The fall of each of those is complicated, and is an easy way to write off those complications in service to your point. Save for the Incas and Aztecs, where the conquest was heavily augmented by disease, which had a greater effect on the death toll than the Spanish conquest alone, the average person would have been insulated from a complete collapse by virtue of how most people lived; in villages tending to agriculture. In the Roman example, the imperial structure continued under the Odoacer and other Ostrogoth rulers for some time, not to mention the East. Even during the sack of Rome in 410, most inhabitants were spared, and many buildings remained intact, though stripped of valuables.

quote:
When the system that supported it collapses, bloodshed follows.

This assumes that there were times that were relatively peaceful, and given the relatively endemic amount of warfare that characterized human history until the post-war period, I'm not sure suggesting "bloodshed" follows a supposed collapse is very accurate. There was plenty of bloodshed before the "system" was erected, when the system was in place, and after it fell.

This post was edited on 2/9/18 at 8:27 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by fr33manator

Baton Rouge

Member since Oct 2010

124674 posts

Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:44 pm to crazy4lsu

quote:
The fall of each of those is complicated, and is an easy way to write off those complications in service to your point. Save for the Incas and Aztecs, where the conquest was heavily augmented by disease, which had a greater effect on the death toll than the Spanish conquest alone, the average person would have been insulated from a complete collapse by virtue of how most people lived; in villages tending to agriculture. In the Roman example, the imperial structure continued under the Odoacer and other Ostrogoth rulers for some time, not to mention the East. Even during the sack of Rome in 410, most inhabitants were spared, and many buildings remained intact, though stripped of valuables.

Fair point. But you’re overlooking something.

quote:
This assumes that there were times that were relatively peaceful, and given the relatively endemic amount of warfare that characterized human history until the post-war period, I'm not sure suggesting "bloodshed" follows a supposed collapse is very accurate. There was plenty of bloodshed before the "system" was erected, when the system was in place, and after it fell.

Here’s the caveat. We’re on a much loftier high, with more people who can’t function without modern niceties.

Higher highs, lower lows.

If the fall comes (and I hope it doesn’t, truly) and it hits like I think it may, the Plummet will be epic.
We’ve advanced so quickly on such fragile soil that if the world falls it will fall harder than ever, with few that even know how to function in a post-apocalyptic setting.

What i’m saying is the world will change, and such a tumultuous change, when so many rely on things they can’t bear to grasp...the downfall will Be monumental.
On all sides

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board