Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have read about so many civilizations and countries, most of which fell, were conqured, or simply faded away. I wonder if there is some sort of "cycle" for civilizations and nations, like birth, maturity and death? Or is it all politics and mismanagement??
This is an ongoing debate in history and political science. Arnold Toynbee was one of the most famous proponent of the view that civilization is cyclical in nature. Others have been critical of this perspective.
I think there are various common factors that lead to the rise and fall of states, but unique events such as the Mongol invasions are also critical. And there is wide variation within those broad forces.
Time scales and size of populations vary so much that it becomes very hard to do what your question implies - figure out the common factors in the rise and decline of these groups of people. The simple answer is that yes, each civilization or country does or will have a cycle. What becomes more interesting is to figure out what worked and why, and what failed and why. Not all of the factors are the same for all civilizations.
I have read about so many civilizations and countries, most of which fell, were conqured, or simply faded away. I wonder if there is some sort of "cycle" for civilizations and nations, like birth, maturity and death? Or is it all politics and mismanagement??
Is there anything that doesn't go through that cycle, I wonder.
People are born with differenet endowments, into various environments, live under different influences - but all humans age, decay and die regardless of the variety of conditions under which they were born and lived.
It seems quite the same with civilizations and cultures...nothing is permanent, it all changes and decays and other things appear.
In the aftermath, all that happened was inevitable.
But is any of it inevitable before it happens?
You can find differing causes for the collapse of empires. Sometimes they were so much the creation of one individual that they could not surivie the death of that individual. Alexander's empire was Alexander, Charlemagne's empire was Charlemagne.
Some empires collapse as the result of early peaks followed by a long period of decay, such as the Spanish or Ottoman empires.
Sometimes it was straight forward conquest by a rival power, as when Alexander toppled the Persian Empire or the Spanish strongarmed the Aztecs and Mayans. The short lived Napoleonic empire and the short lived Third Reich were victims of counter conquest.
Some empires were never able to assimilate the subcultures contained within, the Austria-Hungary empire comes to mind. Some end in bloody revolution, such as the Russian empire. Or quiet revolution, such as the Soviet empire.
The Romans fell apart as a consequence of numerous factors, the most consequential being expanding the empire beyond the size it was able to defend while remaining Roman in character. And the British? They have the unique experience of losing an empire to modern morality.
In searching for commonality of collapse cause, we find collapse but not all that much commonality.
All of the above suggests to me that the lessons are:
1) Do not count on any institution being perpetual
2) While the past predicts the ultimate collapse of empires, it does not predict the nature or form of collapse for existing empires.
In the aftermath, all that happened was inevitable.
But is any of it inevitable before it happens?
You can find differing causes for the collapse of empires. Sometimes they were so much the creation of one individual that they could not surivie the death of that individual. Alexander's empire was Alexander, Charlemagne's empire was Charlemagne.
Some empires collapse as the result of early peaks followed by a long period of decay, such as the Spanish or Ottoman empires.
Sometimes it was straight forward conquest by a rival power, as when Alexander toppled the Persian Empire or the Spanish strongarmed the Aztecs and Mayans. The short lived Napoleonic empire and the short lived Third Reich were victims of counter conquest.
Some empires were never able to assimilate the subcultures contained within, the Austria-Hungary empire comes to mind. Some end in bloody revolution, such as the Russian empire. Or quiet revolution, such as the Soviet empire.
The Romans fell apart as a consequence of numerous factors, the most consequential being expanding the empire beyond the size it was able to defend while remaining Roman in character. And the British? They have the unique experience of losing an empire to modern morality.
In searching for commonality of collapse cause, we find collapse but not all that much commonality.
All of the above suggests to me that the lessons are:
1) Do not count on any institution being perpetual
2) While the past predicts the ultimate collapse of empires, it does not predict the nature or form of collapse for existing empires.
You repeat errors.
The USSR not empire (Constitution USSR).
Russian Empire - not Russian empire (!) Rossiyskaja Empire !
In the aftermath, all that happened was inevitable.
My cynical observation is that historians like all academics seek logic in events and believe in an ordered universe. Creating deterministic rules is part of their craft, when none exists they create them. Arguing "it just happened" is not a good way to get published; indeed I have been taken to task for refusing to come down one way or the other on issues when I believed there was signficant uncertainty. Academics is about creating certainty, even when none exists.
As a partial exception, because he was never an academic, Bruce Catton after trying desperately to explain the decision of General Floyd et el in an early Civil War campaign, finally noted that there simply might not be a logical reason for his decision
My cynical observation is that historians like all academics seek logic in events and believe in an ordered universe. Creating deterministic rules is part of their craft, when none exists they create them.
I don't find the observation cynical. It does seem as if most historians write history like someone pouring Jello-o into a mould.
Quote:
Academics is about creating certainty, even when none exists.
A path already well trod by theism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.