Sir John Glubb's "The Fate of Empires"

[EndtheMadnessNow]

THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL by Sir John Glubb. (26 pg PDF book)

Below are some excerpts that struck home for me, perhaps for you too...

If we desire to ascertain the laws which govern the rise and fall of empires, the obvious course is to investigate the imperial experiments recorded in history, and to endeavour to deduce from them any lessons which seem to be applicable to them all.

The word ‘empire’, by association with the British Empire, is visualised by some people as an organisation consisting of a home-country in Europe and ‘colonies’ in other continents. In this essay, the term ‘empire’ is used to signify a great power, often called today a superpower. Most of the empires in history have been large landblocks, almost without overseas possessions.

Glubb suggests the human yardstick, is the reason for similar periods of empire (250 years); spread over various "ages":

The human yardstick
What then, we may ask, can have been the factor which caused such an extraordinary similarity in the duration of empires, under such diverse conditions, and such utterly different technological achievements?

One of the very few units of measurement which have not seriously changed since the Assyrians is the human ‘generation’, a period of about twenty-five years. Thus a period of 250 years would represent about ten generations of people.

Glubb identifies another sign of the Age of Affluence in the rise of defensiveness. Perhaps feminisation is a symptom of this in the modern era.

...Age of Conquests to the Age of Affluence is the spread of defensiveness. The nation, immensely rich, is no longer interested in glory or duty, but is only anxious to retain its wealth and its luxury. It is a period of defensiveness, from the Great Wall of China, to Hadrian’s Wall on the Scottish Border, to the Maginot Line in France in 1939.

...nations do not normally disarm from motives of conscience, but owing to the weakening of a sense of duty in the citizens, and the increase in selfishness and the desire for wealth and ease.

Education undergoes the same gradual transformation. No longer do schools aim at producing brave patriots ready to serve their country. Parents and students alike seek the educational qualifications which will command the highest salaries. The Arab moralist, Ghazali (1058-1111), complains in these very same words of the lowering of objectives in the declining Arab world of his time. Students, he says, no longer attend college to acquire learning and virtue, but to obtain those qualifications which will enable them to grow rich. The same situation is everywhere evident among us in the West today.

Merchant princes of the Age of Affuence seek fame and praise by supporting the arts, universities and new ideas. Age of Intellect is driven not by logic or utility, but it's purpose is status. Glubb suggests it is a symptom of decline.

(b) the fact that the successive changes seem to represent mere changes in popular fashion—new fads and fancies which sweep away public opinion without logical reason. At first, popular enthusiasm is devoted to military glory, then to the accumulation of wealth and later to the acquisition of academic fame.

The effects of intellectualism
There are so many things in human life which are not dreamt of in our popular philosophy. The spread of knowledge seems to be the most beneficial of human activities, and yet every period of decline is characterised by this expansion of intellectual activity.

As intellectualism rises to promenance, self-sacrifice fades. Glubb questions why this is the case. The fading of Thumos and of the heroic.
The rise of noise and ideological rivalry.

Thus we see that the cultivation of the human intellect seems to be a magnificent ideal, but only on condition that it does not weaken unselfishness and human dedication to service. Yet this, judging by historical precedent, seems to be exactly what it does do. Perhaps it is not the intellectualism which destroys the spirit of self-sacrifice—the least we can say is that the two, intellectualism and the loss of a sense of duty, appear simultaneously in the life-story of the nation.

Degenerate frivolity on one hand and official corruption on the other, characterize the decline.

They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasising particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office.

Frivolity is the frequent companion of pessimism. Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. The resemblance between various declining nations in this respect is truly surprising. The Roman mob, we have seen, demanded free meals and public games. Gladiatorial shows, chariot
races and athletic events were their passion.

The heroes of declining nations are always the same—the athlete, the singer or the actor. The word ‘celebrity’ today is used to designate a comedian or a football player, not a statesman, a general, or a literary genius.

Glubb addressed the woman question: "An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline."
From Rome to the Arab Empire, women in the law and as professors. Ha, what do we see going on today, not just the USA, but world-wide!!!

In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.

Glubb says empires end in divergent ways and that their end doesn't depend on internal nature, but on other organisations. Roman Republic, Arab Empire, Mameluke Empire, Romanov Russia, Spanish Empire, etc... all ended differently.

It is unnecessary to labour the point, which we may attempt to summarise briefly. Any regime which attains great wealth and power seems with remarkable regularity to decay and fall apart in some ten generations. The ultimate fate of its component parts, however, does not depend on its internal nature, but on the other organisations which appear at the time of its collapse and succeed in devouring its heritage. Thus the lives of great powers are surprisingly uniform, but the results of their falls are completely diverse.

As numerous points of interest have arisen in the course of this essay, I close with a brief summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.

(a) We do not learn from history because our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national greatness.
© This average has not varied for 3,000 years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:

Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
(g) The life histories of great states are amazingly similar, and are due to internal factors.
(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are largely the result of external causes.
(i) History should be taught as the history of the human race, though of course with emphasis on the history of the student’s own country.

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ, KPM (16 April 1897 – 17 March 1986), known as Glubb Pasha, was a British soldier, scholar and author, who led and trained Transjordan's Arab Legion between 1939 and 1956 as its commanding general. During the First World War, he served in France. Glubb has been described as an "integral tool in the maintenance of British control."

If you prefer the audio version, you can listen to the whole essay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62YWAfOf94

[DISRAELI]

I prefer Toynbee myself. His explanation of the growth and fall of civilisations is too complex for an impromptu reply, but the problem is basically its ability to live at peace within itself. The
stages are roughly thus;
There is a growth period.
There is a "breakdown", by which he means a grand falling out in which everybody starts fighting everybody else, perhaps for centuries.
The tendancy is towards a unification process, in which competitors are gradually beaten down. Attempts to unify the smaller states at the centre do not usually work, and instead the struggle resolves itself into a fight between two powerful states at the edge.
Eventually one delivers a "knockout blow" to the other, and the result is a "universal state" which brings about a time of apparent peace. The Roman Empire was one such. Counting Western Europe as a distinct civilisation, as he did, it's possible to see a "breakdown" in place since the Middle Ages. In which case, America and Russia are the rival powers at the edge, while the European Union is an attempt to unify at the centre (over-extending itself by moving into Orthodox territory, which has been a separate civilisation in its own right).
I think he should have counted America as another distinct civilisation, in which case we could see "breakdown" and "knockout blow" condensed into the half-dozen years of the Civil War.

[beez]

I don't disagree with the OP, I just have to give this some thought.

. . . . . .

[beez]

@"EndtheMadnessNow" 

I don't disagree with your premise, but I am uncertain of the timeline.

I think we're too divided alredy to fall together.

I see small spots of safety, prosperity, security amidst the upheaval we'll all be witnessing.

[727Sky]

Something I lifted from a story I wrote a few years ago

Most of the thinking people who have read history the world over, have known the end results of various forms of human controlled governments for thousands of years . The question has always been when and how the final fall would happen regardless of the type of government.


A MONARCHY has always turned into some form of a tyrannical government. The Monarch's bureaucrats and enforcers try to protect their jobs and thus protect the Monarch which ends up in more control and spies upon the population. Over the years the smart Monarchs have stayed hidden behind some figurehead position based upon tradition or religion to save part of their wealth and much vaulted positions.


An ARISTOCRACY ruled by a few of the rich and powerful elite will turn into an oligarchy. The oligarchy will give lip service and platitudes to the designated Ruler while looking after their own best interest. The giving of platitudes and money to a Ruler helps the oligarchy increase their own wealth and power in a society.


A DEMOCRACY ends in Anarchy. Democracy or mob rule has tended to work best in a society of humans who are of the same race or religion. Throw in different races/religions and you must have a society based upon laws which protects everyone regardless of status and wealth. The laws have to be “EQUAL” for everyone for when these laws break down or the perception of the laws break down in directed favoritism then Anarchy is soon to follow.

The time frame for all of the above can be discussed or argued, but the outcome seems to always be the same IMO.

[beez]

Something I lifted from a story I wrote a few years ago

Most of the thinking people who have read history the world over, have known the end results of various forms of human controlled governments for thousands of years . The question has always been when and how the final fall would happen regardless of the type of government.


A MONARCHY has always turned into some form of a tyrannical government. The Monarch's bureaucrats and enforcers try to protect their jobs and thus protect the Monarch which ends up in more control and spies upon the population. Over the years the smart Monarchs have stayed hidden behind some figurehead position based upon tradition or religion to save part of their wealth and much vaulted positions.


An ARISTOCRACY ruled by a few of the rich and powerful elite will turn into an oligarchy. The oligarchy will give lip service and platitudes to the designated Ruler while looking after their own best interest. The giving of platitudes and money to a Ruler helps the oligarchy increase their own wealth and power in a society.


A DEMOCRACY ends in Anarchy. Democracy or mob rule has tended to work best in a society of humans who are of the same race or religion. Throw in different races/religions and you must have a society based upon laws which protects everyone regardless of status and wealth. The laws have to be “EQUAL” for everyone for when these laws break down or the perception of the laws break down in directed favoritism then Anarchy is soon to follow.

The time frame for all of the above can be discussed or argued, but the outcome seems to always be the same IMO.

We really never seem to learn from history, do we.