Made this comment on the hexbear post but I will put it here too because of my hatred for Sir Glubb
I have an unreasonable dislike for sir Glubb. His conclusion is just wrong and based on horrible data. It bothers me that his opinion has lasted this long in the public consciousness
I mean look at this shit bruh
I’d be embarassed to have made this. What made him choose these dates? Wdym the Ottoman empire only lasted 250 years??? Yes, the Roman empire totally ended in 180 A.D. nothing happened after that don’t worry about it haha. Don’t even look at China, doesn’t matter, nothing is going on there. Like??? I hate him
America is coming to its end as an empire but it’s not because it reached some arbitrary date set by a Brit trying to rationalize the fall of his empire in a way that absolves its people of any fault.
The Roman Empire absolutely ended in 180 CE though, that’s when Marcus Aurelius died and ended the divine right of the Caesars to rule, a claim just as plausible as Glubb’s
The death of the last competent emporer is not the death of the empire itself. I personally wouldn’t put a hard date on the end of the western roman empire as I don’t think of myself a competent Roman historian but I refuse to consider it earlier than 395.
America hasn’t competent leadership for a while but its empire is still very much alive.
Edit: not sure I understood what you meant by the last part of your comment so I apologize if I misinterpreted something and my response feels out of place
You’re good, I was trying to make a joke about how Glubb’s claims are just as believable as a monarch’s claim that they have a divine right to rule
I agree with you though, about not putting a hard date on the end of (most) empires. I get why historians want to do it, it definitely makes discussions simpler. But especially in the pre-modern era, the fall of an empire means very different things for different subjects of that empire. From the perspective of the people on the fringes of the empire, it could have either ended quickly when the Romans couldn’t protect their own borders, or it ended gradually as local leaders gained more and more autonomy from a diminishing central authority.
The point is, your comment isn’t out of place, because I always enjoy talking about stuff like this :)
Made this comment on the hexbear post but I will put it here too because of my hatred for Sir Glubb
I have an unreasonable dislike for sir Glubb. His conclusion is just wrong and based on horrible data. It bothers me that his opinion has lasted this long in the public consciousness
I mean look at this shit bruh
I’d be embarassed to have made this. What made him choose these dates? Wdym the Ottoman empire only lasted 250 years??? Yes, the Roman empire totally ended in 180 A.D. nothing happened after that don’t worry about it haha. Don’t even look at China, doesn’t matter, nothing is going on there. Like??? I hate him
America is coming to its end as an empire but it’s not because it reached some arbitrary date set by a Brit trying to rationalize the fall of his empire in a way that absolves its people of any fault.
Byzantium? I hardly know 'um!
The Roman Empire absolutely ended in 180 CE though, that’s when Marcus Aurelius died and ended the divine right of the Caesars to rule, a claim just as plausible as Glubb’s
The death of the last competent emporer is not the death of the empire itself. I personally wouldn’t put a hard date on the end of the western roman empire as I don’t think of myself a competent Roman historian but I refuse to consider it earlier than 395.
America hasn’t competent leadership for a while but its empire is still very much alive.
Edit: not sure I understood what you meant by the last part of your comment so I apologize if I misinterpreted something and my response feels out of place
You’re good, I was trying to make a joke about how Glubb’s claims are just as believable as a monarch’s claim that they have a divine right to rule
I agree with you though, about not putting a hard date on the end of (most) empires. I get why historians want to do it, it definitely makes discussions simpler. But especially in the pre-modern era, the fall of an empire means very different things for different subjects of that empire. From the perspective of the people on the fringes of the empire, it could have either ended quickly when the Romans couldn’t protect their own borders, or it ended gradually as local leaders gained more and more autonomy from a diminishing central authority.
The point is, your comment isn’t out of place, because I always enjoy talking about stuff like this :)