Posted on 08/05/2007 8:43:29 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
How the U.S. can avoid its own version of the fall of the Roman empire
That is, are we Americans, citizens of the mightiest empire the world has known since the days of the Caesars, living in the last days of our civilization? Is the United States, like the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, doomed to collapse from its own decadence? Or can we avoid Rome's fate?
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Amen again.
“The United States is not an empire....”
I agree and it is good to keep in mind the major historical differences between the the two systems when making these comparisons.
In one very important area, however, I do see an ominous parallel between the Decline of the Roman Civilization and our own here in America. That area of similarity pertains to the debasing of the value of citizenship by leaders in search of expedient solutions to short term problems.
The Romans eventually destroyed their tax own tax base due to the indiscriminate over taxation of the middle class of artisans and farmers and the unwise short term exploitation of imperial territories in order to buy off some remote potentate who was threatening the fringe of an imperial territory or to buy more bread and circuses for the restive , and increasingly, non-Roman urban masses. In the post-Republican era of roman history the middle class had no effective political representation as the Political Class pandered to either the Patricians or the Urban Masses. Sound familiar?
Rome’s ability to enforce Imperial Edicts decreased apace with the economic decline of the productive middle class and the fringe Imperial Territories. During Rome’s ascent armies were raised by means of appeal to civic virtue and the possibility of attaining Roman Citizenship. In the decline phase Rome could only raise mercenary armies.
The debasement of U.S. Citizenship due to indiscriminate immigration policies and the political marginalization of the U.S. Middle Class strike me as baleful indicator of what lies ahead for our civilization if nothing is done.
Rome was very powerful in its decadence, regardless of what moralists like to suggest. Indeed, it’s power waned as its decadence waned.
Go figure, huh?
Oh, here we go again, another stupid analysis based on the assumption that the non-event of the retirement of the last Western Augustus to a villa near Naples was the ‘Fall of Rome’.
The Roman Empire fell in 1453 to the same forces that beset us now—militant Islam, after having dwindled to a city-state, in part because two-and-a-half centuries earlier it had been stabbed in the back by its Western European allies, in part because it had given up its own naval defense, entrusting it to hired Genoans.
Glancing at the article, one point is particularly silly. If the capital was so important, why did Constantine move it to New Rome (which everyone else called Constantinople)? Rome was not that important to the Empire, which is why its loss, subsequent recovery under Justinian, and loss again, didn’t really affect the continuity of the Empire.
The United States is not and never has been an empire. Dreher should be ashamed of himself for just giving the left more ammunition to use this slanderous term.
It wasn't decadence itself that doomed Rome. It was their unwillingness to defend their territory and culture out of sheer laziness. Neither is the US. We are doomed.
If someone earns something, they appreciate it and take care of it. If they're given something, they don't. The generations that built this country took care of it, but todays generation inherited it, and will not take care of it.
When a thing stops growing, it starts decaying. We've stopped any attempts at growing our country or culture, and many believe we are "politically sinful" if we do, so we are thus decaying. It's only a matter of time.
In your opinion, with which states would California fall in your 9-nation scenario (Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington?)?
The height of American 'rule' seems to have already passed.
The older the civilization, the longer it seemed to last. Ancient India, Egypt, China, and Babylon lasted at least a millennium being civilizations of considerable power.
Later ones, such as the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (technically still the Roman Empire, by commonly considered separate) lasted for around half a millennium in power. The civilizations of the Americas (primarily southern Mexico and Central America) lasted for around a few centuries, fitting in with your mentioned lifespan. The Inca only lasted around one century, but that was because the Spaniards cut them short. Similarly, the European powers' cultures (as opposed to civilizations) seem to have been strong for only around a century. Hence referring to the fifteenth century as the Portugeuse Century, the sixteenth century as the Spanish Century, the seventeenth century as the Dutch or Swedish Century, eighteenth century as the French Century, the nineteenth century as the British Century......and the twentieth century as the American Century. However, of these European countries (excluding the United States), the British and the Spanish had considerably large empires and ruled over large populations.
In contrast, it doesn't look as though American 'rule' is going to be preeminent for even a century. So it might not even measure up to some of the modern Western European countries, much less a civilization as strong as Rome's.
| It could similarly be argued that the barbarians living in the Roman Empire wouldn't have turned on typed empire had they not been mistreated. Roman attitudes and not fulfilling agreements made with barbarian tribes led to the barbarians invading and conquering the empire (also, the barbarians were pushed by the Huns coming from the east). Much is given about how the barbarians brought down Rome. Could it be a little Germano-centric pride coming from Anglo-Saxon and German historians? The Roman Empire was already in decline. Its military was increasingly less Roman in makeup, its society had become decadent and lazy. Furthermore, the Persian Empire (could China eventually play its role in this United States/Roman Empire comparison?) was a rival power which threatened the Roman Empire's wealthy eastern provinces. The Roman Empire's capital was moved to Constantinople before the Western Roman Empire's capital was moved to Ravenna, itself not that far north. The Persians and the Romans themselves were more responsible for the fall of the Western Roman Empire than the barbarians. |
You're entitle to your opinion, but personally it seems very figuratively puffed up to consider that since the United States has bases in foreign countries that Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Qatar, and other countries are de facto colonies of the United States.
Again, the United States has shown itself to be unable to exert full control over these countries. They make decisions on their own.
agree
| From a Christian viewpoint, the purpose of the Roman Empire was to be an incubator of sorts for the advent of Christianity and the initial spread of the Gospel. Once it had fulfilled its purpose, the Roman Empire was discarded--as it was no longer needed, and barbarians also heard the Gospel. |
i think we’re behaving as Rome did...
Rome fell because of taxes, slavery, and multiculturalism.
Rome was very powerful at the height of its decadence. So much for moralizing.
| The Persian Empire adjacent to the Roman Empire was a rival power. The Western World is not a country, so for the rest of this post, Western World will be replaced with United States. Even if the United States declines (it doesn't seem about to flat out collapse at this point in time), it is improbable that China would be reasonably able to literally take over the United States much more than China was reasonably able to take over the Roman Empire. The same with islamofascists. The dominant secular power in the world could merely switch from North America to Asia. China especially would probably 'rule' in much the same way that the United States currently 'rules,' though it could exert more pressure on weaker states. Islamofascists would be driven by their ideology to forcibly convert Americans and others to Islam--however, they are currently not very close to being in a position to make such demands on all of the American people and non-Muslim world. |
Exactly. And it's up to people on the outside to participate or not, as they wish.
What we make and sell - both in terms of physical products and in terms of ideas - has been popular and well received and people have wanted to buy our product and be part of that "empire."
It's quite possible that they don't want to do so any longer (mostly thanks to the attacks of our own domestic left). But that's a whole different thing from having a physical empire (colonies, etc.) rebel against one.
I think most of us agree that uncontrolled immigration and the total dependence on foreigners for everything is what destroyed Rome. Sure, decadence fueled the situation, but in itself was not the primary reason.
In the end, Rome was no longer Rome—It’s legions were manned by foreigners from the edges of it’s empire. Commerce and trade became totally dependent on Foreigners. Soon all the land owners surrounding Rome were not Roman; they were foreigners.
Does this sound familiar to what we are experiencing now?
The Filipinos sought independence from the Spanish, and when the Americans drove the Spanish out (this was during the Spanish-American War), the Filipinos tried to drive out the Americans.
The United States did have a point that if the Philippines were given independence, other empires, chiefly the Japanese (already in Taiwan), the British (already in British Malaya), and the Germans (already in Micronesia), would probably try to take it over and not recognize the Philippines as an independent, sovereign country.
However, nor did the United States treat the Philippines as it had the many other territories it had before (such as the Louisiana Purchase or Mexican Cessation). People living in the Philippines were not immediately granted American citizenship, although at the time many American officials wanted the Philippines to remain part of the United States as long as the United States existed. Instead, emigration from the Philippines to the United States was greatly limited, and Filipinos were granted the status of American national--which wasn't full citizenship.
Eventually, the Philippines was given Commonwealth status and independence was to be given to the Philippines within ten years (1935-1945). This was less altruism than that the Philippines had earlier tried for statehood, and the American people weren't ready for a proportion of their population larger than that of those of African descent becoming 'little brown brethren.' Ostensibly, the Philippines distant was given for it not being given statehood--and yet there were those who wanted the islands to be under American control until the United States was no more.
It could be that the Philippines and Hawaii were the only American territories to try for American statehood and be rejected (Hawaii obviously eventually got through--after Alaska, which basically had to get a reasonably large enough population). And why was that? (rhetorical).
Ranting aside, the United States did have a de facto empire, but it was puny compared to the British Empire.
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.