[HN Gopher] The great myth of empire collapse
___________________________________________________________________
The great myth of empire collapse
Author : marojejian
Score : 25 points
Date : 2025-08-10 20:06 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aeon.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (aeon.co)
| charcircuit wrote:
| The British empire collapsed within the last 100 years so you can
| ask living people today what it was like to love through a
| collapse of the empire they lived in.
| rainsford wrote:
| That's an interesting case because the collapse of the British
| Empire lined up pretty well with the rise the US as first one
| of two global superpowers and then _the_ global superpower. It
| seems likely that the experience of imperial collapse might be
| different when you 're replaced with a power that more or less
| is politically, militarily, economically, and linguistically
| aligned with you. I haven't conducted an exhaustive study, but
| I imagine that's not necessarily the common experience.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| The British empire didn't really collapse, as such. Britain
| just couldn't maintain it after the financial stress of WWII.
| Also independence was implicit in the WWII support of some of
| the colonies. So a war weary Britain (grudgingly) granted
| independence to it's former colonies. It went better in some
| countries than others. The partition of India was a disaster.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Of course, I would expect the experience to be different in the
| last three hundred years or so. Since the Industrial
| Revolution, it's much more likely for an average person's
| quality of life to improve during their lifetime due to
| technology even if their nation is undergoing a collapse in
| power relative to other nations.
| eterm wrote:
| I think "Denial" sums it up.
| Muromec wrote:
| While I share the view there, it's kind of a macro view. The day
| to day 99% percent view also depends on an empire and on a
| collapse. Having regular blackouts and no running water in the
| 90ies wasn't fun at all, even zo the quality of life improved
| dramatically a decade or two later.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I find the article's dismissal of population collapses rather
| dishonest.
|
| There is no doubt that urban centres basically disappeared after
| collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and that population density
| went significantly down. Once the city-based specialists were
| gone, so was any ability of rural folk to buy anything that could
| not be produced by primitive methods in their own community. And
| without an efficient trade network, there was no way to import
| food if local crops failed. Hence, famines, which the previous
| empire was mostly able to hold in check by moving food over the
| sea at big distances.
|
| A major problem of the Early Middle Ages was diminished security
| - all those Viking, Avar, Hun and Pecheneg raids were absolutely
| real, and their targets weren't "the 1%". Of course loot from the
| rich would be taken, but so would poor young women for sex and
| their children into slavery, and their meagre food reserves for
| the raiders to eat. That is what happens to settled people
| without an efficient defense of their borders.
|
| We have had two big imperial collapses right in Europe within
| living memory - the Nazi Reich (by war) and the Soviet Union
| (economic). Ask the survivors if they "noticed". They absolutely
| did. I would even say that the working class "noticed" the most,
| as they usually had fewest reserves to survive the subsequent
| chaos.
|
| It wasn't that different in the past.
| Muromec wrote:
| they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying,
| but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get
| worse sometimes for a whole generation.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Historic sources indicate massive workforce (and military
| force) shortages where once were none, which means that the
| total population must have dropped significantly.
|
| Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC
| already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone.
| In contrast, when the Eastern Roman forces finally defeated
| the Goths in the 540s, they were unable to hold Italy against
| a relatively minor Langobard invasion in 568, which is
| estimated to some 20 000 warriors. Why? _For the lack of
| soldiers_. They just couldn 't put together the necessary
| garrisons and feed them from local sources.
|
| That would have been unthinkable in 168. Anyone who would
| seriously want to conquer Italy at that time would have to
| field at least ten times as many soldiers.
|
| In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire at home was still able
| to field massive armies and even send some expeditions
| overseas, because the more developed civilizational structure
| was still present there, and with it, much higher population
| density.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC
| already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula
| alone.
|
| That's true, but the contrast to other contemporary states
| is not felt to be one of population size. Rather, the
| Romans were able to mobilize a much larger share of their
| subject population into the army.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This would be an interesting debate, but it is after
| midnight here, so I will be going to sleep shortly.
|
| Basically, yes, but also no. There is a huge difference
| between being able to mobilize a large portion of your
| population _for a short time_ vs. _keeping the standing
| army indefinitely_. With the latter, various intrinsic
| economic limitations will bite. Rome started with the
| "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned
| into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot
| of support from civilians.
|
| Professional soldiers are economically unproductive; they
| have to be fed, clothed and provided with weapons. Just
| the necessary smelting of iron in order to equip a single
| legion would be a lot of work for blacksmiths, miners and
| lumberjacks who produced the necessary wood for charcoal.
| If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of
| iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must
| have _a lot_ of civilian workers supporting that army.
| Literally millions.
|
| The precipitous drop in the size of field armies in the
| Early Middle Ages is a good indication of the precipitous
| drop of the entire economy which would prop them up.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of
| iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must
| have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army.
|
| Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder
| and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the
| empire got too big to manage with the technology of the
| day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and
| that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal
| army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the
| west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the
| Roman catholic church.
|
| (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this
| recently)
| inglor_cz wrote:
| With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire
| mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1
| AD.
|
| Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and
| probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was
| abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't
| interesting enough to defend.
|
| The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after
| the expansion phase ceased.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman
| empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to
| conquer by 1 AD.
|
| The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer
| the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids).
|
| > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and
| probably was, on the net, an economic loss.
|
| Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was
| (per conquered person) more than any other Roman
| territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some
| tin. ;0)
| tim333 wrote:
| Or maybe a drop in military spending?
|
| Germany under Hitler had a big army, it now has a small
| one. It's not because they population or economy
| collapsed. See also modern Russia where they are cranking
| up the army in spite of declining population and an iffy
| economy. It seems more about having a dictator who wants
| to do wars.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It was far worse in the past, for the reasons you mentioned
| about security in particular. This is when we see the rise of
| castles and fortresses and the feudal system.
|
| The Nazi Reich was very short lived (12ish years) and after its
| collapse, Western Germany was in a better place. The collapse
| of the Soviet Union was a bigger deal, as people had lived a
| few generations under the communist system and had to adapt
| rather suddenly to market economics and new governance. No
| doubt there was a shock period, but by and large people's lives
| got better. This is largely because of how globalized we are in
| modern day.
|
| The Dark Ages lasted for hundreds of years and were a
| regression in quality of life for vast majority of western
| europe.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "Western Germany was in a better place."
|
| Due to a somewhat historically anomalous generosity of the
| winners, who (from a mixture of humanity and economic
| motives) decided to invest into its rebuilding.
|
| In earlier times, debellatio of an enemy state after a long,
| vicious existential war would end in a way similar to what
| the Romans did to Carthage.
| gregorygoc wrote:
| WWI was a thing.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Can you expand your comment? I am not sure what you mean
| by such a short reaction. Of course there was WWI, but
| ... ?
| hermitcrab wrote:
| The victorious allies imposed a punitive peace on German
| at the end of WWI. This caused huge resentment, that was
| at least partly responsible for the rise of Nazism and
| WWII. The Marshall plan was, I believe, an attempt to the
| stop the same cycle from happening again. Similarly for
| Japan. It was an act of incredible generosity by the USA,
| but I think history shows that it was also a very smart
| investment. I can't imagine such generosity and foresight
| being employed again any time soon.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I think the Cold War played a role too. Germany was
| defeated, but its industry was still fairly operational.
| In contrast to housing, which was bombed into pieces,
| German heavy industry was remarkably operational until
| the very end and the British were surprised to find that
| German factories were, on average, equipped with more
| modern machines than British ones.
|
| And some 75 per cent of that industry was in Allied
| hands. It made strategic sense to rebuild the country in
| face of a Soviet threat and make it a factory for the
| Allies (notably, the German army was only reconstituted
| much later, in 1955) instead of destroying it.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >I think the Cold War played a role too.
|
| Yes, definitely. The USA wanted as many allies as it
| could get against the USSR, even former enemies.
|
| >German factories were, on average, equipped with more
| modern machines than British ones.
|
| Thankfully the Germans wasted amounts of resources on not
| very useful weapons, such as the V2 rocket
| (technologically brilliant, strategically pretty useless)
| and the King Tiger (unreliable and IIRC cost somewhere
| around 20 times as much to make as a typical allied
| tank).
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I believe a lot of historians get rather upset about the use
| of the term 'dark ages'.
|
| The Romans used their professional army to destroy many of
| the cultures unfortunate enough to be within their reach
| (Dacia, Carthage etc). They then wrote the history to make
| themselves look good and the 'barbarians' look bad.
| Consequently the fall of the Roman empire is seen as a
| disaster. But the Romans were a brutal bunch. They used to
| watch people being mauled by wild animals and gladiators
| hacking each other to death as entertainment, after all. Many
| of the people that the Romans conquered must have been glad
| to see the back of them.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This is a very modern reading of a very ancient situation.
|
| By the time of Western Roman Empire collapsing, the realm
| was Christian for two centuries and gladiator games et al.
| were banned for so long that no one alive would remember
| them happening. Most of the local languages were also gone
| and the previously conquered people considered themselves
| Romans and spoke Latin. They didn't have any Wikipedia or
| nationalist schooling system to teach them that they were
| once Celts or Illyrs, 400 years ago.
|
| (Even in our modern world where history is taught and
| movies and books are abundant, few people have any idea of
| who conquered whom in 1620 AD and what were the
| consequences for their distant ancestors. This is a domain
| of history geeks. No modern German loses their sleep over
| whether his city was once plundered by the Palatinate
| forces or burnt to the ground by a Saxon army, and would
| not dismantle modern Germany just because such atrocities
| once took place.)
|
| Also, the Roman empire did not dissolve into a vacuum, with
| the previous provinces simply declaring their long desired
| independence. It was conquered from the outside, and the
| attackers would not necessarily treat the subdued
| population any better. They might, or they might not.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| >few people have any idea of who conquered whom in 1620
| AD and what were the consequences for their distant
| ancestors
|
| I bet most people in the US could tell you in broad
| strokes who used to live in North America and who
| conquered them.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Very broad strokes. "Indians vs. Whites".
|
| But the Roman situation was more akin to "what precisely
| happened during the Thirty Years War". I really like
| history, but I wouldn't be able to tell you if Munster or
| Wurzburg sided with those or these.
|
| Unlike the conquest of North America, which usually
| resulted in physical destruction of the Indian tribes and
| their displacement by the colonists, Roman conquests
| tended to _absorb_ the conquered polity, often with the
| basic social structure still intact, so the nobility
| would remain in local control, the priests would remain
| priests of that particular local god etc. This tends to
| take the edge off and make assimilation easier.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >By the time of Western Roman Empire collapsing, the
| realm was Christian for two centuries and gladiator games
| et al. were banned for so long that no one alive would
| remember them happening.
|
| That is a fair point. But I believe the Romans were still
| a pretty brutal and repressive regime right up the the
| end. And also levied high taxes. Whether the regional
| powers that replaced them were any better, was a matter
| of luck I suppose.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| During the Gothic Wars of the 6th century, there was an
| interesting episode when the remaining Roman inhabitants
| of (much diminished) city of Rome actually defended the
| city on the Goths' side _against_ their own Eastern Roman
| brethren, because they considered Gothic rule lighter and
| more tolerable.
|
| But at nearly the same time, the Goths absolutely
| destroyed Milan.
|
| History is rarely straightforward.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| I don't think the people in Latvia, Lithuania Estonia,
| Finnland, Germany, Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine etc pp et al were
| particularly sad about not being ruled from Moscow anymore. You
| could even say they grew happier, healthier, taller and had
| less dental cavities.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I am a Czech myself, and old enough to remember that period.
|
| We were all happy to escape the Russian yoke, but the
| transformation was really challenging, not to mention the
| potential threat of wars as various ancient ethnic hatreds,
| suppressed by the defunct empire, reappeared.
|
| A lot of people lost their jobs, a lot of currencies
| collapsed and took people's life savings with them... There
| was a wave of crime and various oligarchs tried to lift
| themselves above the law.
|
| And your healthcare quip is way off. In many places further
| East, basic healthcare structure collapsed, and diseases like
| tuberculosis or HIV either returned or spread anew massively.
|
| The situation began improving by re-attachment of the newly
| free countries to _another_ , more benign empire, which was
| the EU.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I noted the data point of the civil war in Syria: 20 times as
| many people moved as were killed. That's good news as far as it
| goes - to run is better than to die - but that doesn't make the
| Syrian civil war a good time for the people involved. They were
| running for a reason - the threat of death was too high if they
| stayed put. So they left. They left their homes, their
| belongings, their jobs, and ran to a very uncertain future
| somewhere else.
|
| So I'm not sure that "the death toll wasn't that high" should
| be casually interpreted as "it wasn't that bad for regular
| people". Yes, most of them lived. That doesn't make it benign.
|
| (Hmm, I seem to have used a lot of dashes in the first
| paragraph. No, I'm not an AI.)
| inglor_cz wrote:
| A good remark, but also a word of caution.
|
| The Syrian situation is not directly comparable. With modern
| logistics, it is way, way easier to feed even big masses of
| displaced people. We can produce food efficiently and we can
| move it over long distances before it spoils. If you run away
| from active fighting, chances are that you actually survive,
| even though the refugee camps are miserable.
|
| Neither was true in the Early Middle Ages and if an invader
| displaced tens of thousands of people from somewhere, they
| would just die of hunger. The capacity to take care of sudden
| crowds of refugees just wasn't there.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I recently read the book 'Barbarians' by Terry Jones (the ex-
| Python) and Alan Ereira. It suggested that, because the Romans
| were such a brutal bunch who levied high taxes, some people were
| happier after the collapse of their empire.
|
| If anyone is interested in the rise and fall of empires, I
| strongly recommend the 'Fall of civilizations' podcast. It is a
| masterpiece of podcasting.
|
| https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/
| wrp wrote:
| I think that was also a factor in the early success of the
| Islamic conquest. The Arabians initially imposed lower taxes
| and interfered less with local politics.
| efitz wrote:
| I am not sure what "the collapse of an empire" means. True
| empires bleed off colonies or satellites, often over hundreds of
| years; sometimes with wars, sometimes without.
|
| Today being imprecise with language to smear one's political
| opponents is in fashion; a lot of talk about "empire" and
| "regime" etc. is just propaganda.
|
| The fall of a government will leave a power vacuum and people
| will rush to fill it; violence might be part of the fall but will
| almost certainly be part of the competition to be the
| replacement. We have dozens of examples in the last hundred
| years.
|
| During all those times, people have to live their lives; things
| go on pretty much as normal for most people not involved in the
| struggle for power. However there are disruptions to utilities
| and financial systems; many people lose their life savings and
| sometimes feeding people is hard, let alone doing business like
| manufacturing.
|
| The only thing that is "apocalyptic" about the fall of a
| government and its replacement with a new one, is when the new
| government is full of radical ideologues that use the force of
| government, and ultimately violence, against their political
| opponents, such as in the Russian Revolution, the Nazi rise to
| power, and Mao's rise to power.
|
| This is not a foregone conclusion; we didn't see intentional mass
| starvation or genocide in Iran, for example, although there were
| thousands of executions as the new regime purged its opponents.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-10 23:01 UTC)