Topic: Democracy
America and Rome : Compare A thought I had a few days agoby Logical Premise
(statist)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A few days ago I was reading a book called "Empire" by Orson Scott Card. It was a frightening book -- albiet unrealistic -- of what happened if there was a civil war between left wing hi-tech lunatics and hardcore rightwing survivalists. That premise, I felt, wasn't very realistic.
But a part of the book dealt with a series of lectures that I found the idea of both fascinating and appalling -- the fall of America.
I will summarize the main salient points. While an avid reader of history, I am not a historian and would appreciate corrections being made.
Rome was founded as an aristocratically lead nation in the hills of Italy. At some point, they turned into a republic, where citizens were represented by their Senate. This representation was not very absolute -- the needs of the common people were often over looked -- but there WAS attempts (the plebian tribunes, the land reforms of the Grachii) at making sure government was ... well, representative.
Rome grew in power and size, and her bureaucacy swelled. Increasingly, the republic was beset with internal problems and external issues. Increasingly, the Senate became filled with corrupt senators in the pay and bidding of the Legions, or local businessmen, or corrupt smugglers -- one senator was even paid by pirates!
As a result of the increasing corruption and wasting of money, taxes became ever more onerous, and elections were mob affairs -- canidates murdered in the streets. The upstanding were butchered, like Cicero, and the base and venal were hailed as heroes.
Eventually, there was very little left. A long string of ineffective Senate leaders culminated in allowing a few powerful men -- Caesar, Pompey, Crassius -- to take most control of the Republic. The three plotted to rule jointly, then turned on one another. Caesar? won and began using his absolute power to try to derail the Republic. He failed -- a patriot named Brutus and the rest of the Senate saw to that -- but that did not stop the fall. Octavian, a strong man and a cunning one, played to the mob and the business leaders, and before long the proud history of the Republic was ashes, the Senate little more than a rubber stamp, the people's rights thrown to the ground and replaced with bread and circuses.
Compare.
America started as an aristocratically lead society, with the powerful and influential leading the people to revolt against tyranny. These leaders, much like the ancient Roman founders of the Republic, tried to create a government that was fair. They paid much more attention to givng power to the people, to stopping tyranny, and almost none to making themselves powerful -- they were, without a doubt, great men and human beings.
But they were all too mortal, and they died, and much like Rome, less able men took their place, and as the country prospered, interests found reasons to chip away at the structure.
Just as the practice in Rome of allowing outlying regions to govern their own affairs lead to outlying corruption, so did in the early years the nation struggle with corruption on a state level, with Tammany Hall a symbol of everything wrong with government. Much like Rome swelled and grew fat on the conquest and expansion, so did America expand, until we held islands in the Atlantic and Pacific, armies flung all over the world (Legion style), and interfering with every nation within our reach.
Like Rome, our government has become more corrupt, more attuned to listening to big business than to the small man, the plebian, the everyday Joe.
Like Rome, the very offiicials elected to protect us from corruption are often found themselves to be corrupted, like Mr. Spitzer.
Like Rome, we are engaged in a seemingly unending series of small wars that serve mostly to antagonize those around us and drain our wealth and treasure -- yet fatten the pockets of the military industrial complex. (Roman arms manufacturers and the armorers who made segmenta lorica, the Legionary armor, had more sway in the Senate than entire segments of Rome).
Like Rome, the government defines new roles for itself on a regular basis -- with no limits or checks.
Like Rome, the government panders to the mob, saying what they think they wish to hear and doing little. It matters not if it's a mob in ancient Rome baying for free bread, taxes on big landowners, and to fling the Germans out, or if it's a mob in America baying for more welfare, taxes on big businesses, and to fling the illegal aliens out.
Like Rome, we have become paralyzed to fix anything.
Here's one that should please the Ron Paul supporters: he had an ancient predecessor, the Brothers Grachii, who advocated increased participation in the Senate by the people, more protections for the people's rights to own land and property, less restrictions on the people's travel, the right for redress against patricians, land reform (the equivilent, really of money reform back then), and smaller government.
Rome, of course, was a lot more hardcore than America. They murdered the elder, and then the younger brother, in shockingly gruesome fashion. That was the end of the Brother Gratchi Revolution.
Not long after, a series of strongmen like Pompey and Sulla (Bush, anyone) ran the country, running over the rights of everyone, engaging in petty wars, running up debts. (Some say that Sulla did good things. Some people think Bush is a good president, too. Your miliage may vary).
And then? The collapse, the fall, the Republic replaced with an Empire, starting so slowly that by the time it was done, everyone had already become complicit in it.
Is America showing parallels to Rome, in the last days of the Republic?
If the economy goes to pieces, and terrorism becomes so rampant that we live in terror, if the population feels powerless and impotent, if the government is so steeped in corruption that it can accomplish nothing but spend more money than it can take in, and take in so much money it bankrupts businesses and drives them away ... do you *really* think the average person of this country would not accept a strong, cunning leader?
A leader that might suspend some "rights" in the name of security? Bush has only started.
A leader that might put a government stranglehold on the economy to "save it"? Enough people are in credit and financial trouble that they wouldn't care.
A leader who would manipulate the press? Or create an educational system so inefficiently run that any change would seem positive, even if it ended up brainwashing children into adoration of the "leader"?
If you think it cannot happen ... maybe you should read your history some more.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 243 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-18 13:56:39
As well Madison knew these stories and worked diligently to construct a REPUBLIC with all those factors in mind. Thus, he helped create a form of government aware of the failings of the past and wrote the glorious US Constitution to circumvent these happenings. You are correct that those of us whom forget our history are most certainly destined to repeat it.
The US Constitution its not just a good idea, its the law.
Speaking of the old Mosaic Law, the Apostle Paul reports that the Law was spiritual, but became weak when mixed with the flesh. In other words we were the defective element in the Law. It is the same with our Constitution. The Constitution has not changed, but men have screwed it up royally.
What you describe above is what happens when the state becomes the ruler over the people. You see your ideal come to light. No type of socialist system is ever fair or balanced and inevitably turns into tyranny. Our country has been subverted by both sides, those who manipulate it for profit and those who manipulate it for ideals. Whatever the motivation the end result is the same. Only in a free society can there be the ability to live in some semblance of peace. Welfare and warfare killed Rome. When our founding fathers wrote our Constitution what they left out was a way to prevent corruption. They created an amazing blueprint, now it's up to us to fufill it's promise.
Your understanding of Rome assumes a healthy dose of "good ol' days" which simply isn't the case. The Senatorial class always represented its own interests before those of anybody else, and nobody in power ever gave a damn about the "common people" except when their power was dependent on those "common people," whether then or now (and only then enough to maintain their own power). Republican Rome represented the interests of the elites at most. It represented a more diverse group of those elites than Imperial Rome, but, Cicero's words to the contrary, it was not anything anybody today would consider a Golden Age. Cicero was an elite snob, and Gaius Julius Caesar was the darling of the common Roman man. The Senators caved to Caesar's pressure not only because he had beaten them militarily, but also because of his wide-spread popularity. The world was a lot more vicious and dirty than most Americans would be comfortable with for most of the past -- still is in most of the world.
The Founding Fathers were quite comfortable with an electorate limited to property owning (wealthy) white males. They wanted power for those people (themselves). This was quite progressive for the time -- no place in the world was that inclusive -- and I agree that these were great men who accomplished something great. But they didn't walk on water, and they would not impress anybody today as paragons of inclusiveness and respecters of diversity. Your notion of a Golden Age that was stolen away by corrupt lessers is older than Rome -- go read Hesiod to see it for the first time it was written down a little under 3000 years ago. It was no more true then than it is now -- people are basically people across time and space.
And the notion that someone is more moral because they have less money is amusing, but empty.
I second your recommendation that people study some history, starting with you. Real history, not something to support your agenda. Your grasp of Roman history and American history is way too shaky to support conclusions as half-assed as what you're talking about here -- at least to anybody who knows anything about history, which, I'll grant you, damn few do.
"Bush has only started."? Bush has served 86 of the 96 months he can serve as President -- he's almost done. Unless you've got some conclusive evidence to show otherwise, he will leave office in ten months. If you had that evidence, you would have presented that, rather than this silly presentist conjecture, so we'll let it stand that Bush leaves office on-time, and your claim that he's only starting is just plain wrong.
Looking forward to reading Empire. Not sure when I'll get to it.
Good aricle. You are right about looking to history. Another example to look (for economic rather than political similarities) is the decline of the Spanish Empire after it reached its pinacle of wealth and power in the sixteenth century.
Blain: And what exactly do you think my "agenda" is?
From what I've read, Caesar saw the people as animals, and their support of him amused him, while Cicero certainly was not enamoured of the decision making ability of the people, but his upbringing in Arpinium and his semi-plebian heritage (his name meant "Chick-pea", which was an insult hurled at him in school) was hardly inculculated to make of him a snob -- I'd suggest that, at the least, his mentor Scaevola imparted to him a certain cynicism and fatalism that was hardly conducive to "lowering himself to the level of the mob".
Against your other point -- I could have made the article more historically accurate and missed the point I was trying to make. I'm fully aware the Senate was concerned primarily of the land rights and the perogatives of the Five Hundred, and that the Leading Man in Rome even in the best years of the Senate was at BEST an ecocentric tyrant who's only thought of the common man was to wish they'd stay downwind. Even so, compared to the abomination that FOLLOWED, cruel despots, psychopaths, and whatever the hell Commodius was -- they were for their time remarkably less corrupt than what followed.
Can I make the statment that are no longer in a Golden Age? Yes. Any fool can do that. But that is not my point at all. My point is that the fall of republican government is always predciated on external pressure, internal weakness, chipping away at the foundations of government by special interests, and above all apathy of the people.
Comparing Bush to Pompey , I thought, was apt. Pompey's reign was brief, but many of the actions he took crippled the Republic immensely. And when I said Bush has only started, I mean that those who follow him will do more, and worse.
Statism isn't socialism, which is collectivist bullshit, and it is a lot closer to the aristocratical republicanism of the Roman Republic. That makes me biased. However, I find it just as distasteful that there is the possiblity that the American government would fall to the same factors as Rome did distasteful, and find your tone taking me to task for simplifying a great deal of history down to the points that MATTER as .. .disingenious.
What , then, is your response? That my conclusion is wrong? No. That PERCEPTION of certain historical figures may be taken different ways? That you want to nitpick a sentence about Bush, or argue the semantics of the Biblical Proverb that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to ascend to Heaven?
Thanks for calling my conclusions half-assed, by the way. I'll make sure to read what insightful topics you've posted on the site... how odd. I can't find any.
If you wish to suggest my conclusions are half-assed, why not try addressing the conclusions?
I think your agenda is to support your current understanding of the world by selectively using examples from the past. It's a pretty common agenda -- it's why most folks look into history. Validation. I'm new enough here to not know what exactly you're trying to validate. Not all that sure I care to. We'll see.
Caesar had no particular respect for the common people, but he understood the value of having their support. He didn't mind the mob having power as long as he was able to manipulate it. The Republican-era Senatorial class had certainly built enough justifiable class-anger for him to exploit. I don't know that Cicero had more respect for the common folk than Caesar did, but he wasn't nearly as effective at working them as Caesar.
No question that the consolidated power of Imperial Rome allowed for greater individual excesses than the oligarchic power of Republican Rome. It also allowed for greater territorial expansion and control. Not really about your point, but I'm not yet persuaded I need to only play with your point.
My point is that there never was a Golden Age for us to no longer be in. The idea that the leaders of the country in days gone by were better than the ones we have now just doesn't work out -- their contemporaries certainly didn't think they were particularly wonderful (excepting, of course, those who agreed with them in a fashion no differently than what we have to day). And, actually, there's a fair-to-middling argument to be made that this is, in fact, the closest thing we've got to a Golden Age, and that things have never before been as good as they are right now.
How many cases of republican government failing are you basing these generalities on? Rome and who else? It remains to be shown if American republican government is failing -- that's sorta what you're trying to show, so you can't use it as an example to illustrate your point.
And I'd like to know where you got the crystal ball that shows what the next presidents will do. You might be right, but you've not shown why your predictions are more than just pulled out of the air.
Like your comment about rich men, camels and needles -- totally pulled out of the air, and not supporting your claim. First, we've not established the Bible as an authority through which we can resolve disagreement. Second, that it is hard for a rich man to enter Heaven does not mean that a rich man is inherently less moral than a poor man, even if we do accept the Bible as such an authority for the purposes of this conversation. I'm not aware of any place in the Bible where it says that entering the kingdom of Heaven is easy for anybody, although I suppose I've missed it (and "suffer the children" doesn't say that they have an easy path to Heaven, if you were planning on bringing that in). Some rich men are corrupt, and some are not. The same can be said for poor men. You're going to need to provide some evidence to back up your claim that there is a significant difference in the morality of an individual linked solely to their wealth if you wish your claim to be considered valid.
Perhaps you should consider that I'm more interested in having the past understood more clearly than I am in your points before impugning my honesty.
You can't find any topics posted around here by me because I just got here. There might be some significance to that statement that somehow makes you right and me wrong, but I can't find any of that either.
Your conclusions are vague predictions of the future, which is not what history is about. I'll keep looking in my front yard for pieces of sky if you want, but I'm not going to hold my breath in the mean time. And I'm going to suggest you not hold your breath for further response from me, since I'm leaving tomorrow for a several day trip that involves something over 20 hours of driving each way. I'll come back here when I can, but it might be a while, and that's not me ignoring you or running away from your superior intellect.
And the software here is a pain in the butt. I'm hand-inserting paragraph tags because it doesn't seem to do that (if it does and I don't need to do this, please let me know and I'll retract this complaint and will stop wasting my time).
Actually, the Bible makes it quite clear that living the Christian life and being reconciled with our Creator will be difficult for anyone, rich or poor, when Jesus used the word "strait" in describing the narrow path.
However, it has been my observation that most of the intellectuals around here eschew both the Bible and the objective morality contained therein.
Ie, they just make up whatever rules they like as they go along.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-19 12:06:19
The reason the Founders pondered inclusion of voting rights as placed upon the property owner had nothing to do with pandering to the rich. The Founders felt that people that owned things here had a vested interest in what happened here. In other words to keep those with no dog in the fight out of the areana so they could not screw it up. Remember people from all over Europe came and went during those times, this was an attempt to keep those with ill intentions from screwin up the plan.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-19 17:09:41
Logical, I like your article, but you might consider augmenting your analysis with what was happening to the money at the various points of history. Honest (or not) money has been the driver of war and peace in all known recorded civilization. An excellent treatise on this topic is Hoskins' "War Cycles Peace Cycles", available for about $10 at Amazon.
Hoskins doesn't get into the US aspect much, but his analysis of Rome is eye-opening. I, for one, would be anxious to read the next version you might produce.
Our founders did a great job of creating our constitution except that it should have included a quick means of removing from office any politician who voted for a bill which was later determined to be unconstitutional. In that situation the offending politicians should be immediately removed from office and prohibited from ever serving again. That would put some fear in them and make them very cautious not to infringe on the constitution.
Ivan, most of my study of Roman history is military, to be honest. The political manuverings and interactions between the neo-aristocratic Senate and the military,and how the decision making of the Emperor came to rely in large part on placating factions and not sound military thinking is what I'm most expert at.
I don't feel confident enough in understanding the Roman economy to get into a discussion of Roman fiscal policy. I know that eventually the Eastern Roman Empire ran into money troubles (I *think*, but can't remember for sure) but I don't remember if it was trying to support too many mercenaries or what. But as far as overal money policy, if Blain is supposedly such a good historian, maybe he can enlighten us.
As far as the assertion that there never was a Golden Age -- this is an opinion site, Blain. This is not a site that, if you look around, will proport to put the fine details of historical accuracy before the point. But to suggest that Republican Rome was equally as corrupted as imperial Rome, or that Early America under the Founders was equally as corrupted as modern America is flat out denial of reality. There is no question that I wouldn't trust a political figure walking this entire planet today to write a Consitution for the local Elk Club, much less for a nation and expect anything halfway as decent as the Constitution.
My point is that people seem blind to the root causes of the collapse of strong nations. There are parallels to be made, and when people insist on only viewing things from their same , tired viewpoint they develop blind spots.
The fact that the Senators weren't for the people misses any point I was trying to make. The Senators had a government set up to protect those who ran the country, themselves, and due to corruption and weakness that was destroyed. First the impetus for the proection was destroyed, then the protections set aside, then they gave over the government to Octavian. And in this country, the same things happen.
As a statist, I don't want to see abusive government, and I certainly don't want some socialistic/egalitarian garbage to replace our government either. Like the Romans, I'm a believer that the educated, the land owners, the businesspeople, the clergy, and those who have the drive, energy, and intellect to rule should rule, but I also believe in two other very important things that trump that. The first is the Law states the People are in charge in this country, and if that's the Law, we should stop letting our government weaken that. More importantly (and where I disagree with most Statists) is that government wthout strong review and checks against corruption is tyranny waiting to happen.
Rome had very little limit on the power of government. It had limits, orignally, to limit the corruption of government. The idea of the Founding Fathers of America was to prevent corruption by placing the levers of power in the hands of the people, to elect the "elite" who would lead them in accordance with their wishes. That the people we elect have begun to turn the government AGAINST the People .. is , to me , a sign of what is to come.
Those who wish to castigate me for drawing inferences based on what I think I see should feel free to return their heads to the sand.
Okay. I'm replying when I'm really tired, so this might go off-track a little bit, so I'll apologize if it does so ahead of time.
1. I'm unclear as to why I would participate in other discussions around here. However, should I, there's no reason I would be more critical of your historical claims than those of anybody else, particularly if they're talking about events and places and times that I have familiarity with in the fashion you are. My response to you isn't personal, because I don't know you. I'm responding to your words and my understanding of what they mean. I have no reason to think that we might not get along just fine in a different setting than the rather personal way you're responding to what I'm saying.
2. Sorry, but I'm not going to play along with selective viewing of past events that ignore significant challenges to the representation of those events. I appreciate that you continue to further clarify the events you're discussing, but I don't appreciate the personal attacks and digs at me that are taking space that would be better spent on providing evidence to respond to my challenges and show why your approach is correct and mine is flawed. Ad hominem just isn't interesting -- it seems to be frowned on by the TOU here for rather good reason. I don't suspect that I'm going to find "I'm not going to provide evidence why I'm right, but I am, and you're wrong" persuasive anytime soon.
3. If you have any question about the financial problems facing the Eastern Empire, Wikipedia can provide a quick refresher. Google is frequently your friend on questions like this, so you can speak from a position of knowledge, rather than guessing. Knowledge is useful even on an opinion site.
4. If you want to discuss relative rates of corruption, you're going to need to be more clear on what you mean by "corruption" and how it can be measured, otherwise we're going to spin our wheels. When I know what you mean by the terms you're using (even if I find your definitions unreasonable) and the standards you're proposing (again, even if I find them unreasonable standards) we can then look for evidence that will or won't support your claim. Absent them, I don't know what more to say about your historical claims -- you may be right, but I have no way of knowing that based on what you've given me.
5. Disagreement with you does not constitute a psychological problem.
6. I happen to be quite impressed with the U.S. Constitution. I'm a big fan, not just because it is the hallmark of American public religion. I'm open to the idea that the product is greater than could be expected from those whose names were involved with its production.
7. I might agree with this version of your point. I would ascribe much of the problem you're describing to basic intellectual apathy and laziness, along with a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness that justify taking the victim position rather than getting busy addressing what can be addressed. People don't want to have to study and think and state their ideas in a coherent and clear fashion (I know I don't like doing it, but it's good for you). Instead, they want to pretend that they can find the solution to all the problems in the world, rather than studying any portion of those problems sufficiently to understand what is being done to contribute to the problem or its solutions.
I think what you've written here as the problem is getting at some of the problem. Not sure I agree with the precise emphasis, so does that make me a partial friend or partial enemy, or something else.
8. Not particularly interested in your discussion of "statism," but I've tried reading it through. I don't much care about the labels you're describing yourself with, but I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Right now, the tired is making it difficult for me to stay away -- maybe we should talk about this somewhere if this is to resolve between us (which I wouldn't mind).
9. If you're talking to me, use my name. If you're not, then use whoever's name you're talking to, please. If you think I've got my head in the sand, I'll ask you to provide what evidence supports that idea for you. Or you can decide you're tired of playing with me and go back to doing what you want. I'm okay with it either way (remember the tired).
I find such a cacophony of contradictions in your assessments and your own avocation of Statism. On the one hand you declare your devotion to the doctrine of Statism and on the other you decry the effects of Statism on the government and this country. Which is it?
I agree with much of your assessment in this particular article, but must wonder how such assessments impact your own view of the ideology of Statism that you hold? Me thinks you are a libertarian unawares at this point in your life, you do, after all, have many of the traits of libertarianism in some, not all, of your views as expressed on this forum.
I will attempt to show that there is a direct correlation between the advances of The State, whether it is ancient Rome or modern America, and the general malaise of social structure, which commonly leads to the eventual destruction of both governmental structures and social structures. In fact, if you look at the chronology of Rome, from say the 367B.C, you will notice a growing intervention into the economics of Rome. From that time, you will see such amazing programs that almost mirror the ones instituted within this country, especially during the 1930s.
By 133 B.C. to 121 B.C., The Gracchi, who Ron Paul would not have supported at all, by the way, helped to institute social controls and government interventions that proved to be disastrous to Rome. The Gracchi are associated with numerous government programs such as: The Resettlement Administration, Public Works Administration, Ever Normal Granary, which was a two-price system for wheat to be sold by the government at about 32 cents a bushel, well below normal market prices.
Concerning the Gracchi suggestion that the Senate be opened up to “the people”, that is the problem we have now with our own Senate. Under the Constitution, Senators were appointed by the Legislatures of the Several States and served a very specific function within the Republic; unfortunately thanks to the 17th Amendment the election of the Senate has been placed on the open market place of a far-reaching purely democratic process which has opened it up to the passions of the popular electorate and external influences.
The problem in Rome was not the structure of the Republican government, but the steady intervention of the government and powerful influences to press that intervention into the economic market place. It was, indeed, State Interventions that lead to the collapse of the Empire, along with several social and military pressures that lead to the ultimate intervention of Julius Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon.
A very valid point, Republicae, regarding the Grachii -- I had forgotten that they were a sort of semi-socialistic type.
As I said above, I'm not sure enough about the Roman Economy to be sure I grasp how it worked, so for the moment I'll take your statement of how strong government controls weakened the empire economically as fact.
Indeed Logical...
If you look at the Roman Economy you will see a definite correlation between a weakened Republic and the rise of the Empire. Additionally, it should not be forgotten that even the Roman Republic had a very strong, almost centralized system within the Senate itself, this concentration of power was also a corrupting factor in the Republic itself since anytime power becomes centralized the tendency toward growing corruption increases. It is only through a decentralization and a system of checks and balances that both power and corruption can be controlled to a definitive degree.
I have enjoyed reading your articles. I definitely can't agree with a lot of your statements right now, but I like your style. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I have never gained much interest in politics until recently when I discovered Ron Paul. I want very much to learn more about politics. I'm still forming my political beliefs. At this time I am very uncomfortable with my level of understanding of politics To do this I will need to study as much as I can about the subject. Will you or anyone else on here send me an email? A book list, usefull resources for keeping up on current events, any sort of suggestions, how you have come to form your political stance, what you have done to further your understanding of politics, or you know just anything that might help me to become well versed in the subject of politics. My email is aaronkg44 at yahoo.
Normally I don't want to leave critical comments here, as this is the Statist section where statist views are supposed to be represented. I'm trying to show respect. But there is one major difference between Rome and America.
All the criticisms are true. But we forgot one major problem that is ever growing and set to destroy or cripple any healthy society on the planet: THE EVER EXPANDING POPULATION. It always comes down to the PEOPLE. We have too many..thus we are poor, uneducated, ignorant, manipulated, and confused. A BRAVE NEW WORLD will happen, whether we like it or not!
Good article. I am italian and here it is still a mess like 2000 years ago, we have more laws than citizens :) , 43% average taxation, laws written in a way that the average person can't understand them, etc etc etc... etc etc
Nice article, you don’t have to be an historian to get your point. Our reality of what Rome was, at any point in its history, is the way it’s perceived by us today. Obviously none of us lived at that time so we perceive it differently based off what we have seen and read. I suspect most do not study Rome in great detail. I also suspect most look at the chain of events to be - a quasi democracy or "good old day’s aspect” followed by an authoritarian regime and subsequent fall of the empire. I have no doubt should I study in depth my perception would change. But given my current perception of Rome’s history plus my current perception of recent events in America - I agree and like the article considerably.
If you read the book Animal Farm you will understand that no matter how righteous any kingdom or even any rligion begins, it will ultimately be overtaken by human nature. History proves this out that power corrupts. The writing is on the wall in the white House no matter who is elected.
I would say you are wise to notice similarities (and differences), toward understanding America today. I'm not a historian, either, but what you have said has value.
Large organizations must be led, yet the top elements of leadership tend to serve themselves in exactly the same way as common, working people tend to serve themselves. And the larger the republic, the more elite the leadership. And the more removed that leadership becomes from the people they are represented to care about. If anyone has a solution to human nature, I would like to hear about it.
Fascinating conversation. Here's something to think about - what is going on here has been going on since the inception of the United States of America. Our discourse of America - Rome has continued for over 200 years. I am researching this as we speak (hence the reason I found your site).
There are some fascinating patterns to the America - Rome discourse that have emerged based on what we had/have going on at any given time. Much information can be found in 19th Century / 20th Century Newspapers; Richard Hingley and William Vance are some good places to start.
Now to offer a few opinions of my own. The biggest problem I think this nation faces is ignorance of our own Constitution, it's framing process and the relationship to the Roman Republican idea. Personally I think logical has hit it bang on - and in the original essay kept it simplified enough to be understood clearly. The main point was heard.
While still serving in the Army, I took a Medieval Military History Course (and I'm a girl!)which required in-depth analysis to the fall of the Roman Empire. I will say this, it sent chills down my spine - and this was before 9/11. For every decision made militarily by the Romans, we were making the very same ones. Preclusive security Conus Based Brigades etc., outsourcing to civilians and foreigners, etc.
Western Rome lasted nearly 1000 years, we have been around for less time than they fell. I love the Romans - because I was military and anyone who can march 200 miles in sandals has my deepest respect.
I believe what made the Romans the force they were, was the fact they were very practical and thought big (have you ever stood in front of the Colloseum, Pantheon, Forum etc., in Rome!) They were extremely organized and thought way ahead of anyone else, especially in logistics and discipline.
Sure, they fell but they had a long run and obviously they still remain an integral part of our understanding today.
A major factor in their strength is Mos Maiorum - in the way of our ancestors. We only pretend to that. The founding fathers of this country did a pretty awesome job at putting together a nation. We as a people do not honor thier work though - we fall into popular discord and have become a country where education and knowledge is elitist (vs being intelligent).
I have never felt so ashamed of my country since 2002, when Bush said Sadam instead of Osama - and then the whole (majority) country went right along with it. My retirement was already approved and I am grateful for that. It is not about fear- it is about wrong place wrong enemy. The Romans just like this country, took advantage of the soldiers that caused thier greatness - and misused them. My President and his minions had the nerve to say "if your not with us your against us." meaning I was unpatriotic?
As a grad student whose area of focus has been on everything before gunpowder (Ancient Near East, Greeks and Romans, Medieval Euro - military and cultural) but who is basically forced into the modern world of American History because of where I live...I say this...it is about time we as a people did some mos maiorum - going all the way back, to find ourselves.
Finally - someone once said history does not repeat itself - though similar actions occur, the weapons are always way more deadly.
My knowledge of thr Roman empire (rise and fall) comes mostly from television. The learning channel,discovery,history channels,etc. Maybe I'm a visual sort. I do get the major gist of their existance I think.
As far as the founding of this great nation and our constitution, I was pleased to see blain give the document some favor.
While the grade schools gave us quick glorious lessons of the founders, we realize later they were just people like ourselves.
My final (to date) position on these dead white guys is that they got it right, with the constitution. Though they were landowners and slave owners and decreed blacks as only 3/5 of a person, I realize they were products of their time.
They grew up in that environment, they were a part of it. The larger meaning too me is they got it right in their words. "We hold these truths to be self evident" They left us this as a legacy. This in an era of slavery, piracy, kings, war and a world in chaos.
I think they did the best they could, we should run with it.
1. Society and entitement feeling - Romans, like a lot of Americans have no desire to manufacture and work - everything has to be cheap and made abroad (grain came from Egypt, pottery - from Spain, etc.), unless paid outreagous wages.
2. Lack of moral values - Roman society was built on principles of Greak and Etruscan paganism, until Christianity was adopted (to extend existance for another hundred years, since Christianity is not the religion of slave society), but it did not suit Roman culture as a backbone for society, just helped like support beams. American society was built on principles of christianity and it's moral values, and we are deviating from it into fields of anarchistic atheism (I used to be one) and lack of backbone to resist militaristic Muslim religion.
3. Immigration and lack of integration of the new wave immigrants, coming south of Rio Grande like Visigoths in Rome. They and most of their children have no allegiance to the country.
4. Deviation from primary principles of "aristocratic" democracy - how both societies were formed (principle of responsibility - you pay the dues , you have the voice) to the mobocracy - where the mob rules , manipulated by the hierarchy of the societies with promises of food and games (or food and healthcare , may be free cable TV in the future, free HDTV adapters now). That as well transformed into election of "populistic" rulers (US) or the ones who had the biggest suport of the army (Rome).
5. back to military - Rome benefited from conquests as long as they used those territories for their own benfit, not to pour our own money to rebuild - we should use Iraqui oil money to cover military expences.
And many more. Just one thing - Roman Empire existed as a world dominant power for 600 years (and another 1000 as a secondary power in the form of Bizantine Empire - which held on Muslim onslought from the east - Arabs first, then Ottomans, until mid 15th century, when Europe, fighting for the liberal cause of Lutheranism almost fell under the rule of Turks.
see Tom Holands book - Rubicon, p.168 'the war against terror', it even mentions pirates! some startling comparisons with today and an inkling of tomorrow perhaps. Also keep one eye on biblical prophesy of which rome forshadows america in my opinion. when will the new pompey enter the new temple's holy of holies?
The article is good and lays a soild parallel. However, I believe it could go a step further.
Rome made progress toward representative government. Eventually special interests dominated those representatives. By dint of direct and indirect payoffs from pirates and the like, Senators became allied with special interests, and not with their electors.
And we see this happening in the USA. Dwight Eisenhower, who was president just after WW II warned of this situation. As long as representatives will actually represent the people who elect them, then a republic can work. It is an ethical situation which guides the ship, an individual ethics issue, that prevents Rome's rot.
I think this was a rather interesting article. Along with a flood of interesting comments, some for some against. None the less it was something good to read. I am not apart of this place but interested in leaving a comment even though this is over a year old and not very well maintained since.
I think you hit on with the majority of your points but you've left out a major factor (which was briefly covered by another person). Earlier someone touched on the government destroying the economy and the reasons aren't listed in any depth beyond they screwed up.
Something you should consider, everyone should consider, is the class system. The Romans had Pleibeians and Patricians. We have Upper class, Upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class and lower class (basically, you could go simple and say Upper, middle, and lower). Back to the Romans, they had a huge gap between the classes that ever grew. The Patricians got richer and the Pleibeians got even more poor. Our difference is a middle class. I unfortunately have no sources but recent Economist have said that our classes are slowly going towards the high end and low end. Such a split in classes causes huge economic stresses (as we are feeling now). It has always been important to keep a check on the rich and the poor, since the days of Rome. Rome did a poor job of this and it helped aide their many reasons for fall. This is something i've thought and read much on but see little discussion on in the world or much acknowledgement. Maybe I have a single mind that no one agrees with but I believe we are facing an economic crisis because of classes. Economic crisis is just the beginning of any fall of any empire.
Blain - not that you'll see this but the author has many more examples of falls if you include my point.
The Han Dynasty (Oh and the Qin Dynasty, the PREVIOUS Dynasty) Allows those who were rich, to continue to gain wealth and allow those who were poor, reach all time lows with essentials to live. Both Dynasties had no interest in the poor, except for their work. Their governments let things get too hard and let people fall too hard so that dramatic change occured.
This also happened to our earlier Greek empire (though not as well seen in history nor studied. It really wasn't that large of a factor but it was still involved).
Dramatic change can lead to success or to a fall. Caesar, though a bad man, was successful. In any view, he got the job done. (I'm sure i'll get crucified for this but it is true) Hitler was a dramatic change but what he did WORKED. I don't mean lets kill jews or any SHIT like that BUT he worked the political system, found wars (NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH USELESS WARS OR WORLD DOMINATION BUT WARS DO AID AN ECONOMY BRIEFLY), found many ways to get Germany on its feet. He created jobs (new roads, new jobs from the government) and it worked.
We recently experienced a dramatic change. We have class problems. Let's see how this goes.
I know I went quite off topic but i've been searching for people who are discussing my topic and I thought it could be added. Much of it has been thought out and I couldn't resist sharing the majority of it.
History teaches us that all empires rise and then fall without exception. The how's and the why's are almost irrelevent suffice to say that the American Empire will see its demise as well at some point in time. Arrogance, ignorance and apathy are all playing their parts in this to be sure. I think it would be easier to compare our current state of affairs to Nazi Germany or facist Italy, the way we are building more jails, hiring more police and security, passing laws to inhibit citizens rights, cutting funding from education and the ever popular 'war on drugs' which I like to call the War on Americans. I hope you like Chinese food!!!
The irony here is the assumption so many are making that the fall of Rome was a *bad* thing, or something to be avoided...and that if we learn from history, we can also avoid this *bad thing* from happening to the USA.
But couldnt it simply be true that States arise for a season, for a purpose, for a people, and as those people change (not for the good, not for the bad...just CHANGE, the one constant) so must its governing structures? To those who point to Rome and say, "See, we're heading to hell in a handbasket!," I have to ask, "are you sure? Are you sure that the fall of Rome was a negative thing?" As a 'student of Charlemagne" and the Carolingian Dynasty that replaced Rome....I'm not convinced that the fall of Rome is so awful.
Of course, I once ran into someone who was apoplectic about immigration, and presented all sorts of conspiracy theories to me about how the american southwest would soon secede and call itself La Republica del Norte.
Rather than argue, my only response was - and still is -
"Yeah? So what?"
That's what people do..they form governments that suit them best.
An interesting angle. Please make some corrections though,
"but there *were* attempts", since attempts is plural.
The figures of the first Triumvirate were Caesar, Pompey and Crassus (not Crassius).
Sulla, (in office 82 BC) though he did violate Rome by taking his army into it (against the law of the Republic), was a figure of the Republic, he preceded Caesar and was not a figure of the Empire.
Very interesting article. Another historical comparison of a more recent nature would be the Balkans. America is going through a balkanization process of our own, with the southwest and border states becoming de facto parts of Mexico, the southeast becoming more solidly African American, and the demographic makeup of our country reminding us that it all began in bloody revolution, and very well may end that way, too. Nothing lasts forever. Ask the Yugoslavians.
Posted By: D.R. Starr II
Date: 2009-12-07 15:51:38
Blain, Just a friendly comment on predictions.
Yes it is true Bush is out of office, However it is the history of this country ( at least, in the last 40 years.) That former presidents do more after they leave office than while in office.
The seven novels about the last years of republican Rome by Colleen McCullough will give you great insight about that era. Cheap used at Amazon. Be sure to read in order.
I just hope that when/if America falls we don't forget how to make concrete again like the Romans did. I kind of like concrete. All this talk about repeating rising and falling reminds me of Asimov's short book "Nightfall" (good stuff) Also Rome may have fallen, but there are still Italians. I figure that this empire may fall, but there will still be Americans. I say love your kids, have lots of them, teach them how to work hard and show kindness to others and the meek shall inherit the earth.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
