2
   

It All Happened Before!

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 06:10 am
History repeats itself. The fall of the modern civilizations closely resembles the fall of the classical civilizations.
The classical period stretches from around 1000 BC to 500 AD. We think of Rome, but there are actually four classical civilizations with remarkable similarities. The Mediterranean (Greece and Rome), Mesopotamia, India and China.
Interestingly three of the classical civilizations - India, Rome and China - were all destroyed by the same invader - the Huns.
The classical civilizations expanded until expansion was no longer possible. Because they couldn't grow, they dug down.
The great wall of China was built around the same time that Roman emperor Hadrian sealed off the empire with a line of fortifications.
Hmm... where did I hear this before:
As the Roman Empire grew, it required more soldiers to patrol its borders and frontiers. This brought a high tax burden on a population that was decreasing because of plague and poverty, dependent of immigration. Likewise, Rome Emperors and the upper classes adopted increasingly luxurious and extravagant lifestyles at the expense of the tax paying citizens. This cause not only great resentment among the lower classes, but the upper classes became more self-centered and less concerned about social and political responsibilities. New artistic and cultural styles were not being created. People came to view life as futile and meaningless. Weakened politically, economically, culturally, and psychologically, the Roman Empire no longer had the strength or the desire to fend off the Germanic invaders.
As the empire started to weaken, farmers and laborers clustered around powerful regional landowners to whom they surrendered full allegiance in return for military protection. It was similar in China and India.
You know this from the newspaper! We are repeating history, people.
Right now the modern civilizations are dug in, with declining populations, dependent of immigration. Our exponential debt supply must grow or it will crash. An Islamic invader is waiting at the door until we are weak enough to be taken over. We are willing to give up our freedom for security. The middle class is crushed by taxes, while the upper class indulges in decadence and luxury. The elites take advantage of class envy to get even more power. We sit in front of computers with no meaning in our lives. Everybody has some kind of mental disorder.

I got to go, I will continue this when I have more time.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,030 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
xris
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 06:33 am
@EmperorNero,
If you look at your own attitudes you might see a reflection of the problems you see in society.The middle classes views are just as self serving as the rich. They think they deserve more of the cake than lesser mortals.

All the major religions seek world domination by one means or another. We see the population growth is mirrored by the amount of RC Christians or Muslims that are increasing, both encourage their flock to multiply.

The fall will be because of too many souls, not because of the lack of them. In the past plague gave labour more value and land was more available to feed a smaller population. Ancient tribes moved to new pastures now we stay and exploit beyond the earths capabilities.

Its our success that is our failing.War will be over commodities or the lack of them , who will win? the most aggressive and nasty, they always have.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 07:08 am
@EmperorNero,
Rising and falling is just what empires do (and it's China's turn, again, by the looks of things).

Incidentally, I'd say myself that the age of great decadence in terms of upper class luxury occured a good few hundred years before the fall of the western Roman empire, and almost a millennia before the fall of Byzantium.

Indeed, if anything did cause the humbling of the Roman Empire it wasn't so much Gothic invaders - but a series of poorly conceived and executed wars against Parthian and Sassanid Persia - which continued to be the most expensive and dangerous enemy of Rome until it was overrun during the arab conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 07:44 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;92369 wrote:
Indeed, if anything did cause the humbling of the Roman Empire it wasn't so much Gothic invaders - but a series of poorly conceived and executed wars against Parthian and Sassanid Persia - which continued to be the most expensive and dangerous enemy of Rome until it was overrun during the arab conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries.


That's why I say it repeats itself. Rome waste it's strength on Persia and was taken over by muslims, know that from somewhere?

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 03:48 PM ----------

Dave Allen;92369 wrote:
Incidentally, I'd say myself that the age of great decadence in terms of upper class luxury occurred a good few hundred years before the fall of the western Roman empire, and almost a millennia before the fall of Byzantium.


True, and it could be said that Rome, as a city, died as a result. And afterwards the Roman world was no longer a city with an empire, but an empire with a city. Rome was merely a costly weight on the back of the empire.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 07:48 am
@EmperorNero,
It was Persia that was overrun by the armies of Islam.

Byzantine held out for another 400 years before being carved apart by various foes and factions.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 08:52 AM ----------

EmperorNero;92373 wrote:
True, and it could be said that Rome, as a city, died as a result.

It certainly could be said - but it would be pretty innaccurate. Rome was as much a powerbase in the days of Diocletian and Hadrian as it was Caligula and Nero, but whilst the later emperors certainly weren't ideal rulers, they were less notoriously corrupt as those from former ages.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:09 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;92375 wrote:
It was Persia that was overrun by the armies of Islam.

Byzantine held out for another 400 years before being carved apart by various foes and factions.

Rome and Persia were overrun by Islam. Most of the Byzantine empire fell to Islam soon, only a shadow of it's former area held out.

Dave Allen;92375 wrote:
It certainly could be said - but it would be pretty innaccurate. Rome was as much a powerbase in the days of Diocletian and Hadrian as it was Caligula and Nero, but whilst the later emperors certainly weren't ideal rulers, they were less notoriously corrupt as those from former ages.


But it wasn't soon after.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:12 am
@EmperorNero,
Since when was Rome overrun by Islam?

And, in the end, so what? Other empires have declined without Muslims being involved. I presume you are trying to build a vision of a possible fate for the USA by mirroring it with Rome - but why should the US' eventual loss of paramountcy not be more like that 'suffered' by Late Medieval Spain, or Victorian Britain, the Ottoman Turks, or ancient China?
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:15 am
@Dave Allen,
EmperorNero;92352 wrote:

Interestingly three of the classical civilizations - India, Rome and China - were all destroyed by the same invader - the Huns.


No sir. The Huns moved west, eventually against Rome. They may have been distantly related to Chinese neighbors of some three hundred years prior, but this is all contention. The Huns and their relatives had nothing to do with India.

At the time of your supposed Hunnish invasion of India, the subcontinent was united under the Gupta Empire. You may be thinking of the Huna invasion, which occurred in the late 400's, but the Huna have no known relation to the Huns.

What must be recalled is that at this time, very much like a thousand or so years earlier, a great diversity of Asiatic Steppes peoples invaded the more "civilized" agrarians. Hence the similarity and easy confusion. But let us at least try to get our history accurate.

You are also roughly 600 years off regarding the Great Wall and Hadrian's Wall.

But I'm tired of correcting historical misconceptions. Maybe I'll handle the rest later. Of course, this is easy stuff to look up, so anyone can do it.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:25 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;92352 wrote:
History repeats itself.


Yes and no. For example, in history there are always people willing to distort history and frighten people for their own economic gains. Happens all the time.

But in every period of history there are differences. History does have its cycles. Some things are the same and other things are different. So, we look for similarities in the differences and differences in the similarities and attempt to create a reasonable snapshot of what is happening in our world. Everything is always changing.

Rich
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:31 am
@richrf,
Even Soviet historians, attempting to link America with Rome's fall, admitted the wide gap of difference.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:41 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;92388 wrote:
Even Soviet historians, attempting to link America with Rome's fall, admitted the wide gap of difference.

It might be a matter of chauvanism. Rome exists in the popular imagination as the archetypal superpower. So it might do the ego good to claim that a superpower one belongs to shares Rome's fate, whilst it might do good to one's ego to claim that a superpower you are opposed to does not.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:44 am
@Dave Allen,
That's why the Soviets wanted to equate America with Rome - to make that eternal connection. And that's my point - though they tried, they even admitted that the connection was contentious.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:50 am
@EmperorNero,
You obviously didn't get what I was saying.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 08:52 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;92398 wrote:
You obviously didn't get what I was saying.

Well, it was a catalogue of errors.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 09:05 am
@Dave Allen,
EmperorNero;92398 wrote:
You obviously didn't get what I was saying.


What did I not get?

Did I miss the historical inaccuracy? No, I think I caught that.

You have a vaguely important point regarding "civilization" vs. "barbarianism" but I think you do a magnificently poor job of presenting the case - especially when one considers your examples.

If any one, it is the US that is the barbarians at the gate - considering military spending, the armed strength of the general population as compared to other nations, and the obscene success of war hawks in American politics.

Not to mention literacy rates as compared to reading rates - despite our immense literacy rate, Americans read on average two books per year - and to get that number one must include harlequin romances and the like. Learning is, after all, the hallmark of civilization. But we don't learn anything. Heck, we've already forgotten Vietnam's lessons.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 09:08 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;92405 wrote:
What did I not get?

Reading in between the lines I am getting the following:

'Help help the muslims are coming!'

I reckon.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 09:21 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;92409 wrote:
Reading in between the lines I am getting the following:

'Help help the muslims are coming!'

I reckon.
And dont forget the christians, the socialists and those pesky indians.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 07:28 pm
@xris,
No, you're all wrong - what we really need to worry about are those Space Invaders. They're coming... yessir, they are coming, in highly predictable formations, slowly descending upon the Earth.
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 02:15 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;92375 wrote:
It was Persia that was overrun by the armies of Islam.

Byzantine held out for another 400 years before being carved apart by various foes and factions.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 08:52 AM ----------



WEll...none of the stuff in this thread is particularly true. The Huns didn't knock out Rome, Rome and its alllies beat the Huns (Chalons 451 IIRC) and Byzantium lasted for 800 years after the Arab thing and China had no trouble with the Huns...indeed the only Chinese record of people who seem to be Huns is that they drove them away.
So if anything is repeating, its errors about actual events.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 02:36 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;92587 wrote:
No, you're all wrong - what we really need to worry about are those Space Invaders. They're coming... yessir, they are coming, in highly predictable formations, slowly descending upon the Earth.


Was it the Space Invaders that blew up the Twin Towers? I thought it was Muslims. Am I mistaken?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » It All Happened Before!
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/26/2023 at 03:16:27