The decline of civilization? A discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

So I did use the term. So you can understand why I reply on an attack on a word which I used.
This makes me feel that you have no read the opening post, which makes me feel you think I claimed that civilization declined, which would make you a idiot.

So as it is clear that you did not read all this thread, perhaps do so before to aggressively attack people?

And I still do no understand what you are talking about. Could you perhaps explain it to me (in a less aggressive manner please). Because to be honest I have no idea what your problem is, try calming down or putting paragraphs in?

Maybe you thought I asked why the empire fell.
Pehapps you thought people were claiming that the fall in civilization afected the entire world.
Either way the thread link you posted, with it's copy and paste answers has no relevance I feel.

---

You really have no idea who Ward Churchill is, or what the reference to 'the shining path,' means? Humm, I acquiesce, as yes indeed, I'm the idiot. In fact what I wrote is called a mad rant; its a cultural thing I suppose. Initially, in no way was it directed at you nor anyone else on these boards. I simply bemoan the dismal state, in some quarters, of higher learning, that by extension lend itself to parroting the sophomoric catch phrase. If you or anyone else took offense, I beg your pardon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path

First, the Italian based polity, some call Roman, at some point ceased to be. This was the effective end, or as some would say, 'the fall,' of a particular State in antiquity. Yet, civilization, by definition, is not the State, and thus survives as a bit more fluid and resilient concept designed only for the ease of the modern mind's grasp. Civilizations, as abstract collections of cultures and traditions, either are, or they are not. Objectively, they do not rise; they do not fall; they do not set, and most certainly they do not shine at all. To this point, with all things considered, as one may express in terms of 'the fall,' another may assume that the polity was intended, rather than what was actually stated. One may also note that another has no clue if the former is a native English speaker, and if so, their ability to comprehend both the language and the construct. Above all else, no insult or offense was intended; enough said.


To better illustrate, 'The Mad Rant.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo

I never called you a idiot, just is you thought I thought their was a decline in civilization you would be one (as you didn't read my first post).

Quote:

---

You really have no idea who Ward Churchill is, or what the reference to 'the shining path,' means? Humm, I acquiesce, as yes indeed, I'm the idiot.

---

Ignorance is not idiocy.
(I have my area's of knowledge you have yours, if I had known I would have provoked outright hostility I would not have asked)

That sentence and your ridiculous rant means that I am sorry I started this thread, maybe I should not ask questions on things I know little about (foolishly thinking I would get reasonable answers not hostile rants) and instead not enter on to EB without reading up on the works of all historians relating to this period.

I am not a historian but silly me I thought anyone could play and enjoy EB. And perhaps venture onto EB's site and try to learn more.

I will uninstall it right now, and proceed with my life (I used to try to improve my knowledge of history as a hobby, but I see now that doing so is clearly angering you).

Come on, friends... This is really useless. It seemed as an extraordinarily interesting thread and for a reason I cannot grasp it turned into a blame game. Either be resonable and let us continue in a civil discussion where the more knowledgable could share their knowledge with others (without being too touchy about it) or let the moderators close the whole thread, thus showing us once more how un-mature we really are (regardless of age) and dooming inadverently quite a bit of information into cyber-oblivion...:wall:

:book: or :dancinglock: what will prevail? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin

To keep it going, I do have question. I remember a commentary to the Ten Books of Gregory of Tours (a chronicle of early Frankish kingdom) that stated that actually the early Frankish kingdom was doing rather well, even preserving a professional state bureaucracy and keeping a rather large volume of long-distance trade across almost all Mediterranean basin. This account somewhat relativized the usual image of the Dark age, coming with the beginnings of the "barbaric kingdoms" and stressed that much more continuity in fact existed for some time. According to that account the crisis came rather late (late 6th century), just before the Karlid(?) dynasty took over... I do know next to nothing on this issue, so I would appreciate if I could learn more on this fascinating forum.

Could you please comment on this, admittedly not well represented - sorry for my English :shame:, opinion?

---

By the way that 'dooming inadvertently' things a nice touch.

Very good post, and your English seems better than mine. Indeed, the Frankish, Saxon, Irish, Pictish, Germanic, Spanish, and Greek polities were all recovering. Given a few set backs here and there, this trend continued and spiked up significantly in the 12th and 13th centuries. However around AD 1300 this trend was notably reversed. This was one of the things that has lead me away from the traditional view of the subject. I noticed the same thing in the area I actually work in; the American Southwest. Here, by the the 1st century BC the local Early Formative cultures (particulary in the Tucson Basin) appear posed to rapidly develop into far more complex expressions.

Of course, this didn't happen. In fact, it wasn't until some time in the 7th century AD until it actually occurred. So, the question might be, why did it happen later and not earlier? The only factor, that I could identify that may have impacted increased complexity in a positive fashion, in the 7th century, was the initial phase of the Medieval Warm Period. Simply stated; slightly warmer global temps, ice melts, increased gaseous water in the atmosphere, more rainfall, more surface water, irrigation, more corn, more beans,more squash, more people, and finally greater cultural complexity. Now, if this was the case it begs the following question. If growing complexity was associated with a global temp increase, was the proceeding period associated with cooler global temps?

At this point one may note how this ties into my earlier posts, as they apply to managerial responses or adaptation documented within a particularly large Italian-based polity in the period roughly between the 1st century BC and AD 550/650. I propose that there is evidence for this phenom in Europe, although mitigated, to some extent, by the organization and technology of the Imperial State. One may also notice that the terminus of this proposed episode closely corresponds to the opening stage of dramatic Arab expansion in the Near East. Finally, I also suggest that this is but the 'Tip' of the proverbial 'Iceberg.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craziii

it is anglocentric. almost everything ever written are biased in one way or another. so are most views. china consider all outsiders barbarians till they come bursting through their doors with guns + cannons. the easiest example would be the world series? they call it world series when in fact it is only in one country, the USA :()

---

:smash: I believe it's called the world series because it was initially sponspored by "The World" newspaper.

It also includes Canada!

Well, Toronto...

/wrongtimeperiod

The decline of civilisation is the fault of George Bush. Ya.

Whether the US possessed any civilisation to speak of even before is up to debate... ~;p

That, mein good Watchman, is a VERY good point.

George Bush hates white people!

Do we have any experts out there on the Han of China? And what of Iran and India between the 1st century BC and AD 550/650?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

Now as this is the best forum I know in terms of history knowledge, I was wonder about your opinions on the view that civilization was destroyed/delayed for the middle ages.

I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

I understand that with the collapse of the western empire, and the migration period the west of Europe lost the organization skills the romans had, but surely in the rest of the world claimed to be civilized?

((And thats not even questioning the idea of civilization, and the assumption that only the romans had it))

Just wondering:yes:

---

Due to the nature of the subject this topic is likely to become not only rather heated but also convoluted, I don't think this is a bad thing but I think you are objectivly seeking an answer so I will try to answer your question as quickly as possible. I will be happy to elaborate though if you want me to expand on the ponts I make.

1)No it's not Anglo-centric as the culture we see now as Anglo was in its budding form or simply non-existant, and would probably be seen as part of the problem in the eyes of the "Rome fell to the barbarians" crowd and thus not really a good advertisment for the Anglos.

2)It is a bit West centric as Eastern Rome continued into the middle ages, playing a major part in the crusades and the politics etc surrounding them.

3)We need to keep in mind that the fall of an empire is not the same as the fall of a civilization, civilization existed in Western Europe before and after the Romans created an empire.

4)The Western empire undoubtably went under some majorly fast administrative shifts as new people came in and took charge, some even being considered legit Roman emperors in the eyes of the Romans such as Theodoric the Goth.

5)Several of these new administrative bodies very much considered themselves to be inheriting Roman civilization or at least incorporating the bits they liked about it into their own traditional systems, this can be evidenced in groups like the Franks who not only felt they had inherited Roman culture, but also created something somewhat reminiscent of the Western Roman empire, in some cases pushing farther into territories the "true Romans" didn't or couldn't such as much of Germania.

6)This "inheritors of Roman civilization or empire" mentality may seem a little odd, but it really isn't as odd and distant as you can think, throughout much of European history post 5th century bc this mentality has been extremely prominent, to really try and get you to understand this, it hasn't even been 100 years since a very large war was fought against a man who was incharge of the "Third Reich" (the First Reich being the Holy Roman Empire) and his Italian ally who openly stated he wanted to create a "New Roman Empire".

7)This "inheritors" mentality was not exclusive to the West, the Seljuk turkish invaders of the Eastern Roman empire considered themselves the inheritors of Eastern Roman if not just Roman civilization and consequently because of this The Russians, considered themselves the "Third Rome" after the fall of Constantinople, hence the origins of "Tsar" in Russia.

8) Many of the organizational techniques of the Roman empire, political as well as military, were not only understood and adopted by the "Inheritors" but they were also using them well before the Western Roman empire fell as many of these people themselves were part of the Western Roman empire anyway and were well used to living Roman way of life so this is why historically speaking you see the successor cultures not only implimenting many Roman administrative techniques but building upon them and sometimes replacing them when they came up with something better.

9) Keep in mind that the Roman military and its society was constantly undergoing revampment and would rise or lower in terms of quality from time to time, and the Romans were never the kind to shy away from incorporating other peoples ideas and implimenting them to their own benefit so this successor period was in many ways much more of the same.

and finally 10) You need to remember that political fragmentation, rebellion, breakaway attemps both successful and unsuccessful as well as civil war, were not things unknowen and infrequent in the centuries before the fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire. The war in Gaul, which was very much opposed by many Romans was followed by a civil war in Rome which culminated in the seperation of Roman conquered land into three administrative regions which then had wars between themselves and then resulted in a political overhaul that seemed to get rid of the consuls all together in favor of something which looked very much like a perma dictator arguably ending a way of life in itself. This along with things such as the break away Gallic Empire attempt, the Crisis of the Third Century, the creation of Western and Eastern Roman Empires etc would act as a few more examples of the turbulance of Roman Empire and Roman civilization which in retrospect could the "Fall of Western Rome" actually not the Fall of Rome at all and in many ways more of the same.

Regardless of what name you want to give it, Civilization existed in Western Europe both before and after the Roman Empire. I hope these brief paragraphs can be at least slightly helpful to you in your attempt to get the jist of an extremely complex subject.

Well to that guy talking about the fall of MODERN civilization, I think he refers to losing Europe, NA, AND Asia at the same time. If neither one of these falls at the same time, I think the only problem will be a significant decline in trade with whatever continent or nation fell, ie. being:

U.S. Falls, LOTS of economic problems for the world

and about the same with the rest of "civilization" for our usual days are governed by cheap goods we aquire from other states.

Guess how many things are made in china >.>



Now the third world countries, they all have their own style of "civilization", just that they might not have it to the extent of britain or germany or any other large and rich country.

For the most part, so long as any of the major powers in the world dont fall, civilization will still be around. If they all fall at the same time...well....you can just think of the rise of gangs and regional "governors"...

warfare would probably include foraging for guns and crap, aside from the usual "shankings" that will happen lol

You'd also see a huge decline in population with the loss of international trade. So many of the large cities of the world depend on food imported from elsewhere daily, and when government fails, food growth and management fail.

It's a frightening thought being in LA especially. Too many people, not enough food. I'm fucked in the apocalypse.

Edit- I forgot to mention that it would be a quick and violent decline of population as survivors fight over available food until an equilibrium is established.

For actual tactics in fights like this I would imagine it would be much guerilla warfare and gang activity.

After gangs get big enough they would probably become a sort of kingdom...with the head gangster leading the pack. And then well, you would probably see things like what happened in Water world...that nasty old movie... and that movie of L.A. being in a post-apocalyptic world with Kurt Russel.

After all the guns are done for, I would imagine that

A. Either there would still be SOME people who knew how to create guns and would create a rather Warhammer 40k ish organization, reverring the old technology, or improve upon it and have a repeat of the middle ages.

B. There would probably be a rise in the usage of knives and all sorts of sharp objects, For I dont think large land battles would occur, mostly due to the fact that the logistics for that would require much preparation, and that would take far too long for the gang-like savages that would roam the place at the time.

But then again, who knows? Until something like that happens, we will see...the best examples are somalia and that other city in africa ATM

This is where this tread is headed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

lol global warming will create cannibals

I love apocalyptic guessing.


More likely than not, the Midwest and Southern states will stay the most united. Huge ass military and farming presence(also, nuclear presence. Your not going anywhere if they say they will nuke you if you secede) which will remove the problems of the East Coast and West Coast of starving to death.

Well, in an Absolut World?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/.../absolutad.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Well, in an Absolut World?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/.../absolutad.jpg

---

We had a war that settled that. It turned out that although all the lines were on a map, there were no Mexican people north of Chihuahua, but there were Americanish people, so it all worked out in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Whether the US possessed any civilisation to speak of even before is up to debate... ~;p

---

Dude. Fast food is totally high-culture. Totally. So what if we have no art or music. We do have literature though, but it's generally poorly written and of the thriller variety. Sometimes our government works...but it usually just gets by without destroying the universe. I'm not helping the case for the US having civilization.:shame:

I'm not totally sure where this map came from, as far as it being derived from some historical document? I think its the same as a Kleptocracy's dream team. I've read it dates to before 1848, but I do remember something about the end of the first Mexican Republic and a little rebellion in Táysha, in 1835-36? Hell, the vast majority of Mexicans are completely unaware of the true nature of their own history, except the part about how all their woes are due to the 'Great Satan.' Where have I bloody heard that before?

Right, not to draw too fine a point, there was the Province of New Mexico, as if that changes any thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I'm not totally sure where this map came from, as far as it being derived from some historical document? I think its the same as a Kleptocracy's dream team. I've read it dates to before 1848, but I do remember something about the end of the first Mexican Republic a little rebellion in Táysha, in 1835-36? Hell, the vast majority of Mexicans are completely unaware of the true nature of their own history, except the part about how all their woes are due to the 'Great Satan.' Where have I bloody heard that before?

---

That's about what Mexico claimed as its lands at the start of the Mexican War. However in reality Texas was independent (after 1836) and then a state (after 1845) (Mexico had to recognize it and its borders as terms of the end of the war) and California was also independent, having rebelled from Mexico some years earlier. The disputed Texas border was a casus belli.

Contrary to popular belief in Mexico, the war was justified. It was not just an imperialist land-grab, although it was partly one.

Absolut pulled that ad and apologized at the behest of the Mexican government.

I don't care, take their Absolut heads and pike'm in the town square so they can stare at the crows.

I'm telling you all this now:
1-fast food is NOT high culture-it's the fatman's house (i.e heart attacks)
2-I live here-outside of the eastern half of the midwest (OH, Penn., ML, V, WV to an extent), and the new England states+NY and NJ, there is NO trace of civilization whatsoever (not counting the Indians, in which case there is)
3-Bush hates anyone who isn't a fundamentalistic, neoconservative a@#hole, like him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

f*%) bush .jr, f#@^! to hell, f #%@ him to damnation, he's rated F!&$b!($s by me

sorry can't help it-he finished off civilization in the US

Honestly, I'm not entirely certain how much civilization we really have here in the US of A. In some degrees, this is a perk. Comparatively to amny places in the world, we don't tend to kill each other en masse over religous differences, ethnic differences, or political differences; as much as the media tried to rile people up. I think this is our blessing and our curse.

No united culture means everyone has to live with everyone else.

When the US DOES fragment (few hundred years, whever) I'm betting on Texas or California as getting thier own countries first, and starting the whole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I'm telling you all this now:
1-fast food is NOT high culture-it's the fatman's house (i.e heart attacks)
2-I live here-outside of the eastern half of the midwest (OH, Penn., ML, V, WV to an extent), and the new England states+NY and NJ, there is NO trace of civilization whatsoever (not counting the Indians, in which case there is)
3-Bush hates anyone who isn't a fundamentalistic, neoconservative a@#hole, like him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

f*%) bush .jr, f#@^! to hell, f #%@ him to damnation, he's rated F!&$b!($s by me

sorry can't help it-he finished off civilization in the US

---

The irrationality radiates off of you like the heat effect thingy coming off a hot road.

Good god, I'm not sure I'm getting all this? Are we already cannibals, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Good god, I'm not sure I'm getting all this? Are we already cannibals, or what?

---

They say that if you eat human flesh, you consume the soul of the one you devour and become powerful. There was a movie about that...Ravenous.