Must Read! Putin Signs Secret Pact to Crush NATO

[Longbowman]

Not anymore. London can go as far as I'm concerned.

You live close enough. You would still probably die. And really mate, 8.5 million people, plus 7 million in the Metropolitan zone, just so Russia can be on top? That's treacherous.

[Longbowman]

John Glubb, who studied the different stages all empires go through , from its birth to its decline, concluded that all lasted exactly 10 generations or 230-250 years, and his description of the decline stage coincides with the USA , which according to this theory would exist just 10 years more as an hegemonic imperial power able to maintain its tentacles over the world.





http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10...te-of-empires/

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. What happened in 180AD that ended the Roman Empire? I had always thought the Roman Empire lasted until the Fall of Rome in 476, if not the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and finally 1453 and then Trebizond in 1461 and Epirot in 1479. Hell, Venice was unconquered until 1797. Even the hegemony of the Empire was strong beyond 180, and it rose again in the 500s under Justinian. This 'theory' is unmitigated rubbish and also doesn't account for the reasons of 'collapse;' the British Empire peaked in 1923 and whilst it stretched its resources, its fall from superpower status wouldn't have happened without the exceptional event of WWII. Will there be a WWIII? Also, Russia survived the Romanovs; the fact the Romanovs were kicked out doesn't really change the fact Russia only got stronger, and America was a loose federation until the 1860s really and certainly no superpower until even the 1900s. Yeah, I'm not going to continue criticising this, it has far too many holes for me to list them all. Just some pseudo-intellectual academic being all cryptic and prophetic. 'Thou shalt have only 10 generations, ye sons of Washington.' Not worth reading.

[Dombra]

You live close enough. You would still probably die. And really mate, 8.5 million people, plus 7 million in the Metropolitan zone, just so Russia can be on top? That's treacherous.

Loki will die slowly from the radiation

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

[Longbowman]

Loki will die slowly from the radiation

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

Said the Swede.

[Virtuous]

Wow. Much secret.

[Tooting Carmen]

Loki will die slowly from the radiation

I am almost okay with bombing London as it is the beacon of the multiracial world

Even compared to Paris, Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Sydney, Melbourne, several Brazilian cities etc?

[Empecinado]

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. What happened in 180AD that ended the Roman Empire? I had always thought the Roman Empire lasted until the Fall of Rome in 476, if not the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and finally 1453 and then Trebizond in 1461 and Epirot in 1479. Hell, Venice was unconquered until 1797. Even the hegemony of the Empire was strong beyond 180, and it rose again in the 500s under Justinian. This 'theory' is unmitigated rubbish and also doesn't account for the reasons of 'collapse;' the British Empire peaked in 1923 and whilst it stretched its resources, its fall from superpower status wouldn't have happened without the exceptional event of WWII. Will there be a WWIII? Also, Russia survived the Romanovs; the fact the Romanovs were kicked out doesn't really change the fact Russia only got stronger, and America was a loose federation until the 1860s really and certainly no superpower until even the 1900s. Yeah, I'm not going to continue criticising this, it has far too many holes for me to list them all. Just some pseudo-intellectual academic being all cryptic and prophetic. 'Thou shalt have only 10 generations, ye sons of Washington.' Not worth reading.

In this essay, the term ‘empire’ is used to signify a great power, often called today a superpower

He does not speak on powers. He speaks only on Superpowers. That controlled or influenced decisively other states or peoples. International supremacy. He does not says it is the only definition of empire, but that's the kind of society that studies, and called it Empire in the essay. He could have called it "Potato", actually the name is not important.

The essay speaks about peoples who became international superpowers controlling, conquering and/or absorbing other peoples, not of regional or local powers (Egypt, Japan, China, Incas), regardless of their cultural significance.

And it is not prophetic nor mathematical, he himself clearify in the preamble of the test that does not seek a "mathematical" accuracy on dates, because the processes of rise and fall are gradual processes; but highlight the similar process of about 10 generations (or 250 years approx.), and the similarities of these processes in the rise/fall of such societies. It's something that makes it clear that the actual dates may be arbitrary or debatable, but what does not change is the cycle of approx 250 years, or 10 generations. Decade up or down, does not alter the central idea which seeks to draw.

[Longbowman]

He does not speak on powers. He speaks only on Superpowers. That controlled or influenced decisively other states or peoples. International supremacy. He does not says it is the only definition of empire, but that's the kind of society that studies, and called it Empire in the essay. He could have called it "Potato", actually the name is not important.

The essay speaks about peoples who became international superpowers controlling, conquering and/or absorbing other peoples, not of regional or local powers (Egypt, Japan, China, Incas), regardless of their cultural significance.

And it is not prophetic nor mathematical, he himself clearify in the preamble of the test that does not seek a "mathematical" accuracy on dates, because the processes of rise and fall are gradual processes; but highlight the similar process of about 10 generations (or 250 years approx.), and the similarities of these processes in the rise/fall of such societies. It's something that makes it clear that the actual dates may be arbitrary or debatable, but what does not change is the cycle of approx 250 years, or 10 generations. Decade up or down, does not alter the central idea which seeks to draw.


i

I referred to his errors in defining those periods as periods of being superpowers, too.

[Empecinado]

I referred to his errors in defining those periods as periods of being superpowers, too.

He explains the reasons there. Was influenced by Arnold J. Toynbee, and due its formation as Arabist, it must have been also influenced by Ibn Khaldun, who was the first one to develop a complete theory about the nature of power and the rules that govern the birth, rise, rise, decline and fall of states and political regimes.

The resaltable of the Glubb's approach is the focus on human nature, and how societies grow/degrade similarly in similar circumstances, and the changing "zeitgeist" between generations. This is not only suitable for superpowers, also for families, companies and even sport teams:

1. There is a patriarch and ambitious founder starting from scratch. Founded a company in a garage as Bill Gates. Spurred by a normal childhood works tirelessly.

2. His children inherit a fortune and company and an education inspired by the father, discipline and ambition are moderated but not lost. It is the generation of stability, if there is an expansion or decline is very slight.

3. The next generation is already spoiled, whimsical, disconnected from the real world. The grandson melts the money in casinos, and the granddaughter becomes a Paris Hilton.

With sports teams often something like that happens. The spark occurs in a team that has long winless or has never won. The players and coach are mostly young and ambitious. If they succeed many times it is natural to relax, you lose confidence and aggressiveness and ambition. The first losses are considered accidental and is not given importance. But then become chronic. In the end, the only solution is to hire ambitious young players and back again.

[Longbowman]

He explains the reasons there. Was influenced by Arnold J. Toynbee, and due its formation as Arabist, it must have been also influenced by Ibn Khaldun, who was the first one to develop a complete theory about the nature of power and the rules that govern the birth, rise, rise, decline and fall of states and political regimes.

The resaltable of the Glubb's approach is the focus on human nature, and how societies grow/degrade similarly in similar circumstances, and the changing "zeitgeist" between generations. This is not only suitable for superpowers, also for families, companies and even sport teams:

1. There is a patriarch and ambitious founder starting from scratch. Founded a company in a garage as Bill Gates. Spurred by a normal childhood works tirelessly.

2. His children inherit a fortune and company and an education inspired by the father, discipline and ambition are moderated but not lost. It is the generation of stability, if there is an expansion or decline is very slight.

3. The next generation is already spoiled, whimsical, disconnected from the real world. The grandson melts the money in casinos, and the granddaughter becomes a Paris Hilton.

With sports teams often something like that happens. The spark occurs in a team that has long winless or has never won. The players and coach are mostly young and ambitious. If they succeed many times it is natural to relax, you lose confidence and aggressiveness and ambition. The first losses are considered accidental and is not given importance. But then become chronic. In the end, the only solution is to hire ambitious young players and back again.

Your post doesn't really address the point, which is that (eg) the Roman Empire was a superpower for several periods of time, and certainly not confined to 70BC to 180AD.