Posted on 03/15/2015 3:30:15 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Even at the end Roman legions were loyal, but they were loyal first to their commanders. When incompetant Emperors forgot that, bad things happened.
Add child Emperors and...
In 395, 11 year old Honorius became absolute Ruler of the West. Fortunately for the West, there vwas a competant leader of the military Stillcho, who kept the barbarians at bay. Until Honorius had him murdered in 408. In 410, the Visigoths sacked Roman.
In 425 Honorius was succeeded by his 6 year old nephew, Valentian III. He turned out even more incompetant than Honorius, but had an even more competant military leader, Aetius. In 454 Valentian had Aetius murdered. A year later, the Vandals sacked Rome.
Rome fell from the top.
The Roman Republic also knew that some times it was necessary to appoint Dictators to bring an out of control and ineffective Government(the Political Class) under control.
The Political Class in the USA is out of control.
We can ask that question after it stops glowing.
I read your whole post. In fact, I’ve read a fair amount of what Machiavelli wrote.
I just disagree with the guy. I don’t think his principles can be used to set up a stable government by the people. In fact, that’s not what they were designed to do. He wanted a leader to pretend to be a friend of the people till he could seize absolute power and crush his enemies.
Not exactly a G.Washington type. More Napoleon or Hitler. Who built a more lasting government?
The Romans were also incredibly successful at assimilating individuals and groups, turning them into Romans, for most of a thousand years. Service in the Roman Army was a key part of this mechanism. And it worked really well for many centuries.
It wasn’t until the Romans began recruiting entire tribes and nations of barbarians to fight for them under their own leaders that it became a real problem.
Just curious. How did the Muslim tactics differ in this regard from the tactics used by the Romans, Byzantines and Persians? By anybody else at the time?
Ancient and medieval warfare were not for the squeamish.
The difference was in how the conquered peoples could join up and become full partners regardless of race, ethnicity, location etc. This made a compelling case to flip sides, especially for the wealthy and powerful. They could retain their wealth and position, even get a promotion as a reward for turning traitor early as an example. Just say the shahada, take a Muslim name, and welcome aboard the team. Like the mafia but easier to join. This was very different from the Roman citizen model. Need I go on, really? Is this all new to you? Seriously? Are you just teasing me? Really?
I read “The Roman Guide to Slave Management” recently, and one interesting observation the character made was that the long and constant wars led to conscription of free farmers to the point that they couldn’t maintain their farms. They had to sell the land to the large land owners who could afford slaves, since the slaves didn’t get called off to war and the owner could have an overseer watch it even if he had to serve.
The continual wars wore down the middle class yeoman farmer while fueling the growth of ultra-rich and the very bottom (slaves).
To some degree, the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had the same effect.
In Afghanistan, we should have hit them hard, taken out the enemy but not tried to rebuild it as we did Germany and Japan. The cultures are too foreign, too hostile.
In the case of Iraq, rebuilding and creating a democracy was possible, as it was a more secular state. I think Obama ruined that by pulling us out too soon and not hitting the terrorists still in that nation hard enough. So now you have Saddam’s old army joining ISIS to give it military strategists while they get prestige, pay and sex slaves.
Uhm, the CIA runs on poppies, capiche? From Vietnam on (Golden Triangle), all our “wars” have been protecting the supply chain.
Through war, we fashioned a free nation on a continental scale, and then we remade the world so that it is safe for America and our ideals by winning three world wars: WW I, WW II, and the Cold War. Indeed, if we look to the world as it was in 1914 and as it is today, we have accomplished many of the goals declared by Wilson. Today, as with the Roman world, the bad and dangerous places in the world are where American power and influence are shunned.
The Qu’ran calls for a warrior agenda. Dar Al Harb: those with whom they are at war until Judgement Day. The goal of Islam is conquests by the sword. I say Nuke them
I think you’re a little vague on how the Romans expanded from a tiny city-state in central Italy to control the entire Med Basin and beyond.
Hint: It wasn’t by the original population of Rome growing in numbers rapidly enough to provide the population necessary for the administration and military of such a huge empire.
Instead it was primarily by grudging but steady expansion of citizenship to conquered peoples. They often gave citizenship to leaders of the conquered peoples, especially those who switched sides quickly. By 88 BC all free inhabitants of Italy were Roman citizens.
In fact, by 212 AD all free inhabitants of the empire were citizens. Of course, by that time citizenship didn’t mean much.
They often sped the process up by granting individual citizenship to leaders of the conquered peoples. Julius Caesar scandalized Rome by not only granting citizenship to but inducting Gallic chiefs into the Senate.
My point is simply that Rome was successful in its conquests not because it conquered and held down opponents as Machiavelli claimed, but because it surprisingly quickly turned them into Romans.
BTW, my comment with regard to the graphic you posted was that it implied Islam was so successful in its conquest because it used rape, looting and beheading as tactics. Which implies that other powers of the time did not. Which is of course silly. They all behaved much the same in this regard.
Muslims were so quickly successful primarily because, as you say, they were ready and willing to accept recruits on a close to equal basis. Their taxes, initially, were considerably lower than those of the Byzantine and Persian Empires. And the Muslims offered great religious freedom to their subjects, as least when compared to the policies of the two empires.
IOW, the Muslim conquest was so rapid and thorough simply because the people they conquered saw them as a better deal than what they had, or at minimum not enough worse to cause them to fight desperately in resistance. Conquest was thus a fight against governments, not against peoples. The Byzantines and Persians had arrogantly undermined the foundations of their own empires well before the Muslims showed up.
As it turned out, I think the conquered were mistaken in the long run about Islam being a better deal. But that took centuries to become obvious.
Agreed. Though I suspect most of your parallels apply to all nations with a long history of successful warfare.
Germany and France both had brief and storied runs as dominant military powers, but both lost badly in the end. Although Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany could win battles, they were unable to fashion war-winning strategies.
In another parallel with Rome, the US is a status quo power in its strategies but a revolutionary power in its appeal. The US aims to preserve the current favorable international order that emerged after WW II, yet it also promotes modernity, capitalism, human rights, and democracy. For much of the world, these are appealing but deeply disruptive.
With that in mind, it is a sign of both a lack of realism and a lack of intellectual grasp of grand strategy that the US has not fully embraced and promoted a reform agenda in the Muslim world. In the battle of ideas, human rights, democracy, and fair treatment of women would do much to counter Islamist radicalism and subvert the medieval mindset of Muslim societies. The terror war is early in its middle stages though and such an approach may yet be adopted.
Sorry, but I’m not sure you’re right. Your idea assumes that Muslims consider “human rights, democracy, and fair treatment of women” to constitute “reform.”
The actual fact is that many of them consider “reform” to be a return to the early days of Islam. IOW, Islamism is reformist, to them.
Everybody is in favor of reform. Take “immigration reform.” I’m as much in favor as La Raza. Except that our definition of what would constitute reform differ pretty drastically.
To a great many Muslims, becoming more like the West does not constitute “reform.” Given that our society is at least as much about promiscuity, drug use, atheism and moral laxity as it is about human rights, they have a point.
In particular, what we would call “fair treatment of women” they would often call exploitation of women. To some extent they have a point here too. Women has, in my estimation, gotten the short end of the sexual revolution stick.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the very notion of “reform” as a self-evident good implies a basic consensus in society as to what is the right direction for us to be moving. Reform is the policy that moves us in that direction. Absent such consensus there can be no reform, as such, just competing policy ideas.
If you get a chance read Islamic Invasion by Robert Morey its Non- fiction book on Islam the book was way ahead of it’s time.
After WW II, such reforms were central to reconstruction of Germany and Japan. Today, both countries provide a better life for their citizens than they did before the war and are reliable US allies. I see no reason not to urge that Islam also adopt modern ways in the hope of spurring similar results.
It is absurd to think that Islam protects women. Muslim societies regard women as subject to rape in a wide range of circumstances, to beatings for trivial reasons, and to death for incurring dishonor on their family in even the most innocent of circumstances.
Nor does rule by mullahs lead to a virtuous society. Iran is rife with drug abuse and prostitution, with many high end Iranian prostitutes plying their trade in the Gulf states as the main source of support for their extended families at home. Generally, when rich Muslims want to party, they can easily do so discretely at home, or they go to the West's tourist spots, with Islam no restraint on their conduct.
Dreamers and Amnesty. Obama's plan is clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.