- 22 Apr 2014 11:46
#14394447
In modern history, there are many examples of remarkable decline or "failed modernity" of certain nations, which dramatically changed world history and lessened their place in the world. These things are often not understandable, as far as I can see, either in terms of traditional "imperial overstretch" or great power politics. It seems more a question of the national base of the country losing its dynamism and falling behind. I think the qualities leading to this kind of decline, especially if they are outliers, can be described as "decadence."
Examples:
Spain
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and lord of more than you care to remember.
Went from explorer and conqueror of the New World and the Spanish Armada of 1588, to being an objectively backward husk of an empire, waiting to preyed upon by France and the Anglo powers. Friedrich List blamed the stifling hold of the Catholic Church in retarding intellectual life. Did this, with the expulsion of Arabs and crypto-Jews, make the country less apt at modernization?
Poland-Lithuania
Russian Tsar Vasili IV kneels before the Polish King, inspiring nostalgia to this day.
Arguably the Polish empire's decline from having the largest territory in Europe and occupying Moscow in 1610, to being carved up into provinces of Prussia, Austria and Russia, can be explained by great power politics. But what about domestic problems? Was the problem the elective monarchy, leading to gradual State disintegration and foreign influence? The liberum veto? What role did Poland's relatively high diversity play?
France
It's great for quality of life, as long as your faster-breeding neighbors don't get any ideas.
With the work of monarchs over 1000 years, France gradually consolidated into a State that was simultaneously strong and reasonably liberal. For much of this period, French culture had a powerful prestige, dominating European elites' culture, in no small part because the country's population was so big, typically almost as big as all the other West European powers put together. However, starting in the late 18th Century, France missed the demographic explosion of its neighbors (whose populations tripled or quadrupled), while France's increased by only about 50%. This alone was enough to turn France from a hegemonic power, to a great power, to a mere middle power. To this day I have not come across any particularly convincing explanation for why this happened, perhaps it having to do with dominant Parisian France's individualist culture, accentuated by the French Revolution. France's economic performance was also mediocre compared to the UK, the U.S. or Germany, but very good by Latin standards and respectable on the whole.
Argentina
In 1900 Argentina, a vast European settler-nation comparable to Canada or Australia, was almost as wealthy as the U.S. and was by any standards a "developed country." After World War II, it totally disconnected. Why? Something about the stock of immigrants (mostly Italian)? Peronism? Part of a wider trend of Latin inaptitude to modern economics (compare: Chile, Portugal, Spain, much of Italy)? The comparison with France is also interesting: The French period of Nation-Statism coincided with full modernization (for a time overtaking and then equalizing with the UK) while the Argentine period of Peronism coincides with the disconnect (although there's no sharp break from Argentina's previous trend, so maybe it's just the country's normal history?).
The flip side would be to look at the remarkable success of certain nations. The Anglo-Americans in particular have been remarkably dynamic and the Japanese were exceptional in Asia.
Ideas?
Examples:
Spain
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and lord of more than you care to remember.
Went from explorer and conqueror of the New World and the Spanish Armada of 1588, to being an objectively backward husk of an empire, waiting to preyed upon by France and the Anglo powers. Friedrich List blamed the stifling hold of the Catholic Church in retarding intellectual life. Did this, with the expulsion of Arabs and crypto-Jews, make the country less apt at modernization?
Poland-Lithuania
Russian Tsar Vasili IV kneels before the Polish King, inspiring nostalgia to this day.
Arguably the Polish empire's decline from having the largest territory in Europe and occupying Moscow in 1610, to being carved up into provinces of Prussia, Austria and Russia, can be explained by great power politics. But what about domestic problems? Was the problem the elective monarchy, leading to gradual State disintegration and foreign influence? The liberum veto? What role did Poland's relatively high diversity play?
France
It's great for quality of life, as long as your faster-breeding neighbors don't get any ideas.
With the work of monarchs over 1000 years, France gradually consolidated into a State that was simultaneously strong and reasonably liberal. For much of this period, French culture had a powerful prestige, dominating European elites' culture, in no small part because the country's population was so big, typically almost as big as all the other West European powers put together. However, starting in the late 18th Century, France missed the demographic explosion of its neighbors (whose populations tripled or quadrupled), while France's increased by only about 50%. This alone was enough to turn France from a hegemonic power, to a great power, to a mere middle power. To this day I have not come across any particularly convincing explanation for why this happened, perhaps it having to do with dominant Parisian France's individualist culture, accentuated by the French Revolution. France's economic performance was also mediocre compared to the UK, the U.S. or Germany, but very good by Latin standards and respectable on the whole.
Argentina
In 1900 Argentina, a vast European settler-nation comparable to Canada or Australia, was almost as wealthy as the U.S. and was by any standards a "developed country." After World War II, it totally disconnected. Why? Something about the stock of immigrants (mostly Italian)? Peronism? Part of a wider trend of Latin inaptitude to modern economics (compare: Chile, Portugal, Spain, much of Italy)? The comparison with France is also interesting: The French period of Nation-Statism coincided with full modernization (for a time overtaking and then equalizing with the UK) while the Argentine period of Peronism coincides with the disconnect (although there's no sharp break from Argentina's previous trend, so maybe it's just the country's normal history?).
The flip side would be to look at the remarkable success of certain nations. The Anglo-Americans in particular have been remarkably dynamic and the Japanese were exceptional in Asia.
Ideas?
A stubborn porcupine: heredity & nationhood. Meditate, brother!
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »