Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Henry van Wagenberg's avatar

I like the hypothesis, and I do believe in the opening line about "hard times create hard men", but actually, I don't think this quite rings true as the "independent variable" that makes great civilizations.

"Austerity" or scarcity is just the norm. Everybody everywhere struggled under scarcity. But most peoples did not create great civilizations. Today, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are scarce on resources. But there are not great civilizations flourishing there at this time, no?

Rome was actually rich in food production, and in population, as it flourished as a kingdom and as a republic. So was Athens. Baghdad also as an Arabic civilization was a rich place. The Golden Age of the Netherlands as an Empire was an "Embarrassment of Riches", as the title of Simon Schama's book about the time is titled. The same could be said of Florence in the Renaissance.

And many of these places, religion was questionable. Florence via the Renaissance marked a break from religion -- DaVinci and his circle are strikingly secular -- as did Athens (turning to philosophy). Rome's religion doesn't seem like it was the key independent variable, since much of the mediterranean at that time shared a similar Greek-ish polytheistic religion.

No posts

Ready for more?