Image Source

Stage one. The Outburst

Again and again in history we find a small nation, treated as insignificant by its contemporaries, suddenly emerging from its homeland and overrunning large areas of the world.

Glubb gives various examples of this starting with Macedonia's conquest of Persia in about 323 B.C. His examples highlight the differences and apparent contradictions in the ways various Empires have come to power, leading you to believe that there's some kind of randomness to it all.

But then he ties it all up with a nice ribbon of commonality.

These sudden outbursts are usually characterised by an extraordinary display of energy and courage. The new conquerors are normally poor, hardy and enterprising and above all aggressive. The decaying empires which they overthrow are wealthy but defensive-minded.

But the new nation is not only distinguished by victory in battle, but by unresting enterprise in every field. Men hack their way through jungles, climb mountains, or brave the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans in tiny cockle-shells.

Another interesting point gives some insight into the types of people these pioneers are.

Other peculiarities of the period of the conquering pioneers are their readiness to improvise and experiment. Untrammelled by traditions, they will turn anything available to their purpose. If one method fails, they try something else. Uninhibited by textbooks or book learning, action is their solution to every problem.

Throughout your life, how often have you noticed the attitude of, "That's the way we've always done it"?

This isn't an indication of the Age of Pioneers.

We have the "How", next comes the "Why".

Perhaps the easiest explanation is to assume that the poor and obscure race is tempted by the wealth of the ancient civilisation, and there would undoubtedly appear to be an element of greed for loot in barbarian invasions.

Glubb divides this "greed" into two classes:

The first is mere loot, plunder and rape, as, for example, in the case of Attila and the Huns, who ravaged a great part of Europe from A.D. 450 to 453. However, when Attila died in the latter year, his empire fell apart and his tribes returned to Eastern Europe.

Many of the barbarians who founded dynasties in Western Europe on the ruins of the Roman Empire, however, did so out of admiration for Roman civilisation, and themselves aspired to become Romans.

But, it should be pointed out, that not all of the effects of these conquests are bad. There have always been benefits to human history as well.

Every race on earth has distinctive characteristics. Some have been distinguished in philosophy, some in administration, some in romance, poetry or religion, some in their legal system. During the pre-eminence of each culture, its distinctive characteristics are carried by it far and wide across the world.

Glubb raises the possibility that this ebb & flow of cultures tends to distribute their better characteristics throughout the world. Each new Empire taking what works from the old and adding their own twist, resulting in a new amalgamation.

To those who believe in the existence of God, as the Ruler and Director of human affairs, such a system may appear as a manifestation of divine wisdom, tending towards the slow and ultimate perfection of humanity.

He also notes a shift during this first stage of Outburst/Pioneering by the people of "amazing initiative, and almost incredible enterprise, courage and hardihood." Pointing out that early victories, "are won chiefly by reckless bravery and daring initiative."

This leads to:

Stage two. The Age of Conquests

The ancient civilisation thus attacked will have defended itself by its sophisticated weapons, and by its military organisation and discipline. The barbarians quickly appreciate the advantages of these military methods and adopt them. As a result, the second stage of expansion of the new empire consists of more organised, disciplined and professional campaigns.

To put it bluntly, they learn, adopt and adapt from those fading Empires they've conquered and get really good at conquering too. They're not constrained by "traditional" thinking or methods, neither in their governing nor in the way they wage war.

Living in the US, it's easy to look at the Revolutionary war of independence from Britain and subsequent establishment of a new nation, followed by the early settlers, crossing the plains in their Conestoga wagons. Glubb briefly touches on this and points out that while the conquest of Murica wasn't of an aging Empire, but of "barbarian peoples" and instead of an ancient empire, it was "a vast continent".

Yet the subsequent life history of the United States has followed the standard pattern which we shall attempt to trace—the periods of the pioneers, of commerce, of affluence, of intellectualism and of decadence.

Glubbs explanation of history appears to be somewhat circular in nature. As we continue through these stages, keep in mind that the conquered Empires we're talking about now have apparently gone through the same cycle, they're just at the end stages.

There seems to be quite a bit of consistency in this interpretation.

Here's a link to The Fate of Empires, An Overview (Part 1)

My next post will delve into Stage three. The Age of Commerce