[rhr]

(09-01-2013 04:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Doomsday obsession is for young men who haven't heard it continuously for 40 -50 years like I have, while everything changes only marginally.

Counter-example to the deep-voice of doom from this guy:

California's electricity consumption has been flat all the time we've invented all this modern computer shit over the last years.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/...Energy.pdf

If all these smart people would invent something instead of howling "the end is near" we'd be better off, although they wouldn't sell as many books.

"It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"; to me all these people are more trying to appear smart by listing all the things that are going wrong, than they are serving their purported goal of helping us avoid Bad Things.

They're always selling something, a book, a talk show, gold, whatever it is. If he was so smart why doesn't he invent a better switch for solar power or something positive.

"Everthing is going to hell" is not a valuable contribution, knowledge wise or morale wise.

This is a surprisingly ignorant comment. Civilizations rise and fall, things have a "Beginning, a middle and an end" like James Kunstler likes to say. Just as there is birth and death.

This has nothing to do with "Doomsday", life is going to go on and things will continue to improve - just not in the U.S. and west-europe...

For every one example of increased efficiency you post, I can give you 10 falling bridges:

21 Facts About America’s Decaying Infrastructure That Will Blow Your Mind
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archi...-your-mind

It is time to accept reality and to distance yourself and your identity from a society which has no future.
.

[Tex Pro]

Here is a really good series from the History Channel called "Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire." It is pretty good (but also very long). It doesn't cover everything since the period from the late republic until the end of empire is more than 500 years, so obviously it has to skip over or skim through certain parts of the history of the Roman Empire. Over all, though, it does cover most of the major periods of the empire.

The series actually agrees with my take the the invasions/immigration of barbarians into Rome ultimately caused it's downfall, but I guess we can debate until the cows come home what the ultimate cause was. After reading this thread and thinking about it, I now think it was multiple causes, from bad monetary/fiscal policy to a degradation of values to the invasions/immigration of barbarians into the empire that ultimately caused its decline.

Either way, here it is:

[Tex Pro]

Continued:

[Samseau]

I'm pretty sure most modern historians are wrong regarding Christianity and Rome.

Christianity was a marginal religion until Theodosius made it the state religion.

Quote:

Theodosius campaigned against Eugenius. The two armies faced at the Battle of Frigidus in September 394.[11] The battle began on 5 September 394, with Theodosius' full frontal assault on Eugenius' forces. Theodosius was repulsed on the first day, and Eugenius thought the battle to be all but over. However, in Theodosius' camp, the loss of the day decreased morale. It is said that Theodosius was visited by two "heavenly riders all in white" who gave him courage. The next day, the battle began again and Theodosius' forces were aided by a natural phenomenon known as the Bora, which produces cyclonic winds. The Bora blew directly against the forces of Eugenius and disrupted the line.

I've read differing acounts, but the story is basically that on the night before a major battle Theodosius received a vision from a Christian god telling him of how he would succeed, and upon victory made Christianity the state relgion.

The account I read stated that Theodosius saw a burning cross in the sky, and heard a thundering voice yell, "IN THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUOR." He then put the sign of the cross on all of his soldier's shields.



Which evolved into many varients such as the one on the left here:



Before Theodosius, less than 10% of Romans were followers; by the end of Theodosius's rule it was closer to 90%.

That is how Christianity became the most popular religion in the world - just have the most powerful empire to have ever existed make it the state relgiion!

Also, I disagre that Christianity weakened Rome - if anything, it kept Rome going. Rome was already on it's terminal decline by the time Theodosius came into power, and only 10% of the Empire was actually a follower of Christ.

As Rome collasped, it was Christianity that kept Europe united against foreign invasisons, especially against the Islamic threat. Without the Christian church, Europe would have fallen very quickly in the wake of Rome's disintergration.

I think the people who blame Rome's fall on Christianity are just more of the same people who are always trying to portray Christanity as some great evil force that has been wreaking havoc on the world, when any honest student of history can easily see that without Christanity Western Civilization would not exist today.

[Tex Pro]

(09-04-2013 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the people who blame Rome's fall on Christianity are just more of the same people who are always trying to portray Christanity as some great evil force that has been wreaking havoc on the world, when any honest student of history can easily see that without Christanity Western Civilization would not exist today.

Edward Gibbon made this theory popular in his work "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." His case for Christianity weakening the "fighting spirit" of Rome is somewhat convincing, but lacking in a few areas. Around the time the Roman Empire really started trending toward Christianity under Constantine, monotheism was beginning to become more popular (even in Rome under the Sol Invictus cult), so it was only a matter of time before Rome would have adopted some monotheistic religion, even if the empire had survived. It just so happened that Rome adopted Christianity near the end of its empire.

[Quintus Curtius]

(09-04-2013 03:51 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the people who blame Rome's fall on Christianity are just more of the same people who are always trying to portray Christanity as some great evil force that has been wreaking havoc on the world, when any honest student of history can easily see that without Christanity Western Civilization would not exist today.

Edward Gibbon made this theory popular in his work "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." His case for Christianity weakening the "fighting spirit" of Rome is somewhat convincing, but lacking in a few areas. Around the time the Roman Empire really started trending toward Christianity under Constantine, monotheism was beginning to become more popular (even in Rome under the Sol Invictus cult), so it was only a matter of time before Rome would have adopted some monotheistic religion, even if the empire had survived. It just so happened that Rome adopted Christianity near the end of its empire.

I agree. Other economic, political, and social factors were more important in destroying the empire than the spread of Christianity. There is some truth that Christianity undermined the old martial virtues, but the reality is that by the time Christianity really became a mass religion, the old paganism was already dead. Christianity just stepped into the empty shell created by all the other social, economic, and political problems. It had some effect, but was not the decisive factor.

[Tex Pro]

I guess if there is one take away from the decline and fall of Rome, it is that assimilation is very important multi-ethnic societies. The Romans ran into problems when they allowed too many Germanic barbarians into the empire, and then stopped or where unable to assimilate them into Rome anymore. The Germanic barbarians largely kept their cultural heritage, customs and norms when they began to settle en masse within the empire's borders. Therefore, it is no surprise that as the empire weakened, it fractured along ethnic and/or tribal lines, and the Germanic barbarians mainly looked out for themselves.

[Quintus Curtius]

(09-04-2013 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm pretty sure most modern historians are wrong regarding Christianity and Rome.

Christianity was a marginal religion until Theodosius made it the state religion.

Quote:

Theodosius campaigned against Eugenius. The two armies faced at the Battle of Frigidus in September 394.[11] The battle began on 5 September 394, with Theodosius' full frontal assault on Eugenius' forces. Theodosius was repulsed on the first day, and Eugenius thought the battle to be all but over. However, in Theodosius' camp, the loss of the day decreased morale. It is said that Theodosius was visited by two "heavenly riders all in white" who gave him courage. The next day, the battle began again and Theodosius' forces were aided by a natural phenomenon known as the Bora, which produces cyclonic winds. The Bora blew directly against the forces of Eugenius and disrupted the line.

I've read differing acounts, but the story is basically that on the night before a major battle Theodosius received a vision from a Christian god telling him of how he would succeed, and upon victory made Christianity the state relgion.

The account I read stated that Theodosius saw a burning cross in the sky, and heard a thundering voice yell, "IN THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUOR." He then put the sign of the cross on all of his soldier's shields.



Which evolved into many varients such as the one on the left here:



Before Theodosius, less than 10% of Romans were followers; by the end of Theodosius's rule it was closer to 90%.

That is how Christianity became the most popular religion in the world - just have the most powerful empire to have ever existed make it the state relgiion!

Also, I disagre that Christianity weakened Rome - if anything, it kept Rome going. Rome was already on it's terminal decline by the time Theodosius came into power, and only 10% of the Empire was actually a follower of Christ.

As Rome collasped, it was Christianity that kept Europe united against foreign invasisons, especially against the Islamic threat. Without the Christian church, Europe would have fallen very quickly in the wake of Rome's disintergration.

I think the people who blame Rome's fall on Christianity are just more of the same people who are always trying to portray Christanity as some great evil force that has been wreaking havoc on the world, when any honest student of history can easily see that without Christanity Western Civilization would not exist today.

Yeah, there's a lot of truth to that. One could even say that Rome never really "fell"...it just morphed into the Roman Catholic Church, with the Emperor being replaced by the pontifex in the Chair of St. Peter. Latin was still spoken for many hundreds of years, and all the imperial traditions wee maintained. The church just stepped into the shell left by the old imperial edifice.
Certainly no one at the time saw the year 476 (the traditional year given as the "fall" of the western empire when Romulus Augustulus was deposed) as the "end" of Rome. The transition to a new Europe was so slow as to be almost imperceptible.
I suppose you could even say that when Charlemagne had himself crowned as emperor of the "Romans" in the early 800s and started the Holy Roman Empire, that was just "continuing" the Roman Empire.

[Aer]

2 years on and the technology/moral decay theory is holding up pretty well. Smartphones are nearly ubiquitous, and LGBTQ agitprop is moving pretty powerfully forward.

[Samseau]

I fucked up my history in this thread. It was Constantine not Theodosius that converted the Roman Empire.

[Foolsgo1d]

Don't forget the military. The population has grown tired of wars and ISIS, knowing full-well the Middle East problems will not go away any time soon and Iran has a way of wiggling around to the annoyance of the US/NATO.

History has a way of repeating itself.

[Paracelsus]

(07-15-2015 10:26 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I fucked up my history in this thread. It was Constantine not Theodosius that converted the Roman Empire.

Speaking of Constantine -- I've seen it said that Constantine was one of the pioneers of inflating away your debts, because he was the Emperor responsible for recalling all the currency, halving its silver content, and then reissuing the coinage, thus at a stroke doubling the money supply and halving its value. Any Roman historians here able to confirm that story?

[H1N1]

This is a fascinating thread, with a lot of really good contributions all round.

I was particularly interested to read CatcusCat's analysis of the relevant economics.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any good resources to go from rank beginner, through to adept, for economic theory. Or any sites that are good at analysing what currently is compared to what should be? I'd like to think I have a pretty firm grasp on the basics, but I've never done any kind of formal studying of economics, and the jargon can be a barrier, as is no doubt the intention.

[Blackwell]

(07-16-2015 04:58 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This is a fascinating thread, with a lot of really good contributions all round.

I was particularly interested to read CatcusCat's analysis of the relevant economics.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any good resources to go from rank beginner, through to adept, for economic theory. Or any sites that are good at analysing what currently is compared to what should be? I'd like to think I have a pretty firm grasp on the basics, but I've never done any kind of formal studying of economics, and the jargon can be a barrier, as is no doubt the intention.

I second this. I'll be starting a degree in Economics and Finance in the fall and wouldn't mind getting a head start. Again I have some basics but if anybody has any quality resources to share it would be much appreciated.

And of course, fantastic thread. I need to go back and reread again. I'm actually on board with many of your comparisons Aer. I've tried focuses entirely on my own pursuits and trying to block out all the culture collapse kind of stuff but I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, at least for me, it's definitely creeping into my everyday life more and more as time goes on. I don't think I like where it's headed.

[Aer]

(07-20-2015 05:22 AM)Blackwell Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 04:58 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This is a fascinating thread, with a lot of really good contributions all round.

I was particularly interested to read CatcusCat's analysis of the relevant economics.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any good resources to go from rank beginner, through to adept, for economic theory. Or any sites that are good at analysing what currently is compared to what should be? I'd like to think I have a pretty firm grasp on the basics, but I've never done any kind of formal studying of economics, and the jargon can be a barrier, as is no doubt the intention.

I second this. I'll be starting a degree in Economics and Finance in the fall and wouldn't mind getting a head start. Again I have some basics but if anybody has any quality resources to share it would be much appreciated.

And of course, fantastic thread. I need to go back and reread again. I'm actually on board with many of your comparisons Aer. I've tried focuses entirely on my own pursuits and trying to block out all the culture collapse kind of stuff but I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, at least for me, it's definitely creeping into my everyday life more and more as time goes on. I don't think I like where it's headed.

It's really difficult to ignore, especially when you live in a heavily populated place such as a major city where it's ground zero for all this degeneracy. I basically just distanced myself from it and tried to cultivate a mindset of ignorance to all the idiocy surrounding myself and be blissfully aloof to everything that goes on around me, while understanding it completely.

[Dalaran1991]

I wanted to start a thread asking about the decline of Rome in particular, but this one exists already and its fucking awesome! Elders approved!

What I wanted to ask its, is the decline of Rome parallel with the decline of its military?

many would attribute the rise of Rome as a Republic and then as an Empire to its military, one of the most effective ever in existent. It allows Rome to conquer the world.

How did the military fell into decline and why did the Romans had to rely so much on allied legions and auxiliary? Where were the Romans that made up the bulk of the legions gone?

And lastly, does Rome's military development mirror USA's? If we are in a decline, has there been sights of decline in the Army yet? I know its been getting shitty what with women being allowed in more combat roles and stuff (kinda like Rome's reliance on mercenary, but at least mercs can fight )

[Paracelsus]

(07-27-2015 08:17 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

I wanted to start a thread asking about the decline of Rome in particular, but this one exists already and its fucking awesome! Elders approved!

What I wanted to ask its, is the decline of Rome parallel with the decline of its military?

many would attribute the rise of Rome as a Republic and then as an Empire to its military, one of the most effective ever in existent. It allows Rome to conquer the world.

How did the military fell into decline and why did the Romans had to rely so much on allied legions and auxiliary? Where were the Romans that made up the bulk of the legions gone?

And lastly, does Rome's military development mirror USA's? If we are in a decline, has there been sights of decline in the Army yet? I know its been getting shitty what with women being allowed in more combat roles and stuff (kinda like Rome's reliance on mercenary, but at least mercs can fight )

From what I understood the Roman military took the same rough direction as the American in the sense that in its early years it was made up of conscripts and in the mid-to-late years steadily began to be made up of volunteers. As fewer and fewer Roman men volunteered, they had to outsource more and more. What changed it more than anything else was the Edict of Caracalla in 212, when all free men in the Empire were given the same status -- citizenship -- as Roman men, i.e. Italians. Before then, service in the army was the main pathway to acquiring Roman citizenship and thus a major impetus to allow the Romans to pick the best of those who volunteered. After the Edict, there was no such impetus.

Having said that, the US military has an unparalleled strategic advantage the Romans could never possibly match which makes the comparison skewed at best: none of the US's enemies can conquer it by land without crossing a wide ocean first, and the Romans couldn't control the air.

[PapayaTapper]

There's a great book on this subject I posted on the book thread that I feel is worth posting here

An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power,




Essentially the premise is that for the first time in history The US established an empire through primarily economic influence rather military conquest. (Primarily economic because we do maintain a military presence in nearly 130 countries, have nearly 700 bases on foreign soil)

Staring from the pre colonial era to modern day a US history told from primarily an economic perspective is pretty unique

The author does draw some interesting parallels to the great empires of the past and it really is a fascinating read.

[PolymathGuru]

I only have two hypothesis on this one.

One is based on a statement from economist Milton Friedman, stating that it always cost the mother country more money to maintain a colony than what gains in return.

This would conclude that an empire itself is self-destructive and resource intensive to maintain.

My hypothesis would be the "relying on one's laurels" dilemma. The same generation that built the Roman empire just didn't have the same values, knowledge and virtues reflected in the previous generation.

The real question is how it was able to last so long? Most empires of that scale tend to phase out quickly. Keep in mind I am regarding an empire as a complete domination. Sometimes the time-frame of the map include "lost" colonies.

[Aer]

Didn't think it would be this textbook.

Or this quick.