In the late 20th Century, a British historian called Sir John Glubb studied 11 Empires:
- Assyria 860 – 612 BCE – 250 Years
- Persia 540 – 330 BCE – 210 Years
- Greece 330 – 100 BCE – 230 Years
- Roman Republic – 260 – 27 BCE – 230 Years
- Roman Empire – 0 – 180 CE – 180 Years
- Arab Empire – 634 – 880 – 250 Years
- Mameluke – 1250 – 1520 – 270 Years
- Ottoman – 1320 – 1570 – 250 Years
- Spain – 1492 – 1750 – 260 Years
- Russia – 1682 – 1917 – 240 years
- Britain – 1700 – 1945 – 250 Years
and based on his analysis concluded that their trajectory from birth to death could be divided into 6 stages:
1 – The Pioneers
2 – Conquest
3 – Commerce
4 – Affluence
5 – Intellect and
6 – Decadence
Here's some practical examples:
1776 – Declaration of Independence / George Washington
1809 – Wars and Battles / The Gold Rush
1851 – Commerce / General Electric and Large Companies to Income tax
1898 – Boom to Roaring 30s
1938 – Hollywood and Disney to JFK
1964 – Decadence / Sexual revolution and Rock & Roll to Vietnam
1980 – Decline / Reagan to WTC 9/11
2001 – Crash / Dot.com & 2008 Bubbles to End of Unipolar world
And the end is about... now.
In practical terms, this doesn't mean the apocalypse. Just the end of the empire.
What is left is to understand why.
There are two main causes:
- The first one is exhaustion of resources. It follows a mathematical geometric curve (The famous lilies on the pond which cover half the pond the day before covering everything and only 1% the week before!) This explains the 250 year cycle.
- The second is exhaustion of concept. Each civilization is based on fundamental ideas: religious, philosophical but also conceptual that most people share and which can evolve but cannot change drastically. This explains why all civilizations follow the same curve from beginning to end.
As the Romans proved with the Republic and the Empire, two cycles can actually follow each other. The Chinese actually have a longer history with more cycles in chain. As did the Egyptians which is probably why John Glubb included neither Egypt nor China in his analysis. In reality, these examples do not prove his theory wrong, it just makes it a little more complicated.
Finally, what happens at the end?
That, the theory doesn't say. History shows that it is usually a mess and often chaos, but not always. The transition between the American and British Empires went rather smoothly in 1945. If we consider a world war as "smooth" which in this case, we do.
Can it be more chaotic? Yes of course when the next stage is not clear as it is the case right now.
