Once again,
@Skallagrim, thank you for another thought-provoking response. I know I've said it before, but this whole discussion on the fall of Rome—and the similar backdrop to underly the final collapse of Modernity—gives me much to read about on my own time. Hopefully, my recently acquired copy of
The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian will suffice as a starting point.
In the meantime, I'd like to ask another round of questions—the first being how much power will likely be vested in the executive branch. I recall you stating that in the aggregate, the Principate will have minimal interest in governing every last aspect of private life, being mostly occupied with pontificating about "traditional Christian values" and fielding a first-rate military. Especially after it finishes rebuilding the lands that it claims as its own, after which they'd be better positioned to downsize their armed presence (though whether the bureaucracy will steadily grow in other ways to offset that rollback, I don't know).
That said, I also think it'd be instructive to draw a distinction between the
size of government and how much it intervenes in the everyday lives of its citizens, and to what degree executive power is vested in the head-of-state and/or some oligarchic force at the top. As I understand it, the Roman emperors' general approach trended towards the autocratic and absolute. While some may have had more respect for the Senate and other governing bodies—Trajan, I believe, kept his word after promising not to execute a single senator—they ultimately had the final say over policy. Which, in the case of sadistic nutcases like Caligula, might not have been the best thing. One might argue that what I'm concerned about is already happening during America's
republican phase—with the POTUS having amassed more and more executive power over the years—but that still doesn't refute my point here. As such, I fear that any future "Caligula", "Nero", or "Caracalla" who becomes Emperor of the West will have free reign to tyrannize with few checks and balances to stop them. While, at the same time, not giving two shits about regulating your gambling habits or the details of how your chair is designed (as is true in today's democracies, as well as its dictatorships).
More broadly, I wonder if it’s possible that today’s reigning ideologies would basically be remembered as disparate offshoots of a shared premise—that is, a belief in a utopian “end stage” of history that can be reached via this or that ideology? Yes, I remember you referencing Mohism and how future generations might be similarly baffled when told that people actually took the movements of Modernity seriously. I also imagine that it’s possible that communism, fascism, and liberal democracy are more or less dismissed as products of delusional Whiggish aspirations towards some final ideal that didn’t pan out as planned—despite
centuries of promises to the contrary. At that point, perhaps only scholars and dedicated students would give a damn about the distinctions between them, with everyone else blinking in confusion before moving on with their day. They’d also be baffled at how even the less ideological cohorts of Modernity still clung to a notion of continuous progress, with an implicit expectation that the world of 2265 would resemble
Star Trek more than
Dune. Re-watching archived footage of the former would be a perpetual source of bemusement for denizens of the twenty-second century, I’d think. Whereas studying the latter, while it's still fictional, might convince them that Frank Herbert was on the right track after all.
Another thing I haven’t seen discussed as much is the role that climate change could play in determining which side wins. Should the consequences prove dire, then perhaps the Populist Left shouts “We told you so!” from the rooftops as its power and popularity surge to record heights. On the other hand, I can also potentially see more radical members hijacking the movement prematurely and quickly overstaying their welcome. Which, per action and reaction, would catapult the Populist Right into power as they hastily undo their predecessors’ reforms and rampage for a while before burning themselves out. Afterwards, it’s the Neo-Traditionalists’ turn to rule.
Nonetheless, I’m still worried about whether there’ll be much of a world for them to govern at that point. Even if Modernity’s collapse doesn’t end in “1983 Soviet false-alarm incident gone hot”, there’s still radiation poisoning and the environmental effects of chemical and biological weapons being deployed
en masse. Never mind the sheer numbers of people who’d die, though far be it from me to try and pinpoint just how many. To that end, maybe the first few decades of imperial rule will feature state-sponsored “fertility measures” that award people for having lots of children in a long-term effort to repopulate the world. These would probably become less and less important as population numbers recover, though the cultural expectation of large families will remain, should the macrohistorical forecast prove correct.
Concerning the chaotic back-and-forth that’ll take place throughout this time frame, do you have any maps you could share with us? I know we can only be so precise in our prognostications, but a visual that at least depicts the
gist of what the American and Chinese Empires can expect to control would be nice. Ditto for the constantly fluctuating borders that’ll mark the “Great Slaughter” in the antecedent years (and perhaps America’s “Mithridatic Wars” too, if you feel so inclined).
Lastly, do you have any thoughts on the syncretist scenario I outlined previously? Aside from whether it seems broadly plausible, there are a few points I feel a need to clarify or expand upon here. Namely, my interpretation that an America that implements the needed reforms early will mean that Neo-Caesar rises in
Europe—which still has yet to fully undergo the nasty shit-fight between its “Optimates” and “Populares”. Not to mention reports of loose nukes and horrific violence abroad making the American public more receptive to re-militarization (thereby weakening the Congressionalists’ grip on power when challenged by the rising “Imperialist” faction, or at least pressuring them to invest in national defense more). Which, if things go according to plan, means that America becomes an empire anyway—possibly with “Augustus” entering office through a peaceful transition rather than one last bout of civil wars, before implementing “third way” policies that pair off laissez-faire economics and hands-off government at home with colonialism and a vast military abroad. To be sure, many particulars of this scenario will differ from your mainline one, but the idea is that overall results remain broadly the same.
Thank you once more in advance,
Zyobot
