[SE23]

Can someone give me the run down, for the reasons of the once great civilisation, eventually become rubble and an entity remembered by history books ?
I am focusing on the Sumerians, Ancient Greeks, Romans primarily.

[Potemkin]

I am focusing on the Sumerians

Barbarian tribes from the mountains.

Ancient Greeks

The Macedonians (another barbarian tribe from the mountains).

Romans primarily.

The Germanic barbarian tribes.

Lesson from History #273: watch out for the barbarian tribes.

[fuser]

Seriously though, Military conquests were more of a coup de grace in all of these examples.

[Potemkin]

Seriously though, Military conquests were more of a coup de grace in all of these examples.

Lesson from History #274: Try to avoid a civil war if you're surrounded by barbarian tribes. They might take advantage.

[fuser]

History #275: Always refer to your conquerors as barbarians. Filthy savage barbarian English scums.

[Potemkin]

See, fuser? It feels good, doesn't it?

[U184]

Over extension of their military and economics and the subsequent weakness left them open to hostile forces. Forces that were, like they once were, a war machine bent on expansion. One sees this repeated often throughout history.

[Powerup]

It depends on the strength of culture. No empire exists forever and culture bond fades through time. If it wasn't strong enough, it will just disappear before it has the chance to get back on its feet.

[ThirdTerm]

[youtube]ddmQhIiVM48[/youtube]

Ancient civilisations often collapsed due to catastrophic environmental change that impacted the food supply. The Sumerians could not cope with the increase in soil salinity in the region that reduced agricultural yields severely and the population declined by nearly three fifths after the cultivation of wheat was abandoned. The Greek civilisation was brought down by the state of chronic warfare since the Peloponnesian War that triggered a self-destructive cycle of infighting between Greek city-states. The decline of the Roman Empire was chiefly caused by the Germanic invasions in the 4th–5th centuries and the challenges of the barbarians to the Roman Empire imposed a heavy burden on its military and finances and the burden of raising the troops and the funds to defend the Empire brought about its collapse.

[Smilin' Dave]

A common trope in narratives about the collapse of empires seems to be complacency, basically that the leaders/citizens take their supremacy for granted and slip to the point where they can't defend their civilisation. Now this does have political implications ("if we don't stick with the current policies/change policies to suit the times, it will all rot and then the barbarians will get us"). What do people think of this in either specific examples or more generally? I suppose it's probably hard to 'measure' (does the economy slip because of structural factors, or did the structural factors emerge because people got complacent and let it slip).

[Social_Critic]

Civil war or lack of unity.

Also the other guys figured out how to get around their weapons, defensive set ups and fighting style.

Arrogance

Exhausted mines or agriculture

Lousy leadership at critical times

Ran out of luck.

[SE23]

It seems that empires had its heyday, then began to start the path of complacency, which led to inferior tribes and groups, eventually taking over the once great empire.

[Oakwood]

I would have to go for the complacency/lack of challenge argument. You see it in countless areas of life where a group or one or two individuals become the dominant actors because of this lack of challenge or because they live in a culture that promotes something.

In countries like Spain, Brazil, Germany, England etc football is extremely popular and people play it at all ages and at every level. Everyone knows someone who is good at football and therefore they set a certain standard for others to work towards. In Canada football isn’t so popular, so any Canadian who takes a serious interest in football isn’t going to have much competition from their compatriots and with much less trouble, could dominate them. But that Canadian would subsequently get owned by a decent German or Spaniard. The reverse is true with ice hockey.

Tennis pundits consider Federer and Nadal to be the greatest ever players, possibly because they had each other and Djokovic to play against. No Federer could possibly mean no Nadal.

Music’s example could be Lennon and McCartney- when in the Beatles they were extremely impressive songwriters. They would have had to hear each other’s material every day and would have been spurred into writing something better (this is what they actually said themselves). But when they left the Beatles, daily (or even weekly or monthly) contact with each other didn't happen and therefore, the rivalry died along with most their songwriting talent.

Britain and France had empires that (put together) covered much of the known world. They managed to develop the skills needed to achieve this by their intense rivalry/hatred of each other. If you have the ability to constantly fight the best in the world you’ll either become the best or reasonably close to that. Whereas the countries they colonised were much less advanced and only had to achieve a comparatively basic level of fighting to become dominant in their regions.

The above is just one of the reasons I don’t think China will be able to compete militarily with the United States for a long time. China hasn’t fought a war in god knows how long and America is the opposite.

Along with most people on this forum probably, I think disaster would follow the revering of outdated rules and concepts of religious writings and thinking that as long as your faith is strong in these scripts, your God will give you victory over your enemies.

[layman]

Empires tend to collapse because their identity is one of supremacy over the majority. A minority cannot rule a majority indefinitely it seems. The Romans tried to solve this problem by the "Edict of Caracalla" which ended Italian (former Roman) supremacy. Some argue this just made things worse by ending true roman core identity and turning it into an army with a state. For much of Rome's later history its identity was pretty much that of the army. The army dominated everything and held 100% of the power. and by the end there were basically no Italians in it at all. This new entity was focused on local politics and would to lay the foundations of Europe's future ruling dynasty's.

Great civilizations seem to collapse against empires or powerful barbarians rather than from within themselves. I cant think of many 'non-empire' Civilisations that just fell to pieces from internal strife.

[starman2003]

The decline of the Roman Empire was chiefly caused by the Germanic invasions in the 4th–5th centuries

That wasn't the fundamental or real problem--far from it. Foreign invasions occurred then, what else was new? Look at the gauls in 390 BCE, Hannibal, the Teutones and Cimbri. Rome had always dealt successfully with even the most dangerous foreign foes. Despite grave initial setbacks, it always rebounded. This resilience was still there in the third century. Even after several catastrophes--plague, inflation, civil wars, disastrous defeats--around midcentury, by 300 CE the Empire had bounced back and looked as strong as ever. Beginning in the late 4rth century, however, something happened. The Romans had lost their willingness to fight and come back. There appears to be a correlation between this inner rot and the triumph of christianity.

and the challenges of the barbarians to the Roman Empire imposed a heavy burden on its military and finances and the burden of raising the troops and the funds to defend the Empire brought about its collapse.

Absurd. The problem in the last 100 years or so in the West wasn't an excessively big army but not enough willing recruits. The money was still there down to about the 430s CE or so. Aetius, however, had to use the money to hire Huns because most Roman citizens would no longer serve...

[fuser]

Great civilizations seem to collapse against empires or powerful barbarians rather than from within themselves. I cant think of many 'non-empire' Civilisations that just fell to pieces from internal strife.

layman, from three different parts of the world and top of my head :

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

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

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

Also, the point is that those powerful barbarians were successful against these great empires precisely because the said empires were already in a weakened state because of numerous internal factors.

[Oxymoron]

American Empire will last forever, or at least till we cause a Nuclear apocalypse.:)

[Potemkin]

American Empire will last forever, or at least till we cause a Nuclear apocalypse.

"The frog is almost five hundred million years old. Could you really say with much certainty that America, with all its strength and prosperity, with its fighting man that is second to none, and with its standard of living that is highest in the world, will last as long as...the frog?" - Joseph Heller, Catch 22

[layman]

layman, from three different parts of the world and top of my head :

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

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

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

Also, the point is that those powerful barbarians were successful against these great empires precisely because the said empires were already in a weakened state because of numerous internal factors.

This examples are kinda poor to be honest. Remember my point was about civilizations that were NOT empires. Its not black and white of course but ...

- The Han dynasty was just a dynasty - china continues to this day.
- Seleucid_Empire fell to rome but was an empire of course and had little core identity. It was simply a case of the old Macedonian elites being replaced.
- Maurya empire is a better example but its still an empire (according to its name). I dont know much about it but I assume its basic structure was the rule of an elite minority over a majority.

My essential point is that "nation states" with stable identities tend to last indefinitely without outside interference. The Greek city states could have carried on quite happily forever. European nation states have also been very secure with their identities and very resistant to conquest or splits.

[fuser]

This examples are kinda poor to be honest. Remember my point was about civilizations that were NOT empires. Its not black and white of course but

By that criteria, it can hardly be said that Roman civilization died with German barbarian conquest or Greek civilization died with Macedonian conquest, wouldn't it? It was just transformed and their successor retained many of the characteristics of the conquered civilization.

The Han dynasty was just a dynasty - china continues to this day.

This I found wrong to presume that China has always been one monolithic unchanging entity. There were profound changes in China with the fall of han empire.

Seleucid_Empire fell to rome but was an empire of course and had little core identity. It was simply a case of the old Macedonian elites being replaced.

Seleucid empire didn't fall to rome, it was ripped apart from inside and it was parthians who destroyed Seleucid, Rome in previous wars had just checked the expansion of Selecuid.

Maurya empire is a better example but its still an empire (according to its name). I dont know much about it but I assume its basic structure was the rule of an elite minority over a majority.

Yes, but doesn't everywhere its elite minority ruling over majority. But why empire in its name being a problem, rome also has empire in its name.

My essential point is that "nation states" with stable identities tend to last indefinitely without outside interference. The Greek city states could have carried on quite happily forever. European nation states have also been very secure with their identities and very resistant to conquest or splits.

I agree but then the phenomenon of "nation states" is a very recent thing.