There’s a small book most people have never heard of that, once you read it, you can’t quite stop thinking about. Sir John Bagot Glubb published “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival” in 1978, and it’s barely long enough to qualify as a pamphlet. But what it lacks in length it makes up for in the kind of observation that sits in your chest like a stone.
Glubb spent his career as a British military officer embedded in the Middle East. He wasn’t a cloistered academic. He was someone who watched power shift on the ground, in real time, over decades. And later in life, he sat down and compared the life spans of major empires throughout history. What he found was unsettling in its consistency.
Whether you looked at the Assyrians, the Persians, the Arabs, the Mongols, the Spanish, the Romanovs, or the British, the pattern held. Empires lasted roughly 250 years. Not exactly, of course. History doesn’t work with a stopwatch. But the consistency was close enough to make you wonder what was driving it. More striking than the time span, though, was the sequence. Each empire seemed to pass through the same stages: a burst of outward energy and conquest, then commerce, then affluence, then intellect, and finally decadence and collapse. The names of the players changed. The costumes changed. The geography changed. But the arc didn’t.
Glubb wasn’t the first person to notice cycles in history. But he was unusually specific, and unusually honest about the limits of his own theory. He didn’t claim to have all the answers. He just pointed at the pattern and said, essentially, “Look at this. Doesn’t this seem strange?”
It does seem strange. And it gets stranger if you hold it up against another idea that has been gaining traction in recent years, one that comes from a completely different direction.
The Universe as Program
The Simulation Hypothesis, in its most popular form, suggests that what we experience as reality might be a computed environment. Not a hallucination. Not a dream. A simulation, running on some form of substrate we can’t observe from the inside. The idea has roots in philosophy going back centuries, but it entered mainstream conversation largely through a 2003 paper by Nick Bostrom, and later through public figures like Elon Musk casually mentioning that the odds we’re in “base reality” are probably slim.
Most people treat the Simulation Hypothesis as either a fun thought experiment or an irritating distraction, depending on their temperament. But if you take it even a little bit seriously, it starts to reframe a lot of things. Especially patterns.
Because if there’s one thing simulations are built on, it’s patterns. Rules. Parameters. Loops.
When the Two Ideas Touch
Here’s where it gets interesting. If you read Glubb’s work and you take the Simulation Hypothesis seriously, even just as a lens, a question forms that’s hard to shake: what if the reason empires follow such a consistent cycle isn’t because of some mystical force or even some deep truth about human nature, but because the cycle is built into the rules of the system?
Think about it from a design perspective. If you were running a civilization simulation and you wanted to study emergence, adaptation, or conflict, you wouldn’t want any single entity to dominate forever. A permanent empire would be a dead end. It would reduce complexity, flatten outcomes, and make the simulation less interesting or less useful, depending on why you’re running it. You’d want empires to rise and fall. You’d want the cycle to refresh. And if you were elegant about it, you’d embed that tendency into the agents themselves rather than imposing it from the outside.
That’s almost exactly what Glubb describes, without ever using the language of computation. He talks about how the generations within an empire shift in character. The founders are bold and willing to sacrifice. Their grandchildren are merchants. Their great-grandchildren are intellectuals. And their great-great-grandchildren are, in Glubb’s somewhat melancholy framing, frivolous. The decay isn’t imposed by invaders. It comes from within. The system degrades itself. It’s as if there’s a kind of internal timer, not in any one person, but distributed across the population, that ensures no empire can sustain itself beyond a certain window.
If you’re thinking computationally, that looks a lot like a built-in constraint. A decay function. A feature, not a bug.
The Uncomfortable Middle Ground
Now, I want to be careful here. I’m not making a scientific claim. I’m not saying we live in a simulation and that Glubb’s cycle is proof of it. What I am saying is that the two ideas rhyme in a way that’s worth sitting with.
One of the criticisms of the Simulation Hypothesis is that it’s unfalsifiable. You can’t prove it. You can’t disprove it. It just sort of floats there, seductive and useless. But Glubb’s work offers something the Simulation Hypothesis usually lacks: empirical texture. He gives you dates, names, durations. He shows you the Abbasid Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire and Romanov Russia all tracing the same arc across centuries with no contact between them and no shared culture. That kind of convergence demands some explanation.
The conventional explanation is human nature. People get comfortable. Comfort breeds complacency. Complacency breeds vulnerability. And that’s a fine explanation as far as it goes. But it doesn’t fully account for the regularity. Lots of things are driven by human nature without producing such consistent timing. Why 250 years? Why not 400, or 80? Why do such different civilizations in such different circumstances land in roughly the same window?
Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe Glubb cherry-picked his data. Those are fair objections. But if you’ve read the essay, you know he addresses many of them, and the pattern is robust enough to survive a fair amount of skepticism.
And if you allow the Simulation Hypothesis to sit alongside Glubb’s observations, even hypothetically, the regularity starts to feel less mysterious. Simulations have parameters. Parameters produce regularities. If the system is designed to cycle, it will cycle. The agents inside might experience it as free will, as cultural evolution, as the natural consequence of human weakness. But from the outside, it would look like what it is: a loop.
What It Means, or Doesn’t
I don’t think this intersection provides answers. I think it provides a better question. The question isn’t really “are we in a simulation?” or “do empires always fall in 250 years?” The question is: why does history repeat so faithfully when the actors have no knowledge of the script?
Glubb noticed the script. He documented it with the care of a man who had watched empires from the inside. The Simulation Hypothesis offers one possible explanation for why the script exists in the first place. Neither idea is complete on its own. But together, they form something that feels like the edge of a larger understanding, the kind of understanding that stays just out of reach no matter how far you extend your hand.
Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the system is designed so that the agents inside can sense the pattern but never quite prove it. That would be, if you think about it, the most elegant constraint of all. Not a wall. Just a horizon. Always visible. Never reachable.
And the empires keep rising. And the empires keep falling. Right on time.
Like My Work? Want an Easy Way to Support Me?
Hi there! If you’ve enjoyed my work why not click the link below and Buy Me A Coffee? It’s simple and coffee keeps my creative and intellectual juices flowing!
Just click on the image below and it’ll take you to my Buy Me A Coffee page. Thanks so much for reading and supporting me!
