiencing now, and experienced at the turn of the twentieth century, is a recurring phenomenon: a growing,

by hliyan 4y ago

CHAP. II seems to indicate that what the world is experiencing now, and experienced at the turn of the twentieth century, is a recurring phenomenon: a growing, systemic asymmetry in power and wealth, un-remedied and eventually resulting in a catastrophic reorganisation of the social order (and then the cycle restarts).

roenxi 4y ago
Power and wealth is always asymmetric. The effect is competent people holding power and building some impressive society -> slow reversion to the mean of that society's elites -> a challenge comes up that requires renewal and an above-average response which they can't meet -> collapse.
- kkoncevicius 4y ago
  To me it seems like there is a lot more to this building-flourishing-decay-collapse cycle than power and competence with regression to the mean. I first got interested by this topic after reading "The Fate of Empires" [1] where the author puts the "blame" so to speak, not on competence, but on the generational gap. His thesis is that it takes approximately 10 generations before the values that built the society are no longer followed by their descendants. [1] http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
thom 4y ago
The Greeks even had a word for this recurring cycle: kyklos. The historian Polybius believed the Roman constitution allowed them to avoid this cycle by balancing the forces of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. You can compare and contrast the constitutional setup in Rome in his Book 6; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6... Of course, he stopped writing towards the end of the second century BC when Rome’s Republic began to slowly fall apart, but even the Empire that came after proved somewhat durable.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "proved somewhat durable" People consider Norway or Switzerland durable because they lasted 800+ years so far. The Eastern Roman Empire, as a continuation of the unified Empire, lasted more than twice as long, on much bigger territory which attracted all sorts of external invaders (Goths, Persians, Arabs, Slavs, Crusaders, Venetians, Turks). Compared to the ancient-ness of the Romans, England and Sweden are middle-age countries, the US is a youngster with a fresh driving licence and the EU is a toddler who can barely say "mama". Of the currently existing countries, only Japan seems somewhat comparable to the Roman Empire as far as continuity goes, and it is an island state well shielded against invaders by the sea and its fierce storms.
  - thom 4y ago
    Depends on your definition of continuity. Succession crises, revolts and changing borders have been the norm throughout history and I’d argue we still haven’t found political structures which are guaranteed to prevent them. Even during the Republic, you could argue (as Harriet Flower has, for example) that Rome experienced several discontinuities between the kings and Augustus.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Everyone's limit is different, but I would say that most people wouldn't consider contemporary Turkey (a republic speaking a Turkic language whose population is mostly Muslim) a continuation of the Eastern Roman empire in any but purely geographical meaning, so we have a fairly clean break around 1453, when the ruling elite in Constantinople was forcibly displaced by an entirely different group of people with other traditions, languages etc. On the other hand, mere Christianization of the Roman Empire doesn't seem as crucial (pun intended) as to create a break in its statehood. Most of the institutions went on just like before, most of the important families stayed the same, the legal system and the language of the realm didn't change at all or only very little etc. The republic period is more interesting, but I believe that the Romans considered themselves the same people and the some country in that period, without breaks in identity - which IMHO should matter more than a purely academic take from the early 21st century.
vt85 4y ago
[dead]

by hliyan 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

Power and wealth is always asymmetric. The effect is competent people holding power and building some impressive society -> slow reversion to the mean of that society's elites -> a challenge comes up that requires renewal and an above-average response which they can't meet -> collapse.

kkoncevicius 4y ago
To me it seems like there is a lot more to this building-flourishing-decay-collapse cycle than power and competence with regression to the mean. I first got interested by this topic after reading "The Fate of Empires" [1] where the author puts the "blame" so to speak, not on competence, but on the generational gap. His thesis is that it takes approximately 10 generations before the values that built the society are no longer followed by their descendants. [1] http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

thom 4y ago

The Greeks even had a word for this recurring cycle: kyklos. The historian Polybius believed the Roman constitution allowed them to avoid this cycle by balancing the forces of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. You can compare and contrast the constitutional setup in Rome in his Book 6; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6... Of course, he stopped writing towards the end of the second century BC when Rome’s Republic began to slowly fall apart, but even the Empire that came after proved somewhat durable.

inglor_cz 4y ago
"proved somewhat durable" People consider Norway or Switzerland durable because they lasted 800+ years so far. The Eastern Roman Empire, as a continuation of the unified Empire, lasted more than twice as long, on much bigger territory which attracted all sorts of external invaders (Goths, Persians, Arabs, Slavs, Crusaders, Venetians, Turks). Compared to the ancient-ness of the Romans, England and Sweden are middle-age countries, the US is a youngster with a fresh driving licence and the EU is a toddler who can barely say "mama". Of the currently existing countries, only Japan seems somewhat comparable to the Roman Empire as far as continuity goes, and it is an island state well shielded against invaders by the sea and its fierce storms.
- thom 4y ago
  Depends on your definition of continuity. Succession crises, revolts and changing borders have been the norm throughout history and I’d argue we still haven’t found political structures which are guaranteed to prevent them. Even during the Republic, you could argue (as Harriet Flower has, for example) that Rome experienced several discontinuities between the kings and Augustus.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Everyone's limit is different, but I would say that most people wouldn't consider contemporary Turkey (a republic speaking a Turkic language whose population is mostly Muslim) a continuation of the Eastern Roman empire in any but purely geographical meaning, so we have a fairly clean break around 1453, when the ruling elite in Constantinople was forcibly displaced by an entirely different group of people with other traditions, languages etc. On the other hand, mere Christianization of the Roman Empire doesn't seem as crucial (pun intended) as to create a break in its statehood. Most of the institutions went on just like before, most of the important families stayed the same, the legal system and the language of the realm didn't change at all or only very little etc. The republic period is more interesting, but I believe that the Romans considered themselves the same people and the some country in that period, without breaks in identity - which IMHO should matter more than a purely academic take from the early 21st century.

vt85 4y ago

[dead]