The Roman Empire largely fell because they were overexposed militarily. So one could equally argue that their hyper-masculinism was their downfall - not their lack of competitiveness.<p>If they showed more prudence and were less aggressive at everyone around them they would have been better prepared for the attacks from the Goths and barbarians.<p>Additionally, they were overextended financially as well which left them in a weak state. Over-extension is the result of highly risky behavior, which is comparable to the cowboy Wall St jockeys of the present era which are definitely a modern masculine image.<p>Avoiding the extremes seems to be where progress is made. Being neither overly aggressive nor so weak you get walked over by the tougher kids on the block. The boring times in history were great times for economies (see 1990s, post-WW2 America), there were still some military adventurism but mostly short-lived minor disputes (Korea, Desert Storm).<p>Modern statecraft is largely about economics today, not militarism. For example, I would doubt the US could fall from a lack of military prowess, while still totally dominating the world financial markets. Money goes a much longer way than guns and heart these days.<p>Just look at how Russia&#x27;s economy is doing these days - despite being the toughest kid on the block. Even if they succeed at war mongering it could only take them so far before the west could obliterate their citizens quality of life without firing a shot.