Why is the western world declining?

[r16]

it's a typical Western Conspiracy , that they are declining and their competitors must stop copying them . When ı was like 10 , you know in the 80s ı found this book in the public library that ranted on the decline of Europe in the 60s with evil America going ahead and ahead and the only alternative seemed to be the pesky Commies . Europe still stands and you know it's as as bad as the US and stuff .

 

[Kyriakos]

Wait, I thought "Western Civilization" ended somewhere along Vienna/Berlin, with the Slavic mongr- I mean, people, on the other side.

 

[gay_Aleks]

that's one of the few Zizek videos I like

 

[Crezth]

You gotta learn to stop worrying and love the Slavoj, man.

 

[Arent11]

It is the battle of Matzikert.

A single battle can't decide the fate of a civilization.

 

[Kyriakos]

A single battle can't decide the fate of a civilization.

If the civ is byzantine, it can be the catalyst for massive betrayal by the usual 1000 scheming nobles about. As happened in 1071 ^^ (and never stopped from there).

 

[Crezth]

A single battle can't decide the fate of a civilization.

Some reading for u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Orléans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

i dont like makin long argues but yo, sometimes everything hangs in the balance on a single battle and all that is necessary is to push slightly. It happens.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

There is a nice thread about why the western civilization was the first to uncover
industrialization, advanced weaponry, complex societal systems.

However, much more interesting is why there is, at least according to some
observers, a decline of western civilization or the western "bloc".

The European Union lies in shambles, the US suffers from internal conflicts.
There is a decline in military & political power. Even economic power is slowly
shifting to other countries.

So, why do you think that is? Or maybe, you think there is no decline but rather
a "catch up" of other countries?

I would contest the bolded part. The EU has issues and did practically everything wrong in dealing with the debt crisis, but it doesn't "lie in shambles". EU members with the most anti-EU governments -Poland and Hungary- weren't part of the union until a decade and a half a go, and weren't even part of "The West" from the late forties to the early nineties. The British always had one foot outside the door and now that they're leaving European integration seems to speed up again, with the possible creation of a common EU military.

Now for the things that are happening:
Loss of colonies last century because the colonial powers were weakened by WW2 and mass media has made the means required to mantain an empire more visible and therefore less acceptable in the imperial centers.
That has happened before my lifetime. It's a decline, but not a recent decline.

Developing nations catching up in economy and technology. That's pretty much inevitable in a globalised world. Scientific and technological advancements can't really be kept secret for long, with the exception of some top secret military stuff, but that can also be obtained through hacking. Nobody is going to be surprised any time time soon by one nation suddently possessing ironclads, jet engines, rail guns or orbital death rays.

The breakup of "The Western Bloc".
The cracks were already showing under the Bush II administration, slightly patched over under Obama, and now America and Europe are drifting apart faster and faster. I think "The West" as a political entity is little more than an illusion right now, and soon will be history.
Not that there's any "foreign" equivalent left anyway after the breakup of the USSR. India and Pakistan are still hostile to each other, China has territorial conflicts with everybody in "their" region, and they have to deal with Norh Korea's nonsense, and the Middle East is cruising towards their Thirty Years War.

 

[Ajidica]

Err, what has an enlightened, natural scientific world view to do with god or religion? Or do you maybe define "western civilization" in a different way I do?

"Europe" was defined by its relation to the concept of One God in Heaven, One Emperor on Earth, for approximately 800 years. That is far longer than Europe could be said to be influenced by an "enlightened, natural scientific world view".

A single battle can't decide the fate of a civilization.

Remind me, what happened to Kingdom of Harold Godwinson?

In times when a society and the government was structured around individual leadership and military prowess, a single battle lost can destroy the legitimacy of the entire government. That is largely what happened with the Battle of Manzikert. The Emperor was disgraced and the increasingly power Byzantine military aristocracy decided to use the ensuing governmental collapse to engage in that old Roman pastime - civil war. Despite some resurgence under the Komnenoi, the Byzantine Empire never really recovered and began a long, slow, and not too glorious decline for the next 400 years.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Europe" was defined by its relation to the concept of One God in Heaven, One Emperor on Earth, for approximately 800 years. That is far longer than Europe could be said to be influenced by an "enlightened, natural scientific world view".


Remind me, what happened to Kingdom of Harold Godwinson?

In times when a society and the government was structured around individual leadership and military prowess, a single battle lost can destroy the legitimacy of the entire government. That is largely what happened with the Battle of Manzikert. The Emperor was disgraced and the increasingly power Byzantine military aristocracy decided to use the ensuing governmental collapse to engage in that old Roman pastime - civil war. Despite some resurgence under the Komnenoi, the Byzantine Empire never really recovered and began a long, slow, and not too glorious decline for the next 400 years.

Sure, yet the lost battle was only important to this degree due to being a catalyst for the usurpers. Indeed the Byz empire never recovered fully (even the Komnenoi didn't manage to) from the civil war which took place right after Romanos Diogenes was betrayed at Matzikert by a part of the army/nobles and then unexpectedly for said nobles wasn't killed when captured, so he amassed armies to get his throne back (in which he failed). But Romanos IV already had agreed with Alp Arslan (seljuk leader) for peace, without losing any significant territory, WHILE soon after the civil war and ceremonial blinding of Romanos by the scheming nobles the seljuks declared the treaty null and void, and moved on to pillage half of Asia Minor. That was the crucial event; the lost battle in this case was the catalyst, and not entirely one with great potential by itself.
I suppose that even the lost (as in 'not won'; it was a stalemate, but should have been the death blow to the seljuk state) campaign by Manuel Komnenos in Myriocephalon was more important than the actual battle of Matzikert.

Obviously as far as crucial destructive events in the Byzantine empire go, you can't find anything worse than the fourth crusade.

 

[r16]

damned Iranians , advising evilly smelly horse bandits . Like "Don't kill the emperor" . As for Miryakefalon , we like have the Lord of the Rings and stuff thanks to that . Typical r16 rant , buried by the the change to Xenforo .

 

[Kyriakos]

damned Iranians , advising evilly smelly horse bandits . Like "Don't kill the emperor" . As for Miryakefalon , we like have the Lord of the Rings and stuff thanks to that . Typical r16 rant , buried by the the change to Xenforo .

Lord Sarlan, the torks, and Moriacephalon.

 

[Arakhor]

i dont like makin long argues but yo, sometimes everything hangs in the balance on a single battle and all that is necessary is to push slightly. It happens.

You missed the Battle of Tours in 732 and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I'm not sure which one would have had a greater effect without it.

 

[Crezth]

You missed the Battle of Tours in 732 and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I'm not sure which one would have had a greater effect without it.

Great addition. Actually Hastings was enormous: British historians agree.

 

[Arent11]

"Europe" was defined by its relation to the concept of One God in Heaven, One Emperor on Earth, for approximately 800 years. That is far longer than Europe could be said to be influenced by an "enlightened, natural scientific world view".

That is a weird argument. Europe has been influenced by pagan religions for thousands of years & yet you would not claim that the "western civilization" consists of Celtic gods. Why is it important how long Europe was influenced by Greek philosophy, Roman technology, Christian Religion, Enlightenment, Industrialization or Cold War? That doesn't make sense.

What matters are the convictions, roots of constitutions etc. of people & states today that define the "West"? You cannot derive constitution, citizenship & state structures from Christianity. You can not derive modern laws, the basic ethics, governmental systems, republics & dictatorships, complicated political party structures, modern media from it? There is a reason why there is today a "separation of state and religion" in the west & that reason is that christianity is unable to organize a complex modern state.

Remind me, what happened to Kingdom of Harold Godwinson?

In times when a society and the government was structured around individual leadership and military prowess, a single battle lost can destroy the legitimacy of the entire government. That is largely what happened with the Battle of Manzikert. The Emperor was disgraced and the increasingly power Byzantine military aristocracy decided to use the ensuing governmental collapse to engage in that old Roman pastime - civil war. Despite some resurgence under the Komnenoi, the Byzantine Empire never really recovered and began a long, slow, and not too glorious decline for the next 400 years.

We are not talking about Kingdoms. We are talking about about hundreds of Kingdoms, millions of people. According to your views, industrialization has never happened & the "western world" consists of people who lament the passing of Byzanz.

 

[Arakhor]

According to your views, industrialization has never happened & the "western world" consists of people who lament the passing of Byzanz.

You've clearly never been to the Paradox forums.

 

[schlaufuchs]

That is a weird argument. Europe has been influenced by pagan religions for thousands of years & yet you would not claim that the "western civilization" consists of Celtic gods. Why is it important how long Europe was influenced by Greek philosophy, Roman technology, Christian Religion, Enlightenment, Industrialization or Cold War? That doesn't make sense.

Because the history of Christianity and Christian thought is quite a bit more pervasive and pernicious on contemporary society than Aristotle, Plato, or Beowulf are. You should probably do some reading on the epistemological development of Rational thought among the French, English and Scots (and German) philosophers and natural scientists before you continue advancing this argument. The question of God, and in particular the question of the Christian God specifically, rests at the very heart of the thoughts, arguments, and anxieties of Locke, Newton, Pascal, Leibniz, Hume, Condorcet, d'Alembert, Condillac, etc. Hell, even of the later philosophers and academics. Durkheim ascribed the anomie of modern society to the waning influence of the Church as the glue which held society together. Weber argued that worthiness anxiety which rested at the heart of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination was the key development that triggered an ethos of capitalism in Germany and the US. Foucault saw the transferrence of the pastoral power of the Catholic Church to the state apparatus more broadly as being the primary development which brought about modern society and the modern nation state. Gramsci argued that the lasting presence of the church and the way it was so deeply enmeshed in Italian society was a pivotal stumbling block in the development of socialism in Italy, and that until the influence of the church was eroded away, communism could never truly develop in Italy.

What matters are the convictions, roots of constitutions etc. of people & states today that define the "West"? You cannot derive constitution, citizenship & state structures from Christianity.

Yes you can.

You can not derive modern laws, the basic ethics, governmental systems, republics & dictatorships, complicated political party structures, modern media from it?

Yes you can.

There is a reason why there is today a "separation of state and religion" in the west & that reason is that christianity is unable to organize a complex modern state.

I mean your conclusion is incorrect, first off. But what is your argument here? Is understanding Christianity essential to understanding modernity or not? Because you just framed modern society as a reaction to or reigning in of Christianity.

 

[Zelig]

Better than ever.

 

[Kyriakos]

You've clearly never been to the Paradox forums.

Or rather any history-related strategy game forum. Eg Total War Center

The Paradox forums include a rather larger Stormfront-type crowd among their posters than is usual for a strategy game forum, which is why i left years ago. And said stormfront group definitely is not pro-byzantine either. It is more of a north euro supremacy-crap oriented.

 

[Crezth]

I donno about that there's quite a few crusaderboos on Paradox forums, at least in the EU4 and CK2 fanbases. But yeah the HOI4 fanbase is stuffed chock-full of Nazis.