The US is 244 years old. Either Trump crosses the rubicon or our nation dies.
(media.patriots.win)
posted ago by LibertarianGuy
+1178 / -2
Comments (47)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
Front
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The Romans fell in either 476 or 1453, if you go by the Latin and Greek halves of the Empire. AD 180 is the last of the 5 Good Emperors, and you shame the name of Aurelian to say he did not restore the world.
As an aside, the Ottoman Empire almost outlasted the Russian Empire
The Ottomans lasted until WWI. Not sure what OP's chart is about.
America wasn't an influential global power in 1776. Some historians date America becoming a super power to Spanish-American War (1898). In that case, it's not 244 years, it's 122 years.
Read Glubb's essay, he explains it better than I. Basically what he says is that the lifespan of an empire follows the same general pattern regardless of it's form of government, technology of the times, etc. because ultimately all empires are created by humans and human behavior doesn't readily change.
An empire's first stage is what he calls the "Age of Outburst," or when a small cadre of people "explode onto the scene" and establish a core territory that is constantly expanding. This leads to the "Age of Conquest" when this small cadre quickly expands the empire's borders by conquering new land. These conquests eventually stop, leading to the "Age of Commerce" as the empire uses it's newfound territory to amass wealth through trade and resource exploitation. This then leads to the "Age of Affluence" when an empire is at it's height (think Rome during the Five Emperors, Britain during the Edwardian era, or 1950s USA).
The empire's wealth eventually breeds a change in culture, however. The people become more greedy, and the empire becomes increasingly defensive as it is unwilling to risk losing it's massive wealth. Instead it seeks diplomacy and payoffs as a way of maintaining the status quo. This leads to the "Age of Intellect" when the empire has already achieved it's maximum territorial and trade extent, and the people use their wealth on the pursuit of knowledge, art, etc.
Despite this the empire is unable to solve it's problems as, even though it might not be militaristic other people are, and it begins to face external problems. It is also hampered by military overextension as it tries to defend all of it's massive financial interests. This leads to the "Age of Decadence" as the empire's original cultural values are all but lost, and the people of the empire become selfish, nihilistic, and frivolous. The immense wealth and stability they have enjoyed for so many years leads to a culture that worships itself and frivolity; religion and a sense of duty decrease while sexual promiscuity and excessive displays of wealth increase. The empire is overrun by immigrants attracted by it's wealth, but despite this the external troubles and internal decline lead to a dangerous political situation inside of it. Political infighting and polarization spike as the citizens fight amongst themselves over the last remaining slices of the pie, ultimately culminating in a moment of weakness that allows them to be conquered or eclipsed by a more militarist foe.
By which they were known as the "sick man of Europe". The ottomans were already in total free fall by WW1.
Rome was a husk of itself by then anyways. When the empire finally collapsed there was some relief from within Rome itself. That is how bad things got. You can see parallels here. The corruption in DC is so bad its stunning.
Exactly, it was Rome which first created serfdom by essentially tasking land barons to collect taxes from the people. What had once been a strong independent agricultural society was reduced to land renting and being tax slaves. This is what money printing and currency debasement will get you.
Wtf are you talking about? Are you talking about 473 when Huns and goths and vandals had had their way? Or when Viking invaders decimated any Roman presence in Gaul in the next century? Or the end of Rome when Constantinople fell? You sound so ignorant saying what your professors ordered you to regurgitate. A sigh of relief? When their cities were burning and people systematically being desecrated, sacked, and raped? Yeah a sigh of relief.... sick.
I know exactly what I am talking about apparently you do not. By the time of the Roman empire collapse people were willfully abandoning Rome and had to give up all their possessions to do so.
You sound like a bleeding moron. What I stated is not the traditional college view. The fact Rome collapsed from within is well known, even by the founding fathers. Not acknowledging makes you sound uneducated.
Rome was not Rome when it collapsed. And the Eastern Roman Empire is a different animal altogether. But you'd know that if you had any clue about culture or history.
Lmao I don't even know why I'm trying but you didn't even address my argument. You used personal attacks to.cover your inferiority. No years, no dates, no sources, just "everyone knows..." Maybe you should at least search the traditional view before you dismiss it? And people lived in the eternal city the entire time. When the Goths raided a lot died but many times the Goths were paid ransoms to defer their pillaging. They were let off the leash one time though and truly sacked the eternal city, Aurelians Walls were not enough to defend the city.
Look, I shouldn't have attacked you personally either. I just truly love Roman history. I read latin, practice law, and am writing a book on the very subject. I hope you have a great day and if you're ever curious to maybe hear me out more fully then please reach back out. God bless and canis est in via.
Good call, Guderian, I came here to make same comment about Rome. We pedes know our history . . .
But Joe's a nice guy so its ok
Any book recommendations on that era of history?
Yeah—and they didn’t release covid as a biological attack—give me a fucking break. These are the words of someone who’s plan worked flawlessly. How half of America cannot see how objectively obvious this is, is willfully living in an alternate reality, in which they are bending over backwards to ignore the reality.
Sometimes it feels like we need a violent revolution again.
To cowl the corrupt politicians and remind them who they serve. To stomp out the idea that Communism and Socialism are any form of alternative to the system we have now. To stomp out the domestic terrorism that is Antifa. A stern swatting on the ass of this nation to remind how the fuck it is suppose to be. The. To finally send the message to our enemies, foreign and domestic, that we will not be controlled or manipulated by what can aptly be dubbed our nemesis.
rich nation problems
I agree with what you are saying but this list is bullshit.
Is it bullshit?
How can we get an updated list?
Just off the top of my head, the Roman Republic/Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years. (not including Byzantines)
And the Ottomen Empire fought in WWI and was disbanded soon after.
Because they weren't "Romans".
That's like saying Californians are Americans.
Rome wasn't even Rome during the late Empire. It was a husk filled with diversity, debased currency, high taxes, and corrupt to the core.
It's from Glubb Pasha, he gives his reasoning in his tract. He lists the Roman Republic up there, and the Roman Empire separately (essentially dying with the death of Marcus Aurelius and the ascension of his son Commodus beginning an era of primitive power politics). I think that Spengler's cultural model is better and more insightful.
Rome lasted for either 676 or 1653 years depending on if you consider the Eastern Roman Empire to be Rome or not.
If you think Rome is Rome when the capital isn't even Rome and good Roman names were shit like Aleric or Tholodoklys, then yeah, it lasted that long.
Number one name in the U.K. is Mohammed.
This is why people who have actually studied history are freaking the fuck out about everything going on right now. It's black pill city if you know what has come before on this planet.
Could you elaborate? I'm curious now.
2 for 45, 245! Happy Birthday!!!!
Ottomans ruled 500 years!
Small thing to note, but I like that this document uses BC Before Christ and AD Anno Domini. None of this politically correct BCE / CE nonsense.
That's because the reckoning is Western, and the West has Christian roots forever.
As consolation, it can also mean "(Before) Christian Era"
No it isn't.
It's the year Marcus Aurelius died and the Empire went to shit. It was the beginning of the end.
Britain: 1707 (Acts of Union) - 1956 (Suez Crisis)
France: 1643 (beginning of the reign of Louis XIV) - 1789 (the French Revolution)
Spain: 1492 (Columbus' voyage and end of the Reconquista) - 1714 (the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, when Spain was eclipsed as the preeminent global colonial power in favor of France and increasingly Britain)
Prussia/Germany: 1701 (the declaration of the foundation of Prussian Kingdom) - 1945 (the surrender of Germany in WW2)
Portugal: 1415 (attack on Ceuta) - 1663 (Portugal loses control of trade in much of future Dutch East Indies)
Austrian Empire: 1803 (it's official foundation) - 1919 (Treaty of Trianon)
Tsarist Russia: 1682 (the start of Peter the Great's reign) - 1917 (Kerensky's republican revolution)
United States of America: 1775 (Lexington and Concord) - 2025? (possibly 2024 election is defining watershed moment away from US global preeminence towards Chinese one?)
People's Republic of China: 1927 (the start of the Chinese Civil War) - ?
I know Glubb gets a lot of flack for the exactness of his dates, and although I agree you do have to stretch the definitions for Rome and the Ottomans at least, the 250 rule is fairly accurate for culturally Western nations, like Britain. At the very least, however, Glubb's description of empires' transitions between the stages is pretty spot on. Just compare his essay to the history of the US, Britain, or really any other empire if you want to see it. America is clearly in his Age of Decadence stage, about to have it's Suez Crisis or Fall of Berlin. China, however, is comfortably in it's Age of Commerce and is about halfway through it's lifespan as an empire, perhaps ending a little earlier than Glubb's prediction.
Though IMO Glubb did leave out one important difference, and that was the nature of the fall of these empires. Land based empires tend to have more violent collapses than sea based ones, usually ending in destructive civil wars/revolutions as opposed to sea based ones which tend to be involved in complex foreign wars with comparatively little damage to the empire's core, home territory.
Britain (sea based): peaceful
France (mixed): revolution
Spain (sea based) : various foreign wars
Portugal (sea based): peaceful for the home territory; foreign wars still caused damage to mercantile interests
Russia (land based): revolution and civil war
Ottoman Empire (land based): revolution
Austrian Empire (land based): civil wars
Mughal Empire (land based): foreign invasion and civil war
Japan (sea based): foreign war
Germany/Prussia (land based): foreign wars
Mongol Empire (land based): civil wars
We're sort of nearing the end of the road for the US. Time to start a new US, like the roman empire.
20 years ago i remember getting the chain emails saying exactly this, that no nation has exceeded 240 years without collapsing under tyranny and revolution....
Back then i thought "yeahhh but the US is different now" hahahahah yeah.... oh to be young and naïve again.
Here's an idea. Get off your fat ass and do something other than posting memes .
China: ya had a good run there, buddy. Let me take over and we'll get this communist puppy going full force!
Biden: Just give me an advance, and we'll cheat even harder!
now thats a fucking red bill m8
These numbers are all wrong.
Succinct for the win. Nice job, u/LibertarianGuy.