“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder,” according to 20th-century historian Arnold Toynbee.
He claimed every great culture collapses internally due to a divergence in values between the ruling class and the common people…🧵
Toynbee was an English historian and expert on international affairs who published the 12 volume work “A Study of History,” which traced the life cycle of about two dozen world civilizations.
Through his work he developed a model of how cultures develop and finally die…
Toynbee argued that civilizations are born primitive societies as a response to unique challenges—pressures from other cultures, difficult terrain or “hard country,” or warfare.
Toynbee writes:
“Civilizations, I believe, come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges.”
But each challenge must be a “golden mean” between excessive difficulty, which will crush a culture, and ease, which will allow it to stagnate.
He believed civilizations continued to grow so long as they meet and solve new challenges, one after the other, in a cycle he calls “Challenge and Response.”
Thus, each civilization develops differently because each confronts and overcomes different challenges.
But societies do not respond to challenges as a whole; rather, it's a unique class of elites within a society that are the problem solvers.
He calls them the "creative minorities" who find solutions to challenges, and inspire—rather than force—others to follow their lead.
The masses follow the solutions of the creative minorities by 'mimesis' or imitation, solutions they would have otherwise been incapable of discovering on their own.
This synchronicity between the creative minorities and the masses brings civilization to its height.
Toynbee did not attribute the breakdown of civilizations to environmental forces or external attacks by other civilizations. Rather, it is the decline of the creative minority that leads to a culture’s downfall.
Through moral decay or material prosperity, the creative minority degenerates. They are no longer the great men who solve society’s problems but are simply a ruling class intent on preserving their power.
They become what Toynbee calls the “dominant minority.”
Toynbee points to a kind of self worship that takes hold of the dominant minority.
They become prideful about their positions of authority yet are wholly inadequate to deal with the culture’s new challenges.
Ultimately the dominant minority, incapable of solving their culture’s actual problems, form a “universal state” in a gambit to shore up their power, but it stifles creativity and subjugates the proletariat (common people). Toynbee used the Roman Empire as a classic example.
Toynbee writes:
"First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force—against all right and reason—a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence.”
As society deteriorates, four sentiments exist within the proletariat:
Archaism - idealization of the past
Futurism - idealization of the future
Detachment - removal of oneself from a decaying world
Transcendence - confronting the decaying world with a new worldview
From the disunity between the dominant minority and the proletariat, and between the different proletariat dispositions, a unified culture is impossible, and the civilization eventually ends.
Toynbee sums up the three aspects of failing cultures:
“...a failure of creative power in the minority, an answering withdrawal of mimesis (imitation) on the part of the majority, and a consequent loss of social unity in the society as a whole.”
It’s interesting to observe Toynbee’s formulation in light of the West’s current struggles.
What do you think—was Toynbee observing universal patterns of civilizational development that might shed light on our culture today?
If you enjoyed this thread and would like to join the mission of promoting western tradition, kindly repost the first post (linked below) and consider following: @thinkingwest
Great leaders lead from the front — they don't sit back and watch their men do all the work.
Today's world leaders should take note.
A thread on courageous leaders who fought alongside their troops🧵
1. Leonidas
The Spartan king showed his willingness to sacrifice for his people when he, along with a cohort of vastly outnumbered Greeks, fought to the death at Thermopylae in 480 BC.
Despite his death, he’s become immortal in the legend that surrounds his epic last stand.
2. Alexander the Great
Alexander was a huge inspiration to his troops as he led his men from the front during his unprecedented military campaigns.
His bravery came at a cost though—he suffered several injuries, notably a slash to the head and thigh, and an arrow to the lung.
Art funded by committee is inevitably generic and uninspiring.
But masterpieces — like the works of Raphael and Michelangelo — were funded by individual egos.
Here's why democracy produces ugly art, while aristocracy gives us masterworks...🧵
First, we need to understand how the great artistic periods like the Renaissance were funded.
A key factor in the proliferation of art was a concept called patronage, where princes, popes, and other influential people provided funds for painters, sculptors, and musicians.
Patronage was how artists made their living—they didn’t receive a steady income unless they were actively creating art.
Patrons would put up the funds for a project—often Church artwork or private commissions for nobility—and the artist would see that project through.
Another Caesar is coming, and Western civilization is at a turning point, says German historian Oswald Spengler.
He claimed we live in “the most trying times known to history of a great culture."
And there's no offramp.
Buckle up.
Here's what Spengler predicted...🧵
Oswald Spengler is best known for his two-volume work “Decline of the West”, first published in 1923.
A German schoolmaster turned reclusive scholar, Spengler presented a unique vision of history that predicted the rise and fall of civilizations…
His work became an instant success upon publication, selling 100,000 copies by 1926 as its philosophy — depicting western culture as a tired civilization amidst decline — resonated with German intellectuals looking to make sense of their predicament after WWI.
Most empires rise, fall, and leave only ruins to tell their tale.
But some empires never die, rising like a phoenix again and again from ashes to glory.
This is the concept of "translatio imperii" — how empires inspire empires and live forever... 🧵 (thread)
Translatio imperii — Latin for ‘transfer of rule’ — is the idea that one empire may live on as the successor of a former empire. It’s a natural extension of the succession of kings to the scale of nations and empires.
Why connect an empire to a previous one?
The main reason is one of legitimacy. By claiming lineage to a former empire, new rulers and conquerors cement their claims to power with a natural legal basis.
A thread on the great figures of history and the books that influenced them🧵
Alexander
According to Plutarch, Alexander was given an annotated copy of the Iliad which he carried with him everywhere.
He considered it a “perfect portable treasure of all military virtue and knowledge” and was especially fascinated by the character Achilles.
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius was extremely well-read. His tutor Fronto described how the emperor read works of Cato the Elder, Cicero, Lucretius, and Seneca in addition to numerous Greek tragedies.
Among the most visible reminders of Rome's storied hegemony are its aqueducts.
These engineering marvels channeled the lifeblood of civilization for near a millennium.
Here’s how they worked🧵 (thread)
Rome’s aqueducts had humble origins, much like the city itself.
The first aqueduct, the Aqua Appia, was constructed in 312 BC to supply the city’s cattle market.
Its source could be found in a group of springs inhabiting a stretch of local marshland, flowing an impressive 10.2 miles to Rome from the east and emptying into the Forum Boarium.