Is it easier to maintain a large successful civilization or to successfully invade...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Happy Hiram
  • Start date Start date
H

Happy Hiram

Guest
Okay lets put this in concrete terms.

Did Rome take 300 years to fall (in the west, 1300 in the east) because the barbarians were stupid or because Rome was successful?

Did the British Empire cave in India (and elsewhere) after HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN POWER because the Indians were so successful at attacking them or because the shine was off their own successes?

Did Napoleon fail because it's hard to maintain a successful empire or because of his legions of powerful enemies?

If you answer these questions logically, or if you have ever remotely LOOKED at a history book, you would wonder why you asked is it easier for a human to live one day or a flea to kill him?

This question speak to a vast ignorance or a gargantuan misreading of history.
 
It is easier to create a large successful civilization, destroy that civilization, and rebuild.

If you want my opinion.

Yes.
 
It is easier to create a large successful civilization, destroy that civilization, and rebuild.

If you want my opinion.

Yes.
 
I'm pretty sure this answers itself. For how will you invade or overpower a powerful civilization without maintaining one yourself?
 
...a powerful civilization? Think about this question in relationship to civilizations through time.

Follow up: Is it easier to do these two things now or before?
 
Okay lets put this in concrete terms.

Did Rome take 300 years to fall (in the west, 1300 in the east) because the barbarians were stupid or because Rome was successful?

Did the British Empire cave in India (and elsewhere) after HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN POWER because the Indians were so successful at attacking them or because the shine was off their own successes?

Did Napoleon fail because it's hard to maintain a successful empire or because of his legions of powerful enemies?

If you answer these questions logically, or if you have ever remotely LOOKED at a history book, you would wonder why you asked is it easier for a human to live one day or a flea to kill him?

This question speak to a vast ignorance or a gargantuan misreading of history.
 
Okay lets put this in concrete terms.

Did Rome take 300 years to fall (in the west, 1300 in the east) because the barbarians were stupid or because Rome was successful?

Did the British Empire cave in India (and elsewhere) after HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN POWER because the Indians were so successful at attacking them or because the shine was off their own successes?

Did Napoleon fail because it's hard to maintain a successful empire or because of his legions of powerful enemies?

If you answer these questions logically, or if you have ever remotely LOOKED at a history book, you would wonder why you asked is it easier for a human to live one day or a flea to kill him?

This question speak to a vast ignorance or a gargantuan misreading of history.
 
Back
Top