Whenever we think about super-broad generalizations about nation-scale or civilization scale events, we should think of them as being one approximate model, that is one part of a big stack of different models being superimposed over each other. "The Sun has enormous gravity that pulls all objects into the solar system toward it" is a true generalization. But then you notice Jupiter doesn't appear to be being pulled into the sun, the moon rotates around the Earth rather than being pulled in toward the sun, etc. And the answer is, they are being pulled in, but inertia, momentum, and other forces are more powerful at the moment and thus obscuring the particular model.
So "strong men create good times, good times create weak men" is a pattern in history, but it does not always happen, and other forces are at play as well. I think it is basically true with the Rome and the Goths, but it took centuries of good times before the inertial power of the Roman Empire had slowed down enough. And when comparing African versus European races, northern Europeans are still benefiting from thousands of years of being bred to survive the harsh northern climates and a thunderdome of martial competition at the crossroads of empires. A few decades of chaos in Somalia is not yet enough to counteract this.
There are also lots of exceptions and caveats. Certain kinds of hard times just produce even weaker men, particularly I think times of disease and of total anarchy. Hard times can be so hard they just kill everyone off.
America 1600 to 1900 is interesting in that it has "good times" in the sense of so much resource wealth, lumber, soil, navigable rivers, etc, but those things required a lot of work in order to turn into wealth. It wasn't like the "good times" of a late-stage imperial capital where you eat imported bread and wine and go watch shows all day long. And "strong men" bred by centuries of competition in the harsh conditions of Europe were able to take advantage of this great resource bounty and create the most powerful empire in history. America also had a healthy dose of hard times in the form of the threat of Indian Wars, but the Indians were never strong enough to just wipe out the settlers entirely or be so hostile so as to prevent them from developing, as arguable, was the case in Europe where the areas under greater threat from Mongol invasion developed the least, because those invasions could be so destructive.
p
Whenever we think about super-broad generalizations about nation-scale or civilization scale events, we should think of them as being one approximate model, that is one part of a big stack of different models being superimposed over each other. "The Sun has enormous gravity that pulls all objects into the solar system toward it" is a true generalization. But then you notice Jupiter doesn't appear to be being pulled into the sun, the moon rotates around the Earth rather than being pulled in toward the sun, etc. And the answer is, they are being pulled in, but inertia, momentum, and other forces are more powerful at the moment and thus obscuring the particular model.
So "strong men create good times, good times create weak men" is a pattern in history, but it does not always happen, and other forces are at play as well. I think it is basically true with the Rome and the Goths, but it took centuries of good times before the inertial power of the Roman Empire had slowed down enough. And when comparing African versus European races, northern Europeans are still benefiting from thousands of years of being bred to survive the harsh northern climates and a thunderdome of martial competition at the crossroads of empires. A few decades of chaos in Somalia is not yet enough to counteract this.
There are also lots of exceptions and caveats. Certain kinds of hard times just produce even weaker men, particularly I think times of disease and of total anarchy. Hard times can be so hard they just kill everyone off.
America 1600 to 1900 is interesting in that it has "good times" in the sense of so much resource wealth, lumber, soil, navigable rivers, etc, but those things required a lot of work in order to turn into wealth. It wasn't like the "good times" of a late-stage imperial capital where you eat imported bread and wine and go watch shows all day long. And "strong men" bred by centuries of competition in the harsh conditions of Europe were able to take advantage of this great resource bounty and create the most powerful empire in history. America also had a healthy dose of hard times in the form of the threat of Indian Wars, but the Indians were never strong enough to just wipe out the settlers entirely or be so hostile so as to prevent them from developing, as arguable, was the case in Europe where the areas under greater threat from Mongol invasion developed the least, because those invasions could be so destructive.
More options
Context Copy link