History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Goddard's suspicion about Von Braun stealing his work is public record.
Yes, suspicion. Which you presented as a fact.
First I'd ever heard of the place.

Looking into it, you are being misleading about it's nature:

"Environmental protection on Bogd Khan Mountain dates back at least to the thirteenth century when the Tooril Khan ruler of the Keraites, forbade logging and hunting there, claiming that Bogd Khan was a holy mountain"

"In 1778 the Mongolian governor of what is now Ulan-Bator, petitioned the Qianlong Emperor requesting approval to hold twice yearly ceremonies dedicated to Mount Bogd Khan Uul. Permission was granted eight days later for ceremonies to be held twice annually"

"In 1783, the local government of the Qing dynasty declared the Bogd Khan a protected site, to be preserved for its beauty"

It's a holy site, which was maintained for local religious purposes/beliefs, and preserved because of it's importance to locals and the Qing. That's like trying to claim that Mount Olympus is the 'first national park' because of how the Greeks treated it.

Though not surprised the Mongolians and CCP want to play it off as the 'first national park', to try to one up the US.

It is now a biosphere reserve, which is not the same as a national park either, as reserves have far fewer visitor amenities and are generally there to protect wildlife/flora with minimal human interaction, instead of allow the public to enjoy nature by visiting it in depth.
Point is that it was a government-mandated environmentally protected area since 13th century, and in 1783 it was officially declared a "protected site to be preserved for its beauty". If that isn't a national park, I really do not know what is.
I do not think that the 'fall apart' phase would have happened before the whole of Europe was already German controlled for a while. You remember how many collaborators the Nazi's had in their conquered lands, and how many places joined 'non-violently'.

Britain may have survived unconquered, but without the US and Soviets keeping the pressure up on German, Europe would have been Hitler's plaything till the syphilis got him, and if someone competent took over after that, it would only get worse.
Maybe. Regardless, your original point that we would be "speaking German now" is BS.
I know more than most Americans, and the fact I can dissect the reasons behind why the US and Rome comparison's are a farce is because I actually do have a greater knowledge of history and world affairs than most of the US population.

Which should scare you, because you are not wrong about others in the US; some in the US even think Alaska is an island because of how it's shown on maps. And I am not shitting you about that.
Holy shit.

And yeah, it actually does scare me.
No, because the EU is a super-state farce that is trying to usurp control from national level govs, and force European nations into a super-state for the benefit of Berlin and Paris.

The EU is trying to become the US, not because the US is an empire, but because the US's economic might drawf's all European nations, even combined, and the European merchants feel they need the EU to compete with the US at all.

Paris and Berlin realized they could never match DC on their own, and realized working together against the US economically, via the formation of the EU, was their only hope of rebuilding from WW2 towards something like what they had before, but now with a formal way to control other European nations via pen, instead of sword.
Original idea of European Union will have sufficed for that however.

Bruxelles had moved way beyond that mandate though, and is indeed trying to become an empire akin to the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
I'm sorry, who's flag is on the Moon, who had the first A-Bomb, who has the first National Park system in the world, and who saved your Euro ass's from speaking German as the state language?

The US is better than Rome, and better than small-minded Euro's imaginings.
1.USA,but so what? you were Empire for only 78 years,and arleady are falling.National Parks do not matter.
And germans twice could win war,but twice lost thanks to their own german stupidity.

Rome lasted more then 1000 years,at least 300 as Empire.You started in 1776 and if notching change,there would be no more of USA after 2050.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
So I had some thoughts on the nature of history and the impact of Rome on Western Civilization. I personally believe that all of Western Civilization is in essence Rome and then after its fall people recreating it or taking aspects of it. Rome went from kingdom, to Republic, to Empire under a Caesar. In that same sense after the fall of Rome you had Kingdoms, and then a transition into Republican forms of government across the west, which to me seems naturally empire under a Caesar type figure would then follow.

Our current demographic crisis is eerily similar to that which the Romans underwent, leading to their collapse:

 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Our current demographic crisis is eerily similar to that which the Romans underwent, leading to their collapse:



Limited the size of their families, yes. Fear of child birth issues? No proof of that.


I'm told, towards the end, they had a lot of sexual degenerancy, crossdressing and female empowerment.

Much like today. Same reason we're not having kids today.
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
Demographics compound an issue, they are not the root cause.

As has been said before, what did for the Imperium Romanum, both in 476 and 1453, was an unstable succession system that lead to civil war after civil war. Rome never quite recovered from the Crisis of the Third Century, and whilst Constantine did pull things back from the brink his successors ultimately poo poo’d all his good work.

Even in times of demographic contraction there were enough warm bodies to fill the legions. Indeed, given that the Imperial Army was larger than it had ever been in the 4th and 5th centuries, still mostly manned by Roman Citizens, I think the issue is overstated.

Given enough time these things correct themselves. Almost as if it’s Momma Nature’s way of preventing overpopulation…
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Demographics compound an issue, they are not the root cause.

As has been said before, what did for the Imperium Romanum, both in 476 and 1453, was an unstable succession system that lead to civil war after civil war. Rome never quite recovered from the Crisis of the Third Century, and whilst Constantine did pull things back from the brink his successors ultimately poo poo’d all his good work.

Even in times of demographic contraction there were enough warm bodies to fill the legions. Indeed, given that the Imperial Army was larger than it had ever been in the 4th and 5th centuries, still mostly manned by Roman Citizens, I think the issue is overstated.

Given enough time these things correct themselves. Almost as if it’s Momma Nature’s way of preventing overpopulation…

It should be noted that in the later Dominate, the expansion of the military did present and issue, especially when combined with demographic contraction: there regularly weren't enough men to produce sufficient food in various regions, leading to increased dependence on imports from other regions. These issues ultimately contributed to a replacement of traditional armies by foederati, which did address the problem, but created a new form of dependency...

Very much true that the Empire didn't really recover from the Crisis of the Third Century. Indeed, no universal empire in history has adequately recovered from its mid-imperial crisis. The attempted solution is invariably reminiscent of the Roman Dominate-- and can't properly resolve the fundamental issues.

Said issues, however, ultimately stem from a geographic issue. The Empire reaches its limits. All Empires do. Even if you conquer the entire world, then the entire world is simply the scope encompassed by your limit. After that, expansion ceases. And how does the wealthy, glorious Principate become and remain so wealthy and glorious? Through a wealth pump mechanism. Expansion is enacted, new vassals or subjects pay taxes or tribute, and with this, the Imperial core finances its splendour... without taxing its citizens too much (or at all, in some cases). The new subjects / vassals generally don't rebel, because they get military protection.

That protection has to be offered for real. Its existence keeps the Periphery loyal and orderly. And as any & every Emperor in history has discovered, the wealth of the Empire attracts raiders. To stop raiders for real, the only way is to march across the border and pacify the region. Gues what? NEW VASSALS! Meanwhile, the old border is becoming "civilised". Its inhabitants gain citizenship. Meaning they, too, become part of the expanding Core region.

Eventually, it becomes impossible to conquer new peripheries. Logistical limits are reached. Rival empires are encountered. In the final instance, for a universal empire that conquers the whole planet, the sky is literally the limit. (Space travel and terraforming are hard.) So... no more Periphery. At last, the final frontier is hemmed in. It becomes part of the Core. Part of an Empire that is all Core. Once that process is complete, the mid-imperial crisis hits.

The result is the Dominate, in which the citizenry becomes ever more taxed. No more wealth pump. The mechanism that fueled the Empire has broken down. The solutions of the Dominate extend its life, but do not restore its vitality. The Empire, at that stage, is literally on borrowed time.

(There are ways to escape such traps, obviously. But those methods require a degree of flexibility that universal empires invariably lack. After the empire collapses, smaller -- "more nimble" -- successor states will implement such methods and transition to different social and economic strategies that restore vitality.)
 
Last edited:

Cherico

Well-known member
It should be noted that in the later Dominate, the expansion of the military did present and issue, especially when combined with demographic contraction: there regularly weren't enough men to produce sufficient food in various regions, leading to increased dependence on imports from other regions. These issues ultimately contributed to a replacement of traditional armies by foederati, which did address the problem, but created a new form of dependency...

Very much true that the Empire didn't really recover from the Crisis of the Third Century. Indeed, no universal empire in history has adequately recovered from its mid-imperial crisis. The attempted solution is invariably reminiscent of the Roman Dominate-- and can't properly resolve the fundamental issues.

Said issues, however, ultimately stem from a geographic issue. The Empire reaches its limits. All Empires do. Even if you conquer the entire world, then the entire world is simply the scope encompassed by your limit. After that, expansion ceases. And how does the wealthy, glorious Principate become and remain so wealthy and glorious? Through a wealth pump mechanism. Expansion is enacted, new vassals or subjects pay taxes or tribute, and with this, the Imperial core finances its splendour... without taxing its citizens. The new subjects / vassals generally don't rebel, because they get military protection.

That protection has to be offered for real. Its existence keeps the Periphery loyal and orderly. And as any & every Emperor in history has discovered, the wealth of the Empire attracts raiders. To stop raiders for real, the only way is to march across the border and pacify the region. Gues what? NEW VASSALS! Meanwhile, the old border is becoming "civilised". Its inhabitants gain citizenship. Meaning they, too, become part of the expanding Core region.

Eventually, it becomes impossible to conquer new peripheries. Logistical limits are reached. Rival empires are encountered. In the final instance, for a universal empire that conquers the whole planet, the sky is literally the limit. (Space travel and terraforming are hard.) So... no more Periphery. At last, the final frontier is hemmed in. It becomes part of the Core. Part of an Empire that is all Core. Once that process is complete, the mid-imperial crisis hits.

The result is the Dominate, in which the citizenry becomes ever more taxed. No more wealth pump. The mechanism that fueled the Empire has broken down. The solutions of the Dominate extend its life, but do not restore its vitality. The Empire, at that stage, is literally on borrowed time.

(There are ways to escape such traps, obviously. But those methods require a degree of flexibility that universal empires invariably lack. After the empire collapses, smaller -- "more nimble" -- successor states will implement such methods and transition to different social and economic strategies that restore vitality.)

All I can hope is that the western universal empire leaves good infostructure and good insitutions for the successor states leaving humanity better off then when it was created.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
All I can hope is that the western universal empire leaves good infostructure and good insitutions for the successor states leaving humanity better off then when it was created.

"Better off" is hard to measure, but all universal empires produce a legacy of staggering proportions. Even the ones that don't die of natural causes but get "murdered" by a rival civilisation will do this. For instance: the Dominate of the Mesopotamian civilisation (that is: the Neo-Babylonian period) was cut short by Cyrus the Great (himself the "Charlemagne" of Persian civilisation). Mesopotamia promptly became the economic heartland of the Persian realm, and the Mesopotamian influence on the emergent Persian civilisation was considerable.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Even in times of demographic contraction there were enough warm bodies to fill the legions. Indeed, given that the Imperial Army was larger than it had ever been in the 4th and 5th centuries, still mostly manned by Roman Citizens, I think the issue is overstated.
There actually weren't. Late Roman Army had to recruit cripples to make up numbers.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
"Better off" is hard to measure, but all universal empires produce a legacy of staggering proportions. Even the ones that don't die of natural causes but get "murdered" by a rival civilisation will do this. For instance: the Dominate of the Mesopotamian civilisation (that is: the Neo-Babylonian period) was cut short by Cyrus the Great (himself the "Charlemagne" of Persian civilisation). Mesopotamia promptly became the economic heartland of the Persian realm, and the Mesopotamian influence on the emergent Persian civilisation was considerable.

If we give humanity the star themselves then its worth it.
 

ATP

Well-known member
About Poland place in West:
Poland is not East or West. Poland is at the center of European civilization. It has contributed mightily to that civilization. It is doing so today by being magnificently unreconciled to oppression.
Ronald Reagan
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
About Poland place in West:
Poland is not East or West. Poland is at the center of European civilization. It has contributed mightily to that civilization. It is doing so today by being magnificently unreconciled to oppression.
Ronald Reagan

Yes, but Reagan is using 'West' and 'East' as geopolitical concepts relating to the Cold War. But he's correct in pointing out that much of what is now called "Eastern Europe" is actually "Central Europe". But in civilisational terms, Poland is certainly Western, since it is religiously shaped by Christendom, and culturally/demographically part of the greater whole that is formed by Europe and its wide colonial diaspora. Which is, by and large, the best description we have of "Western civilisation".

...Although the borders are hazy, and not yet defined.

For instance: there is the legacy of the Schism to resolve, especially since Russia is currently defining itself as anti-Western. This has the effect, however, of bringing much of the rest of the Orthodox sphere closer into the Western embrace. The ultimate defeat of Russia will define where the West ends, and where the Chinese sphere begins. Orthodoxy will not exist as a separate civilisation; that Russian experiment has failed.

Similarly, there are parts of South America (particularly Central Chile, North-Eastern Argentina, the Southern part of Brazil, and Uruguay) that can plausibly fit very well into the West. That would demand, however, that they somehow divest themselves of their distinctly non-Western hinterland.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Yes, but Reagan is using 'West' and 'East' as geopolitical concepts relating to the Cold War. But he's correct in pointing out that much of what is now called "Eastern Europe" is actually "Central Europe". But in civilisational terms, Poland is certainly Western, since it is religiously shaped by Christendom, and culturally/demographically part of the greater whole that is formed by Europe and its wide colonial diaspora. Which is, by and large, the best description we have of "Western civilisation".

...Although the borders are hazy, and not yet defined.

For instance: there is the legacy of the Schism to resolve, especially since Russia is currently defining itself as anti-Western. This has the effect, however, of bringing much of the rest of the Orthodox sphere closer into the Western embrace. The ultimate defeat of Russia will define where the West ends, and where the Chinese sphere begins. Orthodoxy will not exist as a separate civilisation; that Russian experiment has failed.

Similarly, there are parts of South America (particularly Central Chile, North-Eastern Argentina, the Southern part of Brazil, and Uruguay) that can plausibly fit very well into the West. That would demand, however, that they somehow divest themselves of their distinctly non-Western hinterland.

so how much longer until russias final defeat because that country has basically refused to die for centuries now.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
so how much longer until russias final defeat because that country has basically refused to die for centuries now.

Who could tell the exact time? We can only say that it's not going to be a long time before it happens. Russia fucked itself by adopting the worst ideology known to man, and then trying to make it as a world-hegemon. Didn't work out, left them wrecked, here we are.

They might have scraped something back together-- not as a civilisational nexus, but as a functional country. For instance by following a version of the German example, and becoming a good and reasonably obedient member of the Western sphere (a.k.a. NATO). Russia was ruined after the USSR fell, but there were voices then, to basically replace NATO with a successor organisation, of which a reformed Russia would be a part.

Said trend of proposals also included massive Western (mainly American) aid for, and investment in, Russia... in exchange for (partial) ownership of Russia's Asiatic natural resources. Furthermore, the idea was that Russia would join the European states in some kind of free trade zone.

Note that this would imply that there would presumably be no NAFTA, either. Rather, this Amero-Anglo-Euro-Russian bloc would become one giant free trade zone. Presumably, the rest of the world would be largely locked out, so no Chinese entry into the WTO...

One can see how that might have saved Russia, and made it far more prosperous (although the road would have still been rocky). Indeed, it would have been good for the West as a whole, too.

That path was not taken, and the chosen path has led to what we see today.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Who could tell the exact time? We can only say that it's not going to be a long time before it happens. Russia fucked itself by adopting the worst ideology known to man, and then trying to make it as a world-hegemon. Didn't work out, left them wrecked, here we are.

They might have scraped something back together-- not as a civilisational nexus, but as a functional country. For instance by following a version of the German example, and becoming a good and reasonably obedient member of the Western sphere (a.k.a. NATO). Russia was ruined after the USSR fell, but there were voices then, to basically replace NATO with a successor organisation, of which a reformed Russia would be a part.

Said trend of proposals also included massive Western (mainly American) aid for, and investment in, Russia... in exchange for (partial) ownership of Russia's Asiatic natural resources. Furthermore, the idea was that Russia would join the European states in some kind of free trade zone.

Note that this would imply that there would presumably be no NAFTA, either. Rather, this Amero-Anglo-Euro-Russian bloc would become one giant free trade zone. Presumably, the rest of the world would be largely locked out, so no Chinese entry into the WTO...

One can see how that might have saved Russia, and made it far more prosperous (although the road would have still been rocky). Indeed, it would have been good for the West as a whole, too.

That path was not taken, and the chosen path has led to what we see today.

The russian ego wouldn't have allowed that, they need to fall much further before they get to the point where they would accept the strings that would come with such aid.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
For instance by following a version of the German example, and becoming a good and reasonably obedient member of the Western sphere (a.k.a. NATO).
That would have been as bad as their current situation, considering the West is now ruled by the worst and most diabolical variant of Communism imaginable.

Free trade zone, yes, but that is all.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Yes, but Reagan is using 'West' and 'East' as geopolitical concepts relating to the Cold War. But he's correct in pointing out that much of what is now called "Eastern Europe" is actually "Central Europe". But in civilisational terms, Poland is certainly Western, since it is religiously shaped by Christendom, and culturally/demographically part of the greater whole that is formed by Europe and its wide colonial diaspora. Which is, by and large, the best description we have of "Western civilisation".

...Although the borders are hazy, and not yet defined.

For instance: there is the legacy of the Schism to resolve, especially since Russia is currently defining itself as anti-Western. This has the effect, however, of bringing much of the rest of the Orthodox sphere closer into the Western embrace. The ultimate defeat of Russia will define where the West ends, and where the Chinese sphere begins. Orthodoxy will not exist as a separate civilisation; that Russian experiment has failed.

Similarly, there are parts of South America (particularly Central Chile, North-Eastern Argentina, the Southern part of Brazil, and Uruguay) that can plausibly fit very well into the West. That would demand, however, that they somehow divest themselves of their distinctly non-Western hinterland.
True.Once i read/forget where,as usual/ then border of West is place where catholics churches existed,and at least partially replaced orthodox one.
those people will not be in charge for ever and the process of them being replaced has already started which is why their freaking out hard.
Indeed.I do not see world lgbt gulag working.
But,we still could get muslims with China instead.....better choice,but not much better.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top