The Fate of Rome(press.princeton.edu)
press.princeton.edu
The Fate of Rome
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691192062/the-fate-of-rome
71 comments
In Europe the shortness of early city dwellers was tied to lack of refrigeration. They didn't have access to the cheap source of protein: milk.
Oh, yeah, that'd be factor for city dwellers in ancient Rome as well.
But I've read that educated Romans associated milk drinking with barbarians, so there'd be a social component to avoiding milk, too, even when it was available. Though I suppose those educated (and probably wealthy) Romans would have plenty of other sources of protein.
But I've read that educated Romans associated milk drinking with barbarians, so there'd be a social component to avoiding milk, too, even when it was available. Though I suppose those educated (and probably wealthy) Romans would have plenty of other sources of protein.
I seems to me that Rome is more of a Rorschach test than anything else. Because there was no single cause that definitively ended the empire. Ask 20 historians to tell the prioritized story of Rome's decline, and you'll get 21 largely distinct tales. If you want to blame moral decline, you can. If you want to corrupt political systems, poor monetary policy, immigration, disease, war, social dis-integration (hyphenated only to emphasize the meaning), wealth inequality, or even self inflicted accidental poisoning - you can.
And the worst part of all is that even if we had complete and absolutely perfect information on the decades leading to the end, you probably still couldn't find "the cause." Empires fail long before they collapse - inertia. One can easily argue that the Soviet Union failed decades before 1989. But for anything so monumental, inertia was enough to keep the corpse of a system moving forward for decades to come. And in the time of Rome, when the speed of dictate was that of carriage, sail, (and on rare occasion - pigeon) - this effect would have been magnitudes greater, which is difficult to even begin to appreciate the implications of.
Perhaps the most interesting, and telling, thing of all is how empires towards their end tend to share not just one of the "symptoms", but many.
And the worst part of all is that even if we had complete and absolutely perfect information on the decades leading to the end, you probably still couldn't find "the cause." Empires fail long before they collapse - inertia. One can easily argue that the Soviet Union failed decades before 1989. But for anything so monumental, inertia was enough to keep the corpse of a system moving forward for decades to come. And in the time of Rome, when the speed of dictate was that of carriage, sail, (and on rare occasion - pigeon) - this effect would have been magnitudes greater, which is difficult to even begin to appreciate the implications of.
Perhaps the most interesting, and telling, thing of all is how empires towards their end tend to share not just one of the "symptoms", but many.
The single smartest take on this that I have heard is that none of these disasters (or poisoning) destroyed Rome. The thing that finally did the Roman empire in was that there was nobody left who wanted it to continue as it was gradually taxed by crises.
Nations and empires can go through crisis after crisis, and Ancient Rome did so for practically 300 years, since the end of the rule of Marcus Aurelius, and the corresponding end of the Pax Romana. Crisis after crisis and civil war after civil war wore away at the empire. Each time, regional governors accrued more power, the central command structure got weaker and weaker, and finally provinces started to break away from the empire.
This is why the fall of Rome is at different times for different people: there wasn't really a clear end of the empire and a move toward fiefdoms and regional governance. The title "emperor of Rome" continued long past the end of the Roman Empire, well into the 2nd millennium AD.
EDIT: I believe that what we are looking at in the USA now is closer to Rome in 180 AD than it is to 470 AD. The Pax Americana and the era of globalization that it enabled (globalization is not a modern phenomenon - Ancient Rome under the Pax Romana had a form of globalization, as did the English empire with the Pax Britannica) is clearly coming to an end. There is still a long way to fall before everything unravels - and a lot more pain, tyranny, and bloodshed.
It is unclear to me that the big boogeymen of US foreign policy - China and Russia - are poised to take over from the US. Russia clearly does not have the economy to support this. The CCP is likely hoping that the US tears itself apart without a foreign war, since China would likely suffer heavy losses in one.
Nations and empires can go through crisis after crisis, and Ancient Rome did so for practically 300 years, since the end of the rule of Marcus Aurelius, and the corresponding end of the Pax Romana. Crisis after crisis and civil war after civil war wore away at the empire. Each time, regional governors accrued more power, the central command structure got weaker and weaker, and finally provinces started to break away from the empire.
This is why the fall of Rome is at different times for different people: there wasn't really a clear end of the empire and a move toward fiefdoms and regional governance. The title "emperor of Rome" continued long past the end of the Roman Empire, well into the 2nd millennium AD.
EDIT: I believe that what we are looking at in the USA now is closer to Rome in 180 AD than it is to 470 AD. The Pax Americana and the era of globalization that it enabled (globalization is not a modern phenomenon - Ancient Rome under the Pax Romana had a form of globalization, as did the English empire with the Pax Britannica) is clearly coming to an end. There is still a long way to fall before everything unravels - and a lot more pain, tyranny, and bloodshed.
It is unclear to me that the big boogeymen of US foreign policy - China and Russia - are poised to take over from the US. Russia clearly does not have the economy to support this. The CCP is likely hoping that the US tears itself apart without a foreign war, since China would likely suffer heavy losses in one.
>I believe that what we are looking at in the USA now is closer to Rome in 180 AD than it is to 470 AD
Maybe, but following the argument in the parent comment about the speed of transfer of information and physical goods, the timeline now may progress significantly quicker.
I suspect that the root cause now will be a technological failure, or more accurately, the inability of even a large group of citizens to maintain or re-build the globe-spanning technological structures on which our lives depend. It's an effect I've called the "Anti-Singularity" - at some point, some key component of this technological structure will fail for whatever reason, and cause a cascading and quite rapid failure of the rest of the system. At this point, progress and knowledge growth will very rapidly halt.
It's getting ever-easier to observe this!
Maybe, but following the argument in the parent comment about the speed of transfer of information and physical goods, the timeline now may progress significantly quicker.
I suspect that the root cause now will be a technological failure, or more accurately, the inability of even a large group of citizens to maintain or re-build the globe-spanning technological structures on which our lives depend. It's an effect I've called the "Anti-Singularity" - at some point, some key component of this technological structure will fail for whatever reason, and cause a cascading and quite rapid failure of the rest of the system. At this point, progress and knowledge growth will very rapidly halt.
It's getting ever-easier to observe this!
I'd take it a step farther and say that it's not going to be one single key component that will fail, but rather that much like any empire, our modern technological infrastructure is a complex system. Like all complex systems, it will have many small failures that gradually erode the redundancies built into the system. Finally something will break for which no backups exist any longer and the whole system will go down, only to come back up after a while. Gradually it will go down more and more frequently until we cannot keep up with maintenance to any useful degree, then we'll see smaller regional internets for a long while before it eventually becomes a myth of the past glory days.
These internet fiefdoms will be owned most likely by giant monopolistic corporations, much like the old AOL network before it connected to the broader world wide web. Content ownership laws will go even further towards squashing the creativity and organic growth of our culture as these corps gain even greater control than they currently have.
The actual world-wide internet will become a niche relegated to the people willing to hack their way out of the walled gardens and a necessity for tech workers who live outside of the areas serviced by the limited networks.
Dang, now I really want to write a cyberpunk story.
These internet fiefdoms will be owned most likely by giant monopolistic corporations, much like the old AOL network before it connected to the broader world wide web. Content ownership laws will go even further towards squashing the creativity and organic growth of our culture as these corps gain even greater control than they currently have.
The actual world-wide internet will become a niche relegated to the people willing to hack their way out of the walled gardens and a necessity for tech workers who live outside of the areas serviced by the limited networks.
Dang, now I really want to write a cyberpunk story.
This is a very good and important point. As our technology becomes more complex and our global structures more essential, the system surely must tend towards ever greater fragility. Just like software, really.
Just like supply chains, too. Look at the Late Bronze Age Collapse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse ), where a whole cluster of highly interconnected societies all fell at once due at least in part to systemic failures.
Just a correction; it's the British Empire, not "English" - the Scottish for instance were over represented in terms of colonization, and don't forget Ireland in its entirety was "British" at the time.
In ancient times, military differences between central/regional governments were pretty close which allowed them to break away. The same cannot be said about modern times. It doesn't matter how many protestors or armed forces a breakaway state may have if one faceless drone operator across the continent can suppress the rebellion with the press of a button.
It's entirely possible our technology progress has surpassed the government Great Filter and it is now almost impossible for empires to crumble from within e.g. CCP has experienced many "empire-ending" problems but still somehow survived to this day.
It's entirely possible our technology progress has surpassed the government Great Filter and it is now almost impossible for empires to crumble from within e.g. CCP has experienced many "empire-ending" problems but still somehow survived to this day.
If you can show me the time that a faceless drone operator has actually successfully suppressed an opposing force, I will agree with you. We saw it in Afghanistan, and we are seeing it in Ukraine today: the people with the drones actually can't use them very effectively in terms of ending a war. They can kill a lot of people efficiently, and even get a high-value target once a year or so, but they can't seem to do what is necessary to end a war.
Winning a war isn't about force: it's about morale and mindset. If you can't stop people from fighting against you, you can't win a war. A drone has never walked into a community and gotten people to put down their guns.
Winning a war isn't about force: it's about morale and mindset. If you can't stop people from fighting against you, you can't win a war. A drone has never walked into a community and gotten people to put down their guns.
Everything you just said is true of rifles, grenades, swords, and spears.
Drones are weapons. They're one of the many tools of war. But war has always been about culture, food, politics, religion, demographics, and many other factors.
People win and lose wars. Weapons help.
Drones are weapons. They're one of the many tools of war. But war has always been about culture, food, politics, religion, demographics, and many other factors.
People win and lose wars. Weapons help.
Throughout history ordinary soldiers were often unwilling to fight against people from their own community. This often limited how authoritarian governments could respond to public unrest forcing them to accept reform or even leave power. Obviously they tried solving this by stationing troops far away from their home regions, creating various elite forces/deaths squads etc. But these all very expensive and/or required significant forethought.
Drones on the other hand are cheap and require fairly few people to operate. A few deaths squads in the control might be enough to suppress an entire country.
Drones on the other hand are cheap and require fairly few people to operate. A few deaths squads in the control might be enough to suppress an entire country.
Mind you, the Assadists came out on top in Syria; they don’t use drones so much, but old fashioned siege warfare against population centres, terror bombing and chemical weapons.
[deleted]
Is not dying to something you cannot even see, that drops grenades on you or fires rockets at you a hit to morale?.
As I understand it, once you have already joined a guerilla organization like the Taliban, you have generally made peace with the fact that the drones are there. Watching someone die by hellfire missile strike further confirms that the evil people who are oppressing you by drone need to be stopped. Also, showing other people the aftermath of a strike helps to convince them to support you because they think they might get caught in the friendly fire.
It's a little like surrounding an army on an open field: If you give the losing side in a pitched battle an escape route, many of them will run, but if you surround them, they will fight to the death because there's nothing else they can do.
It's a little like surrounding an army on an open field: If you give the losing side in a pitched battle an escape route, many of them will run, but if you surround them, they will fight to the death because there's nothing else they can do.
Well the USSR, one of the greatest “empires” of all times, collapsed with barely any violence (in relative terms) and very unexpectedly. I’m not sure having access to drones could have helped that much when nobody in a position of power really wanted to preserve it.
While it’s not exactly that straightforward but democratic reforms is what basically killed it. Gorbachev allowed independent power centers to form which weren’t controlled by the party apparatus and these new centers had no reason to preserve the union/empire even though relatively few people (outside of the Baltic region and the Caucasus) actually wanted to abolish it. Internationalist empires like the USSR, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Tsarist Russia (outside of the core regions), Yugoslavia and even Rome to some degree tend to be very fragile. Any rapid attempt to reform the system tends to destabilize it to such a degree that it can no longer survive without extreme violence.
China and the US (still) are nation states and not real empires, therefore they are almost immune to some of the issues which brought down most historical empires (nation states are much better in enacting reforms and generally much more flexible). Of course that’s not permanent and might change in a generation or two, for instance if different US states continue drifting apart economically, culturally and socially.
While it’s not exactly that straightforward but democratic reforms is what basically killed it. Gorbachev allowed independent power centers to form which weren’t controlled by the party apparatus and these new centers had no reason to preserve the union/empire even though relatively few people (outside of the Baltic region and the Caucasus) actually wanted to abolish it. Internationalist empires like the USSR, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Tsarist Russia (outside of the core regions), Yugoslavia and even Rome to some degree tend to be very fragile. Any rapid attempt to reform the system tends to destabilize it to such a degree that it can no longer survive without extreme violence.
China and the US (still) are nation states and not real empires, therefore they are almost immune to some of the issues which brought down most historical empires (nation states are much better in enacting reforms and generally much more flexible). Of course that’s not permanent and might change in a generation or two, for instance if different US states continue drifting apart economically, culturally and socially.
> China and the US (still) are nation states and not real empires
Tell the Tibetans and the Uighurs that the PRC is a “nation state” not a “real empire”
Tell the Tibetans and the Uighurs that the PRC is a “nation state” not a “real empire”
> well into the 2nd millennium AD.
The Ottoman sultan was calling himself Kayser-i Rum in the 20th century!
The Ottoman sultan was calling himself Kayser-i Rum in the 20th century!
> The thing that finally did the Roman empire in was that there was nobody left who wanted it to continue as it was gradually taxed by crises.
Well, there were some who wanted to continue it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire - of course, after a 300+ year gap, it's more a revival (or reusing a powerful trademark to boost your importance) than a continuation...
Well, there were some who wanted to continue it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire - of course, after a 300+ year gap, it's more a revival (or reusing a powerful trademark to boost your importance) than a continuation...
There's also the Byzantine Empire, which referred to itself as Roman ("Byzantine" being an early modern name for the eastern Empire).
Honestly to me the USA seems to be closer to 79 BC than 180 AD. After a close call, we have a few good years as a republic yet, and are far more powerful than our peer competitors. American influence is expanding right now.
I've been considering the similarity to the Gracchi brothers in ~170BC
A little later than that (Tiberius was killed in 133 BC). There are definitely parallels here, especially the deep-seated violent reaction the US has to socialism at home or abroad. The same is largely true in the UK where the entire institutional apparatus of government and the media seemed to activate against Jeremy Corbyn.
Michael Parenti does a good job of painting the crises of the first century BC (with some mentions of the Gracchi) as a class struggle in his People’s History of Ancient Rome.
Michael Parenti does a good job of painting the crises of the first century BC (with some mentions of the Gracchi) as a class struggle in his People’s History of Ancient Rome.
> American influence is expanding right now.
This is an excellent example of wishful thinking. American influence is clearly shrinking. Just one example: when Biden went on a tour to oil-producing countries to ask them to increase oil production, every single country either ignored him or agreed to make homeopatic scale increase (which was presented as a huge win by US media).
This is an excellent example of wishful thinking. American influence is clearly shrinking. Just one example: when Biden went on a tour to oil-producing countries to ask them to increase oil production, every single country either ignored him or agreed to make homeopatic scale increase (which was presented as a huge win by US media).
> are far more powerful than our peer competitors
Are you?
Americans like to repeat that and certainly believe it but is it still as true as it was?
It’s probably still true military but in term of influence the USA is less relevant by the day. You weren’t very successful at convincing developing countries to sanction Russia for exemple.
Are you?
Americans like to repeat that and certainly believe it but is it still as true as it was?
It’s probably still true military but in term of influence the USA is less relevant by the day. You weren’t very successful at convincing developing countries to sanction Russia for exemple.
>weren’t very successful at convincing developing countries to sanction Russia for exemple
Arguably US was even weaker in that regard during the cold war. E.g. the response to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much weaker in every regard. Granted there weren't many soviet billionaires to sanction but sending weapons there would have been inconceivable (especially on this scale)
Arguably US was even weaker in that regard during the cold war. E.g. the response to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much weaker in every regard. Granted there weren't many soviet billionaires to sanction but sending weapons there would have been inconceivable (especially on this scale)
Yes.
The US is one of the largest producers of oil, a large exporter of food, and a large exporter of tech.
None of those sticks were used against developing countries to get them to sanction Russia because currently there's no need
The US is one of the largest producers of oil, a large exporter of food, and a large exporter of tech.
None of those sticks were used against developing countries to get them to sanction Russia because currently there's no need
how much less relevant by the day?
I think you could make a strong argument for "end of the republic" too, but I would put us further along than that. Personally, I give the US less than 10 years (three more presidential elections) to enter an open civil war.
I believe we're watching the USA collapse as you describe, and that despite much wider coverage our understanding of its collapse will, too, be more about the beholder.
How fitting, then, that so many of the USA's capital city buildings boast heavily Roman-inspired architecture.
What structure of USA will collapse in your estimation? Since we're talking about a democratic federation and not an "empire".
Red-blue split, roughly. Our federal bureaucracy has become a legislature with no accountability. In that regard we are a late stage empire.
Most states are not clearly red or blue. Most all of the big cities are blue, most of the countryside is red. Even texas is not 65% conservative on voting; less than 5% shift and it would be a tossup or democratic. Maybe a few states like wyoming would go clearly one way but a vast amount of states would not be able to all go one way (think of california). So the outcome of a real us split would be chaos, terror, mixed states.
I'm in a very blue state, but the rural population (30% maybe) is a different world of wealth, education, politics, population density. We subsidize their economy by building infrastructure there they can't afford (like roads and bridges). This causes endless arguing at the state level. I think a lot of the states are like this with varying % in the two groups.
I'm in a very blue state, but the rural population (30% maybe) is a different world of wealth, education, politics, population density. We subsidize their economy by building infrastructure there they can't afford (like roads and bridges). This causes endless arguing at the state level. I think a lot of the states are like this with varying % in the two groups.
First it's slow, and then suddenly it's all at once. We're still in the slow phase, for the time being.
How many SPY puts are you holding?
Puts aren't a good way to hedge against this because in the event the US empire does collapse, your US dollars won't be of much use. In fact, I'd bet that the stock market will actually shoot up to insane levels because the government response will be more money printing to fund military endeavors.
Probably better to invest in land in places with a (relatively) stable climate, good fresh water supply, and far enough north and high enough in elevation to be protected from the most obvious effects of climate change.
Probably better to invest in land in places with a (relatively) stable climate, good fresh water supply, and far enough north and high enough in elevation to be protected from the most obvious effects of climate change.
It takes the same time for an armored division to travel from coast to coast as it would for a legion to march across the Roman Empire, at least a week.
Inertia isn't the problem, failure to take responsibility is. Although it does seem like inertia, a cornucopia of policies that can't be coped with, such as wastage that everyone turns a blind eye to, gradually increasing deficits of supply versus demand (for the Soviets it was grain (somehow Russia is now a grain exporter), for the Americans it is potholes).
Numbers are worthless, most Romans were illiterate, and they didn't have Arabic numbers. Bafflingly illiterate workers and automated machines are economically equivalent, otherwise there wouldn't be such a difference between high school dropouts and graduates in work productivity.
"The cause"? A failure to tolerate ambition, even when society converts into a fishbowl where everyone is neighbors. Unless ego is abolished and the most horrifying of social engineering programs could be enacted, the problems of late empire are simple: men like Robert Moses, condemned by equally corrupt later generations, are no longer permitted to ensure things run smoothly.
Inertia isn't the problem, failure to take responsibility is. Although it does seem like inertia, a cornucopia of policies that can't be coped with, such as wastage that everyone turns a blind eye to, gradually increasing deficits of supply versus demand (for the Soviets it was grain (somehow Russia is now a grain exporter), for the Americans it is potholes).
Numbers are worthless, most Romans were illiterate, and they didn't have Arabic numbers. Bafflingly illiterate workers and automated machines are economically equivalent, otherwise there wouldn't be such a difference between high school dropouts and graduates in work productivity.
"The cause"? A failure to tolerate ambition, even when society converts into a fishbowl where everyone is neighbors. Unless ego is abolished and the most horrifying of social engineering programs could be enacted, the problems of late empire are simple: men like Robert Moses, condemned by equally corrupt later generations, are no longer permitted to ensure things run smoothly.
> It takes the same time for an armored division to travel from coast to coast as it would for a legion to march across the Roman Empire, at least a week.
This sounds like a dramatic underestimate in the case of heavy infantry (a legion).
Elite infantry units similar to Scipio Africanus' legions went from Tarraco to Carthago at 26 miles per day forced march which is a pretty high rate of speed [1]
Using the excellent Orbis site from Stanford [2], it is possible to calculate this at accurate detail @ ~179 days marching 30KM a day, from Tarraco to Alexandria, which is across the empire.
Comparing that against an armored division, it would depend on which armored division since some are more road capable and limited mainly by fuel supplies. An M1A2 can go on roads at 45MPH and has a range of 265 miles.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/4825296/Observations_on_marching_Ro...
[2] https://orbis.stanford.edu/
This sounds like a dramatic underestimate in the case of heavy infantry (a legion).
Elite infantry units similar to Scipio Africanus' legions went from Tarraco to Carthago at 26 miles per day forced march which is a pretty high rate of speed [1]
Using the excellent Orbis site from Stanford [2], it is possible to calculate this at accurate detail @ ~179 days marching 30KM a day, from Tarraco to Alexandria, which is across the empire.
Comparing that against an armored division, it would depend on which armored division since some are more road capable and limited mainly by fuel supplies. An M1A2 can go on roads at 45MPH and has a range of 265 miles.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/4825296/Observations_on_marching_Ro...
[2] https://orbis.stanford.edu/
Can an M1A2 ride across the USA without breaking down?
Reading https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports..., page number 29 (page 53 of the PDF), it seems many would break down if driven only 375 km. That’s less than the range you claim they have.
That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers.
The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.
Reading https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports..., page number 29 (page 53 of the PDF), it seems many would break down if driven only 375 km. That’s less than the range you claim they have.
That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers.
The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.
You're conflating fleet size numbers with the individual. And, an armored division is designed to recover vehicles with their own trucks, while retaining mobility. Military planning is all about %s, e.g. 80% are functional based on a table of equipment (TOE)
> That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers.
While that may be a minor reason, the actual big reasons are the most current M1A2 SEP tanks at ~147,200 pounds destroy roads, convoy operations are a giant pain, tanks are an immense hazard to trucks and cars, and the fuel consumption is off the charts, making this not economical.
> The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.
Zero usage doen't mean that preventitive maintenance checks & services cease. Given that even idling a 1500hp turbine for maintenance is a major undertaking that is a good amount of start/stop and usage of the entire system, even if getting no road time.
> That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers.
While that may be a minor reason, the actual big reasons are the most current M1A2 SEP tanks at ~147,200 pounds destroy roads, convoy operations are a giant pain, tanks are an immense hazard to trucks and cars, and the fuel consumption is off the charts, making this not economical.
> The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.
Zero usage doen't mean that preventitive maintenance checks & services cease. Given that even idling a 1500hp turbine for maintenance is a major undertaking that is a good amount of start/stop and usage of the entire system, even if getting no road time.
Robert Moses isn't condemned for being corrupt, he's condemned for bad urban planning decisions that we are still paying steep prices for, decades later.
I suppose Robert Moses is the wrong man to bring up, though maybe my argument is flawed and should be totally ignored. I take it that you're taking that approach. Given the direction this argument is heading, perhaps urban planning could be simplified, pedestrian only neighborhoods with nearby parking garages provide a great incentive for people to shop at local small businesses instead of supermarkets being a one stop shop with everything from fresh starbucks to factory made bread. The French subsidize their local businesses and from what I hear, their communities are better for it. Naturally so many factors go into urban planning, and how to live in a dense community is something that will always be considered to be unexamined.
Ehh little bit of both, no? He made bad decisions but he also made some of those for corrupt reasons like obeying his rich friends. And if you believe The Power Broker, by the apex of his power, he was effectively running the old state patronage system. Sure the main reason you'll hear about Moses these days would be his racist, aggressive, destructive urban planning, but the grift definitely didn't help.
I suspect we have different feelings about the individuals involved, but I have the same takeaway from studying the period. One of the fundamental concerns of civilisation is the management of warlords. You can wish that highly ambitious, capable people don’t arise and choose to accumulate power, but that isn’t going to stop them. You need a system that puts them to productive, non-violent uses and this to me is a strong argument for capitalism. It gives would-be warlords a way to service their ambitions that can generally be a benefit to society.
Alternatively in a scarcity system with anxiety over one's own future, absolute authority becomes more desirable, not less. The only law that could be removed to prevent this would be the law of nature, since the only greater driving force than one's legacy is to promote the future of one's own children (the least mentioned failing of socialist societies).
The existence of a warlord tendency isn't totally abolished with capitalism, it is only mitigated by pressures to conform which is problematic for modern society versus Victorian or 50s society because various brands or artists wish precisely to stand out.
There is no way for anything to ultimately be a benefit to society without any understanding that one is part of a greater whole, which will be an interesting argument to present to anyone involved in designing curriculums.
The existence of a warlord tendency isn't totally abolished with capitalism, it is only mitigated by pressures to conform which is problematic for modern society versus Victorian or 50s society because various brands or artists wish precisely to stand out.
There is no way for anything to ultimately be a benefit to society without any understanding that one is part of a greater whole, which will be an interesting argument to present to anyone involved in designing curriculums.
You left out lead poisoning (unless that's included in "self inflicted accidental poisoning").
Yeah, everything that could go wrong did go wrong. We can't run a natural experiment where everything but that one thing goes wrong, and see if Rome survives. Kind of like a very old organism whose health just goes off the cliff.
Yeah, everything that could go wrong did go wrong. We can't run a natural experiment where everything but that one thing goes wrong, and see if Rome survives. Kind of like a very old organism whose health just goes off the cliff.
Entropy destroyed Rome, the rest are just symptoms.
[deleted]
Sure all of those things contributed but the main problem seems to always be bad leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever had people trying to convince the proletariat that all those barbarian invasions, pandemics and catastrophes were hoaxes promoted by the rich land owning Romans.
But why did Rome have a system that yielded bad leaders? Part of it is just the nature of autocracy, part is a lack of effective succession planning in the Empire, part is a return in the late empire to powerful generals with effectively private armies, part is a similar return to what amounted to proscription so entire generations of potential leaders were killed after each civil war.
I don’t think you can point at one proximate cause over any others without asking why Rome was vulnerable to that thing particularly.
I don’t think you can point at one proximate cause over any others without asking why Rome was vulnerable to that thing particularly.
Interesting, though it would be extremely hard to find records of this outside of maybe graffiti, and Roman historians if anything loved to record salacious things like this about prominent people, especially ones the individual historians themselves detested.
My impression is that it was less common to outright deny reality and more common to blame at least the disasters and pandemics on those one found troublesome supposedly offending the gods.
My impression is that it was less common to outright deny reality and more common to blame at least the disasters and pandemics on those one found troublesome supposedly offending the gods.
> problem seems to always be bad leadership
The root-cause then must have been lack of democracy. Rome once had a democracy sort of right? But when the authoritarian emperors took over, you could say sayonara to "civil society".
Bad leadership is caused by people's inability to hold leaders accountable. In other words by lack of democracy.
The root-cause then must have been lack of democracy. Rome once had a democracy sort of right? But when the authoritarian emperors took over, you could say sayonara to "civil society".
Bad leadership is caused by people's inability to hold leaders accountable. In other words by lack of democracy.
> Rome once had a democracy sort of right?
Not really.
The Roman Republic had legislative assemblies and elected magistrates, but the deck was firmly stacked in favor of the aristocracy. Votes in the Centuriate assembly, which elected all senior magistrates, were heavily weighted by wealth. Originally the highest two classes, comprising those with at least 10,000 denarii in assets, controlled an outright majority of the votes. (1 denarius is on the order of 1 day's income for an unskilled laborer).
The weighting was somewhat reduced in the mid 3rd century, but Sulla's reforms around 80 BC reverted the change, and additionally stripped the more democratic plebeian and tribal assemblies of most of their powers.
The senate (ostensibly an advisory body, but by the middle republic actually a legislature) was never elected. During the early republic, senators were appointed by the consuls. Later, they were appointed either by the censors, or automatically upon election to a senior magistracy. In either case, appointment to the senate was for life.
Not really.
The Roman Republic had legislative assemblies and elected magistrates, but the deck was firmly stacked in favor of the aristocracy. Votes in the Centuriate assembly, which elected all senior magistrates, were heavily weighted by wealth. Originally the highest two classes, comprising those with at least 10,000 denarii in assets, controlled an outright majority of the votes. (1 denarius is on the order of 1 day's income for an unskilled laborer).
The weighting was somewhat reduced in the mid 3rd century, but Sulla's reforms around 80 BC reverted the change, and additionally stripped the more democratic plebeian and tribal assemblies of most of their powers.
The senate (ostensibly an advisory body, but by the middle republic actually a legislature) was never elected. During the early republic, senators were appointed by the consuls. Later, they were appointed either by the censors, or automatically upon election to a senior magistracy. In either case, appointment to the senate was for life.
Interesting. Thanks for the info
>But when the authoritarian emperors took over, you could say sayonara to "civil society".
Rome had Emperors for either 400 or 1500 years, depending on what you call Rome, while the Roman Republic lasted about 400 years at most, with a tiny percentage of the population having voting rights for most of it.
So blaming a lack of democracy is a huge stretch.
Rome had Emperors for either 400 or 1500 years, depending on what you call Rome, while the Roman Republic lasted about 400 years at most, with a tiny percentage of the population having voting rights for most of it.
So blaming a lack of democracy is a huge stretch.
While it's true that Rome never really came close to being a democracy, that's not to say that representation and accountability weren't relevant. The questions of who represented the interests of the plebs and the military were central to the crises at the end of the Republic (the Gracchi, the Marian reforms, Clodius, Caesar etc), and again in the late empire (all the barracks emperors).
How devastating viruses, pandemics, and other natural catastrophes swept through the far-flung Roman Empire and helped to bring down one of the mightiest civilizations of the ancient world
I will suggest that intentionally strengthening local communities and limiting travel and such is a potential antidote to presumably repeating this scenario.
Edit: I'm not sure I mean "denying people the right to travel." Maybe I mean something more like "Bring back blimps and other slow travel so germs don't race around the globe in 24 hours."
I will suggest that intentionally strengthening local communities and limiting travel and such is a potential antidote to presumably repeating this scenario.
Edit: I'm not sure I mean "denying people the right to travel." Maybe I mean something more like "Bring back blimps and other slow travel so germs don't race around the globe in 24 hours."
If the book's claims are correct (and I haven't read it so I can't give an opinion on that), then apparently travel by foot or horseback is fast enough to spread a pandemic that can bring down a civilization. So I don't see how limiting the speed of travel to blimps will help.
They didn't have the internet. Speed of information is incredible these days. It's feasible to message the blimp that quarantine is recommended, something Rome lacked.
> It's feasible to message the blimp that quarantine is recommended
It's just as feasible to message an airplane, so again I don't see how limiting the speed of travel is what needs to be done.
What needs to be done is to use the speed of information to enable people to take appropriate action. Unfortunately, our society's institutions massively screwed this up. They were telling us in February 2020 that COVID wasn't a big deal, no need to worry, go about your business as usual--at exactly the time when, as we now know in hindsight, we should have been doing things like shutting down international travel and quarantining people who were entering countries until the incubation period had passed. Fortunately for my wife and me, we didn't buy the story we were being told and started taking our own personal precautions months before any so-called experts were recommending it.
It's just as feasible to message an airplane, so again I don't see how limiting the speed of travel is what needs to be done.
What needs to be done is to use the speed of information to enable people to take appropriate action. Unfortunately, our society's institutions massively screwed this up. They were telling us in February 2020 that COVID wasn't a big deal, no need to worry, go about your business as usual--at exactly the time when, as we now know in hindsight, we should have been doing things like shutting down international travel and quarantining people who were entering countries until the incubation period had passed. Fortunately for my wife and me, we didn't buy the story we were being told and started taking our own personal precautions months before any so-called experts were recommending it.
None of that would have helped anyway. Highly contagious respiratory viruses can't be contained.
They can't be contained, but time can be bought to develop a vaccine, and that time is measured in lives.
With fully closed borders, Australia and NZ managed to have no increase in overall mortality. South Korea didn't even close borders, just imposed entry quarantines with strong test and trace, and was able to obtain a much lower net mortality than North America and Europe also.
With fully closed borders, Australia and NZ managed to have no increase in overall mortality. South Korea didn't even close borders, just imposed entry quarantines with strong test and trace, and was able to obtain a much lower net mortality than North America and Europe also.
just to note; fully closing borders was not possible for most countries, so while it may help, it was never realistic
Sure, but every barrier to movement reduces transmissions, makes contact tracing easier, and buys more time for vaccine distribution.
The fastest way to cover long distances in those days was by water.
Yes, and (while the concept dates back to much earlier times) the actual term quarantine (quarantena) was actually invented by Venetians for ships, which were at the time if not the fastest way to spread a virus/disease, particularly those coming from far countries, surely the more probable one (by volume):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine#Medieval_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine#Medieval_Europe
Limiting travel would be pointless. The speed of travel doesn't matter much for disease. There was a worldwide pandemic (probably caused by a coronavirus) starting in 1889. It's better to just accept the risk.
He brought up that people that lived in railroad towns in the US in the 19th century were shorter than they were elsewhere, resulting from more stressors related to living in a population-dense area with higher rates of disease transmission. And the same applied to urban parts of the Roman Republic/Empire.
But, here [2], another group make the case for pollution being the cause of stunted growth in the UK, which reminds me of this article in The Atlantic pointing out that pollution in parts of the Roman Empire of ~150 AD was only surpassed >1500 years later in the industrial revolution [3].
So maybe the higher density-shorter (and generally less healthy) population relationship is a combination of factors.
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/217-plague-and-the-dec...
[2] https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/24...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/scientis...