Thread by @AvdullahYousef

Quick thread: I finished reading The End of the Bronze Age by Robert Drews a few days ago. It's one of the first history books I've read in full, but blew me away with how coherent and succinct Drews formed his argument, with no agenda or moralizing behind it.

I won't summarize the book, it's not long and gets straight to the point. It's crucial to point out however that before Drews makes his main argument, he pretty much destroys all of the politically correct "reasons" speculated upon for why the Bronze Age Collapse happened,

Today if you look up "Bronze Age Collapse", you're given immediately articles about "climate change", earthquakes, famine, immigration, etc.

Basically, all justifications for the catastrophe that are nice and harmless

Drews goes over how none of these factors, though quite possible that they occurred and had a minor effect, could justify the absurd levels of destruction uncovered in places like Ugarit and Mycenae, where its clear that the destruction occurred intentionally by hand

His main claim is as follows: in Bronze Age, the chariot team dominated warfare between kingdoms.

What changed was that many populations who were once harmless to these kingdoms awoke to the truth that the chariot team could be defeated if swarmed with massive infantries

It wasn’t a new technology, it wasn’t earthquakes or peaceful “migrations” over time. It was largely barbarian men who ganged up together into militias, possibly having had experience serving the chariot kingdoms as skirmishers, then looted and burned down everything in sight

What defined the Bronze Age kingdoms also was that combat was in the hands of specialists who trained for specific roles in the make up of the chariot team. From this you can infer, as is common in the modern day, that most of the populations of these kingdoms were docile

It actually wasn’t until the dark ages that followed did the survivors of the collapse and their descendants, including the generation of Homer, organized into societies where combat had become the concern of every capable living man.

The details and evidence is very interesting, but what concerned me the most was the personal, social, and spiritual aspects. It’s just too exciting to imagine - I’m sorry if this offends - but the process of realizing in real time that your prospering kingdom is so fragile,

And that with just a few hundred of your friends can take everything for yourselves as long as none of you chickened out at the crucial moment. The temptation must have been insane.

So much of this, looking at it as a story writer, looks to me as so similar to our modern situation. So many of the docile among us think life is good, that none of it could ever collapse, meanwhile it’s all ice under our feet.

Also, you can see why when reading Drews WHY these politically correct arguments exist. They don’t want you to think for an instant that change, even non-violent change, can be this quick and decisive. That men can just wake up and change things if they don’t like it.

Other than pushing the usual agendas, it’s this subconscious stupidity that pushes forward the argument for docility, rather than putting your foot down at the absurd fragility of the disgust around you and going for something better.

Even if it burns. Even if it sets us back a little, even if everyone screams at you that it isn’t worth it. Sometimes the old systems need to burn to ash to make room for what’s better. This doesn’t have to be political - think of your own personal life,

What fragile chariot system is trampling you right now? What’s tyrannically taken hold of your life that you know can be destroyed but don’t have the courage to upturn it?

Every man needs his own Bronze Age collapse. It will be ugly, but it will be worth it

Ended up being a longer thread lol. I’m going for some fiction next, maybe I’ll revisit this topic later with more of the literature

Footnote:

https://twitter.com/avdullahyousef/status/1611084791662665740