• The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune

History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Thank you for the prompt answer, @Skallagrim. I was actually working on a follow-up to the last few paragraphs of my initial post when it came in, so I may have to respond to your latest round of points in a separate post. Until then, here’s what more I have to say thus far:

Given your prognosis on modern ideologies fading into history—communism, fascism, and liberal democracy among them—what will political debate probably look like in the age to follow? I assume that too much “experimentation” will be taboo at during at least the Principate phase, with an ironclad consensus that traditionalism is the gold standard (so "glory to God and the Emperor” and all that). Beyond that, I assume that most of it will be on the minutia of certain bills or the finer points of imperial strategy abroad, with average people having less heated debates over the issues of the day (since the existing order of things is best, as well as how the Emperor’s divine appointment means that he’ll probably make the right choice or something like that).

Still, with the West's status as an empire, I’d guess that robust national defense would prove key for occupying Africa and the Middle East in the short term, as well as guaranteeing movement and security across the Western hemisphere in the long one. That being the case, I can envision it becoming analogous to imperial Britain after a fashion, insofar as fielding a sprawling blue-water navy that facilitates free trade across the Empire (which plays into government being pretty hands-off, which presumably entails a laissez-faire economic system while the Principate phase lasts).

Lastly, are there any big downsides you see to this age? Depending on details regarding equal rights for all or what I’m at liberty to do in the privacy of my own home, I’d potentially be willing to travel to the world you describe if I had the choice. There would, of course, be certain aspects that I’d personally disapprove of, but that risks becoming a more overtly political discussion best reserved for elsewhere.

Having thought more about this last night, I can actually visualize the Western Empire mixing in elements from the British Empire, too. It being a more recent imperial power than Rome and having more "maturated" commonalities with America, that's certainly something I can see happening (not even by intention, at times!).

Besides being the torchbearer of "Christian civilization" and fielding the greatest navy on the face of the Earth, I'm wondering if it’d eventually set up its own dominion system in which Europe, the Middle East, and/or Africa—or at least, large chunks of them—become their own, semi-independent regions that ultimately swear fealty to the Emperor and America proper? It’d be an arrangement like that enjoyed by Canada and Australia when the British Empire was still around, though odds are they won’t receive that much autonomy until America feels that they’re “mature” enough to handle it. That, and I wonder if it could become a springboard to secessionist sentiments down the road that mutates into another Crisis of the Third Century, followed by a much more heavy-handed and intrusive Dominate that forces the empire back together (somewhat like how the Union imposed Reconstruction on the defeated South and paved the way for a larger federal government in the long term).

While I’d expect said Dominate to become much more regulation-happy in the economic sphere as well, I’m guessing that while the Principate reigns in the meantime, the Imperial NavyTM will guarantee mostly free trade across the Empire (with, perhaps, an implicit objective of benefiting the American homeland)? By this, I mean replicating imperial Britain’s strategy of getting its colonies and partners to export food and raw materials to America itself in exchange for money, high technology and manufactured goods, fostering a division of labor that encourages its possessions overseas to specialize in whatever their existing setup is most inclined towards (thereby strengthening the homeland’s comparative advantage).

Of course, I’m not sure how long this would last—or even if it’d happen in this precise way—due to both America rebuilding the lands it conquered, and how those lands would become players in the economic catch-up game eventually. Maybe they’d be demoted to second fiddle if they become too uppity and try (but fail) to secede at some point in the future, but still.

In any case, I’d also think that so long as it steers clear of its rival in the East, the Western Empire will become the latest empire on which the sun never sets (and not just in the hyperbolic sense). Aside from Australasia aligning with the West, I wonder if it’ll grab up other island nations in the Asia-Pacific before the Eastern Empire, led by China, can establish a foothold first. Depending on how relations wax and wane between the two superpowers, perhaps they could become the site of border disputes every so often. I’d have suggested they could become the battleground for repeats of the Cuban Missile Crisis as well, but weapons technology has surpassed the need for missiles to be stationed that close to their target already (never mind what future advancements will bring). Unfortunately, however, I’m not too familiar with how nuclear weapons work or their development over the years, so forgive me if I’ve shown a flawed understanding.
 

gral

Well-known member
It really seems that people liked Trumpism more than they liked Trump personally. His message resonated. I'd be very surprised if someone didn't pick up the banner to carry it forward.

This is happening in Brazil as well; the difference is Bolsonaro now stands a chance of being abandoned by many of his followers; one small consolation of that will be the left freaking out when it sinks in that 'Bolsonarism' is something that will survive even a downfall of Bolsonaro....
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
But do american factions align with the populares and optimates? The american factions are the elite and those who desire to join it, allying with the bottom against the middle. Who are the populares, who are the optimates?
Optimates=metropolitan elite (Uniparty Globalists)

Populares=everyone else (MAGA Republicans), because the Optimates have fucked things up that badly.
The factions are technically still coalescing, of course -- which is why identification can be tricky at this stage. The establishment of both parties belongs to the ranks of the Optimates.

It's very interesting to note that the Populares got their ultimate shape when the Socii (the non-Roman inhabitants of the Italian hinterland; "the allied peoples") were taken into the fold. Marius was the key figure there. If you transplant that to America: it's obvious that the elite is going to screw the African-Americans and the Hispanics just as thoroughly as they've screwed the White working class. Once that gets bad enough, their present majority-loyalty to the Democratic Party will fade away, and they will join with the heirs of the current Trumpist Republicans (who are presently still majority-White). The resulting faction will be the true Populares.

Why should one think the elite is so very keen on painting their critics as racists? At encouraging what basically amounts to Black separatism? They want the people divided. As long as factions of the masses fight each other... they are not fighting the elite.

But that nasty little game only works for so long.


----------------


If America is the modern analogy for the Roman Republic, does that make Britain a modern version of Ancient Greece?
Europe as a whole, I'd say. The old world in the East, the new ascendant power in the West. The old world sees the new as quasi-barbaric and uncouth, but cannot match its sheer power and vitality. The new world sees the old as weakened, divided and arrogant, but would like its ancient grandeur and traditional legitimacy for itself.

At some point, they find each other -- ultimately to the betterment of both.


----------------


Having thought more about this last night, I can actually visualize the Western Empire mixing in elements from the British Empire, too. It being a more recent imperial power than Rome and having more "maturated" commonalities with America, that's certainly something I can see happening (not even by intention, at times!).

Besides being the torchbearer of "Christian civilization" and fielding the greatest navy on the face of the Earth, I'm wondering if it’d eventually set up its own dominion system in which Europe, the Middle East, and/or Africa—or at least, large chunks of them—become their own, semi-independent regions that ultimately swear fealty to the Emperor and America proper? It’d be an arrangement like that enjoyed by Canada and Australia when the British Empire was still around, though odds are they won’t receive that much autonomy until America feels that they’re “mature” enough to handle it.
This seems a likely way things can roll out. Regarding Europe -- and any region that is already culturally "Western" -- I think that'll just get absorbed into the metropole, rather like Greece into the Roman Imperium. (Which doesn't mean it'll just become "more America", but rather that these regions are already seen as culturally compatible.)

We should note also that, despite appearances, nationalism is becoming less important. It's mostly symbolic, these days. I bring this up because political allegiance is going to be more important. Notice how Englishman Nigel Farage campaigned on behalf of Donald Trump, for the US Presidental election in 2016. These men knew they were of the same movement, and the interests of that movement grew beyond national borders. That tendency will only increase. So by the time you might expect an American Caesar to arise, the Populares in America and Europe (et cetera) will have more common bonds with each other than with the respective elite regimes of their separate nations.

It is by such developments that universal empire becomes the logical outcome.

That, and I wonder if it could become a springboard to secessionist sentiments down the road that mutates into another Crisis of the Third Century, followed by a much more heavy-handed and intrusive Dominate that forces the empire back together (somewhat like how the Union imposed Reconstruction on the defeated South and paved the way for a larger federal government in the long term).
Regarding secessions: yes, Empires do fracture during crises. Temporarily, and eventually... more permanently. But it's rather funny: the ancient states, with long traditions of splendour, are often the ones that are most loyal even during such times. It's the new frontiers, settled by men who only ever knew the Empire, that are most prone to independence.

(A mechanism at work is that the new frontiers are territories for exploitation, while the ancient states tend to be seen as part of the civilised imperial core. The exploited periphery is always where secessionist unrest brews.)

While I’d expect said Dominate to become much more regulation-happy in the economic sphere as well, I’m guessing that while the Principate reigns in the meantime, the Imperial NavyTM will guarantee mostly free trade across the Empire (with, perhaps, an implicit objective of benefiting the American homeland)? By this, I mean replicating imperial Britain’s strategy of getting its colonies and partners to export food and raw materials to America itself in exchange for money, high technology and manufactured goods, fostering a division of labor that encourages its possessions overseas to specialize in whatever their existing setup is most inclined towards (thereby strengthening the homeland’s comparative advantage).
This is very traditional imperialism, so yes -- almost certain. (And this will play into the aforementioned secessionism. Depending on where the empire exerts its power, you might expect eventual problems along those lines in South America, Africa, the Middle East...)

In any case, I’d also think that so long as it steers clear of its rival in the East, the Western Empire will become the latest empire on which the sun never sets (and not just in the hyperbolic sense). Aside from Australasia aligning with the West, I wonder if it’ll grab up other island nations in the Asia-Pacific before the Eastern Empire, led by China, can establish a foothold first.
As far as this goes: one reason the Empire might focus on a good navy is because that's being increasingly neglected now. Entering its time of troubles -- its true crucible -- America is forced into a staggered (and, thankfully, temporary) geopolitical withdrawal. China is winning the tug-of-war over the Pacific right now. And once they're well and entrenched, good luck getting them out of there again!

All, in all, I expect America to ultimately draw a firm line, and one that will no doubt be respected. But I don't expect that line to be far West of Hawaii. (Except for Oceania, although even that may be doubted: China's economic strategies regarding Northern Australia are ruthless. They clearly plan to eventually be the boss there. A plan to counter that is desperately needed, but I'm not seeing it as yet.)
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
If anything, of the Greek City states we resemble Athens the most I think. Yah know, the one with a fuck huge navy and strong constitutional sentiment. So if we go off that, does that make "Sparta", France or Germany?
Sparta was a militarist power that wasn't able to capitalise upon achieving its victory. Looking at the analogy 'Peloponnesian War = Thirty Years' War', Sparta must certainly be sought in the Protestant camp. I'd say Sweden (Gustavus Adolphus!) or Prussia (Frederick II!) might fit the bill, roughly.

Perhaps the whole Northern European Protestant faction must be considered as representing this general tendency of austere militarism? Exact analogies may well be a lost cause. We are comparing general trends here, after all.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Something I don't think really makes sense with Spengler is his bizarre insistence that all "high cultures" are fundamentally completely different and incapable of influencing each other in any way. Not to mention that he totally fails to explain where the "symbol-concepts" that he claims are their source come from themselves. Or the fact that he seems to fail to mention Persia - which was the universal empire of early classical antiquity, more or less - at all.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Why should one think the elite is so very keen on painting their critics as racists? At encouraging what basically amounts to Black separatism? They want the people divided. As long as factions of the masses fight each other... they are not fighting the elite.

But that nasty little game only works for so long.
I've stated over the last few years that racial division is a beast that has slipped the leash. You can see the division between the old guard that just use it as a tool and the young true believers. The true believers are stupid but zealous making them equally effective as they are self destructive.

The parallel I can draw is how WWII Japan came to believe its own propaganda and from that drug-like high was unable to conceive defeat. I really hope that parallel doesn't come on strong, because the Japanese civilians commited suicide rather than be captured due to how drunk they were on propaganda. On the other hand, the our modern propagandists have no restraint and little forethought. While they won't go as far as certain middle eastern actors to false flag atrocities for propaganda, I can see them fabricating atrocities for the sake of propaganda, even before the conflict goes hot.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Something I don't think really makes sense with Spengler is his bizarre insistence that all "high cultures" are fundamentally completely different and incapable of influencing each other in any way. Not to mention that he totally fails to explain where the "symbol-concepts" that he claims are their source come from themselves. Or the fact that he seems to fail to mention Persia - which was the universal empire of early classical antiquity, more or less - at all.
I agree! He was stressing that every culture looks at the world from its own unique perspective (so, for instance, however much we learn about the ancient Greeks, we'll never view their world quite as they did it from within that world). He takes it too far, though. Borrowing Nietzsche's conception of these things, really -- and Nietzsche was wrong about it, too.

Regarding Persia: that falls into his (in)famous idée-fixe of a "Magian culture". In a way, I think it ties to the above. Spengler insists that cultures can't really influence each other. Yet Persia was founded by its Charlemagne-equivalent: Cyrus the Great. And how did Cyrus do it? He invaded Mesopotamia and utterly co-opted the cultured remnants of the Babylonian-Assyrian civilisational complex. Thus, he evolved from a raider-chieftain to a High King. Mesopotamia remained the economic heartland of the Persian Empire ever after.

That development clearly proves that you can create or alter a culture by absorbing parts or elements of another culture. Persia is Indo-European horse riders + Mesopotamian urban culture. Goes against Spengler's thesis. So how does he 'solve' this? By insisting that those Indo-European just got absorbed into a pre-existing "Magian" civilisation, which covers everything from the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Muslims, and even the Byzantines. It's clearly nonsense.

I've said it before: Spengler is at his best when he tells us what he intuits. When he starts to 'rationalise' his own ideas by inventing complex theoretical underpinnings, the result is often lacking. He instinctively arrives at quite profound ideas, and then tries to work backwards towards an explanation -- poorly.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Not to mention that the Chinese "high culture" seems to have eventually revived itself relatively unchanged after the fall of the Han - there's even more continuity between the Han and the Ming than between Rome and medieval Europe. Which seems to argue against his thesis that after its universal state falls a "high culture" functionally ceases to exist.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
Not to mention that the Chinese "high culture" seems to have eventually revived itself relatively unchanged after the fall of the Han - there's even more continuity between the Han and the Ming than between Rome and medieval Europe. Which seems to argue against his thesis that after its universal state falls a "high culture" functionally ceases to exist.

In some respects, the Chinese Nation/Chinese Empire semi-succeeded where many other empires did not.

It survived.

Oh of course, they've had numerous dynasty changes, civil wars, even foreign occupation down the years, but the Chinese nation has survived relatively intact since the Qin Dynasty. There's a reason some in China view the West in particular as children, because their world is far older than ours.

Indeed, I wonder whether or not their predisposition towards a more autocratic and centralised state has actually aided them in this regard. Yes, tyrants pop up more but it's a damn sight easier for reformist elements to course correct when they get the reigns of power. That, and in reference to an earlier point I made, China might have actually succeeded in transitioning from empire to nation, hence they aren't perpetually dependent on expansion and funneling wealth back to the Imperial heart (well, nominally. The current red dynasty is a bit different to its predecessors, and likely its successors).
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Yes, this all seems very accurate. Of course, the exact way things get (re-)interpreted down the line is not something that can be predicted in detail. For instance, I've previously suggested that the "Socratic revolution" in Athens is a lot like the Enlightenment in Europe, complete with radical nit-wit hanger-ons, and with the new philosophy inspiring a new generation of "modern" despots (starting with Alexander/Napoleon). See also the changes in fiction, which became more socially critical (Look at the satires of Aristophanes, then at Voltaire's oriental allegories. Certain similarities in approach should be obvious.)

My point being: even after the Hellenistic period, the Big Names who had philosophically preceded it (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...) remained Big Names. They weren't suddenly forgotten or scorned. Their latter-day followers (the nit-wit hanger-ons) were mostly forgotten, though. And the leading figures were seen an a new (or old?) light.


Consider that Voltaire was a monarchist, and -- despite the modern misquotations -- firmly believed that universal religion was a conditio sine qua non for a stable society. So while loonies like Rousseau and Diderot may well end up completely scorned or ignored, I think that Voltaire will still be known and even respected. Those studying his work will just focus on quite different passages in his work than the ones that get nearly all the attention nowadays...

While I can’t speak too much to which thinkers will be remembered and exactly what they’ll be remembered for, I too speculate that the historical narrative of tomorrow will treat them and their contributions differently than the narrative today. As is true with all manner of things under the sun, for better or worse.

Given taboos against too much experimentation, I suppose that philosophy will generally be much more “conservative”? That is, being less prone to challenging conventional wisdom, and more inclined towards studying and coming with new insights concerning well-established, already-formulated ideas (i.e. the works of Thomas Aquinas)? If that’s the case, I wonder what they’ll say about the various schools of thought that emerged throughout Modernity. Probably little to nothing laudatory, if I were to guess.


Absolutely. No question about it. English will prevail. I have suggested Latin purely because it has a certain legitimacy to it, and I think it will inevitably become more prominent again. For all ages except modernity, the social elite has had a disinct way of speaking. Quite often in a wholly separate court language / diplomatic language. Since picking a national language (like French) for that might incur enmity in a multi-linguistic polity, Latin seems like a nice and neutral shoe-in.

Nevertheless, I'd expect people to speak English, usually. Most everyone in the West already speaks it. Of course... English will change due to this. Non-English words and phrases and bits of grammar will find their way in. Depending on who is influential in Europe, we'll see certain languages leaving their mark on the Empire's lingua franca. (A resurgence of Latin could even cause an English equivalent of historical Sarmatism in Polish -- where a romantic cultural self-image leads to deliberate alteration of the language to conform to that image.)

In general, I'm fairly confident that we'll see a return to the historically normal situation: a considerable divide between how the elite speaks, and how the masses speak.

I was wondering if you’d say something like this. Like you, I also envision English doing what it’s historically done best by becoming even more hybridized and vocabulary-rich than it is nowadays. How it’ll look as it starts to borrow more words from Eastern European languages has intrigued me as a passing thought for a while now, and with everywhere up to the Urals absorbed into the Western bloc, that would eventually become reality. Alas, odds are I won’t be alive to study that myself, even if your overall scenario ultimately pans out.

Vocabulary aside, I’d still guess that more fundamental grammatical mechanics will more or less remain the same (English being mostly analytic and all that). I would, as a tad of wish fulfillment, prefer that grammar simplify somewhat—e.g. picking either ‘a’ or ‘an’ as the sole indefinite article and sticking with it—but that has no bearing on what’s actually likely.

In terms of what full-blown conversation looks like, I’m curious as to whether the more antiquated diction and speech patterns of yesteryear will make a comeback—even among average people, let alone the upper crust? There may be a divide between “gentile” English and “vulgar” English like you foresee, but I think it at least narratively appropriate that the speaking styles of yesteryear become mainstream again in our grandchildren’s time. The cherry on top of the overarching traditionalist resurgence, if you will.


Likewise, I’d heartily expect Mandarin to become the dominant language in an Eastern hemisphere lorded over by China, as you do. That being the case, I’m also fearful of organized suppression of once-national languages that would’ve been supplanted anyway, such as Japanese and Korean. Whether Mandarin will experience a similar influx of vocabulary from the places China rolls into, I don’t know.

Disarmament will never be taken seriously. There are times of relatively good relations, and times of greater tension, but once a weapon exists, it doesn't get un-invented. On a more positive note: since annihilation benefits no established power, I could see a convention emerging where certain super-weapons are held by the major factions, but explicitly as last-resort weapons. "We will never use them in border wars, but if you threaten us on an existential level, the bets are off". Nukes as a safe-guard against true world wars. (A bit like Dune's Great Convention.)


It helps that empire's, unlike squabbling nation-states, tend to have the gravitas to really put something like that in place.

That’s what I feared, though I hope that whatever arms treaties they agree to are more ironclad and duly respected by the people in charge. We were lucky that push never came to shove during the original Cold War, but God forbid that our descendants don’t enjoy that same fortune with their own leaders. Maybe the first few statesmen in charge of either hemisphere would demonstrate good judgment, considering how the use of WMDs being used during the “Great Slaughter” would leave a lasting impression. As those memories fade, though, I’m fearful that future leaders could be much less cautious and cognizant.

While I’m not sure what the prospects of them are nowadays, them having had centuries of technological advancement by that time, could these factions invest in anti-nuclear defense systems and things like that? Again, I’m not sure about the scientific or logistical feasibility of such projects, but given how much time science and industry will have had to advance in the interim, well…


An empire that doesn't get its military in order is an empire that doesn't last very long.

I thought not. Aside from the Western Empire fielding a blue-water navy for purposes of trade, travel and straight-up national defense, I’d also guess they’ll need a large army to occupy the lands they conquer and finish off “resistant” local elements. Maybe the military will downsize once those territories have been firmly incorporated and both empires have drawn clear lines in the sand. Granted, I’d still expect it to build back up again once the Western Empire undergoes its own Crisis of the Third Century, or in cases where relations with its eastern rival threaten to turn fiery.


Keeping in mind how space exploration will have had time to really take off by then, I can also imagine space becoming another battleground in the process. Or at least, the site of constant competition between the West and East as they race to claim Mars or something like that.

Downsides can come in all sorts of shapes. I'm certain they'll be there, but I can't predict what they'll be. You'd have to delve into fictional examples, really, to get an impression. But just as a possibility: one might imagine the penal system mostly consisting of convicts being worked to death.

That sounds…unfortunate. This being an exceedingly traditional and stratified era, I’m wondering what kinds of crimes would carry such severe sentences? Hard labor for murderers and rapists is one thing, but throwing the book at people for criticizing the Church is another.

I’d also think that the return of harsh penal systems implies something grisly about how the state of human rights a few centuries from now, though I’d hope that they remain a holdover that applies for people who haven’t stooped as low as Ted Bundy or Albert Fish.

It really seems that people liked Trumpism more than they liked Trump personally. His message resonated. I'd be very surprised if someone didn't pick up the banner to carry it forward.

You’ve seen me mention it elsewhere before, but I have a shortlist of people active in politics today who I bet could carry that torch within the next decade or two. Not that I’m keen to repeat it here, though, since it strays too far from the subject matter for my comfort.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Some of these points, I feel hardly qualified to answer. Others are more open to decent analysis:

While I can’t speak too much to which thinkers will be remembered and exactly what they’ll be remembered for, I too speculate that the historical narrative of tomorrow will treat them and their contributions differently than the narrative today. As is true with all manner of things under the sun, for better or worse.

Given taboos against too much experimentation, I suppose that philosophy will generally be much more “conservative”? That is, being less prone to challenging conventional wisdom, and more inclined towards studying and coming with new insights concerning well-established, already-formulated ideas (i.e. the works of Thomas Aquinas)? If that’s the case, I wonder what they’ll say about the various schools of thought that emerged throughout Modernity. Probably little to nothing laudatory, if I were to guess.

To understand what is to come in this regard, it helps to consider whether (and to what extent) the intellectual development of a culture is bound to its overally developmental cycle.

One thing I've noted elsewhere is that in their final, imperial phase -- when High Cultures become true Civilisations -- we see a sort of stagnation. Spengler likens this to fossilisation. The entire civilisation arrives at its final forms, and then it ceases to meaningfully change. Naturally, he has a rather nineteenth-century-romanic-oh-how-very-German narrative for this. While I agree that cultures ultimately "exhaust their creative potential", I do feel inclined to look into the more prosaic reasons for this.

For starters, as I've also written in some previous discussion elsewhere, there is the difference between potential and actual. At the very start of a process, all possible developments are still wide open. (Impossible ones, obviously, are not.) As we develop, we make certain choices; we commit to a certain path. As time only carries us in one direction, each step renders certain potential options unavailable to us. At the very end of the journey, no choices remain. Literally just one path is left.

I've likened this to carving a statue, which has been described as "chipping away marble until only the final shape remains". Early on in the process, you only hew out a rough shape, and you can still deviate a lot as to final choices. Will this be a man or a woman? Will the figure hold a book or a sword or a torch...? Et cetera. As you carry on, you commit to choices, and that makes the alternatives you didn't choose forever unavailable.

The result of this, along with other factors, is that as we reach the final stage of a High Culture's existence, it becomes set in its forms. In a way, the phase we call "modernity" is one big iconoclasm that results from a subconscious awareness of this reality. Seen from that angle, it's not unsympathetic -- although ultimately quite futile. As we've discussed already: tradition wins. And that's when we arrive at the final forms of a culture.

Intellectually, this means that the whole world-view is completed, and becomes definitive. Note that in the Classical worlds, the Greeks were constantly developing new fundamental notions, the Hellenistic era saw pretty wild experimentalism (most of it idiotic, of course, but that's true about all experimentalism), and then under the Roman Empire... the process stopped. Mathematics and physics reached their final form (in that culture), and were not fundamentally challenged again. The Romans, instead of re-inventing, set about applying. They were engineers: masters of the applied science. Fundamental new innovations in theory? Well, not really.

Likewise, the age of Augustus saw their artistic and literary styles peak, reaching a final form, which thereafter only got imitated. By the Dominate, they were literally recycling old reliefs instead of making new ones. (You see the same in other cultures at that stage, too. Philosophy? Same story. The Romans settled upon a re-tooled and optimised (at least for them!) Stoicism as their definitive philosophy, and that was that. Naturally, it was an integrated form, adopting ideas from respected philosophers from other traditions.

What does this mean for the West? I think it means that we'll see similar developments. We inherited a lot from the classical world, including some inherent philosophical divisions that have been with us from the outset. Particularly, the competing metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. Ironically, that wasn't all that important to the Romans. They'd settled that in their own way. Mostly, they ctually prioritised other elements of philosophy. But the West -- Christendom -- has been extremely metaphysically-inclined from day one. So that issue will have to be resolved. Basically, I think the Early Empire will probably see an integrated philosophical model that brings Saint Augustine of Hippo (Team Plato) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Team Aristotle) into a point of commonly-accepted union.

At that point, we'll have our final philosophy. The West won't fundamentally move beyond that. It'll answer our pressing questions in a way we find satisfying. And once that happens, people generally tend to just stop asking those questions.

Scientifically, expect the same. We've got our relativity and our quantum physics, and we know they slot together somehow. Once we figure that out, we'll be done. We'll have our united "theory of everything" (or rather: everything we thought to wonder about). Question asked and answered. Everything further will just be glosses in the margins. Like the Romans, we'll just busy ourselves applying our theoretical knowledge, instead of trying to expand or alter it.

Art is somewhat harder to predict. The "modern" styles are just passing fads, so forget those. Look at the most classic of things in our culture, and you'll get there. True classics of the West include the Matter of France (Charlemagne, Roland, et cetera), the Matter of britain (Arthurian cycle & associated bits) and the Niebelungenlied/Völsunga saga. There are some more peripheral works in that grouping, of course. Keep in mind that although a lot of it is lost now, the famous Iliad and Odyssee were major parts of a wider Epic Cycle. The things I just referenced are such 'tent-poles' of our Epic Cycle. Now note how the early Roman Empire produced a 'sequel' (and capstone!) to the Classical Epic Cycle, in the form of the Aeneid.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if "the great American novel" that some people keep talking about isn't actually going to be a novel, but a true Epic. One that ties together the aforementioned mythologies in a definitive form and frame-work, and provides a (semi-)historical capstone that no doubt adds a lot of (pan-Western) Manifest Destiny and places the Universal Empire at the very end of (Western) history: the worthy heir to all that came before.

That sounds…unfortunate. This being an exceedingly traditional and stratified era, I’m wondering what kinds of crimes would carry such severe sentences? Hard labor for murderers and rapists is one thing, but throwing the book at people for criticizing the Church is another.
It's the norm for most of history. Modernity's exceedingly soft treatment of criminals is a weird exception. Of course, this era is also weird in that it regulates and criminalises absurdly many things. So there will be a bit of a trade-off there.

As for criticising the Church (or the State, for that matter). That will probably be treated a bit differently. The modern world (such as it is) has a bit of a skewed view of that. I don't think people who look though the presentist lens really grasp just how much people throughout Western history could really get away with. The issue is this: modern people think that it was about preventing "insults" to the King or the Pope or whatever. That's not it. Everybody who isn't a modernist will be able to tell you that someone who is beneath you cannot insult you. So that's not it. The issue is that people who threaten the stability of society must be punished.

Another thing to consider: in virtually all pre-modern periods, precisely because of what I just wrote, someone who had committed an offence that hadn't actually harmed someone could almost always avoid serious punishment by repenting. In a secular world, repenting is not possible. There are endless secularised sins, but there is no mercy to be found. The blood-courts of "cancel culture" are less forgiving than the inquisition (which gets an unfairly bad reputation, by the way).
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Probably be viewed in the same way the Romans viewed the early Republicans who threw out Tarquinius Superbus. Either that or they'd outright take the position of Romulus in the Imperial mindset.

George Washington in particular would serve as their (loose) equivalent to Romulus, if I were to guess. Possibly also a “first among equals” alongside the other Founding Fathers, too.

More broadly, I wonder how today’s titans of American history will be remembered by future generations? Going by Skallagrim’s forecast to start out with, people like Abraham Lincoln and FDR will probably fade into history as new statesmen yet to be born leave behind consequential legacies of their own. By then, my impression is that “Marius”, “Sulla”, “Caesar”, and “Augustus” will overshadow them in the grand scheme of things. Or at least, be viewed as the culminations of what previous American statesmen stood for (e.g. “Caesar” being the monstrous pinnacle of what Lincoln and Roosevelt helped further and facilitate—by which I mean redistributionism, strong central government, and a tendency towards progress and egalitarianism that characterize Modernity as a whole).

Also, as a semi-tangential side note, I’m curious as to what some of the historical figures we loathe/lionize nowadays—Robespierre, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and the rest—would think about how the meat and bones of what they collectively lived through and set precedent for was ultimately dress rehearsal for something bigger down the line? It is, admittedly, more of an ROB question with no bearing on actual history or real life. But curiosity is as curiosity does, I suppose.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
With all this talk of Rome and America and such, what is the predicted future of my Britain? In some respects, if America does go full Roman Empire, Britain may be one of those "friends of Rome" who are strong and wealthy enough to be left to their own devices. Simply put, as America enters a rather troubled period of history, Britain is much further along, thus closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.

Wokery, progressive shit and mass immigration are wildly unpopular, and eventually it will be rammed into the thick skulls of our elites. Either that, or the far more cunning and savvy Farage electorally cuts their throats and begins swinging the British overton window back to what it was before Labour fucked everything up. We could indeed be in an era of peace, prosperity and stability by the time shit really hits the fan in America...if it comes to that.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
With all this talk of Rome and America and such, what is the predicted future of my Britain? In some respects, if America does go full Roman Empire, Britain may be one of those "friends of Rome" who are strong and wealthy enough to be left to their own devices. Simply put, as America enters a rather troubled period of history, Britain is much further along, thus closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.

Wokery, progressive shit and mass immigration are wildly unpopular, and eventually it will be rammed into the thick skulls of our elites. Either that, or the far more cunning and savvy Farage electorally cuts their throats and begins swinging the British overton window back to what it was before Labour fucked everything up. We could indeed be in an era of peace, prosperity and stability by the time shit really hits the fan in America...if it comes to that.



I have a feeling that the UK will pull through.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
I have a feeling that the UK will pull through.

"England Prevails" is a god damn historical rule of thumb. In some shape or form (much like the Greeks, come to think of it) we will survive and thrive. In regards to "being further along" I think Scandinavia is in the same boat as us.

Come to think of it, in such a scenario where Britain has recovered from globalism but America has descended into its own version of the Social Wars, would that not temporarily make the United Kingdom leader of the Western World? We have hundreds of nuclear weapons and a reasonably strong navy as it stands, and goodness knows how much a post-globalist government would buff those attributes up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top