[Scukonah]

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=-

[asharbiq]

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=-

[Misebeita]

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.

[SerycegeBunny]

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

[Brutton]

Missed you too, Kid!

-=Vel=-

[CiccoineFed]

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=-

[tarmpriopay]

This should be moved into History section.

[TimoDassss]

Originally posted by Heresson
This should be moved into History section. It's not really a history thread.

[SnareeWer]

I consider the notion the Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome to be rubbish, IMO it's the other way around. The decline of the empire, especially the civil wars following the death of The emperor Commodus lead to the spread of salvationist cults simply because those civil wars caused life for the average Joe to suck.

IMO Rome sowed the seeds of it's own fall during the 2nd Punic War. the long campaigns prevented the citizen-soldiers to go and farm, causing them to loose thier land to the great aristocratic families. The dispossessed farmers difted into the cities and became the urban poor (Proletarii in Latin, litterally meaning those whose only contribution to the state was popping out more Romans).

The pre-Marius millitary system relied on plenty land-owning peasants and so the decline of a land-own peasantry had disasterous effects. This resulted in the reforms of Marius, which turned the Roman millitary into a professional force. The problem with this is that it made the soldiers more loyal to thier commanders then to the roman state. Not only did this result in the fall of the republic, but it also caused the civil wars of the late empire. And it was the cvil wars of the late empire and the damage to the economy they caused that weakened the empire enough that it was overrun by barbarians.

[CHEAPPoem]

You're not quite grasping the concept

Now Heresson...I've told him that very thing myself....*shrug* You learn to love him tho...

And, as somebody's mentioned, teh frogs will bring our civ down, but not yet. On their secret bases on two earth moons, they're preparing an army to take back their homeland.



-=Vel=-

[joe-salton]

that's what I'm talking about!

[obegeLype]

No,no,no, Elok...am I mis-remembering, or didn't the Positronic cult of China get wiped out by the Neutronic cult in 856AD?

I could have sworn.....

-=Vel=-

[gkihueonhjh]

-=Vel=-

[7kitthuptarill]

you are completely wrong. Roman military, at least on paper, was at the fall of it as large as ever... and byzantine military under Justinian had even more men.
The problem was not in number.