How people measure time

Another thing that I perceive contributes to the misunderstanding of all history prior to the 18th century, is the lack of temporal perspective. We are too used to the examples of the almost instant, by historical time, rise and fall and rise again and fall again of Germany, Japan or Russia, from the 19th Century to today. Well, as Chen Shui-Bian, who knew something of history, said when asked about the French Revolution, "it's too early to tell".

And it is. The fall of the southern Mayan cities was not as sudden as the fall of the Soviet Union or of Nazi Germany; and yet it befuddles historians and archaelogists because it was too sudden in historical time for any reasonable common explanation.

The same thing happens with the Roman Empire, and mostly all non-contemporary history for that matter - from Augustus to the traditional date of 476, there are five centuries: Augustus' traditional date of inauguration (-29) was as far behind the death of Marcus Aurelius as the US Independence War from Obama's Presidency. Augustus was as far behind Constantine's edict of full legalisation of one branch of Christianity as Gordon Brown from Oliver Cromwell. From Augustus to the Sack of Rome, it's the same distance as from the Night of St. Bartholomew to the Paris banlieue riots. From Augustus to the traditional date it's the same as from Columbus' Central American tour (4th travel) to McCain's... Or in other terms, the Empire, measured as traditionally, from Augustus' inauguration to Romulus Augustulus' deposition, lasted 7 times as long as the Soviet Union, and over 40 times as long as the Third Reich.

For a process spanning such a time, "fags and paeds running the streets" is obviously not an explanation. But it seems like most people believe that one day the Empire was perfect, next day Jesus dies, next decade prosecution, next decade Constantine and next year the Fall. Well, no... that's not how history works...