re: Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. Do you agree with the adage?

quote:

---

it’s about individual cultures/countries/governments.

---

Then let's talk about that.

quote:

---

Time was hard for the Greeks but good for the Persians and “resulted in harder men

---

I have no idea of what you are referring to here. The Greeks and Persians, in the first Greco-Persian War, fought for 50 years. Be specific in what part made "hard men" for one side and not the other.

The simpler explanation is that the Persians overextended themselves with two excursions into Greece, which served no geopolitical purpose for them other than to attempt to punish Athens for their support of rebellions against the Achaemenids. There is no explanation of "hardness" or "softness" that makes sense, given that we know lots of historical detail about these events.

Go listen to "The Celtic Holocaust." About Ceasars defeat and destruction of the tribes of Gaul.

quote:

---

We already have a weak man running the country. Talks a big game but weak as hell

---

Explain. Give examples please.

A more apt example of the theory would have been when Persia fell quickly to the Macedonians.

You are right it is much more complex and the results of the conflict are attributable to a lot of factors, but one of those factors was the decadence within the Achaemenid military establishment and of Darius III himself.

quote:

---

Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. Do you agree with the adage?

---

It has some truth to it in some situations.

But it is really an oversimplification. In a lot of cultures, one really successful "hard" man can set his descendants up for many generations, even if they are "weak" men.

Take the Roman empire - western and then eastern. If someone was or became a member of the senatorial class and amassed a lot of wealth, his descendants likely had good times for many decades and even centuries even if they were very weak. In fact, that might have been an advantage if their weakness prevented them from doing things that would get them caught on the wrong side of a power struggle.

There are numerous books that generally have this theory. I think they all be debated on their own merits, the ones that come to mind easily:

Gibbon - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Western Empire

Barzun's - From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present

Spengler's - The Decline of the West

quote:

---

What do you think lies ahead?

---

Stupid, entitled, lazy, etc. people will be left behind, smart/adaptable people will continue to flourish. Not that complicated.

People who sit around worrying probably won’t do well. People who have their shite together are chillin’.