Has this all happened before?

Imagine one of the most progressive places in the world. Universities in every city, unrivaled scientific progress, diverse demographics, free healthcare, subsidized higher education, and the welfare state. The glass ceiling has been broken and women are gaining prominence in fields they never had access to before. Citizens enjoy a five day work week.

But there is a dark side to this place. The religious underpinnings of society are breaking down and citizens are becoming increasingly materialistic. Attitudes around sex have become lax and pop-singers have become vulgar. Government officials frequently use their offices to enrich themselves.

This is not a western country in the 21st century. This is the Arab Empire circa the 9th century A.D. during the collapse of their society. The five day work week was implemented in a time when trade was declining and spending from years without fiscal restraint led to an economic collapse. The feminist movement soon collapsed as the corrupt government began to collapse and foreign invaders made it unsafe for women to go out alone.

At least according to the late British historian Sir John Glubb.

The parallels are uncanny, but Glubb posited that such events are natural characteristics of empires in decline. He argues that all empires last approximately 250 years regardless of the type of governance and go through several stages which he defines as:

• The Age of Pioneers (outburst):- an age characterized by “amazing initiative, and almost incredible enterprise, courage and hardihood”.

• The Age of Conquests:- an age where the nation has more “organized, disciplined, and professional campaigns” where it is “confident, optimistic and perhaps contemptuous of the ‘decadent’ races which it has subjugated”.

• The Age of Commerce:- the expansion of empire then leads to increased trade due to the subjection of great territories under one government, which is helped when the empire is extensive with a “great variety of climates, producing extremely varied products”.

• The Age of Affluence:- as the empire becomes richer, it gradually loses its sense of duty and money becomes the objective of the citizenry.

• The Age of Intellect:- soon after, as the empire is rich enough to supply the necessities and luxuries of life, the citizenry turns becomes more educated and many scientific advancements are made. The many “intellectual arguments rarely lead to agreement” and the “constant dedication to discussion seems to destroy the power of action”.

• The Age of Decadence:- the final stage of any empire is a state of decadence, which is marked by:

  • Defensiveness

  • Pessimism

  • Materialism

  • Frivolity

  • An influx of foreigners

  • The Welfare State

  • A weakening of religion.

• And due to:

  • Too long a period of wealth and power

  • Selfishness

  • Love of money

  • The loss of a sense of duty.

Glubb’s seminal essay is an important historical contribution; though, we must also acknowledge its shortcomings. Notably, he is pretty subjective in how he defines the lifespan of empires, which seems to be a corollary of his own personal definition of when empires “rise” and “fall”.

In the table above, it is not hard to pick at the dates that he uses. Perhaps the most obvious example is the Romans. Glubb seems to define a fall as the period of decline after an empire reaches its pinnacle. The empires he uses also appear cherry picked (often ignoring special cases). While his work was written prior to he fall of the Soviet Union, he specifically references them as an empire that will one day fall. Their ‘fall’ runs contrary to his lifespan estimations. Furthermore, even though some of the characteristics associated with the rise are similar, the fall seemed much more sudden — with only some of the characteristics of decadence that Glubb mentions.

In fact, for those who have read work like Alexei Yurchak’s Everything was Forever, Until it was No More, which is an excellent window into the final stages of the Soviet Union, you’ll find more dissimilarities than similarities. I would argue that is a fundamental flaw in Glubb’s argument that the “type of governance” does not matter, an argument which is largely based on his observations of the political and social anomaly that was the Mameluke Empire. The Soviets had a limited Age of Commerce and entirely skipped over the Age of Affluence due to the restrictions placed upon that particular empire by a too-ideological reading of a particularly inefficient form of governance.

In my view, at least, Glubb’s argument for the causal factor associated with falls (or declines) of empires is unsatisfying for that (and other) reason(s). Yet, the similarities between previous falls and the present is too clear-cut to ignore. Regardless of how people identify ideologically, most people not named Steven Pinker can sense the institutional rot that is moving through society these days. At best, we seem to be collecting data points to be used in the discussions of future historians.

Seem too pessimistic? Consider the fact that the United States is ostensibly being ran by Pinocchio.