Also, Rome collapsed because the Imperium always had an expiration date. You’re just regurgitating Gibbon’s long-disproven theory that feminized Christianity killed the empire.
Pre-empire republic-era elites couldn’t tolerate land reform — which has since been proven in the modern era to have significant economic impacts on development success — and thus kicked off a retaliation spiral ending in the Imperium.
The empire in turn became an iterated zero-sum power struggle over a throne that increasingly dominated the entire economy. This inward turn meant that right as the empire reached its maximum technologically-possible geographic extent, it also turned inward and became fatally xenophobic.
Previous eras of Roman leadership had always recognized the usefulness of subjugating supplicant peoples into Auxilia that could supplement the military and were much more effective on the outer reaches than Roman troops could be. Although Roman attitudes of racial superiority can of course be called xenophobic, the system of Auxilia was ultimately integrative and thus xenophilic in outcome.
Late-Imperial xenophobic Roman elites forgot the lessons of the past and refused an auxiliary deal with the Goths as they fled the Huns, boneheadedly turning potential allies into an internal insurgency. This basically signed Rome’s death warrant.
Yes, I'm not an expert in the history of Rome, thank you for clearing this up.
This looks like something that happens in corporations and other organizations today - a dominance hierarchy that becomes low-functioning because people spend too much time/effort on power struggles and status jockeying and too little time/effort on doing what their dom/boss is telling them to do and thus fulfilling the purpose of the organization.
Let me think about it, this might be something worth a follow up in one of the next posts.
I’ve been thinking about a different angle related to your corporate example…
I suspect that all hierarchies suffer the same lifecycle challenge of “HR takeover”. Powerful insiders outside of the main business line use their control of critical ancillary functions like hiring and firing or avoiding legal liability, to put management’s proverbial balls in a vise, leeching more of the profit share away from the traditional capital side’s margins.
If left undisturbed by historical events or market disruptions, they eventually choke the company to death.
addendum: This also expands to other hierarchies. The Qing Dynasty was a famous example of two insider groups fighting one another (dowagers and eunuchs) for the throne, on nothing more than palace intrigue.
Likewise, the Roman Praetorian Guards did the same!
Your ideas on efficiency in relationships reminds me of this theory on the biological foundations of certain social attitudes. It holds that in bad times, a dominant conservative mindset is best as it advances order and efficiency for survival. During times of affluence, a liberal less heavy handed approach can work despite its inefficiencies. Conservative because you have to, but liberal because you get to. Dominant and subordinate relationships seem to work for all scenarios for efficiency sake but it’s interesting to consider those where it really really matters. For acquaintances, it might be okay to have inefficiencies but for others you really need the format you describe. Here’s the first of the series of articles by “The Dosage Makes it So”: https://thedosagemakesitso.substack.com/p/biofoundationalism-i-moral-foundations
Also, Rome collapsed because the Imperium always had an expiration date. You’re just regurgitating Gibbon’s long-disproven theory that feminized Christianity killed the empire.
Pre-empire republic-era elites couldn’t tolerate land reform — which has since been proven in the modern era to have significant economic impacts on development success — and thus kicked off a retaliation spiral ending in the Imperium.
The empire in turn became an iterated zero-sum power struggle over a throne that increasingly dominated the entire economy. This inward turn meant that right as the empire reached its maximum technologically-possible geographic extent, it also turned inward and became fatally xenophobic.
Previous eras of Roman leadership had always recognized the usefulness of subjugating supplicant peoples into Auxilia that could supplement the military and were much more effective on the outer reaches than Roman troops could be. Although Roman attitudes of racial superiority can of course be called xenophobic, the system of Auxilia was ultimately integrative and thus xenophilic in outcome.
Late-Imperial xenophobic Roman elites forgot the lessons of the past and refused an auxiliary deal with the Goths as they fled the Huns, boneheadedly turning potential allies into an internal insurgency. This basically signed Rome’s death warrant.
Yes, I'm not an expert in the history of Rome, thank you for clearing this up.
This looks like something that happens in corporations and other organizations today - a dominance hierarchy that becomes low-functioning because people spend too much time/effort on power struggles and status jockeying and too little time/effort on doing what their dom/boss is telling them to do and thus fulfilling the purpose of the organization.
Let me think about it, this might be something worth a follow up in one of the next posts.
I’ve been thinking about a different angle related to your corporate example…
I suspect that all hierarchies suffer the same lifecycle challenge of “HR takeover”. Powerful insiders outside of the main business line use their control of critical ancillary functions like hiring and firing or avoiding legal liability, to put management’s proverbial balls in a vise, leeching more of the profit share away from the traditional capital side’s margins.
If left undisturbed by historical events or market disruptions, they eventually choke the company to death.
addendum: This also expands to other hierarchies. The Qing Dynasty was a famous example of two insider groups fighting one another (dowagers and eunuchs) for the throne, on nothing more than palace intrigue.
Likewise, the Roman Praetorian Guards did the same!
Your ideas on efficiency in relationships reminds me of this theory on the biological foundations of certain social attitudes. It holds that in bad times, a dominant conservative mindset is best as it advances order and efficiency for survival. During times of affluence, a liberal less heavy handed approach can work despite its inefficiencies. Conservative because you have to, but liberal because you get to. Dominant and subordinate relationships seem to work for all scenarios for efficiency sake but it’s interesting to consider those where it really really matters. For acquaintances, it might be okay to have inefficiencies but for others you really need the format you describe. Here’s the first of the series of articles by “The Dosage Makes it So”: https://thedosagemakesitso.substack.com/p/biofoundationalism-i-moral-foundations
Alpha male theory is a myth.