“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
Starting as loose agreements between merchants, they developed into powerful political organizations that shaped medieval society and paved the way for modern Europe…🧵
First off, what were guilds?
Popular in medieval Europe, guilds were groups of craftsmen or traders who got together to protect mutual interests. This could mean quality control, reducing competition, or helping each other financially.
Sort of an “alliance” of business folk.
There were two main types of guilds: merchant guilds and craft guilds.
Merchant guilds comprised all or most of the merchants in a particular town or city. These could be local traders or wholesale/retail sellers dealing in various types of goods.
Siege weapons were some of the most impressive technologies of the medieval world.
Here's how they worked🧵(thread)
Battering Ram
One of the oldest and simplest siege engines, a battering ram was designed to break open wooden gates or walls. Initially, it was just a heavy log carried by soldiers and slammed against the target.
Later, protective canopies were added to shield its operators.
Metal caps were also added to strengthen the battering ram and increase its puncturing force.
Defenders usually tried to counter rams by dropping obstacles like heavy boulders onto them. Pouring hot oil onto a ram, hoping to light it on fire, was also a defensive technique.
Alfred the Great believed he was given divine authority to rule his kingdom.
This was not an excuse to abuse his power though. Rather, he saw it as a responsibility to care for his people…🧵
Few kings were as universally loved as Alfred.
Historian Edward Freeman called him “the most perfect character in history.”
King of the Anglo-Saxons in the late 9th-century, he oversaw the complete revitalization of his realm—militarily, economically, and culturally.
Before his rule, England had been plagued by viking invasions going back a century.
Danish raids destabilized Wessex and the surrounding kingdoms. Monasteries were razed, learning and literature diminished, and lawlessness abounded in the absence of adequate defenses.
Modern man has a severe case of amnesia—he’s forgotten the immense wisdom of the past.
Luckily, it can be rediscovered through great literature.
12 old books that will make you wiser… 🧵(thread)
12. Enchiridion, Epictetus
Epictetus never wrote down anything himself, but his student Arrian collected his teachings, recording them for future generations. His lessons enlighten the reader on matters regarding ethics and achieving inner freedom.
11. The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
Machiavelli’s classic is a 16th-century handbook on effective governance. It’s an essential read for anyone who wishes to understand the motivations and reasoning behind great leaders from the past or savvy politicians today.
Historian Will Durant claimed a culture’s success was intrinsically tied to its religiosity.
Strong nations were born out of faithful people, but when religion dwindled, things started to fall apart...🧵
Will Durant was a 20th-century American historian and philosopher most known for his 11-volume “Story of Civilization,” telling the history of both eastern and western civilizations.
His work led him to conclude that all cultures follow a predictable pattern…
Civilizations first begin with religious fervor, giving a nation strength to overcome great difficulty.
It’s their faith in a higher power that allows them to bear the initial “growth pains” that precede prosperity.
But it was mastery of road construction that made Rome the most connected—and powerful—empire in the ancient world.
Roman roads were engineering marvels in their own right 🧵 (thread)
“All roads lead to Rome” is a saying everyone knows. And there’s a reason for it—Rome developed the most incredible network of interconnected highways in the ancient world.
It’s estimated there were over 50,000 miles (~80000 km) of paved roads throughout the empire.
A 4th century surveyor described the extent of the highway system:
“They reach the Wall in Britain; run along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates; and cover, as with a network, the interior provinces of the Empire.”