6 ms·

Is this like the prince or art of war where we are supposed to draw some lesson from very specific critiques and extrapolate it to every scenario.

skybrian 1y ago
Yeah, historical analogies are good mostly for suggesting possibilities you hadn't thought of. They don't prove anything.
- bigDinosaur 1y ago
  Empires having a rise and fall or increase/decrease in power/land is probably the most evidence supported grand narrative of history there is, although the specifics are always going to be different the general problems are perhaps universal (see also: The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter)
  - skybrian 1y ago
    Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I think that by itself, the bare statement that "sometimes empires get larger and sometimes they get smaller" is about as useless as saying that stock markets fluctuate? But the reasons why it happened in various cases are often worth reading about. That's why we read history.
    - bigDinosaur 1y ago
      The trend is secular, so fluctuations are not the point.
  - majormajor 1y ago
    "Things change" is unconvincing to me as a "grand narrative." More an evidence-supported obvious fact.
    - bigDinosaur 1y ago
      "Things change" is not the point, rather that empires always have a secular trend of expansion and eventually decline. I was responding to someone who claimed that historical examples don't prove anything, but this trend is as good as proven as one can get in history.
      - ViscountPenguin 1y ago
        There are plenty of empires in history that have had growth trajectories far more complex than "rise -> final fall". Of particular note is China, which made falling and then regaining territorial extent a practical sport.
        jabl 1y ago
        The history of China is perhaps not the history of AN empire, but rather a bunch of states/kingdoms, some of which every now and then managed to subjugate their neighbors and build an empire, for a while.
        kelipso 1y ago
        By that logic, Europe, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and whatever kingdoms that were there and in all of Europe during and before that are all one empire that kept rising and falling all the time.
      - skybrian 1y ago
        If they all started at zero and the ones that are no longer in existence end at zero, then roughly speaking, wouldn’t that have to happen? But in slightly more detail, not every empire has ended, yet, if you count Russia and the Chinese as empires. Also, some empires have had declines that reversed again for a while, such as Byzantine Empire.
analog31 1y ago
This reads almost like a precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which lists many of the same offenses of King George.
- macintux 1y ago
  That is, effectively, what it was.
shermantanktop 1y ago
I dunno about every scenario. But it’s a pretty obvious lesson for Pax Americana, which has been based on both hard and soft power, both of which are in the hands of someone who doesn’t seem to share the premise that they should be used at all the way they have been in the past.
- tomlockwood 1y ago
  Also I reckon it reads as a good lesson for managers too!
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Pax Americana isn't an empire, it's built on treaties with sovereign nations. The U.S. doesn't set arbitrary laws for Europe, like the British were doing to the American colonies. It might be argued that the relative peace in Europe and Asia is already cracking up, given the ongoing war in Ukraine. Either way the world is a completely different place than it was in 1949 or 1989, and as the global situation evolves it makes absolute sense to adapt with it.
  - staplers 1y ago
    The U.S. doesn't set arbitrary laws for Europe Tariffs feel relevant here..
    - WJW 1y ago
      That's a US law effecting goods coming into the USA, and mostly affecting prices for American consumers. European goods going to all other countries are unaffected.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    I think Trump has made clear that Europe has no meaningful sovereignty. However, the only thing unique about Trump is that he doesn't play the typical games and makes no effort whatsoever to let them save face and pretend to be sovereign. We created a system where Europe is economically and militarily dependent upon the US, which means on issues we truly care about - they have no ability to say no. They're going to do what he says -- they know it, he knows it, and now everybody else also knows it because he loves to gloat about it and make it unambiguously clear that he's imposing his will on them. The great empires of old, dating back to at least Alexander the Great and almost certainly before, all learned a simple truth. The way you create a stable empire is by giving those under your control so much as freedom as possible to maintain their own ways. We simply took this to the next logical step and created an empire no longer defined by borders.
somenameforme 1y ago
Is it specific? What he describes is essentially the downfall of every single great Empire that has ever existed or even would exist long after his death. For that matter it even largely describes why a certain Empire without declared borders is in ongoing decline, first in soft power and now in hard. It's essentially just describing hubris, which those who find themselves in power - particularly power that they themselves did not build, can never seem to escape.
- philosophty 1y ago
  "What he describes is essentially the downfall of every single great Empire that has ever existed..." Even accounting for hyperbole this is just not at all historically accurate. Military conquest and failures, economic decay, succession problems, and weather are responsible for at least as many cases and probably more.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Cause vs effect. Empires grow exceptionally hubristic over time. For instance the Brits likely never even considered the possibility, in a million years, that they could lose in a military conflict with the colonies. The idea would have been preposterous. It wasn't because of a careful and objective military assessment, but because of hubristic belief in their own inherent superiority - the imperial disease. At worst it would be a mild rebellion which would be shut down in due order with a bit of good old fashion drawing and quartering. Empires grow out of touch with reality, and base their decisions on this false reality that they create. The outcome is not hard to predict. So for instance the exact same followed the Brits all the way to their collapse. Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary and effectively bankrupted them. The Treaty of Versailles was painfully myopic - all but ensuring WW2, and that was essentially the end of their empire.
    - pyrale 1y ago
      > For instance the Brits likely never even considered the possibility, in a million years, that they could lose in a military conflict with the colonies. They likely couldn't. The US independence war was part of a larger war between the French empire and the British empire. The british empire was also at was with Spain and the Netherlands at the time. > Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary Britain didn't start WW1.
SwtCyber 1y ago
Sort of, but with a sharper edge of sarcasm

skybrian 1y ago

Yeah, historical analogies are good mostly for suggesting possibilities you hadn't thought of. They don't prove anything.

bigDinosaur 1y ago
Empires having a rise and fall or increase/decrease in power/land is probably the most evidence supported grand narrative of history there is, although the specifics are always going to be different the general problems are perhaps universal (see also: The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter)
- skybrian 1y ago
  Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I think that by itself, the bare statement that "sometimes empires get larger and sometimes they get smaller" is about as useless as saying that stock markets fluctuate? But the reasons why it happened in various cases are often worth reading about. That's why we read history.
  - bigDinosaur 1y ago
    The trend is secular, so fluctuations are not the point.
- majormajor 1y ago
  "Things change" is unconvincing to me as a "grand narrative." More an evidence-supported obvious fact.
  - bigDinosaur 1y ago
    "Things change" is not the point, rather that empires always have a secular trend of expansion and eventually decline. I was responding to someone who claimed that historical examples don't prove anything, but this trend is as good as proven as one can get in history.
    - ViscountPenguin 1y ago
      There are plenty of empires in history that have had growth trajectories far more complex than "rise -> final fall". Of particular note is China, which made falling and then regaining territorial extent a practical sport.
      - jabl 1y ago
        The history of China is perhaps not the history of AN empire, but rather a bunch of states/kingdoms, some of which every now and then managed to subjugate their neighbors and build an empire, for a while.
      - kelipso 1y ago
        By that logic, Europe, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and whatever kingdoms that were there and in all of Europe during and before that are all one empire that kept rising and falling all the time.
    - skybrian 1y ago
      If they all started at zero and the ones that are no longer in existence end at zero, then roughly speaking, wouldn’t that have to happen? But in slightly more detail, not every empire has ended, yet, if you count Russia and the Chinese as empires. Also, some empires have had declines that reversed again for a while, such as Byzantine Empire.

analog31 1y ago

This reads almost like a precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which lists many of the same offenses of King George.

macintux 1y ago
That is, effectively, what it was.

shermantanktop 1y ago

I dunno about every scenario. But it’s a pretty obvious lesson for Pax Americana, which has been based on both hard and soft power, both of which are in the hands of someone who doesn’t seem to share the premise that they should be used at all the way they have been in the past.

tomlockwood 1y ago
Also I reckon it reads as a good lesson for managers too!
chrisco255 1y ago
Pax Americana isn't an empire, it's built on treaties with sovereign nations. The U.S. doesn't set arbitrary laws for Europe, like the British were doing to the American colonies. It might be argued that the relative peace in Europe and Asia is already cracking up, given the ongoing war in Ukraine. Either way the world is a completely different place than it was in 1949 or 1989, and as the global situation evolves it makes absolute sense to adapt with it.
- staplers 1y ago
  The U.S. doesn't set arbitrary laws for Europe Tariffs feel relevant here..
  - WJW 1y ago
    That's a US law effecting goods coming into the USA, and mostly affecting prices for American consumers. European goods going to all other countries are unaffected.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I think Trump has made clear that Europe has no meaningful sovereignty. However, the only thing unique about Trump is that he doesn't play the typical games and makes no effort whatsoever to let them save face and pretend to be sovereign. We created a system where Europe is economically and militarily dependent upon the US, which means on issues we truly care about - they have no ability to say no. They're going to do what he says -- they know it, he knows it, and now everybody else also knows it because he loves to gloat about it and make it unambiguously clear that he's imposing his will on them. The great empires of old, dating back to at least Alexander the Great and almost certainly before, all learned a simple truth. The way you create a stable empire is by giving those under your control so much as freedom as possible to maintain their own ways. We simply took this to the next logical step and created an empire no longer defined by borders.

somenameforme 1y ago

Is it specific? What he describes is essentially the downfall of every single great Empire that has ever existed or even would exist long after his death. For that matter it even largely describes why a certain Empire without declared borders is in ongoing decline, first in soft power and now in hard. It's essentially just describing hubris, which those who find themselves in power - particularly power that they themselves did not build, can never seem to escape.

philosophty 1y ago
"What he describes is essentially the downfall of every single great Empire that has ever existed..." Even accounting for hyperbole this is just not at all historically accurate. Military conquest and failures, economic decay, succession problems, and weather are responsible for at least as many cases and probably more.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Cause vs effect. Empires grow exceptionally hubristic over time. For instance the Brits likely never even considered the possibility, in a million years, that they could lose in a military conflict with the colonies. The idea would have been preposterous. It wasn't because of a careful and objective military assessment, but because of hubristic belief in their own inherent superiority - the imperial disease. At worst it would be a mild rebellion which would be shut down in due order with a bit of good old fashion drawing and quartering. Empires grow out of touch with reality, and base their decisions on this false reality that they create. The outcome is not hard to predict. So for instance the exact same followed the Brits all the way to their collapse. Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary and effectively bankrupted them. The Treaty of Versailles was painfully myopic - all but ensuring WW2, and that was essentially the end of their empire.
  - pyrale 1y ago
    > For instance the Brits likely never even considered the possibility, in a million years, that they could lose in a military conflict with the colonies. They likely couldn't. The US independence war was part of a larger war between the French empire and the British empire. The british empire was also at was with Spain and the Netherlands at the time. > Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary Britain didn't start WW1.

SwtCyber 1y ago

Sort of, but with a sharper edge of sarcasm