5 ms·

The great myth of empire collapse

38 points by marojejian 1y ago

charcircuit 1y ago
The British empire collapsed within the last 100 years so you can ask living people today what it was like to love through a collapse of the empire they lived in.
- rainsford 1y ago
  That's an interesting case because the collapse of the British Empire lined up pretty well with the rise the US as first one of two global superpowers and then the global superpower. It seems likely that the experience of imperial collapse might be different when you're replaced with a power that more or less is politically, militarily, economically, and linguistically aligned with you. I haven't conducted an exhaustive study, but I imagine that's not necessarily the common experience.
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    The British empire didn't really collapse, as such. Britain just couldn't maintain it after the financial stress of WWII. Also independence was implicit in the WWII support of some of the colonies. So a war weary Britain (grudgingly) granted independence to it's former colonies. It went better in some countries than others. The partition of India was a disaster.
- tshaddox 1y ago
  Of course, I would expect the experience to be different in the last three hundred years or so. Since the Industrial Revolution, it’s much more likely for an average person’s quality of life to improve during their lifetime due to technology even if their nation is undergoing a collapse in power relative to other nations.
- eterm 1y ago
  I think "Denial" sums it up.
- tim333 1y ago
  I think people in the US, India and Australia etc are getting on ok without us. Britain muddles along.
Muromec 1y ago
While I share the view there, it's kind of a macro view. The day to day 99% percent view also depends on an empire and on a collapse. Having regular blackouts and no running water in the 90ies wasn't fun at all, even zo the quality of life improved dramatically a decade or two later.
inglor_cz 1y ago
I find the article's dismissal of population collapses rather dishonest. There is no doubt that urban centres basically disappeared after collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and that population density went significantly down. Once the city-based specialists were gone, so was any ability of rural folk to buy anything that could not be produced by primitive methods in their own community. And without an efficient trade network, there was no way to import food if local crops failed. Hence, famines, which the previous empire was mostly able to hold in check by moving food over the sea at big distances. A major problem of the Early Middle Ages was diminished security - all those Viking, Avar, Hun and Pecheneg raids were absolutely real, and their targets weren't "the 1%". Of course loot from the rich would be taken, but so would poor young women for sex and their children into slavery, and their meagre food reserves for the raiders to eat. That is what happens to settled people without an efficient defense of their borders. We have had two big imperial collapses right in Europe within living memory - the Nazi Reich (by war) and the Soviet Union (economic). Ask the survivors if they "noticed". They absolutely did. I would even say that the working class "noticed" the most, as they usually had fewest reserves to survive the subsequent chaos. It wasn't that different in the past.
- Muromec 1y ago
  they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying, but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get worse sometimes for a whole generation.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    Historic sources indicate massive workforce (and military force) shortages where once were none, which means that the total population must have dropped significantly. Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. In contrast, when the Eastern Roman forces finally defeated the Goths in the 540s, they were unable to hold Italy against a relatively minor Langobard invasion in 568, which is estimated to some 20 000 warriors. Why? For the lack of soldiers. They just couldn't put together the necessary garrisons and feed them from local sources. That would have been unthinkable in 168. Anyone who would seriously want to conquer Italy at that time would have to field at least ten times as many soldiers. In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire at home was still able to field massive armies and even send some expeditions overseas, because the more developed civilizational structure was still present there, and with it, much higher population density.
chrisco255 1y ago
[flagged]
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I don't yet have the privilege of being able to upvote, which makes me very sad in the case of this comment.
hermitcrab 1y ago
I recently read the book 'Barbarians' by Terry Jones (the ex-Python) and Alan Ereira. It suggested that, because the Romans were such a brutal bunch who levied high taxes, some people were happier after the collapse of their empire. If anyone is interested in the rise and fall of empires, I strongly recommend the 'Fall of civilizations' podcast. It is a masterpiece of podcasting. https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/
- wrp 1y ago
  I think that was also a factor in the early success of the Islamic conquest. The Arabians initially imposed lower taxes and interfered less with local politics.
efitz 1y ago
I am not sure what “the collapse of an empire” means. True empires bleed off colonies or satellites, often over hundreds of years; sometimes with wars, sometimes without. Today being imprecise with language to smear one’s political opponents is in fashion; a lot of talk about “empire” and “regime” etc. is just propaganda. The fall of a government will leave a power vacuum and people will rush to fill it; violence might be part of the fall but will almost certainly be part of the competition to be the replacement. We have dozens of examples in the last hundred years. During all those times, people have to live their lives; things go on pretty much as normal for most people not involved in the struggle for power. However there are disruptions to utilities and financial systems; many people lose their life savings and sometimes feeding people is hard, let alone doing business like manufacturing. The only thing that is “apocalyptic” about the fall of a government and its replacement with a new one, is when the new government is full of radical ideologues that use the force of government, and ultimately violence, against their political opponents, such as in the Russian Revolution, the Nazi rise to power, and Mao’s rise to power. This is not a foregone conclusion; we didn’t see intentional mass starvation or genocide in Iran, for example, although there were thousands of executions as the new regime purged its opponents.
cadamsdotcom 1y ago
If you have a farm and are pretty self sufficient, empires can come and go. Just as long as they leave you in peace. On the other hand if your quality of life depends a huge, complex - dare I say modern - international system of trade.. empire collapse is a big deal.
ayaros 1y ago
If the US government collapsed, my biggest concern would be what fills the power vacuum. Foreign powers would have a field day buying influence. And whatever weird quasi-corporate government rises from the ashes will have its constitution written by lawyers who aren't concerned about things like inalienable rights. We're gonna get an EULA as our founding document.

38 points by marojejian 1y ago

The British empire collapsed within the last 100 years so you can ask living people today what it was like to love through a collapse of the empire they lived in.

rainsford 1y ago
That's an interesting case because the collapse of the British Empire lined up pretty well with the rise the US as first one of two global superpowers and then the global superpower. It seems likely that the experience of imperial collapse might be different when you're replaced with a power that more or less is politically, militarily, economically, and linguistically aligned with you. I haven't conducted an exhaustive study, but I imagine that's not necessarily the common experience.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  The British empire didn't really collapse, as such. Britain just couldn't maintain it after the financial stress of WWII. Also independence was implicit in the WWII support of some of the colonies. So a war weary Britain (grudgingly) granted independence to it's former colonies. It went better in some countries than others. The partition of India was a disaster.
tshaddox 1y ago
Of course, I would expect the experience to be different in the last three hundred years or so. Since the Industrial Revolution, it’s much more likely for an average person’s quality of life to improve during their lifetime due to technology even if their nation is undergoing a collapse in power relative to other nations.
eterm 1y ago
I think "Denial" sums it up.
tim333 1y ago
I think people in the US, India and Australia etc are getting on ok without us. Britain muddles along.

Muromec 1y ago

While I share the view there, it's kind of a macro view. The day to day 99% percent view also depends on an empire and on a collapse. Having regular blackouts and no running water in the 90ies wasn't fun at all, even zo the quality of life improved dramatically a decade or two later.

inglor_cz 1y ago

I find the article's dismissal of population collapses rather dishonest. There is no doubt that urban centres basically disappeared after collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and that population density went significantly down. Once the city-based specialists were gone, so was any ability of rural folk to buy anything that could not be produced by primitive methods in their own community. And without an efficient trade network, there was no way to import food if local crops failed. Hence, famines, which the previous empire was mostly able to hold in check by moving food over the sea at big distances. A major problem of the Early Middle Ages was diminished security - all those Viking, Avar, Hun and Pecheneg raids were absolutely real, and their targets weren't "the 1%". Of course loot from the rich would be taken, but so would poor young women for sex and their children into slavery, and their meagre food reserves for the raiders to eat. That is what happens to settled people without an efficient defense of their borders. We have had two big imperial collapses right in Europe within living memory - the Nazi Reich (by war) and the Soviet Union (economic). Ask the survivors if they "noticed". They absolutely did. I would even say that the working class "noticed" the most, as they usually had fewest reserves to survive the subsequent chaos. It wasn't that different in the past.

Muromec 1y ago
they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying, but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get worse sometimes for a whole generation.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  Historic sources indicate massive workforce (and military force) shortages where once were none, which means that the total population must have dropped significantly. Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. In contrast, when the Eastern Roman forces finally defeated the Goths in the 540s, they were unable to hold Italy against a relatively minor Langobard invasion in 568, which is estimated to some 20 000 warriors. Why? For the lack of soldiers. They just couldn't put together the necessary garrisons and feed them from local sources. That would have been unthinkable in 168. Anyone who would seriously want to conquer Italy at that time would have to field at least ten times as many soldiers. In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire at home was still able to field massive armies and even send some expeditions overseas, because the more developed civilizational structure was still present there, and with it, much higher population density.

chrisco255 1y ago

[flagged]

rkomorn 1y ago
I don't yet have the privilege of being able to upvote, which makes me very sad in the case of this comment.

hermitcrab 1y ago

I recently read the book 'Barbarians' by Terry Jones (the ex-Python) and Alan Ereira. It suggested that, because the Romans were such a brutal bunch who levied high taxes, some people were happier after the collapse of their empire. If anyone is interested in the rise and fall of empires, I strongly recommend the 'Fall of civilizations' podcast. It is a masterpiece of podcasting. https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/

wrp 1y ago
I think that was also a factor in the early success of the Islamic conquest. The Arabians initially imposed lower taxes and interfered less with local politics.

efitz 1y ago

I am not sure what “the collapse of an empire” means. True empires bleed off colonies or satellites, often over hundreds of years; sometimes with wars, sometimes without. Today being imprecise with language to smear one’s political opponents is in fashion; a lot of talk about “empire” and “regime” etc. is just propaganda. The fall of a government will leave a power vacuum and people will rush to fill it; violence might be part of the fall but will almost certainly be part of the competition to be the replacement. We have dozens of examples in the last hundred years. During all those times, people have to live their lives; things go on pretty much as normal for most people not involved in the struggle for power. However there are disruptions to utilities and financial systems; many people lose their life savings and sometimes feeding people is hard, let alone doing business like manufacturing. The only thing that is “apocalyptic” about the fall of a government and its replacement with a new one, is when the new government is full of radical ideologues that use the force of government, and ultimately violence, against their political opponents, such as in the Russian Revolution, the Nazi rise to power, and Mao’s rise to power. This is not a foregone conclusion; we didn’t see intentional mass starvation or genocide in Iran, for example, although there were thousands of executions as the new regime purged its opponents.

cadamsdotcom 1y ago

If you have a farm and are pretty self sufficient, empires can come and go. Just as long as they leave you in peace. On the other hand if your quality of life depends a huge, complex - dare I say modern - international system of trade.. empire collapse is a big deal.

ayaros 1y ago

If the US government collapsed, my biggest concern would be what fills the power vacuum. Foreign powers would have a field day buying influence. And whatever weird quasi-corporate government rises from the ashes will have its constitution written by lawyers who aren't concerned about things like inalienable rights. We're gonna get an EULA as our founding document.