Huh, and we think what we have now is unique?
Yep, nothing new under the sun… only the technology changes. The trajectory of the Roman and American republics is practically the same.
To ponder: Will the decline of the American Empire look more like the fall of the western Roman Empire or like the clinging on and long, slow disintegration of the eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire?
I think the Roman empire could have been maintained if Constantine didn’t try to divide this between his sons and nephews which led to civil war, in part because the legions had no respect for his nephews attempt to rule. Also maybe if he had appointed a competent mayor for Istanbul maybe everything wouldn’t have fallen apart so fast.
America is a lot different I don’t really see many similarities with the Romans. More similar to Byzantium definitely.
I think the cycles of nation states that were discussed are paramount to any could have, should have or would haves. Even if a unipolar nation-state was attained, sooner or later dissents would undermine it, unless of course their minds are monitored via transhumanism technology?
I don’t know much about that but seems like that would probably increase the amount of dissent. When empires are built by slaves seems like there will generally be a lot of dissidents.
Venice maintained power as a city-nation-state after the Roman Republic for awhile by inspiring awe with their cathedral for Saint Marco and the bronze horses above the entrance, in that era bronze-casting was the most advanced and impressive technology anyone had ever seen and never before had anyone made castings of entire horses.
I do think there’s some kind of natural cycle of birth, expansion, and decline of empires. There’s no example in known history where everybody was subject to total surveillance, control, and manipulation via technology, so that’s a open question…
Seems some form of “deep state” has existed before and after nation-states replaced feudal kingdoms. Technology reduces the number needed to have one.