Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2010, 07:06 PM
 
2,377 posts, read 5,391,539 times
Reputation: 1728

Advertisements

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??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2010, 08:08 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,858,916 times
Reputation: 641
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.

Arnold J. Toynbee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 07:06 AM
 
23,562 posts, read 70,130,498 times
Reputation: 49087
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 08:02 AM
 
13,498 posts, read 18,131,976 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudy Rose View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,026,002 times
Reputation: 21237
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,540,793 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
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 !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,540,793 times
Reputation: 199
On a note. Revolutions 1917 and 1993 were not communistic / democratic. They were Rus nationalist.
On which parasitic ideologists "have sat down".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,026,002 times
Reputation: 21237
eloy....I do not regard non congruency with your eccentric definitions of things as any sort of test of error.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 10:00 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,858,916 times
Reputation: 641
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2010, 01:21 AM
 
13,498 posts, read 18,131,976 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top