Posted on 11/26/2014 6:57:34 AM PST by Jacquerie
I vaguely recall from Gibbon, or maybe it was from a high school class, that the Roman Empire didn’t go out with a bang. With a nod to Alaric and his Visigoths of 410 AD, there really isn’t a singular event to mark the beginning of the long slide. In broad strokes it is fair to say that Roman society declined together, simultaneously with government. For centuries, Roman citizenship was a precious possession, a jewel of unsurpassed value. As such it was held closely and kept in short supply, for among other privileges, the Roman citizen wasn’t taxed. He was exempt from the possibility of torture, and could under certain circumstances appeal judicial rulings to the Emperor.
By the end, Roman citizenship was a burden to be avoided. The citizen was taxed to the hilt. Government couldn’t protect him from domestic or foreign born violence. Once a rarity, local populaces built defensive walls as the means to a protection which devolved from the state to whatever communities could scrabble together.
Self-preservation is our first right, the first one granted to us by God. Because God infused it in us all, it is a component of our nature. This nature is constant. No matter how long ago, men’s nature in ancient times is identical that of today.
Enclaves of law abiding citizens near Ferguson have hired private security. More Americans renounce their citizenship every year. Bug out plans and SHTF oriented websites are common. Rulers live separate existences in an imperial city, far removed in interest and wealth from the ruled.
This isn’t to say we should expect Luis Gutierez to lead wild eyed barbarians from the south to sack and pillage Washington DC anytime soon.
Thanks to Barack Obama, he doesn't have to.
Thanks for the tip. Gonna use it.
The barbarians are at the gates of St. Louis. But we have a barbarian resident in the white hut.....so for now we’re screwed
Precisely!!
What republic?
True, the Roman empire did not fall in one fell swoop, it essentially broke apart into smaller units which were subsequently defeated by more dynamic forces. Generally speaking, the so called barbarian peoples (Goths, Franks etc.) conquered the West and later, Islamic powers conquered in the East and South. In the West, the Roman empire held on until 476 and in the East the Byzantine empire continued until 1453 although it had been considerably weakened in the seventh century and again in the 12th century.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a similar pattern for the US. Secession sentiments are growing in pro-liberty states/regions as the federal government actions became increasingly lawless & reckless. Other looming powers-China, Russia, are poised to pick up the pieces and hasten collapse.
In fact a time could come in the near future where we could see China & Russia sponsoring secession movements (Hawaii for China, and Alaska for Russia) as a way to weaken the US and gain vassal states.
An economic slowdown worldwide and in China could precipitate a war against the US as the US defaults on its debt. China could end up colonizing US cities as the West once did to China in the 19th century.
In the West, the Roman Empire (which continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire) disappeared in 476 and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about 600 AD, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure.This experience had revolutionary effects. It was discovered that man can live without a state; this became the basis of Western liberalism. It was discovered that the state, if it exists, must serve men and that it is incorrect to believe that the purpose of men is to serve the state. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. From this emerged laissez-faire, separation of Church and State, rule of law, and the sanctity of private property.
In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life. Thus law was found by observation in the West, not enacted by autocracy as in the East. This meant that authority was established by law and under the law in the West, while authority was established by power and above the law in the East. The West felt that the rules of economic life were found and not enacted; that individuals had rights independent of, and even opposed to, public authority; that groups could exist, as the Church existed, by right and not by privilege, and without the need to have any charter of incorporation entitling them to exist as a group or act as a group; that groups or individuals could own property as a right and not as a privilege and that such property could not be taken by force but must be taken by established process of law. It was emphasized in the West that the way a thing was done was more important than what was done, while in the East what was done was far more significant than the way in which it was done.
This is the foundation of the heritage of Western civilization that we are in the process of squandering today. A long, dark night of Asiatic-style despotism - slavery, poverty, slaughter and ruin - beckons if we do not rise up and stop it. Time for a new Crusade.
Sure. But lots and lots of things happened during that two centuries.
The main reason this doesn’t ring true to me as a significant cause of the decline of the empire is that “Roman citizen” really didn’t mean much by 212 AD.
In 212 BC the Roman citizen was, at least in theory, an equal member of the world’s dominant class. In 212 AD he was simply another of the Emperor’s subjects, with no real rights superior to those of any other free man. IOW, citizenship had already lost any real meaning by 212, which is probably why Caracalla was able to extend it to all without major blowback
The problem was the loss of value in citizenship, not how many people held it. Also, it is probable citizenship was already widely held before the Edict made it universal.
http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Anglica/Antoniniana_johnson.html
In fact a time could come in the near future where we could see China & Russia sponsoring secession movements (Hawaii for China, and Alaska for Russia) as a way to weaken the US and gain vassal states.
You can be anti secession and pro American empire but don't be ridiculous. Have a real argument.
I’m not making a political argument, I was only speculating on possibilities for the US based on historical analogs, and on this thread the Roman Empire was cited as a possible example for the US.
However, that being said, I do believe that there probably is a case to be made for secession in the near future.
I do not support an American empire because empires typically repress individual rights at home and abroad.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
And what would you do instead?
You and Alex ought to talk
BTTT for later read.
/to work
Elections in despotic systems serve to condone and strengthen despotism. That maxim is on display.
I continue to push for an Article V convention to restore the republic.
“The barbarians had been assimilating for centuries”
More or less. In Gaul, the people of Provence largely continued Roman civilization with respect to law, customs, language, economy. However in the North, although there were Roman influences, they were much less pronounced.
“The Barbarian leaders who “conquered” were, in fact, Roman generals continuing the succession by civil war that had become endemic. “
The Roman generals were often “former” Barbarians and mercenaries and it was not uncommon for them to change sides. Basically, soldiers were increasing drawn from less settled areas of the empire closer to the frontier. It was less common for soldiers and generals to come from places like Italy and along the Mediterranean coast.
“Roman Civilization continued and prospered until the rise of Islam. “
I wouldn’t characterize Western civilization (in Western Europe that is) as prospering in the 5th century after the fall of the Western Empire. All you have to do is examine the architectural record. In Provence for example, one sees the great legacy of Rome in Nimes, Arles, Orange, Point du Gard. You really have nothing built on a grand scale centuries later.
All the Western nations are in some form of decline. Some more so than others, but the self-loathing & collapse of the Western nation-state as we have known it is coming.
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.