Collapse of society ?

[markusaurelius]

Found this study published recently interesting on how society, it's elites , use or resources and the collapse of society.

I found it interesting that the study looked at societies like the Roman one and jow it's elite contributed to its collapse in the end. The study seems to put some scientific theory behind how societies collapse. IMO it supports how Rome fell.

Article

You can google the original article/paper to have a read.

[Lyceum]

I've read it and such things are fanciful to the extreme. An upsetting failure of empiricism. We are unable to account for the collapse of societies we know have collapsed and have left an abundance of data leading up to said collapse. Despite what pop "history" sells the public, we really can't fully account for most collapses. We can offer theories which explain certain elements in certain manners but that is it. It inevitably never comes down to one or two things however.

This given the case, the predicative power of a study like this is...tepid at best. This is what happens when you produce a generation of thinkers quite divorced from historography, formal logic and so on. You can studies like this. I hope it's bang for the tax payers buck.

[richsc]

In which case you might like this new book on the collapse of the Bronze Age, "1177bc; The Year Civilization Collapsed" by Eric Cline, the head of classics at George Washington University.
http://www.amazon.com/1177-B-C-Civilizat...+collapsed

[markusaurelius]

Lol Jass. I take it you disagree with the study?

I found it interesting. It is a over simplification for sure, but there is reason why we have a saying "history repeated itself". And currently I think a lot of people think we are on course to do just that.

[Renicus Ferrarius]

I thought NASA was supposed to put things and people in space. They've been doing some (...ahem...) strange things lately that seem a bit tangental (extraneous?) to space study.

In any event, this study of theirs makes a lot of assumptions. Reading it, I get the flavor of: this is what we want the conclusion to be, so let's research everything to prove ourselves right.

Lyceum is correct when he says we can't really account for most collapses. IMHO, earlier scholars, who worked from a less politicized point of view, explained Rome's collapse more thoroughly and believably.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Frankly, forget about NASA because SpaceX is already far ahead of them. They're working on a Buck Rodgers style rocket that can land straight down called the Grasshopper.

[Condottiero Magno]

IMHO, earlier scholars, who worked from a less politicized point of view, explained Rome's collapse more thoroughly and believably.

Who were these scholars?

[Renicus Ferrarius]

IMHO, earlier scholars, who worked from a less politicized point of view, explained Rome's collapse more thoroughly and believably.

Who were these scholars?

Gibbons, for all of his seeming dislike for Chrisitanity, did a more comprehensive job than the NASA scientists seemed to have done. I rather enjoyed Cunliffe (1979 or 80), too.

Allesandro Barbero's The Day of the Barbarians was excellent, even though it's only 5 years old.

I'm sorry... are you of the opinion that the NASA study is superior, or do you have a lesser opinion of some of the earlier authors?

[Creon01]

I thought modern academics avoid using the word "collapse" when referring to changes in societies, even ancient Rome, as it implies a sudden and negative change in the lives of the people. Most of the time only the elites change and life goes on as before for the majority of the common people. Changes in language, religion and even ethnic identity occur for sure, but generally over generations and not overnight. History informs us that common people will often accept a foreign elite replacing a local version if the local version oppresses them too much.

[Nathan Ross]

are you of the opinion that the NASA study is superior

It seems the study was not commissioned, directed or supported by NASA - they only gave a 'minor' grant to help fund it. This has led to the author of the article being criticised for misinformation; his rebuttal is here.

While the overall aims seem reasonable - it would be nice if everyone could share wealth more equitably, work out ways to use resources better and so on - I too found the 'historical' claims made in the article to be tenuous at best.

"The fall of the Roman Empire'" the head mathematician is quoted as saying, is "testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent." - as if any civilisation could be permanent ... Plus there's nothing here that engages with the historical evidence in any meaningful way - if the western empire collapsed due to wealth inequality, overconsumption, and "the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", why did the eastern empire not suffer a like fate?

In the second article, the author claims that "the first major breakdown in the Roman imperial system came in 166 CE, and further crises followed until the Western empire ceased to exist in 476 CE." I wouldn't call the Marcomannic wars a 'major breakdown' in the Roman system (of what? government? logistics?) - I wonder why he chose that date particularly?

[richsc]

Just FYI NASA press release:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/march/nas...zADbSe9KSM

[Robert Vermaat]

"The fall of the Roman Empire'" the head mathematician is quoted as saying, is "testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent." - as if any civilisation could be [i]permanent ... Plus there's nothing here that engages with the historical evidence in any meaningful way - if the western empire collapsed due to wealth inequality, overconsumption, and "the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity", why did the eastern empire not suffer a like fate?
In the second article, the author claims that "the first major breakdown in the Roman imperial system came in 166 CE, and further crises followed until the Western empire ceased to exist in 476 CE." I wouldn't call the Marcomannic wars a 'major breakdown' in the Roman system (of what? government? logistics?) - I wonder why he chose that date particularly?

I think that the discussion about the end of the Romen Empire/West ithin the context of a discussion about 'collapsing societies' is wrong to begin with. Society did not 'collapse' in the 5th century. Structures changed, yes, there was a fierce economic crisis, sure, society became a lot poorer, OK. But did society collapse?

[Epictetus]

I think this study is interesting, but more for the current political and economic climate than the ancient situation. What is going on now colours how people view the past. It's always been that way, of course.

[Nathan Ross]

Society did not 'collapse' in the 5th century.

It might be worth considering whether any society has actually 'collapsed' - particularly due to its own actions or internal contradictions - rather than being overtaken by an outside force. Certainly there have been periods of anarchy and disturbance, caused by wars or natural disasters, but these have usually been short lived - either the original government reasserts control, or somebody else steps in. Either way, it's in the interests of the new power to get 'society' working again as quickly as possible.

The Roman empire, as mentioned above, went through a series of crises in the third century, but recovered in part because there was no other power with the efficiency and authority to challenge central Roman rule. By the fifth century, such powers had come into being - the barbarian kingdoms of the west were just better at ruling and ensuring the security of the population, so power passed to them. Not a 'collapse', then - more a change of bosses...

What is going on now colours how people view the past.

True enough. I'm sure there are quite a few studies of the ways that various eras have viewed social collapse. The idea of the end of civilisation has always had a sort of desperate glamour about it, which in turn tends to distort our perceptions.

Some years back I taught creative writing at university for a few terms. Over half my students were writing stories about the collapse of western society, the destruction of environment and the impending totalitarian/anarchic dystopia. I came to suspect that they viewed the prospect with a sort of depressed relish - as if they might do better at surviving in the smoking rubble than they would in the recession-struck 21st-century UK!

Meanwhile, even the proud Victorians had a sort of momento mori approach to their own civilisation. Here's Gustave Dore's 'New Zealander' observing the shattered ruins of London:

[Q Rutilius]

In which case you might like this new book on the collapse of the Bronze Age, "1177bc; The Year Civilization Collapsed" by Eric Cline, the head of classics at George Washington University.
http://www.amazon.com/1177-? B-C-Civilization-Collapsed-Turning/dp/0691140898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395577308&sr=8-1&keywords=1177+b.c.+the+year+civilization+collapsed

I just got this book. I know virtually nothing about the Bronze Age. Some people on this forum do. So,can they tell me : Is this guy a bona fide expert? Are his findings reasonable given what is known about the Bronze age? In short, is it worth my time to read this book?