Posted on 02/16/2012 6:19:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Time to put on my myth busting cap again. This time, it looks like the USA is turning into Rome. But probably not. This is a comparison we almost always hear from hyperinflationists, those making ridiculous claims about the USA being bankrupt or those who are excessively worried about the influence of the government in the USA. And maybe some of this is justified to a certain degree. After all, it was largely government ineptitude that led to the decline of the Roman Empire.
Before any discussion about the Roman Empire begins, we should put things in perspective. The rise and fall of Rome was a spectacular historical progression. Although the fall of Rome is often described as some sort of event, the truth is that the rise and fall of Rome occurred over the course of 1,000 years with the final 200 years broadly being seen as the period of decline. The USA has only existed for 235 years and has only been a superpower for about 100 of those years. This doesn’t mean we have 765 years left to party, but some perspective is appropriate. The tendency to view the fall of Rome as an event and not a gradual progression is highly misleading.
There are, in my opinion, three major differences between the Roman Empire and the USA. They are:
Manifest Destiny is long gone….
The first point is one of the most important. Any empire that overextends itself is bound to run into any multitude of problems trying to maintain stability outside of their direct sphere of influence. At their peak, the Romans had conquered all of Eastern Europe, much of Western Europe, a large portion of northern Africa and much of the Middle East. This was no small feat back in the days before cars, phones and internet. Coordinating such a vast empire must have been a logistical nightmare. And that’s exactly what it proved to be. Not unlike the British Empire, this proved an impossible task as cultures clashed, coordination become increasingly difficult and authority from Rome diminished on the fringes.
Some people claim that the USA’s large military and policing of the world are somehow comparable to this. But the reality is that we haven’t colonized any part of the world since 1959 when Hawaii became the 50th state. It’s true that the USA went through a period of “manifest destiny” in which we essentially established what is now know as America, but those days are long gone. We’re not in the business of colonizing the world or ruling foreign lands. Yes, we are probably overextended on the military front and I am not sure why we often feel the need to police the world, but this is dramatically different than what the Roman Empire did through directly conquering and establishing their own leadership in other parts of the world and then attempting to maintain direct control over those regions.
Political Stability
The leading cause of the decline in the Roman Empire was political instability. The Roman Empire was actually only one period of Roman prosperity. Rome was many different styles of government over time with the Monarchy and then the Republic leading to its great rise and the Empire leading to its great decline. The Empire led to considerable division within the Empire itself with the leadership, at times, being distributed across many different Emperors. There was no real unification, but rather separate rulers as time went on. The Roman Empire was generally fragmented between East and West and this lack of unification led to instability as time went on.
The United States is in no way comparable to the Empire of disunity or rule by Emperors. We are and have always been a Constitutional Republic. This form of government has proven remarkably stable with time. And while we might see increasing disagreement among the various political parties within the USA, the foundation of our Republic is strong and stable. There is no first or second triumvirate, no Brutus stabbing Caesar in the back, no overthrow of one government for another….There is only a stable progression of leadership chosen by the people and for the people.
Economic Prowess
I know it’s not popular to cite the continuing economic dominance of the USA, but the reality of the matter is that the USA is still the dominant economic power throughout the world. Despite China’s incredible growth, the USA is still the largest economy in the world. Our GDP per capita is almost 6 times China’s. Nominal GDP is 23% of ALL world output. If you combined ALL of the BRIC nations you’d still have an economy smaller than the USA’s. We export more goods and services in the course of a year than the entire nominal GDP of Russia.
Now, clearly, the U.S. economy is in stall speed currently. I am not trying to downplay the obvious rut the economy is in. But let’s not be overly dramatic here. The USA is still comprised of incredibly innovative and productive corporations and a people who seek the very best living standards in the world. And while we might be a bit off track currently, I don’t see the trend in innovation and output collapsing any time soon. I know it’s not popular to be optimistic about the future of this country, but let’s maintain a little perspective here. The obvious direction from being #1 is becoming #2, but that doesn’t mean the American society is going to be overrun by vandals overnight to the point where it becomes a mere shadow of what it once was.
In short, the USA might be on decline (though I don’t really think so). But one thing we’re not is the Roman Empire. The comparisons are apples and oranges.
I have to take exception to a few points. If your empire does a good job of making the people under it happy it’s extension makes it stronger , not weaker. It’s the people inside the empire that defend it’s borders. If you double the radius of the empire the length the border doubles but the area increases by 4. So you now have twice as many people available to defend any length of border. The trick is making the conquered better off than they were before and a Republic does that better than a dictatorship.
Romes real death came when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. From then on it was just a normal dictatorship and/or mob rule. The productive become less and less everyday and the looters more and more. It got so bad in the end people were voluntarily making themselves slaves so they were no longer subject to the confiscatory taxes. This is a quite a common way for most empires to die and the United States did something similar when it passed an income tax with no boundaries. Apples and oranges indeed! How do you like them apples?
While the western Roman Empire collapsed, the eastern Roman Empire continued on for quite a while, and had an event, called the Nika riots, with some eerie parallels to America today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
To begin with, Constantinople had four political faction-sports teams-street gangs. They called themselves (first parallel), the Blues, the Greens, the Reds, and the Whites.
I like to think of them, in order, as the Democrat party, the radical left, the Republican party, and conservatives.
In any event, the Blues were the strongest faction, and supported by Emperor Justinian I, who while an able administrator, was not a decisive leader.
The problems began in earnest after a chariot race, in which the Blues and the Greens lost, so decided to riot. Some innocent people were killed in this riot, so some of the Blue and Green leaders were arrested for murder.
Some of these leaders were hanged, but a Blue and a Green escaped and took refuge in a church surrounded by an angry mob. Justinian was very busy with peace negotiations with the Persians (another parallel), but offered to commute their sentences to life imprisonment.
Wanting them to be released entirely, the Blues and Greens rioted, with eventually half the city being burned. Along with a treacherous senate (another parallel), that took the opportunity to try and dethrone Justinian and name a new Emperor, this about broke Justinian’s spirit, and he was prepared to flee, followed by the likely collapse of the eastern empire.
Enter the Empress Theodora, who was made of sterner stuff. She had been raised on the street and was a lot tougher than Justinian. After she settled him down, the two concocted a plot to save their nation.
They called for a peace meeting to be held at the Hippodrome with both the Blue and Green faction, to discuss terms. The Blues and Greens agreed, with the idea of crowning the new emperor there instead of talking peace.
Then a well liked and trusted head slave was sent to the Hippodrome with a large bag of gold for the Blue leaders, that when he gave it to them, reminded them that Justinian had always supported their faction. They took the hint, and to a man, all the Blues exited, leaving the somewhat puzzled Greens behind.
The Greens then decided that “fine, so we’ll have all the power, then”. An unwise decision, as by then the Hippodrome had been surrounded by two large units of soldiers, each led by a loyal general.
As Theodora had imagined, the soldiers entered the Hippodrome and killed every radical Green inside. And, by doing so, extended the life of the eastern empire by another 200 years.
Theodora was eventually proclaimed a Saint in the Orthodox church. Well deserved.
Benevolent dictators have existed. The Good Emperors of the 2nd century AD come to mind.
The problem is that even the most benevolent and competent dictator cannot live for ever. Which means the guy who replaces him is by definition likely to be less benevolent and/or competent.
The last and possibly best of the Good Emperors, Marcus Aurelius, was succeeded by his appalling son Commodus.
This was essentially the strategem used by Jehu in the Bible to exterminate the Baal worshipers.
One wonders if Justinian (or more likely Theodora) worked from this precedent.
Her biography is unfortunately horribly muddied. Some adored her and some hated her. One historian who wrote a glowing history of the two also wrote a secret history in which he attacked them both with bitter hatred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_%28wife_of_Justinian_I%29
I’ve read Procopius, both versions.
“Historians” back then had even less compunction about slanting what they wrote than they do today.
We are in decline as a direct result of government, at every level.
The temptation to abuse power is more than most can resist. Very few people remain benevolent--or even decent--when given enormous power.
The corruption of power is proportional to its magnitude.
Anyone willing to give absolute power to anyone is a fool.
I agree.
Benevolent dictatorship is in theory the perfect form of government. But of course the benevolent part is a lot harder to maintain than the dictatorship part.
But then all forms of government work in theory. Most just don’t work very well in practice.
Sounds like my wife.
Honey?
Is that you?
I’m not buying the parallel until I get invited to a few orgies. Orgies first. Then we’ll talk.
Social Wars? Who said anything about social wars?
Cheers, as it were...
Although the fall of Rome is often described as some sort of event, the truth is that the rise and fall of Rome occurred over the course of 1,000 years with the final 200 years broadly being seen as the period of decline. The USA has only existed for 235 years and has only been a superpower for about 100 of those years. This doesn't mean we have 765 years left to party, but some perspective is appropriate.
We are being overrun by Goths and half of our elite wants to make money by importing more and underpaying them.
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.