History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Cherico]

Russia isn’t dead, or perhaps even dying, but it is gravely ill. Will it survive this illness? I’d err on the side of “yes.” Countries and civilisations are difficult things to kill off and things have to go very wrong indeed for a few centuries straight in order for that to happen.

I think in time a diminished Russia will be drawn into the Western sphere and likely prosper as a result, but they’ll never quite be “us” (which is a difficult word. Apparently the British and the Polish are part of the same civilisation, which is a surprise to me). There will always be something quite distinct and different about them.

The russians purposefully killed their very soul its hard to come back from that.

 

[ATP]

Russia isn’t dead, or perhaps even dying, but it is gravely ill. Will it survive this illness? I’d err on the side of “yes.” Countries and civilisations are difficult things to kill off and things have to go very wrong indeed for a few centuries straight in order for that to happen.

I think in time a diminished Russia will be drawn into the Western sphere and likely prosper as a result, but they’ll never quite be “us” (which is a difficult word. Apparently the British and the Polish are part of the same civilisation, which is a surprise to me). There will always be something quite distinct and different about them.

Communism killed Russia.They manage to start anew after mongols becouse there was still some values in people left,but now it is not possible.
De Cousin in his "letters from Russia" described Russia as hellhole,but peasants still loved their land,and gentry still have honour.
Now? there is no peasants there now,and you would not find honour in current elites even if you use microscope.

The same would happen to all countries where commies ruled 70 years.If Poland was ruled by commies that long,not 40 years,and if we do not have catholic Church and free farmers,we would be gone as nation,too.

Even now 30% of our population ,or more,are soviet people,not poles.

 

[Poe]

Russia isn’t dead, or perhaps even dying, but it is gravely ill. Will it survive this illness? I’d err on the side of “yes.” Countries and civilisations are difficult things to kill off and things have to go very wrong indeed for a few centuries straight in order for that to happen.

I think in time a diminished Russia will be drawn into the Western sphere and likely prosper as a result, but they’ll never quite be “us” (which is a difficult word. Apparently the British and the Polish are part of the same civilisation, which is a surprise to me). There will always be something quite distinct and different about them.

Russias main problem is they just aren't having kids. Everything else is something solvable but until that one stands to take them down to a nation the size of Germany which just won't be able to compete with the US and China in the long run. They could end up a giant Sweden though, with tons of resources per person. It also depends on how things go, if Russia does manage to take Ukraine and then force Kazakhstan back into their civilization they will once again be a force to reckon with.

And who knows, maybe such a conquest will reignite their spirit and result in a baby boom.

 

[DarthOne]

Russias main problem is they just aren't having kids. Everything else is something solvable but until that one stands to take them down to a nation the size of Germany which just won't be able to compete with the US and China in the long run. They could end up a giant Sweden though, with tons of resources per person. It also depends on how things go, if Russia does manage to take Ukraine and then force Kazakhstan back into their civilization they will once again be a force to reckon with.

And who knows, maybe such a conquest will reignite their spirit and result in a baby boom.

Neither is the USA or the West in general. Having kids that is.

 

[Poe]

Neither is the USA or the West in general. Having kids that is.

Yeah it's definitely a problem of the entire industrial world.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I have mentioned in the past how I think it is all somewhat unavoidable. The population explosion after the Industrial Revolution was unprecedented, and what we are seeing now is that explosion running out of steam. Alongside all the other barriers we have so foolishly put in the way of young families, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods of children. That is why the world’s population will drop, as we are even seeing the beginnings of in the developing world (again, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods).

It will drop, stabilise, then begin to grow again at some point in the future. To my mind it’s mama nature’s way of preventing overpopulation.

 

[Poe]

I have mentioned in the past how I think it is all somewhat unavoidable. The population explosion after the Industrial Revolution was unprecedented, and what we are seeing now is that explosion running out of steam. Alongside all the other barriers we have so foolishly put in the way of young families, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods of children. That is why the world’s population will drop, as we are even seeing the beginnings of in the developing world (again, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods).

It will drop, stabilise, then begin to grow again at some point in the future. To my mind it’s mama nature’s way of preventing overpopulation.

Yeah I agree with this as well, think the problem though is that current economic machines are built around population continuing to grow so either populations do so or the economic elites, be they oligarchs, plutarchs or otherwise, will import a replacement population and thus the civilization that was dies out and is replaced by one crafted of a totally different volksgiest. Population rates are also uneven, in Russia specifically the Islamic population is growing at a huge rate (or was in the 2000s and 2010s)

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I have mentioned in the past how I think it is all somewhat unavoidable. The population explosion after the Industrial Revolution was unprecedented, and what we are seeing now is that explosion running out of steam. Alongside all the other barriers we have so foolishly put in the way of young families, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods of children. That is why the world’s population will drop, as we are even seeing the beginnings of in the developing world (again, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods).

It will drop, stabilise, then begin to grow again at some point in the future. To my mind it’s mama nature’s way of preventing overpopulation.

The problem is modern civilization is a giant pyramid scheme. In order to stay afloat it has to have people continuously pumping into it and that just can't go on forever. There is no such thing as "infinite growth." Even all the matter in the universe has a finite limit.

 

[DarthOne]

The problem is modern civilization is a giant ponzi scheme. In order to stay afloat it has to have people continuously pumping into it and that just can't go on forever. There is no such thing as "infinite growth." Even all the matter in the universe has a finite limit.

Exactly. Say goodbye to social security and so on, because there won't be enough people to keep it going. So people will more then likely have more kids again, if only to help take care of them when they reach old age. Which will help the system stabilize somewhat, but I think we're going to be heading back in time a lot of ways culturally. For that and other reasons.

 

[ATP]

Yeah it's definitely a problem of the entire industrial world.

According to what i read,it is worst in South Korea and Japan - although their kids are at least healthy,when in postsoviets at least 20% is destroyed by vodka and drugs,and in USA and Europe less then that,but still destroyed by drugs.

 

[Cherico]

Exactly. Say goodbye to social security and so on, because there won't be enough people to keep it going. So people will more then likely have more kids again, if only to help take care of them when they reach old age. Which will help the system stabilize somewhat, but I think we're going to be heading back in time a lot of ways culturally. For that and other reasons.

Its less us going back and more that the era of social experiements are coming to an end.

People get tried of novelty for the sake of novelty and change for the sake of change eventually people just want stability and a civilization tires of chaos and the people who bring it forward.

 

[DarthOne]

Its less us going back and more that the era of social experiements are coming to an end.

People get tried of novelty for the sake of novelty and change for the sake of change eventually people just want stability and a civilization tires of chaos and the people who bring it forward.

That too.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

In the past we have spoken of how many a culture does fit into the historical cycle, such as seen in Ancient Mesopotamia. It tracks relatively well, right into the Assyrians basically attaining the first universal empire. Yet, unlike Rome, Ashur’s dominion basically disintegrates within a few generations.

Have there been any other examples of that in history? Of an empire who had the prize in hand only for it to suddenly slip through their fingers?

 

[ATP]

In the past we have spoken of how many a culture does fit into the historical cycle, such as seen in Ancient Mesopotamia. It tracks relatively well, right into the Assyrians basically attaining the first universal empire. Yet, unlike Rome, Ashur’s dominion basically disintegrates within a few generations.

Have there been any other examples of that in history? Of an empire who had the prize in hand only for it to suddenly slip through their fingers?

Germany after 1871 and 1939.In both cases,they could win if they play it smart.

 

[Skallagrim]

An interesting take on Russian culture and how it is a rather interesting mesh of east and west.

As usual, he has sharp and astute observations. Generally correct, too, with only ever a few point that are a bit more iffy.

But in the context of macro-history, he suffers from a confusion of terms. Specifically, no clear concept of civilisation. And because of that lack of clear definition, he talks about "Russian civilisation" (which doesn't exist; Russia is a culture) and about "Orthodox civilisation" (which does exist, and of which Russia has been the geopolitical heartland for centuries now). But he also doesn't quite grasp the historical trajectory of Orthodox civilisation. He accurately describes the impact of the Mongols on Russia, but doesn't really go into the effrect of this on Orthodoxy as a civilisation. (Namely: that it fucking derailed the whole thing.)

the mongols fucked them hard and communism fucked them worse.

Their a dead civilization walking at this point.

Russia isn’t dead, or perhaps even dying, but it is gravely ill. Will it survive this illness? I’d err on the side of “yes.” Countries and civilisations are difficult things to kill off and things have to go very wrong indeed for a few centuries straight in order for that to happen.

The russians purposefully killed their very soul its hard to come back from that.

Clear definitions help here, too. Russia as an entity is almost certainly not at risk of dying. Russia as the carrier of an Orthodox civilisation is in fact already dead, and Putin is trying to make it march on as a zombie. In fact, Orthodox civilisation is dead because of this, and its remnants are almost certainly going to be swept up into the West. In fact, we alrwady see this-- with Ukrain actively synchronising certain expressions of faith (e.g. certain significant ecclesiastical dates) with the Western tradition. Don't forget that the Principate is -- peraps more than anything else -- an age in which the cultural expressions of the greater civilisational sphere are universalised, synchronised, standardised, formalised and definitively nailed down.

(You have a thousand versions of the narrative, and then the Aeneid puts down the version that everyone will know, even millennia later. That kind of thing. It also applies to religious standards... and all other standards.)

So, basically, expect all Schisms to be healed -- if necessary by proscribing anyone who objects -- and for Catholicism, Protestantism and Earthern Orthodoxy to be unified into one Universal Church. (No doubt a really heterodox one, with a thousand different rites within its corpus, but still.) And since Orthodox civilisation is essentially a bunch of scattered remants (the more politically relevant Slavic state -- Poland -- is Catholic, so go figure), we may expect that Eastern Orhodoxy is going to be the least influential of the three cultural and religious influences in the great syncretic melting-pot of the Principate.

I think in time a diminished Russia will be drawn into the Western sphere and likely prosper as a result, but they’ll never quite be “us” (which is a difficult word. Apparently the British and the Polish are part of the same civilisation, which is a surprise to me). There will always be something quite distinct and different about them.

Per the above, then-- we may conclude that Russia will undergo a "death of the soul", or has actually undergone it already. Russian culture will live on precisely as you say here! As part of a greater, expansive West. Certainly. But civilisationally speaking, it is dead. As is all of Orthodoxy, in that sense. The fate of Orthodoxy is not to carry on as a civilisation, but to become a contributing element within the universalised form of Western civilisation.

(And in that sense, it will be welcomed, because it has certain characteristics that the West could use!)

I have mentioned in the past how I think it is all somewhat unavoidable. The population explosion after the Industrial Revolution was unprecedented, and what we are seeing now is that explosion running out of steam. Alongside all the other barriers we have so foolishly put in the way of young families, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods of children. That is why the world’s population will drop, as we are even seeing the beginnings of in the developing world (again, modern medicine has removed the need to pump out massive broods).

It will drop, stabilise, then begin to grow again at some point in the future. To my mind it’s mama nature’s way of preventing overpopulation.

Yeah I agree with this as well, think the problem though is that current economic machines are built around population continuing to grow so either populations do so or the economic elites, be they oligarchs, plutarchs or otherwise, will import a replacement population and thus the civilization that was dies out and is replaced by one crafted of a totally different volksgiest. Population rates are also uneven, in Russia specifically the Islamic population is growing at a huge rate (or was in the 2000s and 2010s)

The problem is modern civilization is a giant pyramid scheme. In order to stay afloat it has to have people continuously pumping into it and that just can't go on forever. There is no such thing as "infinite growth." Even all the matter in the universe has a finite limit.

Exactly. Say goodbye to social security and so on, because there won't be enough people to keep it going. So people will more then likely have more kids again, if only to help take care of them when they reach old age. Which will help the system stabilize somewhat, but I think we're going to be heading back in time a lot of ways culturally. For that and other reasons.

Its less us going back and more that the era of social experiements are coming to an end.

People get tried of novelty for the sake of novelty and change for the sake of change eventually people just want stability and a civilization tires of chaos and the people who bring it forward.

This whole exchange covers the fundamental dynamic of this century.

Remember:

Through darkness on to morning.

In the past we have spoken of how many a culture does fit into the historical cycle, such as seen in Ancient Mesopotamia. It tracks relatively well, right into the Assyrians basically attaining the first universal empire. Yet, unlike Rome, Ashur’s dominion basically disintegrates within a few generations.

Have there been any other examples of that in history? Of an empire who had the prize in hand only for it to suddenly slip through their fingers?

Neo-Assyrian Empire = Principate

Neo-Babylonian Empire = Dominate.

Together, they make up the Universal Empire phase of Mesopotamian civilisation. It still stands out that the Neo-Babylonians collapsed early, but that's because Cyrus showed up at just the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) time to finish them off as soon as they were really in decline. So they went under very quickly, whereas in most cases, a civilisation has longer to sink into infirmity. (So were they treated cruelly, in Babylon, or were they spared a humiliating end? By most accounts, Cyrus was a remarkably tolerant ruler, who adopted many elements of Mesopotamian culture into his Persian Empire.)

Anyway, for comparison, not how in China, Former Han and Latter Han had different capitals and centres of political gravity. Same for their second Universal stage, with Tang and Song being two different dynasties (with again, each possessing their own centre of political gravity). In Rome, we see it as well, with the shift of political and (especially) economic power to the East during the Dominate. So none of this is especially unusual.



If we're talking about "contenders" who dropped the ball, we have:

-- Islam, due to making the worst possible choices regarding some fundamental principles of theology, philosophy and science. They totally screwed themselves with that. Worst case of civilisational self-sabotage ever seen.

-- Macedon, by going against Rome and losing. (A potential alternative would be to co-operate with Rome, and agree to be in second place within the greater civilisation, in exchange for basically being the political centre of the entire Eastern Med.)

-- Carthage, even more so than Macedon, by failing to adequately support the Barcids (who knew what was up), and losing the clash of civilisation in the process.

-- Germany, as @ATP notes, which was a serious contender in the way Macedon was. Note that Chamberlain (the Elder) outright offered an Anglo-German alliance, and Germany told him to fuck off.

-- Russia, by even getting involved in (and thereby in that sense causing) World War One. They could've said "fuck the Serbs, what good are they?" and continued developing a capitalist-industrial economy another 20-30 years. Then they'd have been unassailable from Europe, and free to grab whatever they desired in Asia.

-- Japan, by trying to make all the enemies, and all at once. How dumb. They could've acted with more moderation, which would have ensured the support of at least one European power (or even the USA!) capable of providing them with oil. Then they'd still be in charge of Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan to this very day.

-- Britain, which could have gone for some kind of Imperial Federation (again, Chamberlain the Elder was ready to pull it off!), which would have at least ensured a reasonably united Empire including the Home Islands (incl. Unified Ireland with home rule), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape. (I think the rest of South Africa would have split away in time.) Much of the rest of the former colonial empire would then remain in a more souped-up Commonwealth set-up. Would have been much better for all involved.


As we look at this list, we see that in Classical Antiquity, the final shuffling of the deck was during the Punic/Macedonian Wars, and in the modern West, it was during the World Wars. And these conflicts are macro-historical analogues, so no surprises there!

 

[ATP]

Poland was never civilization - we are part of western/latin civilization from 966AD - but,we have few chances to create European Empire,and fucked it,especially when:
1.Our King failed to save Novogrod the great from Moscov in 1479 - we have money for hiring 12.000 mercaneries then,but we choose to fight with Hungary over Silesia.
Which we never get,at least not till 1945.

2.Another King failed to support Hungary in 1526 against Ottomans/we had good enough levies to do that/ ,but,in the same time,agreed to keep Teutonic Knights as vassals after they become protestant.
Both were madness,which lead to our fall.

3.And,both Kings and gentry fucked taxes - we could have normal tax for army,but,thanks to mistakes on both sides,we failed - and,till 1720 Poland had small tax enough to have max 10.000 strong army during peace.

 

[King Arts]

In the past we have spoken of how many a culture does fit into the historical cycle, such as seen in Ancient Mesopotamia. It tracks relatively well, right into the Assyrians basically attaining the first universal empire. Yet, unlike Rome, Ashur’s dominion basically disintegrates within a few generations.

Have there been any other examples of that in history? Of an empire who had the prize in hand only for it to suddenly slip through their fingers?

Alexander the Great is the first example that comes to mind.

Germany after 1871 and 1939.In both cases,they could win if they play it smart.

But those lost the war he was asking for who won but still collapsed.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

So, basically, expect all Schisms to be healed -- if necessary by proscribing anyone who objects -- and for Catholicism, Protestantism and Earthern Orthodoxy to be unified into one Universal Church. (No doubt a really heterodox one, with a thousand different rites within its corpus, but still.) And since Orthodox civilisation is essentially a bunch of scattered remants (the more politically relevant Slavic state -- Poland -- is Catholic, so go figure), we may expect that Eastern Orhodoxy is going to be the least influential of the three cultural and religious influences in the great syncretic melting-pot of the Principate.

I suppose my question is what actually happens when a church(s) says no because they lost out on dictating "correct" orthodoxy or their dicks or they prefer a seat of religion closer to home. What does "condem" them mean in practice.

Are we talking sternly worded essays or people being ostracized for religious beliefs?

 

[Poe]

I suppose my question is what actually happens when a church(s) says no because they lost out on dictating "correct" orthodoxy or their dicks or they prefer a seat of religion closer to home. What does "condem" them mean in practice.

Are we talking sternly worded essays or people being ostracized for religious beliefs?

I have no idea how this is expected to work, protestantism is kind of anti-clergy or at least anti-one church hierarchy and they are the most powerful from a military and economic standpoint (unless the US somehow breaks catholic.)

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I have no idea how this is expected to work, protestantism is kind of anti-clergy or at least anti-one church hierarchy and they are the most powerful from a military and economic standpoint (unless the US somehow breaks catholic.)

Playing Devil's advocate I could kind of see all the main denominations coming together setting up some universal guidelines for "Christianity" regardless of faith. Ie homosexuality is a sin and any church that says different isn't preaching Christ's teachings for example but leaving the individual churches to govern themselves as they see fit.

Something like that might work but it seems looser than what skallagrim seemed to be suggestion where all the churches unify into one.