The civilization "implosion" phenomenon

Im iwht Decebal and Ibn Khaldun on this one totally.  One of the reasons (aside from the awesome military part of it) Im into steppe history more than the others is that they provide the impetus for change. 

When people use the term "civilization" they often mean it in a pompous way that denates a good thing.  However settled agrarian societies have a price...opression and hierarchy in the form of social norms that do not adapt well to change.  Until 1890 (according to Jared Daimond) settled people lived less healthy lives than nomads and hunter gatherers. This is because settled societies tend to opress women and people that dont fit the mold of those at the top.

But how is this process circumvented? How can we get the progress of the settled world with the practical smarts of the barbarian?  By military takeover by the barbarian over the settled.

Although it doesnt have to be a direct takeover.  America's frontier mentality and free policies were influenced by native american societies such as the striking similarity between the council fire of the Iroquois and congress.  Western European expansion ccan also be shown as a new previous not very important place dominating old school powerbrokers like China.

But why is this?  I think its the culture of risk taking coupled with acess to resources.  If you have less to lose than someone else you will be more daring to get it and do new things with it.  However if your established you are more protective of what you have and thus you think more close mindedly.

Its an endless cycle of regeneration and decay.  Although I think as long as a society conserves its resources it can last longe the longer it maintains its forward thinking and risk taking nature.

Don't get me wrong Maharbbal, I don't necessarily see this phenomenon as the explanation for all historical events. I'm simply stating that it is a pattern which applies in numerous places in history. I do like the world systems idea, and I feel that there is a need to recoginze that many historical trends can be best be explained by economic world systems, and the conflict between the core and the periphery of world systems. However, that is not to say that I believe that history is deterministic. The greatest unknown in human history is the individual factor. Great leaders can change history through their personality and strength alone, and poor ones can do so as well, in other ways. Techonology also plays an important factor in favor of the civilized empires, but usually only to a point.

The reverse phenomenon does sometimes occur, as you've pointed out. But your examples are not 100% valid.

-Phoenician expansion was mostly colonization on the model which the Europeans followed in the 16th to 19th centuries. It started out as trading posts, then the establishment of port cities and trade with the natives. It was largely non-violent, and the natives likely did not see them as that much of threat until they had started to become seduced by the possibilities of the oikumene that the Phoenicians were a member of.

- Greek expansion westward and northward. Again, we are talking about trading outposts and port cities. Conquest did not occur by force of arms. In both cases, it was more a matter of the oikumene extending its periphery because of the need for raw resources and for new areas for colonists in an over-populated core. I would say that the early Greek and Phoenician colonists were probably pretty tough people nevertheless, compared to their successors

- Romans: Most of the Roman conquests were done during the Republic and some in the Early Empire. These were times when the Roman armies were still constituted of tough Italian peasants. Could you explain to me otherwise why the Romans did not continue to expand after the Empire was well established and they had become civilized? The techonological edge is surely a factor here as well.

- Muslim Arabs - in North Africa, the conquest was long and difficult (50 years). Contrast that with the rapid conquests of Egypt, Syria and Persia. In Spain on the other hand, the Wisigoths had become somewhat civilized and they constituted an unpopular aristocracy. The Arabs, still desert people, took advantage of a civil war and even an outright invitation to conquer Spain.

-Russian colonization of Siberia. Here you have a point. But I would say that the Russian technological and especially demographic edge was simply overwhelming. But compare this with the protracted and painful campaigns in Central Asia and the Caucasus in the 19th century...

- European colonization in Africa and the Americas - Again, the technological edge played a role. In Africa, the same non-violent model of conquest was followed: trading posts, port cities... There were only a few instances of outright conflict and it was by no means easy, even with the technological edge. Just look at the Isandhlwana debacle. In general, the colonization was achieved either by economic means, native troops (especially the French), or was simply nominal, as chiefs signed pieces of paper they did not even understand. 

In the Americas, the plagues brought by the Europeans made the job much easier. When the Europeans were not helped by such instances however, they had a tougher times at it. Look into the example of the Aurican Indians in Patagonia who put up a tough resistance until the 20th century. Or better yet at the Chiapas in Mexico who were never effectively colonized. Even with the technological edge, the Europeans had a much tougher time with the nomadic or semi-sedentary tribes of the Americas, than they did with the civilized Aztecs or Incas.

Finally, it is not necessarily a matter of someone being less civilized than someone else also implying that that someone is a tougher oponent. Civilization by itself has the effect of ultimately reducing the pool of available tough cheap soldiers; regardless of the techonological level. Early 19th century Japanese and British were equally civilized, despite the difference in technological level. Sumerians, Romans or British, they are all similar eventually in that eventually they all become civilized and unable to hang on to their leading role.

Look, I am not trying to push an agenda here. I don't have any Rousseau-esque or Thoreau-esque fantasies about a simpler life and a return to nature. I'm not saying that civilization is either a good thing or a bad thing, though I lean towards the former. And I have much less fascist tendencies: I'm actually kind of a leftist. I'm simply pointing out what I think is an interesting pattern in history.

We might have to examine what is meant by a civilization. It is a loaded term, which we have discussed in another topic on this forum. When it comes down to it, the most important (and probably the only real requisite) for civilization is the existance of cities (from civis in latin). Sounds simple enough, but the existence of a city means a whole different way to run the world. A city implies the existence of one or more trade routes, which are necessary to feed the city and to justify the concentration of a large number of people in one place to begin with. A city implies an administrative and legal structure, which at some point will require some form of record-keeping (ie writing). This structure implies the existence of an elite class, whether it be military, religious or commercial in nature. In rural areas, a city is central and necessary to the economic life, as it provides a place for the exchange of goods, an outlet for the peasants extra produce, and a "shopping outlet" for the peasants to purchase manufactured or exotic goods which they wouldn't be able to produce themselves. Therefore, even the rural areas are "civilized", because they form a part of the system, together with the city.

Barbarian is another loaded term, with negative connotations. At its root, though, the word connotes a stranger, an outsider. Given the various civilizations' attitudes towards strangers, barbarian can be used as a convenient shorthand for someone who is not civilized, therefore, for someone who does not belong to a people which has at least one city.

When a civilization is overrun by barbarians, these barbarians find themselves as new members of the elite class. The economic and social system in a civilization usually has a lot of inertia, and so the new elite finds it much easier to adapt to it, rather than change the system. The temptation is very great usually for barbarians to adopt the customs, language and lifestyle of the old elite during this adaptation. Occasionally, there are barbarians which fear this adapation, this loss of identity, and so they destroy the cities, so that the temptation is removed. The most famous example of this is Chinggiz Khan, who abhorred cities and destroyed many in the course of these campaigns. BlueDragonRider, when you talk about the "if you can't beat them, join them" phenomenon, I don't regard that as more than the civilizaed population accepting a new ruling elite. In the end, more often than not, life goes on just as before for the population, but it is the elite which changes and loses its identity. This is why civilizations often survive barbarian invasions and assimilate barbarians. China is the best example, parts of it having been ruled at various times by To'BA, Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Mongols, Manchus; but the civilization continuing on as before.

1. It seems that the "cultural" thing is what makes the difference
2. Politics (if efficient) needs to be pragmatic. Turning the world upside-down isn't the best way to get a grip of things
3. Culture is irrelevant as long as it doesn't interferes with the "conqueror's" goals...
4. According to 1&3 it looks like adaptable(?!) societies get stuck with the "old fashion" the moment they get in charge.
5. Whether you like it or not, once you became a ruler you must take care of all your subjects, one way or another.
6. Who can beat Murphy & Finagle?