Disintegrative Historical Forces?

[Al B. Sure!]

historians used to describe the decline of any civilization as a result of a 'weakening of the fiber'; the earlier conquerors grew decadent and complacent with their power and were unable to hold off new and young conquerors, whether internally or externally.

obviously, this 'weakening of the fiber' is too value-ridden and holds no possibility of being quantifiable. So I'm asking what historical forces, preferably those which may be measured in some way, have contributed to the disintegration of polities?

I've thought about some possibilities:

Malthusian: overpopulation relative to the carrying capacity of the inhabited region and the technological level. this would be self-corrective, however, especially as scarce resources would foster war which would in turn reduce population.

Marxist: wealth inequality but with the added caveat: not absolute wealth inequality but inequality taking in mind the standard of living (which may still be quite high for the poor [ie- modern USA]) and the amount of conspicious consumption by elites. Also, if wealth (and probably political power, too) is too evenly distributed, then disintegration is probably in full swing as such a state wouldn't be particularly centralized.

Climate: jumping off of the ideas of Brian Fagan, Jared Diamond, and others, maybe changes in climate contribute significantly to collapse? Possibly changes in mean temperatures and precipitation levels over a reasonable time frame?

Logistics: when a state controls a significant territory, forces act to weaken the future war-making ability of the state, despite additional resources. Firstly, the state loses any 'marchland' advantage it might have had as it will have to fight wars on longer and/or multiple fronts. Logistical loads increase as resources and armies need to be transported over greater distances and over recently hostile conquered territories, which may be prone to rebellion. Finally, as a Peter Turchin has suggested, the movement of the territorial frontier away from the center (and presumably, the dominant people/culture) and the resultant lack of urgency for war and/or risk of enemy counter-raids leads to a decline in solidarity among the 'center' people. These three ideas combined would mean that as a polity expands, forces, which are themselves a 'function' of territory size, act simultaneously to both strengthen (additional resources, larger population base) and weaken (logistics, etc.) the polity's capacity to conquer more territory.

War: The above perhaps but with an added exogenous variable of other states maybe subject to the same logistical constraints and acting on the state in question to take its territory. But this seems to be a system that would tend towards equilibrium as as the defensive state shrinks, its logistical loads decrease while those of the offensive state increase, leading both towards a stable parity over-time, unless there is some tipping point or threshold which, once crossed, leads to the inevitable collapse of one?

any thoughts on these ideas or are there more historical forces which might explain collapse?


thanks

[Velociryx]

IMO, Arrogance explains much of it.

A society builds up a reputation on the backs of great men and women, and conveniently forgets that great men and women aren't dime a dozen.

Once they're gone, that society keeps on behaving as though it still has the benefits of said great individuals, only to get b*tch-slapped by the disasterous side effects of that illusion.

The USA is a case in point.

Dubya is attempting to cast himself as one of the all time greats...to hear him tell it, he's leading the charge...fighting the good fight against...what was it...Islamic Fascisim?

But it's a sham.

He lives in the shadow of great men, and is a wannabe of the worst sort. He's never done anything of substance, was responsible in no way at all for the great nation whose helm he inherited (some would say stole, or at the very least, bought), and ultimately, has led it into dangerous waters, purely on the basis of his (apparently boundless) arrogance.

In a similar vein, I do not think that the fall of the Roman Empire had anything to do with exceeding carrying capacity or a shortage of resources...if anything, they had the market more-or-less cornered where resources went. Plenty of arrogance though.

*shrug*

-=Vel=-

[Dinner]

Rome fell apart because they couldn't decide on a clear cut sucession plan for the Emperors. The result was nearly continious civil war. The only saving grace of those guys was that when they weren't busy fighting each other they would go out and fight the barbarians.

[Velociryx]

And many of those leaders (arrogantly) scoffed at the notion that the barbarians were a threat (after all, who could stand up to the might of the Legions of Rome, etc, etc, and so forth...insert ancient sound bytes here).

That was....a mistake.

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

any thoughts on these ideas or are there more historical forces which might explain collapse?

Inbreeding. Kinda ties into Oerdin's succession point, I suppose.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Disintegrative Historical Forces?

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Marxist: wealth inequality but with the added caveat: not absolute wealth inequality but inequality taking in mind the standard of living (which may still be quite high for the poor [ie- modern USA]) and the amount of conspicious consumption by elites. Also, if wealth (and probably political power, too) is too evenly distributed, then disintegration is probably in full swing as such a state wouldn't be particularly centralized.

Che may disagree, but a Marxist analysis would have to include the need for constant increases in profits to maintain the capitalist economy. Without constant increases in profits, markets come crashing down and revolution results. Income inequality could be one way that profit increases are interrupted, but not the only way.

[Velociryx]

"Marxist Analysis" I like the oxymoron!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Don't start and there won't be none.

[CrONoS]

it`s not measurable, like you asked but here's my tought:

I have two ideas:
The integration of foreign value and culture into an empire.
Culture and value that are incompatible with the culture and value that helped the empire to grow and becoming stronger.

Exemple: Many romans blamed Christiannity for the downfall of Rome.

But St-Augustine have made a good refutation in his City Of God, fifth book.

Or like St-Augustine write in his City Of God, about the romans losing their influence and powers since they were losing the value that was there at the beginnings of their empire. (frugality, honors, being proud). we can see it, as the lost of the tradition.

[Velociryx]

Missed you too, Kid!

-=Vel=-

[dannubis]

the fact that it takes a lot less money conquering a land than keeping it will also have to do something with it

[Velociryx]

the fact that it takes a lot less money conquering a land than keeping it will also have to do something with it

Oh blah....all you gotta do is build some cottages and you'll have the new land adding to the payroll in no time....

-=Vel=-

[CrONoS]

@Dannubis
Yep, maybe one of the most measurable force is the lack of funds -> increase in corruption -> higher inequality -> and the increase of instability and the lack of confidence into the people in powers.

Edit:

In my opinion; one of their great emperor was Marcus Aurelius. Who sold his jewelry and financed himself a war to protect the roman empire from the barbarians.

[Heresson]

This should be moved into History section.

[Velociryx]

Dang it...I thought Heresson was gonna say frogs.

Frogs are the cause of the decline of these silly human constructs known as civilizations....

-=Vel=-