[Thunderhawk]

In addition to environmental degradation, I would like to add disease.

The natives of south America (Inca, Aztecs come to mind) were conquered by out sides forces aided by internal dissent, but it was the devastation of their population by disease that made them weak and disorganized.

If I remember correctly, the Romans were also devastated by plagues from time to time. The loss of manpower/taxbase has direct negatives, but I suspect it also has an additional impact: the dead leave a lot of goods to the survivors. This leaves a (surviving) population that could be materially quite well off - even those who inherit nothing, live in a society where there is more stuff then before, and I suspect that had an impact on prices and expectations of the average person.

[layman]

By that criteria, it can hardly be said that Roman civilization died with German barbarian conquest or Greek civilization died with Macedonian conquest, wouldn't it? It was just transformed and their successor retained many of the characteristics of the conquered civilization.

Well my post was that Rome didn’t really fall to a Barbarian conquest as such. Its power structure was just more and more localized to the point of breaking up.

Yes I would agree that civilizations can live on (greek or jewish for example) even without a state to rule.

This I found wrong to presume that China has always been one monolithic unchanging entity. There were profound changes in China with the fall of han empire.

I certainly wouldn’t want to do that. I think the Chinese would share the view that the china of today is a direct decendant of the Han Dynasty. Both are essentially “china”. Given the nature of the discussion we are kind of forced to make sweeping statements about very complicated and long running things.

Seleucid empire didn't fall to rome, it was ripped apart from inside and it was parthians who destroyed Seleucid, Rome in previous wars had just checked the expansion of Selecuid.

You are right that its core provinces were ingerited/conquered by the Parthians though its western parts were annexed by rome. Although it had internal problems it was still mainly taken down by outside forces I would say. This is a very common scenario - that is a weakened state ebing picked apart from the outside.

I agree but then the phenomenon of "nation states" is a very recent thing.

Yes but then things that looked like a "nation state" before there were "nation states" tended to be quite stable. Its not an especially original observation I am making but states do tend to be more stable when the people feel they have a stake in it and when ruled by people they identify with.

I still maintain it is relatively rare for great civilizations to collapse only from within unless it is an ‘empire’. In nearly all examples it tends to be outside forces.

[fuser]

I don't think, now we have much disagreement but I would like to add that in reality civilizations in itself has hardly fallen (except for may be pre coulombs American civilizations), they have transformed and empires have fallen but not the civilization itself. Rome fall but not the very civilization of Europe.

[starman2003]

If I remember correctly, the Romans were also devastated by plagues from time to time.

You remember right but that was wholly unrelated to the fall. A rather little known plague struck in the reign of Titus around 80 CE. It didn't in the least impair Roman power which peaked in the following century. Plague was vastly more of a problem in the third century, when the Empire bounced back, than in the fifth, when it didn't. In fact, the only fifth century plague I'm aware of affected Constantinople c 447 CE, not the west, which fell.

The loss of manpower/taxbase has direct negatives,

Not serious ones. Aurelius had enough troops after the plague of c 170, and the Illyrian emperors had ample forces after the midcentury pestilence.

but I suspect it also has an additional impact: the dead leave a lot of goods to the survivors. This leaves a (surviving) population that could be materially quite well off - even those who inherit nothing, live in a society where there is more stuff then before,

Any benefits appear to have been ephemeral. Inflation coincided with plague, more or less, in the 200s, and Diocletian attempted to hold prices down.

Well my post was that Rome didn't really fall to a Barbarian conquest as such. Its power structure was just more and more localized to the point of breaking up.

The fifth century West wasn't able to project much power anymore. That led to progressive loss of territory, and inability to regain it. Aetius and Boniface acted on behalf of the central government as long as they were accepted; "localization" mainly resulted from barbarian settlements the Romans couldn't control continuously if at all, or Romans who had to act independently when the central government just couldn't do much for them.

[layman]

"localization" mainly resulted from barbarian settlements the Romans couldn't control continuously if at all, or Romans who had to act independently when the central government just couldn't do much for them.

I guess what you are saying is that those places were never really integrated in the first place. Yes, it seems true that localization was more of a problem in places that were less centralised anyway. This explains the east west-divide where eastern provices apper quite comfortable with being ruled by empires. Places like egypt, syria etc were just being passed along from one empire to another. Tribes accross the rhine never took to such a way of life. Part of this might simply be because they had less suplus for roman governers to cream off.

As you know, many times the empire did break apart for years and was then brought back under a strong man. localization of the army itself would make the re-unification phase less likely. In terms of personal incentive, it seems more prudent for budding ceasers to just settle for local kingdom. Easier to manage when Roman emprerors have such a short life span.

There must be a hundred books on the fall of the Roman empire and no consensus to any single big cause. It seems to me that the conflict of identity within the ruling class and wider populations has to be key.

[Thunderhawk]

You remember right but that was wholly unrelated to the fall. A rather little known plague struck in the reign of Titus around 80 CE. It didn't in the least impair Roman power which peaked in the following century. Plague was vastly more of a problem in the third century, when the Empire bounced back, than in the fifth, when it didn't. In fact, the only fifth century plague I'm aware of affected Constantinople c 447 CE, not the west, which fell.
...
Not serious ones. Aurelius had enough troops after the plague of c 170, and the Illyrian emperors had ample forces after the midcentury pestilence.

I thought the Illyrian emperors (including Diocletian) relied heavily on a military that was heavily composed of foreigners (there own people from Illyria) who maintained their own identity, rather than a military composed of Latins or those assimilating in?
I thought the plagues had contributed to the change in demographics: devastating the urban and Roman farmers who were Roman/assimilating, while barely affecting the foreigners.


I suppose a demographics break down of the Roman empire over its history would be a little hard to compile.

[starman2003]

I thought the Illyrian emperors (including Diocletian) relied heavily on a military that was heavily composed of foreigners (there own people from Illyria) who maintained their own identity, rather than a military composed of Latins or those assimilating in?

By the third century the Illyrians had been integrated into the system. No doubt after caracalla's edict they were Roman citizens, and they certainly seemed to relate to the Empire, perhaps better in fact than the people of Rome itself, who didn't impress Diocletian.

I thought the plagues had contributed to the change in demographics: devastating the urban and Roman farmers who were Roman/assimilating, while barely affecting the foreigners.

The second and third century plagues swept wide geographical areas.

..those places were never really integrated anyway.

Gaul, Spain, Britain, North Africa etc were integrated well enough by the late empire but the fifth century west, after about 408 just didn't have enough of its own troops to hold them--to prevent/expel or continuously control the new barbarian settlers. Few citizens were willing to fight anymore.

[Ummon]

like all great civilizations they begin diffracting toward infinite complexity until this is no longer a sustainable emergent process and then collapse occurs

[Potemkin]

like all great civilizations they begin diffracting toward infinite complexity until this is no longer a sustainable emergent process and then collapse occurs

OMH has a disciple!

[Paradigm]

OMH has a disciple!

I find it hard to believe that someone who's read Lacan could find that particular post so indecipherable.

[Quantum]

Imperial overstretch. Imperialism seems to expand until it destroys itself, like a nebula.

[Potemkin]

I find it hard to believe that someone who's read Lacan could find that particular post so indecipherable.

The difference is that, once you parse him, Lacan actually makes sense. I could parse Ummon's post, but it still didn't make any sense.

[starman2003]

Imperial overstretch. Imperialism seems to expand until it destroys itself, like a nebula.

That may apply to Axis powers but not Rome.

[noemon]

on the Potemkin claim that Greek civilization died when the Macedonians(Olympian winners in the Greek-only Games) declared themselves Leaders of the Hellenes(Hegemon of the Hellenic League) and for the first time in history raised the banner of United Hellas. That must have been the most ridiculous claim that has sprang up from his mouth in the history of the forum unless of coarse he missed me so much that he is trying to summon me back. That is a more believable theory.

Isocrates the famous Athenian philosopher in his Letter to Philipp of Macedon begs him to Unite Hellas against the Persians:

I affirm that, without neglecting any of your own interests, you ought to make an effort to reconcile Argos and Lacedaemon and Thebes and Athens; for if you can bring these cities together, you will not find it hard to unite the others as well………..Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors; the Thebans honour the founder of your race, both by processionals and by sacrifices, beyond all the other gods; the Lacedaemonians have conferred upon his descendants the kingship and the power of command for all time……….Athens single-handed sustained the greatest dangers against the power of Eurystheus, put an end to his insolence, and freed Heracles’ sons from the fears by which they were continually beset. Because of these services we deserve the gratitude, not only of those who then were preserved from destruction, but also of those who are now living………(30-5)
Quote:
…among all the Hellenes you shall stand forth as a statesman who has worked for the good of Hellas.

In so far as the OP read what I wrote earlier:

The Roman empire changed its official state language to Greek. Greece lasted so long as the center of the world(more than 20 centuries in a row) that it decayed. Greece was the wealthiest and most educated place on earth well into the 14th century AD since the 6th BC. By the time Rome conquered Greece, there were Greek states as far as India and China untouched by Rome and by the time these fell, Rome had changed into Greece herself. There has never been a time when Greeks have not had a polity in the global domain and from the civilized aeons, only a little bit has not been dominated completely by them.

And when did the Roman empire fell to the Germanic tribes?

The Greco-Roman Empire decayed after 20 centuries and took seed in the periphery and blossomed into today's west. The entire world except for parts of Africa, China and Japan is the Greco-Roman civilization. The entire West + Russia operates under Greco-Roman law, alphabet, language, culture, sport, art, ethics, government and lifestyle.

[Rainbow Crow]

There is no one reason but corruption (I'm looking at you, Greece, Spain and Italy) weaken social unity, broad trust and consensus building, as does polygamy by any name because it disenfranchises large numbers of young men. The irony in the latter is that arrangements like "polyamoury" are billed as expanding sexual access but this only applies to the sexual access of women and alpha males. Polyamoury is of course merely the latest liberal re-branding of polygamous relationships, ever since "free love" became pejorative, even though "polyamoury" and "free love" are the same in practice.

[noemon]

Corruption is the mark of an old and experienced population who has learned to play the system so well that is no longer intimidated by it. That is something that noone civilization can escape from and hardly a reason for the collapse of Empires in fact corruption is the steam engine of loyalty, but if you really want an answer as to why Empire fell that is because noone is able to produce capable leaders for ever. Byzantium the longest Empire in history produced many good leaders(as it did not rely on bloodlines but purely on merit) at least 2 every century, it missed a century, the 13th and when it got another good leader on the 14th it was too late.

[Rainbow Crow]

Wow, that's pretty ridiculous. I never thought I would see someone defend corruption. Maybe the system should be designed so that corruption is discouraged?

[noemon]

Statements of fact are not statements for or against something. Which system claims not to and which system absolutely succeeds?

[Rainbow Crow]

Conservatives don't promise absolute success in anything so I find your question to be moot.

[noemon]

Are you scared to engage?