Comments by "" (@ericsaxon5736) on "Understanding Classical Civilization." video.

  1. How much can the health of these civilizations be tied to their martial prowess? How much can the martial prowess of these civilizations be tied to the perception of Democratic/Republican governance vs authoritarianism? If the people believe they have a stake in the expansion of the state, do they thus more willingly fight/sacrifice (sons and wealth) for the state? Are they more willing to chose war over peace? And if the opposite is true and they believe Emperors/Princes/Nobles will be the only ones to reap the rewards, are they more likely to oppose all war and sacrifice, and thus stall the expansion of the nation state? Frankish Tribes (expanded) v K of France (stalled) v French Republic (attempted to conquer Europe) v Return of the Monarchy (return to inaction.) Greek City States (expanded and warred, culminating in Alexander's expansion) v the Diaddocchi (stagnated and died on the vine) Roman Republic (expanded from Spain to N. France to Egypt) v the Emperors (watched as the gains of the Republic slowly were eaten by more Democratic neighbors) Norse Vikings v Scandinavian Kingdoms Anglo Saxon tribes v English Kingdom v Norse Invaders (Plantagenets included) v English Royal Authority v English Parliament (Lords) v English Parliament (Commons)
    1