Why civilizations rise and fall?

[jd12345]

Yes, yes I did my homework - I googled this and got many results but none seem to answer my query.

I am not a historian so bear with me.
I had a picture in my mind that civilizations seem to appear after we discovered agriculture and thereafter each civilization advanced and continued to transform till today.
But it seems that civilizations do appear but get destroyed after sometime. They do not continue forever.
I am confused as we do not see this today right? In modern history all the empires/countries are stable, right?

Why is this behavior?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What makes you think that everything in the modern day is stable? The British Empire ended less than a century ago, the USSR fell apart just a few decades ago. There are nations around now that didn't exist in our grandparents time and vice versa.

To give a present day example Scotland will vote in the next few years on whether or not to secede from the UK effectively ending the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and creating a new set of societies.

 

[Evo]

Just look at eastern Europe and all of the new countries that have emerged in the last 50 years. Czechoslovakia was a country until 1993. Look at Africa. Half of the countries didn't exist with their current names when I was in school.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Read a newspaper, nothing is stable in the world :)On a related note, this is a wonderful wonderful read on why/how civilizations rise and fall.

A Short History of Progress
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0786715472/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But it seems that civilizations do appear but get destroyed after sometime.

Re-reading this I just wanted to reply to this last point, rarely do civilisations get destroyed in the literal sense. Generally it is a progress of change, even when significant much remains the same. The French Revolution didn't destroy France but it did radically change the nation politically and culturally. Similarly if a nation/empire splits into smaller nations its not a de novo creation of cultures out of the ashes of old. Institutions, physical and cultural, still remain and of course the people will still be there.

Of course there are examples of cultures being decimated, usually over time. The Carthaginian empire after the Punic wars or any number of native people's genocided/displaced by European colonialism for example.

 

[jim hardy]

Another book , to complement Greg's:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345308239/?tag=pfamazon01-20

author Barbara Tuchman now tackles the pervasive presence of folly in governments through the ages. Defining folly as the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interersts, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, Tuchman details four decisive turning points in history that illustrate the very heights of folly in government: the Trojan War, the breakup of the Holy See provoked by the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies by Britain's George III, and the United States' persistent folly in Vietnam. ...

She likens behavior of too-large organizations to a "lemming instinct" .

 

[phys2]

Well, every civilisation is different, culturally, from each other so it is hard to find a general system of how a civilisation develops. I did a course on Ancient Greece at university and my final essay was on how the Greek system of government, the polis, developed. To sum up 5000 words in a sentence, I argued that the egalitarian nature of farming was an important factor in the development of Greek system of rule. One of my sources was Victor Davis Hanson - specifically his book called 'the Other Greeks', a fascinating read which I would suggest that you have a look at.

 

[SteamKing]

Your assertion: " In modern history all the empires/countries are stable, right?"

In the twentieth century alone, the German empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Russian empire all fell as a consequence of engaging in World War I. The Japanese empire was dissolved after World War II, and the Soviet Union dissolved as a result of the Cold War.

 

[phys2]

In the twentieth century alone, the German empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Russian empire all fell as a consequence of engaging in World War I. The Japanese empire was dissolved after World War II, and the Soviet Union dissolved as a result of the Cold War.

What makes you think that everything in the modern day is stable?

I think that that modern day democracies are pretty stable. I mean, you do get protests and economic crisis, but certainly not what you would associate with the breakup of the USSR or the demise of empires.

Politicwatcher.

 

[jd12345]

Reading all of your answers I have a doubt regarding "fall of empires". When books say that some civilization lasted so-and-so years what do they mean exactly?
Do they mean that that civilization was conquered after that many years, or did they migrate to other place or it divided into two-or-more empires or what?

 

[Borek]

When books say that some civilization lasted so-and-so years what do they mean exactly?

Probably something different each time.

 

[SteamKing]

It depends. When the Roman Empire fell, it did so in distinct phases. The Roman Empire was originally centered on the Italian peninsula, grew to include most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe, Greece, Asia minor, and the shores of the Med. It split in two, with the western empire ruled from Rome and the eastern portion from Byzantium. The western empire fell first in the 5th century A.D., but the eastern did not fall until 1453, almost a thousand years later. The latter fall certainly caused large numbers of Byzantines to migrate west, which was one of the reasons for the start of the Renaissance in Europe, as these migrants brought with them a large amount of literature from the ancient world which had been lost or forgotten in the west. In both cases, the capital cities, Rome and Byzantium, were sacked with a great loss of life.

In more recent times, the years after World War II saw great displacements of populations from eastern Europe to the west. Prussia, which at one time controlled the southern Baltic coast, ceased to exist, and most Germans living there were driven west by the Russians. The borders of Poland were also shifted west from their original location of 1918-1939 to their present locations. As a result, much of the territory in the western part of present day Poland once belonged to Germany (principally Prussia and Silesia), and when the Poles moved in, the former German inhabitants were expelled.

There is no one answer to your question. At various times, all of the things you mentioned (conquest, migration, division, etc.) have happened. History can often tell us what happened and when it happened, but the reasons why a certain empire or polity fell are more elusive.

 

[jd12345]

Read a newspaper, nothing is stable in the world :)


On a related note, this is a wonderful wonderful read on why/how civilizations rise and fall.

A Short History of Progress
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0786715472/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'll definitely have a look on that.


Anyways thank you all - I got my answers

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think that that modern day democracies are pretty stable. I mean, you do get protests and economic crisis, but certainly not what you would associate with the breakup of the USSR or the demise of empires.

Politicwatcher.

Modern democracies have not been in existence very long to give us a good amount of precedents to work with. Sure a lot of western democracies now were western democracies a century or so ago but they were radically different, the UK had only recently given the vote to non-land owning men. A radical notion at the time.

Democracies are different in that they have an inbuilt mechanism for peaceful regime change and so won't necessarily go through as dramatic change as historical examples, rather they can change slowly over time. This is still change though. Two more things worth taking into account are that democratic nations can still end in that they split into other nations (Scotland potentially leaving the UK for example, ending the UK) and that there may be failure modes of democracy yet to be realized.

 

[Borek]

democratic nations can still end

turning into dictatorship.

 

[jim hardy]

..and that there may be failure modes of democracy yet to be realized.

They can choke on their own bureaucracy.
Parkinson warned of this in his books "Parkinson's Law" and "The Law of Delay". He predicted that by about 2050 100% of the population would work for the government with nobody left to produce anything.

My opinion: What should have been in the constitution is a "sunset clause" whereby all laws expire after, say, two generations(~forty years?).

What that would achieve:
1. Lawmakers would be occupied maintaining, renewing and fine tuning existing inventory of laws instead of heaping half baked and useless new ones onto the heap.
2. Lawmakers would be knowledgeable as to what laws exist already and might encourage their enforcement.

 

[pongo38]

"civilization" is a vague concept. It could at one extreme mean military control, or civil organisation; or it might be construed around the ideas of civilized values that are generally upheld. To my mind, civilization should include the strong helping the weak, and the absence of corruption. So not much hope there then.

 

[SteamKing]

Jim Hardy wrote:

"My opinion: What should have been in the constitution is a "sunset clause" whereby all laws expire after, say, two generations(~forty years?)."

Good Lord! You could never get anything done ever again. Talk about re-inventing the wheel. Guaranteed employment for politicians and lawyers, though. Everybody else would be screwed.

 

[enosis_]

It depends. When the Roman Empire fell, it did so in distinct phases. The Roman Empire was originally centered on the Italian peninsula, grew to include most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe, Greece, Asia minor, and the shores of the Med. It split in two, with the western empire ruled from Rome and the eastern portion from Byzantium. The western empire fell first in the 5th century A.D., but the eastern did not fall until 1453, almost a thousand years later. The latter fall certainly caused large numbers of Byzantines to migrate west, which was one of the reasons for the start of the Renaissance in Europe, as these migrants brought with them a large amount of literature from the ancient world which had been lost or forgotten in the west. In both cases, the capital cities, Rome and Byzantium, were sacked with a great loss of life.

In more recent times, the years after World War II saw great displacements of populations from eastern Europe to the west. Prussia, which at one time controlled the southern Baltic coast, ceased to exist, and most Germans living there were driven west by the Russians. The borders of Poland were also shifted west from their original location of 1918-1939 to their present locations. As a result, much of the territory in the western part of present day Poland once belonged to Germany (principally Prussia and Silesia), and when the Poles moved in, the former German inhabitants were expelled.

There is no one answer to your question. At various times, all of the things you mentioned (conquest, migration, division, etc.) have happened. History can often tell us what happened and when it happened, but the reasons why a certain empire or polity fell are more elusive.

To expand on this, when empires have expanded (Roman, Turks, etc.) across continents (and some stayed) or citizens from older nations (Greeks for instance) migrate across oceans - isn't the expanding (older) civilization actually assimilated into the new - rather than failing?

 

[SteamKing]

Not necessarily. The Romans had a somewhat mixed record. The Romans had a great respect for the Greeks and their civilization; when Rome took control of Greece, it did so in a relatively benevolent fashion. On the other hand, when Rome finally defeated Carthage, there was a completely different attitude on the part of the Romans. After the Third Punic War, and fearing that the Carthaginians might rise up again, the Romans razed the city completely and killed or enslaved the population. Later, a city of the same name was founded by Rome, but it was inhabited by Roman colonists living in north Africa.

The eastern Roman empire was unusual because its population was largely Greek by descent; Greeks had colonized Asia Minor and were well established there by the time Rome took power. The western empire remained Latin speaking, while the eastern empire was Greek speaking.

 

[Hornbein]

Yes, yes I did my homework - I googled this and got many results but none seem to answer my query.

I am not a historian so bear with me.
I had a picture in my mind that civilizations seem to appear after we discovered agriculture and thereafter each civilization advanced and continued to transform till today.
But it seems that civilizations do appear but get destroyed after sometime. They do not continue forever.
I am confused as we do not see this today right? In modern history all the empires/countries are stable, right?

Why is this behavior?

I would recommend the writings of Oswald Spengler on this subject. He was quite influential in his day but has gone out of fashion.

 

[ptalar]

Your assertion: " In modern history all the empires/countries are stable, right?"

In the twentieth century alone, the German empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Russian empire all fell as a consequence of engaging in World War I. The Japanese empire was dissolved after World War II, and the Soviet Union dissolved as a result of the Cold War.

Don't forget the Ottoman Empire.

 

[SteamKing]

I also forgot to mention the British empire, which devolved into a commonwealth over a number of years.

Thanks for catching the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Czcibor]

Countries are stable... At this moment Europe is on path towards becoming a single country within maybe a half century.

However, in the same time one may see the same data and say that European part of Western civilization stays untouched, just some reorganization happens inside.

 

[SteamKing]

Countries are stable... At this moment Europe is on path towards becoming a single country within maybe a half century.

That is quite an optimistic assumption. If anything, the history of the EU over the last 5-6 years, particularly the EU response to the monetary crisis and the economic downturn, would suggest the opposite. History, culture, political differences, immigration, etc. will IMO not be so easy to smooth over, no matter what the politicians and regulators in Brussels say.

 

[Czcibor]

That is quite an optimistic assumption. If anything, the history of the EU over the last 5-6 years, particularly the EU response to the monetary crisis and the economic downturn, would suggest the opposite. History, culture, political differences, immigration, etc. will IMO not be so easy to smooth over, no matter what the politicians and regulators in Brussels say.

Easy? Not. On the other had trajectory from 1952 so far is rather clear. And while the EU as such could collapse, I would be really shocked if there would be no pan-European project(s) on its place.

 

[SteamKing]

Easy? Not. On the other had trajectory from 1952 so far is rather clear. And while the EU as such could collapse, I would be really shocked if there would be no pan-European project(s) on its place.

As the financial disclaimers say on bond advertisements, "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."

There are currently some major political tensions which exist between the member states of the EU. In the financial bailouts which occurred as a result of the 2008 recession, Germany felt rather aggrieved that it had to provide the bulk of the funds to bail out Greece, Spain, and Portugal. This resentment still simmers in Germany and in German politics. There is also a movement in the UK to take Britain out of the EU, which, while it may not ultimately attain its goal, does alter somewhat the internal politics there. On a local level, there is resentment which is felt when the people feel they are being dictated to by the European Parliament or various regulators in Brussels. Taken individually, these tensions may remain in check, but it is difficult to know if some confluence of future events may provide the spark which dissolves the EU.

It is important to remember that the EU is a political structure which was imposed from the top down: the average German or Frenchman or Englishman did not suddenly wake up one morning having decided that it would be a nifty idea to jump into a union with the rest of Europe. One wag said that the various elections which were held to join the EU by the member states were repeated until the answer was 'Yes', after which there were no more elections.

People thought things were settled in Europe in 1815, 1870, 1918, and 1945. While a general war between the member states of the EU may not break out in the future as it did in 1914 and 1939, it also does not imply that the EU is a durable institution, and it certainly does not suggest that there will eventually result one country called Europe or even a federation between the current member states. The politics, cultures, languages and histories of the various European states, IMO, are too varied to overcome.

 

[Borek]

I would love to see United States of Europe (or an loosely defined equivalent), but like SteamKing, I don't see it in a predictable future. Too many local, individual, particular interests, fueled by historical, political and social differences.

 

[Czcibor]

There are currently some major political tensions which exist between the member states of the EU. In the financial bailouts which occurred as a result of the 2008 recession, Germany felt rather aggrieved that it had to provide the bulk of the funds to bail out Greece, Spain, and Portugal. This resentment still simmers in Germany and in German politics. There is also a movement in the UK to take Britain out of the EU, which, while it may not ultimately attain its goal, does alter somewhat the internal politics there. On a local level, there is resentment which is felt when the people feel they are being dictated to by the European Parliament or various regulators in Brussels. Taken individually, these tensions may remain in check, but it is difficult to know if some confluence of future events may provide the spark which dissolves the EU.

Yes, the UK may indeed leave the EU, possibly leaving Scotland behind. You may also add True Finns on this long list.

I mean actually for me it seems that you haven't touched the real problem here. The EU is useful whipping boy for any nationalistic leaning politician. To actually get blamed for problems mostly beyond its control like:
-globalization;
-the financial crisis;
-the debt crisis.

Those problems would still remain also in case of leaving the EU. Which is not a good long term prognosis for anti-unification movements. (when they get proudly rid of the EU, and suddenly discover that no more whipping boy and they are those in charge to be blamed)

It is important to remember that the EU is a political structure which was imposed from the top down: the average German or Frenchman or Englishman did not suddenly wake up one morning having decided that it would be a nifty idea to jump into a union with the rest of Europe. One wag said that the various elections which were held to join the EU by the member states were repeated until the answer was 'Yes', after which there were no more elections.

With even less bottom up effort were built nation based countries. (Does it mean their imminent demise?)
You may read ex. about efforts to unify France and hard work to eradicate Breton language. Or a book of hilarious title: "How to Become a Hungarian: The Artificial Reproduction of a People".

Here is my perception a bit different because we had a referendum before joining it in 2004. (77% - YES) But I know that in other countries it was not so clear cut.

Yes, the rule that priests do not believe their own religion is also applicable in case of democracy. Indeed the top EU is rather technocratic instead.

People thought things were settled in Europe in 1815, 1870, 1918, and 1945. While a general war between the member states of the EU may not break out in the future as it did in 1914 and 1939, it also does not imply that the EU is a durable institution, and it certainly does not suggest that there will eventually result one country called Europe or even a federation between the current member states. The politics, cultures, languages and histories of the various European states, IMO, are too varied to overcome.

I mean people are against EU, while simultaneously are getting used to:
-four freedoms (the free movement of people, goods, services and capital);
-Schengen Area;
-bans on making discriminatory rules against citizens of other member state;
-European Arrest Warrant...

Yes, those things are started being treated for granted. Which while makes the EU unappreciated, also makes any future organization as expected to provide quite serious level of cooperation.

 

[Czcibor]

I would love to see United States of Europe (or an loosely defined equivalent), but like SteamKing, I don't see it in a predictable future. Too many local, individual, particular interests, fueled by historical, political and social differences.

I'd expect in long run a more fuzzy federation. For example - Norway technically speaking is not part of the UE, while it's a member of European Economic Area and Schengen Area.

 

[GTOM]

"The EU is useful whipping boy for any nationalistic leaning politician. To actually get blamed for problems mostly beyond its control like:"

How about blaming them for theese kind of things?

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/23608/parot-doctrine-prisoners-released-alcasser-triple-murderer-miguel-ricart-follows-60-terrorists-to-freedom

"But a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, meant the Parot Doctrine was overturned and along with numerous ETA terrorists, at least two rapists and a paedophile who killed a 10-year-old boy after raping him, Ricart's early-release credits have been applied to his maximum jail term of 30 years and allowed him to be freed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...te-on-EU-ban-on-all-forms-of-pornography.html

 

[Czcibor]

"The EU is useful whipping boy for any nationalistic leaning politician. To actually get blamed for problems mostly beyond its control like:"

How about blaming them for theese kind of things?

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/23608/parot-doctrine-prisoners-released-alcasser-triple-murderer-miguel-ricart-follows-60-terrorists-to-freedom

"But a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, meant the Parot Doctrine was overturned and along with numerous ETA terrorists, at least two rapists and a paedophile who killed a 10-year-old boy after raping him, Ricart's early-release credits have been applied to his maximum jail term of 30 years and allowed him to be freed."

Hey, but exactly the same problem we're going face soon in Poland, concerning rule of law vs. common sense while dealing with dangerous criminal whose sentence technically ended. I'm quite curious - shall we overthrow our gov when our constitutional court would insist on literal interpretation of law?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...te-on-EU-ban-on-all-forms-of-pornography.html

Accoring to the article:

While not legally binding

(not mentioning that even not passed)

 

[SteamKing]

While I don't have an optimistic view of the states of the EU joining into a stronger federation or even a single state, I am also aware that the current European states, at least some of them, may not be as stable as they appear. Belgium has existed for many years with highly visible tensions between its French-speaking and Flemish-speaking citizens. Spain is facing at least two separatist movements within its borders: the at-times violent Basque movement and more recently the desire for Catalonia to seek more autonomy from Madrid. Although east and west Germany were reunited in 1990, for many years there was large resentment in the west due to the high costs which reunification brought in terms of environmental cleanup, etc., perhaps not enough to break apart the newly reunited state but still a bone of regional contention within the federal republic. The aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was the most extreme example of what can happen when several different groups of people are thrown into an undesired political amalgamation.

 

[tfr000]

They can choke on their own bureaucracy.
Parkinson warned of this in his books "Parkinson's Law" and "The Law of Delay". He predicted that by about 2050 100% of the population would work for the government with nobody left to produce anything.

My opinion: What should have been in the constitution is a "sunset clause" whereby all laws expire after, say, two generations(~forty years?).

What that would achieve:
1. Lawmakers would be occupied maintaining, renewing and fine tuning existing inventory of laws instead of heaping half baked and useless new ones onto the heap.
2. Lawmakers would be knowledgeable as to what laws exist already and might encourage their enforcement.

I would have picked a much shorter time frame.
My opinion: severely limit the time congresscritters spend doing congressy stuff. Like maybe one month a year at most. And cut their pay to 1/12 what it currently is. Force them back out into the real world.

Regarding the original post... I would say many modern democracies are well on their way to bureaucratic stranglehold, and bankruptcy. What follows is anybody's guess.

 

[SteamKing]

They can choke on their own bureaucracy.
Parkinson warned of this in his books "Parkinson's Law" and "The Law of Delay". He predicted that by about 2050 100% of the population would work for the government with nobody left to produce anything.

My opinion: What should have been in the constitution is a "sunset clause" whereby all laws expire after, say, two generations(~forty years?).

What that would achieve:
1. Lawmakers would be occupied maintaining, renewing and fine tuning existing inventory of laws instead of heaping half baked and useless new ones onto the heap.
2. Lawmakers would be knowledgeable as to what laws exist already and might encourage their enforcement.

That way lies madness.

You initially posit that a society can get into trouble if bureaucracy takes over. Fine.
Then you want to 'sunset' the entire legal framework of a society after a certain time. I don't see how overturning the laws of a society every 40 years leads to anything but chaos and instability.

Are there bad laws on the books? Sure. Should the rest of the law suffer because of a few mis-begotten or ill-considered statutes? Emphatically not.

After all, Lincoln said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

The problem isn't that Congress legislates too little, it legislates too much. When you get monstrous bills landing on a representative's desk, bills running on for hundreds, if not thousands of pages, it strains credulity that any of this legislation can be comprehended by mere mortals. In addition to what bubbles up out of the Congressional swamp, each year the federal regulatory bureaucracy upchucks 60,000-plus pages of new regulations in the Federal Register.

Except for passing a budget or declaring war, it would be better if Congress just stayed home until needed, rather than fiddling and fundraising and fine tuning.