[dcx]

This is so insightful! What did they believe the main process was, that was causing things to break?

My guesses - this is about (a) inequality reaching a breaking point, where non-elites are starting to reject the social contract, making elite signaling dangerous, and (b) that elites at that moment don't have enough justification for their elevated status (mystification, misrecognition, etc)

[willsoon]

Social contract. Every year I pay its passive. Can anyone tell me when the profits will be distributed?

[r2_pilot]

The profits were initially distributed before you were born. Every year more profits are added to the value of society (I assume you are a part of society; if not, I do apologize) because potholes are filled, food is verified safe to eat, electricity is regulated, and generally people leave you and your stuff alone so you can do whatever you want within the bounds of the social contract.

[dcx]

FYI OP is answering my question on what the historian's theory was! (They were downvoted)

This route makes sense to me; I do think the deal has been getting worse and worse lately, and periodic renegotiation is required to keep things running properly.

[username332211]

Well, it can't be (a). The inequality in Rome had already reached a breaking point and was completely resolved problem by then.

And by that I mean a revolutionary people's party had replaced a corrupt elected government with a divine monarchy.

(I don't think I need to describe the wonders that did for equality in the Roman state. Archeological record indicates when barbarians conquered Roman lands, the nutrition of the lower classes often improved. But for some reason those same lower classes that had destroyed the republic never complained about inequality in imperial times.)