History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Glossing over the posts between my last reply and current one, because they're more about the "broad-scale" course of ATL history than my specific concerns:

These things balance out. (As I say so often, about so many things, because it's so consistently true.)

But it's not a given, as I've outlined above. Since much of the Mongols' own steppe culture would in this scenario prevail, the resulting High Culture (of which Genghis Khan would be the 'Charlemagne') could be a curious mix of practical-minded, no-nonsense brutality and remarkaly 'enlightened' attitudes of social tolerance. I could imagine its laws being permissive of many things, but carrying a (swiftly-executed) death penalty for all the really serious things.

My bad. Upon reflection, I expressed my initial point rather poorly. :confused:

First, I should clarify that it wasn't my intention to argue the entirety of Mongol High Culture was intrinsically or irredeemably horrible. Sorry for potentially coming off that way, as I sense I need to dial back on the "Cynicism without context!" from now on.

Rather, my argument is that you could still get specific individual figures and societies within that culture that swing in more extreme directions than the "mean behavior" of the High Culture in aggregate. Naturally, I refer mostly to ATL Modernity, which — as we've discussed at length — is the conga-line of extremes where the High Culture's craziest aspects come flooding out in droves. Again, I don't expect ATL Modernity to match the Western ideological pedigree precisely, so it's probably safe to rule out a Mongol Modernity where off-brand expies of Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and other Western "-isms" transplanted to ATL are all the rage.

However, there will still be stormy ideological competition, large-scale total wars, and enlarged governments to deal with the newfound pressures — all of which give rise to extreme people, movements, and atrocities that'd have given those in previous phases of the Culture's existence pause. That is, unfortunately, how we got some of history's worst despots IOTL.

The Mongols were capable of intense brutality, but then again: was Caesar not? Was Alexander not? Was Charlemagne not? Was Napoleon not? Was Chandragupta not? All these successful men, with great military achievements to their name, used the same fundamental approach that Genghis Khan also used. When meeting resistance, they exterminated. When meeting submission, they were gracious and tolerant-- often to the point that they were seen as liberators by those who voluntarily joined them; removing corrupt or overbearing previous rulers.

Alexander he Great and Genghis Khan, in particular, excelled at this strategy. They burned down cities that arose against them, but they also lowered taxes overall, removed corruption, elevated capable men to stations of power, expanded and improved infrastructure, and were genuine proponents of cultural and religious tolerance and co-existence.

On the contrary, I'm well aware these guys could be pretty damn demonstrative and no-nonsense.

My understanding is simply that, even among the Major Leagues of Conquerors, Genghis Khan (and his whole dynasty, really) was still exceptionally brutal. Don't recall where I first read them, but I distinctly recall tales of him using people as human shields, pouring molten metal down prisoners' throats, and flinging corpses up into enemy fortresses as a primitive form of biological warfare. All in all, an array of "fun" and "inventive" activities that even Caesar would find rather gruesome.

In which case, the downsides of Mongol High Culture being crushing enemies with Saddam Hussein levels of brutality would make sense to me. Some upsides (as you covered) would be surprising tolerance and openness to exchange with those who accept their overlordship — and if you have any more "specific" (if also impressionistic) ideas as to how that could turn out, I'd be interested in hearing them.

That said, even assuming this doesn't happen...

Now, if Genghis Khan "goes West" and depopulates Russia, turning his empire into a "Great Mongolia in the shape of OTL Russia", we must admit that the whole thing starts with an act of massive genocide. That might set the tone, as it were. But it's not a given, as I've outlined above.

I'd still maintain that just because a High Culture in aggregate has a certain "profile of qualities" doesn't mean every single society and key figure in its history will perfectly exemplify the overall profile. Ultimately, humans are too varied for that, so it'd be absurd to act as if there won't be people who epitomize certain aspects of the Mongol High Culture more than others — both for better, and for worse.

Some will be more heroic and humane than average, keeping the brutality towards resistance to a minimum and still proving quite humane to the losers, anyway (e.g., Mongol Washington or Lincoln). Others yet will be more merciless and monstrous all-around, being "All take, no give!" and happily genociding everyone else (e.g., Mongol Hitler or Stalin). For obvious reasons, I'm not really worried about the former. The latter, however, I certainly worry about — hence, my reservations about ATL Mongol High Culture producing at least one "Horrific to the last!" Mongol warlord(s) during its own "Stormy Autumn" phase within the circa-2200-to-2500 timeframe.

In summary: You may have a High Culture where values A, B, C, and D are the baseline motifs and conceits that make it "uniquely itself", but still have specific people and factions within that culture at a given time who "cherry-pick" and emphasize value A more while downplaying B, C, and D, if that makes sense. As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about positive outliers who really accentuate the permissive and honorable side. Negative outliers prone to exceedingly brutal and bloodthirsty side, though? Yeah, that does actually worry me.

Assuming that Genghis Khan gets eveything done during his life-time (say, by AD 1225), this suggests that we might expect their equavalent of a 'reformation' somewhere in the twentieth century, and their counterpart to Napoleon about two hundred years from (the ATL's version of) now. Which means that their 'Napoleon' would appear about a century into our Principate. That would surely make for interesting times!

Hmm... I sense a potential crossover fic here? :unsure:

Obviously, an ASB scenario where a portal opens between the two settings in the early 23rd century would be a game-changing POD that throws both "cycles"off. Even if not, I doubt macro-history would be much of a priority for leadership on either side, despite the fact a few discerning observers (read: Spengler expies from my Imperium Americana universe) might notice a rhyme and reason that just about no one else does. Very interesting times, indeed!
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
Isn't this whole stable Mongolian empire thingie we've been discussing literally just what Baron Ungern von Sternberg believed, but as an actual timeline?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Isn't this whole stable Mongolian empire thingie we've been discussing literally just what Baron Ungern von Sternberg believed, but as an actual timeline?
Probably? if he try made it real,he would probably kill as many people as commies,and still fail.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
In the 'Greatest General' thread, I mentioned to @Lord Sovereign that Wu Qi could have altered the final events of the Warring State period dramatically, had he lived. But the self-serving nobles of Chu had him killed. Out of petty partisan interests, they eliminated the one man who could demonstrably out-class and defeat the ludicrously skilled commanders of Qin.

Since Chu was one of the leading polities among the Eastern, established aristocratic realms, I feel that Wu Qi is in many ways representative of the same macro-historical current that produced Philippos V in the Classical world. One who is representative and emblemic of the lost opportunity to defeat the rising new power in the West.

(Figured I'd mention this here, rather than derailing the other thread with my typical macro-historical stuff...)
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
In the 'Greatest General' thread, I mentioned to @Lord Sovereign that Wu Qi could have altered the final events of the Warring State period dramatically, had he lived. But the self-serving nobles of Chu had him killed. Out of petty partisan interests, they eliminated the one man who could demonstrably out-class and defeat the ludicrously skilled commanders of Qin.

All things considered, corruption seems to make otherwise intelligent men preposterously foolish.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
All things considered, corruption seems to make otherwise intelligent men preposterously foolish.

"I'm both a product and a perpetuator of a failing system that now causes far more harm than good. I could ensure the safety and prosperity of future generations at the expense of my own short-term gains, but instead I'll deliberately screw over my children and grand-children in order to maximise my own short-term benefits."

This is the mentality that dooms the decaying order and makes its violent destruction inevitable. It is also the mentality that governs the establishment of the present-day West. You don't even need macro-historical analysis to predict the outcome.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
"I'm both a product and a perpetuator of a failing system that now causes far more harm than good. I could ensure the safety and prosperity of future generations at the expense of my own short-term gains, but instead I'll deliberately screw over my children and grand-children in order to maximise my own short-term benefits."

This is the mentality that dooms the decaying order and makes its violent destruction inevitable. It is also the mentality that governs the establishment of the present-day West. You don't even need macro-historical analysis to predict the outcome.

the problem with after me the deluge is that the deluge eventually comes.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
"I'm both a product and a perpetuator of a failing system that now causes far more harm than good. I could ensure the safety and prosperity of future generations at the expense of my own short-term gains, but instead I'll deliberately screw over my children and grand-children in order to maximise my own short-term benefits."

This is the mentality that dooms the decaying order and makes its violent destruction inevitable. It is also the mentality that governs the establishment of the present-day West. You don't even need macro-historical analysis to predict the outcome.

It's a completely nonsensical, selfish, viewpoint that only people with no self control at all could fall into. The corrupt are bad at cost-benefit analysis to a comical degree. Must have been surprised pikachu faces all the way down when the Goths finally smashed through Rome's gates.

the problem with after me the deluge is that the deluge eventually comes.

Problem with that is the deluge can come a Hell of a lot sooner than they realise.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
"I'm both a product and a perpetuator of a failing system that now causes far more harm than good. I could ensure the safety and prosperity of future generations at the expense of my own short-term gains, but instead I'll deliberately screw over my children and grand-children in order to maximise my own short-term benefits."

This is the mentality that dooms the decaying order and makes its violent destruction inevitable. It is also the mentality that governs the establishment of the present-day West. You don't even need macro-historical analysis to predict the outcome.
That is why modernism is so devastating. When state is property of a monarch to be given to his children, when children are literally one's own investment for the future, when wealth is predominantly located in things (land etc.) that take literally generations to develop... people tend to take the long term into account.

Today? Wealth can be made (or lost) in a day and transferred anywhere at a push of a button, state is seen as a means to service people's whims, and social security exists... yeah.
EDIT:
It's a completely nonsensical, selfish, viewpoint that only people with no self control at all could fall into. The corrupt are bad at cost-benefit analysis to a comical degree. Must have been surprised pikachu faces all the way down when the Goths finally smashed through Rome's gates.
Bolded, unfortunately, describes vast majority of people today, including nearly the entire political and financial class.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
It's a completely nonsensical, selfish, viewpoint that only people with no self control at all could fall into. The corrupt are bad at cost-benefit analysis to a comical degree. Must have been surprised pikachu faces all the way down when the Goths finally smashed through Rome's gates.



Problem with that is the deluge can come a Hell of a lot sooner than they realise.

Ive read the revelvant historical texts Soverign is very right about the surprised pikachu faces.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
That is why modernism is so devastating. When state is property of a monarch to be given to his children, when children are literally one's own investment for the future, when wealth is predominantly located in things (land etc.) that take literally generations to develop... people tend to take the long term into account.

Today? Wealth can be made (or lost) in a day and transferred anywhere at a push of a button, state is seen as a means to service people's whims, and social security exists... yeah.
This fetishization of monarchy is ideological cuckoldry and is wrong. Skalgrims example literally dealt with China and Rome. Nations that had a monarch and nobility that fucked things up with short sightedness. So no it's not a "modernity" thing, and making it so that the leader's child will have an "investment" in the nation won't gurantee anything. Better to have meritocracy where the best rule as opposed to allowing some inbred.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
This fetishization of monarchy is ideological cuckoldry and is wrong. Skalgrims example literally dealt with China and Rome. Nations that had a monarch and nobility that fucked things up with short sightedness. So no it's not a "modernity" thing, and making it so that the leader's child will have an "investment" in the nation won't gurantee anything. Better to have meritocracy where the best rule as opposed to allowing some inbred.
Fucked things up with short sightedness when and how? Examples, please, because I have found that most such cases are basically a case of later misinterpretation. And yes, making rule hereditary does not prevent stupidity... it does however prevent malice. No monarch in history set out to destroy his own kingdom the way Western elites have set out to destroy their countries and people.

Meritocracy is how monarchy, aristocracy and plutocracy all started. In and by itself, however, meritocracy is not a sustainable system.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
In the 'Greatest General' thread, I mentioned to @Lord Sovereign that Wu Qi could have altered the final events of the Warring State period dramatically, had he lived. But the self-serving nobles of Chu had him killed. Out of petty partisan interests, they eliminated the one man who could demonstrably out-class and defeat the ludicrously skilled commanders of Qin.

Since Chu was one of the leading polities among the Eastern, established aristocratic realms, I feel that Wu Qi is in many ways representative of the same macro-historical current that produced Philippos V in the Classical world. One who is representative and emblemic of the lost opportunity to defeat the rising new power in the West.

(Figured I'd mention this here, rather than derailing the other thread with my typical macro-historical stuff...)

Fucked things up with short sightedness when and how? Examples, please, because I have found that most such cases are basically a case of later misinterpretation. And yes, making rule hereditary does not prevent stupidity... it does however prevent malice. No monarch in history set out to destroy his own kingdom the way Western elites have set out to destroy their countries and people.

Meritocracy is how monarchy, aristocracy and plutocracy all started. In and by itself, however, meritocracy is not a sustainable system.
Skallagrim's example was Wu Qi.
You can also point to MULTIPLE Roman leaders. How about people betraying Stilcho, Aetius, and many many others.
Also the greatest example of why monarchy is shit and your argument about it preventing malice is pig headed
Marcus Aurelius a great Emperor and philosopher yet his son Commodus fucked up the empire and can point to being the cause of the crisis of the third century.

So are you gonna say the things that are written about Commodus are wrong and he was a "good boy who did nuffin wrong" or are you going to say he did not have "divine blood and divine right to rule" and was not genetically superior to everyone else like the modern European Royal houses monarchists simp over.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
That is why modernism is so devastating. When state is property of a monarch to be given to his children, when children are literally one's own investment for the future, when wealth is predominantly located in things (land etc.) that take literally generations to develop... people tend to take the long term into account.
This assumes that the monarch does care about the future investment above all and doesn't have too many children (if he does, kingdom split and civil wars ahoy), and part of that stability was definitely due to the slower tempo information, people and goods traveled, in turn culture, society, politics etc took a lot of time to change too.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Skallagrim's example was Wu Qi.
You can also point to MULTIPLE Roman leaders. How about people betraying Stilcho, Aetius, and many many others.
Also the greatest example of why monarchy is shit and your argument about it preventing malice is pig headed
Marcus Aurelius a great Emperor and philosopher yet his son Commodus fucked up the empire and can point to being the cause of the crisis of the third century.

So are you gonna say the things that are written about Commodus are wrong and he was a "good boy who did nuffin wrong" or are you going to say he did not have "divine blood and divine right to rule" and was not genetically superior to everyone else like the modern European Royal houses monarchists simp over.

All systems create by human beings will be flawed, all of them will in time fail dispite the efforts of the people who create said systems all you can do is try to do your best to make things work in the here and now and build for the future.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
You can also point to MULTIPLE Roman leaders. How about people betraying Stilcho, Aetius, and many many others.
Also the greatest example of why monarchy is shit and your argument about it preventing malice is pig headed
Marcus Aurelius a great Emperor and philosopher yet his son Commodus fucked up the empire and can point to being the cause of the crisis of the third century.

So are you gonna say the things that are written about Commodus are wrong and he was a "good boy who did nuffin wrong" or are you going to say he did not have "divine blood and divine right to rule" and was not genetically superior to everyone else like the modern European Royal houses monarchists simp over.
Roman Empire was technically a military dictatorship, not a monarchy. And I already pointed out that yes, incompetent monarchs did exist and did fuck things up. But today, we have rulers who are not incompetent - they are deliberately out to destroy the very society they rule. Again, I do not recall a single monarch who was out to destroy their own kingdom.

Commodus was an idiot. He was not, however, a nihilist. Same goes for all other examples you have given. So yes, monarchy does prevent malice - what it does not prevent is incompetence. Humans are morons, that is a fact of life.

Also, betraying Stilicho and Aetius was hardly doomsday. Eastern Emperors did basically the same to their own barbarian magisters - look at Zeno's reign - and it could be argued that this actually saved the Eastern Empire. Of course, East still had its own armies, did not have mass settlement by barbarians within its borders, and was in overall far more stable position anyway. Stilicho or no, Honorius or no, Aetius or no, Western Empire was doomed when Vandals crossed into Africa.
This assumes that the monarch does care about the future investment above all and doesn't have too many children (if he does, kingdom split and civil wars ahoy), and part of that stability was definitely due to the slower tempo information, people and goods traveled, in turn culture, society, politics etc took a lot of time to change too.
Partly, yes - but see above. I have hard time seeing a system that would be worse than what we have right now in the long run.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
But today, we have rulers who are not incompetent - they are deliberately out to destroy the very society they rule.

Hm? Nah.

They are apathetic or just plain morons. Neo-Liberals have one goal and that is "GDP go up", damn the consequences. They are hyper materialistic and not thinking very far ahead at all.

There's some socialists who wouldn't mind overthrowing our civilisation, but they aren't quite in the driving seat. Oh, they get enabled by halfwit Neo-Liberals, but they don't have anywhere near as much control as they'd like.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Roman Empire was technically a military dictatorship, not a monarchy. And I already pointed out that yes, incompetent monarchs did exist and did fuck things up. But today, we have rulers who are not incompetent - they are deliberately out to destroy the very society they rule. Again, I do not recall a single monarch who was out to destroy their own kingdom.

Commodus was an idiot. He was not, however, a nihilist. Same goes for all other examples you have given. So yes, monarchy does prevent malice - what it does not prevent is incompetence. Humans are morons, that is a fact of life.

Also, betraying Stilicho and Aetius was hardly doomsday. Eastern Emperors did basically the same to their own barbarian magisters - look at Zeno's reign - and it could be argued that this actually saved the Eastern Empire. Of course, East still had its own armies, did not have mass settlement by barbarians within its borders, and was in overall far more stable position anyway. Stilicho or no, Honorius or no, Aetius or no, Western Empire was doomed when Vandals crossed into Africa.

Partly, yes - but see above. I have hard time seeing a system that would be worse than what we have right now in the long run.

I know this problem from Britain. The Tories aren't setting out to destroying Britain as an aim but doing so because of a combination of stupidity, greed and a belief that their in some way above all the devastation their causing. Ditto with the idiots in the US.

Know this viewpoint won't be popular with many of the right wingers here but it happens to be factual no matter how much some would desire to deny it.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I know this problem from Britain. The Tories aren't setting out to destroying Britain as an aim but doing so because of a combination of stupidity, greed and a belief that their in some way above all the devastation their causing. Ditto with the idiots in the US.

Know this viewpoint won't be popular with many of the right wingers here but it happens to be factual no matter how much some would desire to deny it.
Hm? Nah.

They are apathetic or just plain morons. Neo-Liberals have one goal and that is "GDP go up", damn the consequences. They are hyper materialistic and not thinking very far ahead at all.

There's some socialists who wouldn't mind overthrowing our civilisation, but they aren't quite in the driving seat. Oh, they get enabled by halfwit Neo-Liberals, but they don't have anywhere near as much control as they'd like.
Sorry, but a lot of stuff the Left is doing simply cannot be explained by mere incompetence. Especially if you know modern Left's origin story.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top