Normal approach.Everybody should care about his country,and then everytching would be OK.Building big Empire witchout helping our own countries first is madness which always lead to fall of Empire.
History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
That is the point, you are a part of something much larger than yourself whether you like it or not. Fighting this truth only leads to depression and misery, embracing it leads to bliss.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
How one can look upon the sheer expanse and glory of God’s creation and feel despair has always been something that’s baffled me.
It's simple: without the context of it being God's creation, and the knowledge that God's care that bring, the universe is so vast and expansive that it makes people nihilistic in that they cannot impact anything and nothing cares for them.
But my dude, when one looks up at the heavens on a clear night how can a person be anything but humbled and privileged to not only have eyes to see but to also be a part of this grand tapestry, no matter how small the thread.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I'm sure the ant feels privileged to see the glory of the giant boot about to squash them.
Because that very humility is anathema to many. When they look upon the heavens and feel so small next to it it makes them feel worthless and that their existence is meaningless against the scope of the universe, and unlike a Believer they do not have the added context of God's infinite love that transcends the universe that allows the Believer to wonder. Further for many people Pride is all they have, they see themselves as the center of the universe, even if they do not explicitly say so, and when faced with the irrefutable evidence that they are not, they react poorly.
Pride is the Spirit of the Age, that is why there is an entire month dedicated to celebrating it, and as such things that are anathema to Pride, things that bring humility, destroy that and people who's self worth and identity are built around Pride react poorly.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I'll give a defense. even in the context of God's infinite love it can still all be overwhelming for even for a believer especially when the struggles with sin and the overall human condition makes people doubt how vast the love of God actually is. It doesn't help when his representatives here on earth (be it the Pope, the patriarchs or the brothers and sisters of Christ) doesn't exactly do anything to inspire confidence.Mortality can be overwhelming.
So I recently went through a “reader’s digest” history of the Eastern Roman Empire (Fall of Civilisations Podcast), and it occurred to me that they were destroyed by the same thing that destroyed the Western Romans: succession crises.
I hesitate to call it “the curse of Augustus” but in some respects that is what it is. A stable succession system was never properly figured out. For the longest time, by not tying the imperial throne to blood, by adopting whomever and whenever, the ultimate glittering prize of political power because something anyone with sufficient armies and gold could win. This was what incentivised Generals to keep abandoning the barbarian riddled frontier so as to march on the capital whenever the Emperor died, and waste precious blood and treasure.
Meanwhile the feudal medieval kingdoms which the Romans so looked down upon, suffered nowhere near the upheavals and infighting which crippled the Empire. Oh there were dynastic disputes, bloody ones at that, but those kingdoms waxed, waned, then waxed again. Spain came back from Moorish conquest, whilst the Romans sure as shit didn’t from the Turks.
Point is, it appears there is no middle ground. The head of state must either be elected by popular acclaim, or inherit by blood right. Those confer legitimacy of a type.
Anything else confers confusion.
I hesitate to call it “the curse of Augustus” but in some respects that is what it is. A stable succession system was never properly figured out. For the longest time, by not tying the imperial throne to blood, by adopting whomever and whenever, the ultimate glittering prize of political power because something anyone with sufficient armies and gold could win. This was what incentivised Generals to keep abandoning the barbarian riddled frontier so as to march on the capital whenever the Emperor died, and waste precious blood and treasure.
Meanwhile the feudal medieval kingdoms which the Romans so looked down upon, suffered nowhere near the upheavals and infighting which crippled the Empire. Oh there were dynastic disputes, bloody ones at that, but those kingdoms waxed, waned, then waxed again. Spain came back from Moorish conquest, whilst the Romans sure as shit didn’t from the Turks.
Point is, it appears there is no middle ground. The head of state must either be elected by popular acclaim, or inherit by blood right. Those confer legitimacy of a type.
Anything else confers confusion.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Succession, and in fact tranfser of political power in general, is a matter of enduring complication.
Inherited monarchy with clear rules of succession (meaning also a specific, determined order of succession) seems ultimately the most stable system, and the most common and long-lived one in history. The Romans were somewhat hamstrung by the fact that they had a deep cultural aversion to monarchy, so they couldn't just go for that explicitly. Augustus also faced the problem that he had terrible luck with heirs, ultimately leaving him with mediocre Tiberius.
Of course, inherited monarchical rule has its own issues. If the king is a moron, a psycho or a scumbag, you're either stuck with him, or you get rid of him. Doing the latter a few times too often tends to tarnish the legitimacy of the crown. But if the king is unsuitable, and has absolute power, he is intrinsically a danger to the realm. So you have checks on his power, e.g. in the form of an aristocracy (warrior class), a clergy (priestly class) and a citizenry (mercantile class) that has a say in governance and can prevent abuses of royal power. Yet that can cause such a diminishing of royal power that you end up with the "Poland-Lithuania" problem...
Choosing monarchs -- elective monarchy -- might be a solution, but lacks the advantages of inherited rule. (One of which is that monarchs who leave everything to their kids tend to want everything to be in good condition.) It also brings its own problems, such as inherent factionalism within whatever electoral body you have.
The Holy Roman Empire, actually, seems to have arrived at a pretty good system, where you have clear legally and culturally set rules of succession, and typically the heir of the monarch is the next monarch, but he does need the approval of the high nobility and of the church. If they really find a proposed heir unfit, they can reject him and choose another candidate. But doing so costs them a lot of political capital, and it's not something they can do willy-nilly.
So it's: "the monarch's son [or, if lacking one, the first claimant in the order of succession], unless there's a damn good reason why not".
Still not perfect, but it worked out pretty well. Kept the monarchs from being tyrants, while not enabling either the Church or the aristocrats (or the burghers for that matter) from seizing inordinate power for themselves.
Last edited:
Sometimes I get the impression that you are a bit of a Holy Roman Empire stan (at least, for certain points in its history). It’s no issue. The Holy Roman Empire could be pretty based and I look forward to learning more about it.
Given that the Empire, the greatest of the German Reichs, lasted the better part of a thousand years I would assume that succession did the job half the time? The Heiliges Romisches Reich didn’t seem to be plagued by civil war in the same way the Imperium Romanum or the Basileia Rhomaion were.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarity: Only Beneficial for Whites and Jews
It is also worth noting that the Ottoman Empire had also gotten itself into a kind of succession crisis of its own as well, with the disputes between the sons of Bayezid I after he was captured by Tamerlane. The interregnum was the sole reason why they had the bloodiest succession system. It also didn't help that various Ottoman sultans had a harem in which they could sleep with concubines and impregnate them, resulting in numerous sons born from different mothers. In fact, it is also worth noting that the last time that an Ottoman sultans had killed off his own siblings were either Mehmed III and the slaughter of 19 of his own siblings, or Prince Kasym's execution by his brother Murad IV. So in a way, the Ottomans had also ironically inherited the same problems that their Byzantine does had held centuries prior.
You'd find the problems of succession crises even worse in areas where legitimacy can be a bit sketchy.
You'd find the problems of succession crises even worse in areas where legitimacy can be a bit sketchy.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Only sometimes?
The Holy Roman Empire wasn't perfect, but it's pretty much the prototypical model on which the West bases its own(!) conception of "the empire". (The external example and precursor, of course, being the actual Roman Empire; but that was very much an entity that "came before". The Holy Roman Empire is what the West built for itself. The most enduring legacy of the Carolingian project.)
If you take the model of the Holy Roman Empire, add the distinct elements of the Anglo-American legal, political and cultural tradition as a guiding element, and assume that it's nominally going to be a republic (the high body that confirms the new ruler being, of course, the Electoral College)... then you have the fundaments of the West's universal state.
We could do so much worse.
Compilation from polish press:
1.We are falling thanks to welfare state - when people agreed,that state could "help" them,they usually do not protest when it turn them into serfs.
2.Marxism is anticulture which not only try to destroy western culture,but,if it succed,it would be impossible to create any culture at all,becouse it would destroy humanity in us.
They try to create utopia which made being human impossible/Naragonia where ship of fools sail - Hieronim Bosh or Sebastian Brandt/
3.Jaroslaw Rymkiewicz,polish poet just removed from school canon by germans,belived that if we want be poles,we must be free,and it is sometching which we must do on our own,and fight with virus on servitude which our enemies intriduced into Poland.
4.Just like gentry in old Poland - they considered themselves as civis, not sarmatians.Free people on their own land.
5.France fall thanks to belive that progress exist,and we all must fight "fascists" - that is why leftists allied with muslims who would kill them in future.
They are dying becouse of their philosophy.
6.Big cities in Poland voted for leftists,becouse they are full of people from villages and small towns,who belive that to become european they must toss up our entire heritage.
It is stupid - but as long as people would belive so,they would vote for left.
7.Current scientists cease to be scientists,becouse they do not longer search for Truth,but say what elies order them to say.
Just like current doctors are serfs of big pharma.
8.Germans want us to abadonn our traditions - becouse only they we become their serfs,who belive that they are real europeans.
They use "Hellish triade" - alliance of state education,media nad entertaintment industry.
9.According to remnants of polish teachers,who still are good - polish young people do not knew anytching,are not aware of that,and not interested in learning anytching.I hope,that it is not true.
10.Brandon Smoth from "Alt Market" show that people are ruled by Big Corpo,and even do not try fight it - they now teach us about morality,and decide what we would like - and everybody is happy.
Well,not always,fan of SW boycotted "The Acolyte" /lesbians witch in space/ ,but Big Corpo still try educate us.
He ask - if Big Corpo are doing all that now,what they would do to us,when they get full power?
1.We are falling thanks to welfare state - when people agreed,that state could "help" them,they usually do not protest when it turn them into serfs.
2.Marxism is anticulture which not only try to destroy western culture,but,if it succed,it would be impossible to create any culture at all,becouse it would destroy humanity in us.
They try to create utopia which made being human impossible/Naragonia where ship of fools sail - Hieronim Bosh or Sebastian Brandt/
3.Jaroslaw Rymkiewicz,polish poet just removed from school canon by germans,belived that if we want be poles,we must be free,and it is sometching which we must do on our own,and fight with virus on servitude which our enemies intriduced into Poland.
4.Just like gentry in old Poland - they considered themselves as civis, not sarmatians.Free people on their own land.
5.France fall thanks to belive that progress exist,and we all must fight "fascists" - that is why leftists allied with muslims who would kill them in future.
They are dying becouse of their philosophy.
6.Big cities in Poland voted for leftists,becouse they are full of people from villages and small towns,who belive that to become european they must toss up our entire heritage.
It is stupid - but as long as people would belive so,they would vote for left.
7.Current scientists cease to be scientists,becouse they do not longer search for Truth,but say what elies order them to say.
Just like current doctors are serfs of big pharma.
8.Germans want us to abadonn our traditions - becouse only they we become their serfs,who belive that they are real europeans.
They use "Hellish triade" - alliance of state education,media nad entertaintment industry.
9.According to remnants of polish teachers,who still are good - polish young people do not knew anytching,are not aware of that,and not interested in learning anytching.I hope,that it is not true.
10.Brandon Smoth from "Alt Market" show that people are ruled by Big Corpo,and even do not try fight it - they now teach us about morality,and decide what we would like - and everybody is happy.
Well,not always,fan of SW boycotted "The Acolyte" /lesbians witch in space/ ,but Big Corpo still try educate us.
He ask - if Big Corpo are doing all that now,what they would do to us,when they get full power?
Last edited:
Doomsought
Well-known member
Yeah, you know you can create new threads right?
In terms of the cycle we might currently be in, I’m guessing that whilst “Augustus” isn’t going to be born for another few decades, would I be correct in saying “Caesar” is very much alive by now?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
It depends on who you ask, of course -- some people expect things to happen "faster" than I do -- and as we know, nothing in macro-history is pinned to exact years; things happen within fairly broad margins. (In long-term predictions, margins of multiple decades. In shorter-term ones, I'd generally assume a margin of about a decade in either direction.)
Baesides that, we're really talking about generations, here. Consider that Trump is an unusually old "Gracchus", and Marius himself was unusually old for the role he played. Conversely, Augustus was unusually young.
I wrote about about this over a year ago, and I'll re-post my remarks from back then.
---------------------------------------------
I think each generation (going by current age expectancy), enjoys a large degree of cultural and political supremacy from about 50 years after the start of its "birth bracket" until about 70 years after the end of its "birth bracket". A generation goes functionally extinct about 90 years after the close of its "birth bracket". (Some members survive a bit longer, obviously, but they no longer exert the dominant force over society.)
So, for instance, Baby Boomers are generally assumed to have been born 1946-1964. They gained cultural supremacy in the mid-'90s, which checks out: they were "yuppies" in the '80s, but moved up to serious management positions in the next decade. They'll hold onto power in a lot of places, even after a younger generations starts to supplant them, because the positions of the most power tend to be reserved for those with seniority. But by the mid-2030s, they'll be out of power for good. By the mid-2050s, they'll be functionally extinct. (Note that in the period they are already out of power, but still alive "in retirement", they still hold considerable social power.)
We can do this for all generations. It's not super accurate, but it's close enough for an impression. This also shows you the periods of generational power-transition. There's always multiple generations having a major influence. Usually, one the youngest of three really muscles its way in, the eldest of three generations is already about done.
Keeping in mind that they're 'fuzzy-edged', and that the years are only ever an appoximation, I think the generational succession looks about like this:
Boomers: born 1946-1964, reign 1996-2034, extinct 2054.
Gen X: born 1965-1980, reign 2015-2050, extinct 2070.
Millennials: born 1981-1996, reign 2031-2066, extinct 2086.
Gen Z: born 1997-2012, reign 2047-2082, extinct 2102.
Gen Alpha: born 2013-2028, reign 2063-2098, extinct 2118.
Gen Beta: born 2029-2044, reign 2079-2114, extinct 2134
Gen Gamma: born 2045-2060, reign 2095-2130, extinct 2150.
Gen Delta: born 2061-2076, reign 2111-2146, extinct 2166.
Consider that in light of the expected dating(s): "Neo-Marian revolution" c. 2060, "Neo-Caesarian revolution" c. 2090, and "Neo-Augustan triumph" c. 2110-2115.
This tells us that a Neo-Marius could well be a leading figure from Gen Z, who (by virtue of his radical positions) binds a lot of the ascendant (and by then increasingly dissatisfied) Gen Alpha electorate to his cause. (By reasonable expectation, a Neo-Marius figure should be at least in his 40s around 2060. Actual, historical Marius was 70 at the height of his power, but he was an outlier. You might expect this figure to be a bit younger in most cases.) His leading opponents will be the "top dog" Millennials clinging to the highest seats of power even as their generation is beginning to fade away.
A Neo-Caesar, quite similarly, could be a "late-born" member of Gen Beta (born around 2040?), most of whose generational cohort grew up in a world shaped by the anti-(Neo-)Marian / "Sullan" reaction. Like his Marian predecessor(s), he'd win the loyalty of a new "young guard", namely Gen Gamma, who would by then be looking at their dwindling prospects and scream for a radical turning.
A Neo-Augustus would then most probably be a member of that Gen Gamma, and would lead them into a reconciliation and normalisation after the preceding chaos. Gen Delta would be very young during Neo-Caesar's reign, and would welcome Neo-Augustus as their benefactor when he restores stability just as they're looking to get their lives in good order. They'd be the true "consolidating generation" of the Principate, and they'd be the ones singing Neo-Augustus's praises when he dies (leaving them a better world than the preceding generations inherited).
---------------------------------------------
The above gives a handy overview of when we might expect certain figures to be born, roughly. But as I said in my preface, the expected dating of events can easily be off by a decade in either direction, and people can be unusually young or unusually old. If our "Caesar" is to appear around 2090, then he could be a child now, and triumph at a relatively old age. But typically, such a man is not so old. More likely to be in his fifties than in his seventies.