Parallels between USA now and Late Roman Republic

[Doug H]

This is one for the history buffs out there.

I've given much thought to US conduct in the War on Terror and something borderline worrisome. Tell me if I'm off my rocker.

There seems to be several parallels between the USA now and Roman Republic in the last two centuries BC.

1) US and Rome were the preeminate military powers of their day.
After the fall of Carthage in the 3rd Punic War, Rome was THE military power in the Mediterranean. On her borders, only the Parthian Empire could match Rome, and they often fought to a standstill.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the US was the only superpower in the world. On their own, the best the Chinese and the Russians could do is hold us, they couldn't take us.

2) Military expansion propelled by fear of safety at home.
Rome's expansion outside the Italian peninsula began when Carthage began building colonies in Spain. A particular Roman Senator is reported as ending every speech to the Senate, irregardless of actual subject, with the Latin equivalent of "Carthage must be destroyed." After that, the modus operandi was to get any potential threats as far away from Rome as geographically possible.
US policy since 9/11 has been to not let them come to us, but to go after them. 9/11 must not happen again. We're going to chase these people into their caves, and then methodically pry them out. And we won't be happy until we have. Any government that shows any schmidgen of support is on a "watch your step" list.

3) Finding themselves up against a threat they can contain, but not conquer.
For Rome, this was coming into contact with the Germanic peoples for the first time during the reign of Octavian Augustus. It took 4 centuries but Germanic Goths would eventually put the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. They sacked Rome because Constantinople bought them off.
For the US, the rise of Middle Eastern terrorist groups during the Arab-Israeli conflict has posed the only credible threat to US homeland security since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While I doubt that US soceity will collapse because of them, they are causing a major overhaul of our law enforcement, intelligience gathering, and judicial procedures. The military also finds itself in a pseudo-police role that they're trying to adjust to.

4) Internal politics are rife with divisive rhetoric over almost any and all issues, with the loudest participants primarily interested in increasing their personal power.
In Rome, assassination became a major tool of political advancement. Also, political power plays for political gain ranged all issues, and even effected war policies. Read about the wars with Jugurtha of Numidia.
In the US, while a politician is probably physically safe from his rivals, the media is more than willing to question anyone's character and motives, and often with slimmest of evidence. Also, attempts to polarize an issue in the court of public opinion are common, so that one can be one side of an issue while placing your opponent on the other. Even decisions about going to war and the conduct of the war are matters for public debate and political bickering.

I doubt the situation is alarming, but I'm sure the Roman citizenry didn't think so while Augustus was Emperor. There does, however, seem to be an opportunity to learn from history. And knowledge of history is something that American's have a reputation for short-shrifting themselves on.

Doug H.

[Doug H]

This is one for the history buffs out there.

I've given much thought to US conduct in the War on Terror and something borderline worrisome. Tell me if I'm off my rocker.

There seems to be several parallels between the USA now and Roman Republic in the last two centuries BC.

1) US and Rome were the preeminate military powers of their day.
After the fall of Carthage in the 3rd Punic War, Rome was THE military power in the Mediterranean. On her borders, only the Parthian Empire could match Rome, and they often fought to a standstill.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the US was the only superpower in the world. On their own, the best the Chinese and the Russians could do is hold us, they couldn't take us.

2) Military expansion propelled by fear of safety at home.
Rome's expansion outside the Italian peninsula began when Carthage began building colonies in Spain. A particular Roman Senator is reported as ending every speech to the Senate, irregardless of actual subject, with the Latin equivalent of "Carthage must be destroyed." After that, the modus operandi was to get any potential threats as far away from Rome as geographically possible.
US policy since 9/11 has been to not let them come to us, but to go after them. 9/11 must not happen again. We're going to chase these people into their caves, and then methodically pry them out. And we won't be happy until we have. Any government that shows any schmidgen of support is on a "watch your step" list.

3) Finding themselves up against a threat they can contain, but not conquer.
For Rome, this was coming into contact with the Germanic peoples for the first time during the reign of Octavian Augustus. It took 4 centuries but Germanic Goths would eventually put the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. They sacked Rome because Constantinople bought them off.
For the US, the rise of Middle Eastern terrorist groups during the Arab-Israeli conflict has posed the only credible threat to US homeland security since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While I doubt that US soceity will collapse because of them, they are causing a major overhaul of our law enforcement, intelligience gathering, and judicial procedures. The military also finds itself in a pseudo-police role that they're trying to adjust to.

4) Internal politics are rife with divisive rhetoric over almost any and all issues, with the loudest participants primarily interested in increasing their personal power.
In Rome, assassination became a major tool of political advancement. Also, political power plays for political gain ranged all issues, and even effected war policies. Read about the wars with Jugurtha of Numidia.
In the US, while a politician is probably physically safe from his rivals, the media is more than willing to question anyone's character and motives, and often with slimmest of evidence. Also, attempts to polarize an issue in the court of public opinion are common, so that one can be one side of an issue while placing your opponent on the other. Even decisions about going to war and the conduct of the war are matters for public debate and political bickering.

I doubt the situation is alarming, but I'm sure the Roman citizenry didn't think so while Augustus was Emperor. There does, however, seem to be an opportunity to learn from history. And knowledge of history is something that American's have a reputation for short-shrifting themselves on.

Doug H.

[Prometheus]

I would be interested in reading what course corrections you would recommend to avoid the decline of western society.

One thing to remember is that Rome got rich by taking things from their conquests rather than through their own innovations. In effect, they were using the surrounding countries as raw material, which was fairly typical at the time. Once the Roman army came into conflict with the Germanic tribes, they reached the limits of their expansion and the empire began to decline from lack of new resources.

Also, the heavy taxes levied by the Roman government on the rural farmers led many people to move into Rome itself, and the society became top-heavy.

I don't think the US has yet had a MAJOR problem with either of the issues I have just mentioned. Should we keep an eye on the "wars for oil" and our immigration policies? Perhaps, but not if it means becoming isolationist. Look at the two World Wars to see how poorly US isolationism worked.

[Doug H]

Media sensationalism and political backbiting go hand in hand. Controversy sells newspapers and polarized political issues get people to the voting booth.

If someone could find a valid economic way to discourage this news-as-shock-as-enterntainment rut that mainstream news has become, I'd be interested in hearing it. We don't want the government doing this, that would be censorship. The media has little incentive to (and even economic encouragement not to) do this themselves.

That would limit the media-based character assassination that our politicians seemingly love to indulge in (with personal gain, and nothing else, in mind) As for the politics of polarization, I don't know. We've had two Presidents in the last 30 years who were more interested in generating and building consensus on issues that on making grand ideological stands. They both got raked over the coals by the media and their political colleagues because they were seen as being unwilling to stand for anything. Maybe if we got the sensationalism in the media down to a dull roar maybe soceity would begin to see value in moderation in the political realm again.

On the subject of resources, American industry is in the process, much to the chagrin of the great trade unions, of switching from a manufacturing, which requires raw materials to a service sector orientation. Software development, business sector consultation, and other job sectors which are human dependent. And when it comes to technological innovation and high level education, the US is still the leader. Unlike the Romans, the US is willing to TRADE for what it wants. The US is both the world's largest importer and the world's largest exporter of goods and services. So I don't think we have much to worry about on that score.

As for the expanding our interests so thin that we overstretch our military. THAT is worrisome. I support current policy, but am concerned about how far it might go. This has been a problem for every empire the world has known since the dawn of time.

Doug H.

[tarsus]

i may have missed it so if someone already said this; sorry.
one thing the romans did was make wine in lead pots, they loved their wine. cladius was stupid it seems,caguligla [spelled wrong,but you try it!]was a total mad man,who had sex with his sister and later killed her. nero was crazy,as was most rulers in the day. makes you wonder what some of our leaders are cooking in.

[NudeAl]

Well we may not have an empire as it was defined then but we certainly have scattered our military around the far flung reaches of the world. This is after we have down sized the military to reap some sort of tax rebate after winning the cold war.

Another similarity is that with in our military it is largely made up of the poor and the minorities matching the trend in the late Roman empire when it no longer became fashionable to have done military service. The effect was that these folks had less to loose if the worst should happen and the empire was to fall. Not as much incentive to fight hard when it is only lousy wages and not very much respect you are fighting for.

[Doug H]

There are those who wondered if the US military, after being embarrassed in Vietnam, would overthrow the government in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. I was a military brat and I can tell you first hand that military morale in the 70's was low. The fiascos in Iran and Lebanon didn't do much to help.

One difference in the US military now and the Roman military then is the level of dependence on conquered peoples to fill the ranks. There were Slavs, Germans, Celts, Africans, Middle Easterners, Greeks, and Anatolians in the Late Roman armies. These people really didn't consider themselves to be Roman. Subjects of the Emperor, yes. Roman, no. Soldiers in Late Rome were dependent on their officers for their pay and supplies as the central government eventually had trouble funding them. This helped move the soldiers' allegience to their officers and away from the government. Scenario ripe for military takeovers, and Rome had her share of those.

Yes, the US military now is a very ethnically and racially diverse organization. That said, I have little doubt that members of these diverse groups consider themselves Americans first and something else second. The Federal government is still finding ways to keep the flow of pay and supplies to the troops. This keeps some loyalty to the government amongst the troops. We're hardly to Caesar and the Wars of the Triumvirate stage yet.

But what happens when the ratio of Vietnams to Desert Storms starts tilting the wrong way? What if nothing is done to reduce the national debt and funding for the military dries up, but this level of overseas commitment continues? What happens when media sensationalism and personal political powerplaying rise to an even higher level than now? Something to ponder...

Doug H.

[Jochanaan]

I too have been interested in the similarities between the Roman and American empires. But there seems to be one crucial difference: Independent multinational corporations. You never hear of business interests dominating the Roman Empire (please correct me if I'm wrong, Roman historians) like they have for so long in the US. It was President Coolidge, I believe, who stated: "The business of America is business." What has changed since?

This latest war in the Middle East was just as much to secure our oil supply as to get rid of a tyrant. If not, why haven't we invaded North Korea? Kim Jong-Il is even more dangerous than Saddam Hussein was, but NK doesn't have oil or any other natural resource in quantity. (And if we did invade NK, they'd probably nuke Tokyo! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] )

Maybe we should look not just at US politics, but at US businesses and their politics, to find out just how much they resemble the Roman Empire.

[David77]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jochanaan:
[qb]You never hear of business interests dominating the Roman Empire. [/qb]

---

I'm no historian, but it is my understanding that there was commerce among the surrounding dominated regions, but that the main objective of Rome was to dominate the outer regions to exploit them; mainly in taxes in one form or another: the "spoils system" at work.

Thus the Roman citizen would not have to work but could live a "grand life" of "bread and circuses" so to speak. Of course, this would require a strong armed forces for security and to implement government exploitation.

I do not think that the USA went to war with Iraq to exploit Iraq's oil, but was a response to our security being greatly threatened after attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York City, and attack on the Pentigon (behind the White House) attacks on embassies, etc.

Our collective national fear and our survival was our motive, and will be our motive in the forseeable future.

[Kenny G]

quote:

---

Originally posted by David77:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jochanaan:
[qb]


Our collective national fear and our survival was our motive, and will be our motive in the forseeable future. [/qb]

---

Let's hope you're right, for those who don't learn from the mistakes in history are doomed to repeat them!

[Doug H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jochanaan:
[qb] But there seems to be one crucial difference: Independent multinational corporations.[/qb]

---

I think you've hit on something. Something scary. Because the people who run them are subject to no one but their shareholders. It's considered standard business practice to move the business to where the laws are in your favor. (And that's legit. The only way to solve that is make globally standard laws. Fat chance in this millenium.) Also, individual corporations have been known to flout the law when they thought they could get away with it. (That's bad)

quote:

---

[qb]It was President Coolidge, I believe, who stated: "The business of America is business." What has changed since? [/qb]

---

It was the laissez-faire policies of his administration that allowed Wall Street to become like a gambling house and setup the Crash of 1929. Add that to a big bank vs. small bank mentality at the Federal Reserve and you have the worst economic downturn in the nation's history.

As for the War in Iraq, I don't think it was the motive for going to war, but that has never prevented Big Oil from taking advantage of an opportunity to elbow their way in.

As for North Korea, I think we are able to bring more effective pressure on them, notably China. Many of whose people would be without jobs if they wanted to isolate themselves again. Yes, Kim Jong-Il himself is worrisome. But his neighbors like us better than Saddam Hussein's do.

quote:

---

[qb]Maybe we should look not just at US politics, but at US businesses and their politics, to find out just how much they resemble the Roman Empire. [/qb]

---

That would make an interesting research paper. Any college history majors out there?

I do agree that better regulation of international corporations is necessary. I also don't think there is an international organization in existence right now that can.

Doug H.

[tarsus]

think about this.
look at just about anything you own shoes, t.v's
tools, and yes computers;it seems nothing is made
in america any more;well i did just buy a post hole digger made in america [south america].
most of everything we own comes from china,korea,japan etc.i do not own anything made in iran or iraq. a great many things come from pakistan and india. all but one have one thing in common,and we are under treaty to protect it i belive. always pick on someone you can beat up.
yes they hit below the belt; but how many die in autos,drugs,bad medical care and a host of other things every year? and do not get me wrong if i lived in most of the above mentioned places i would be imprisoned or killed out right for speaking my mind. the u.s.a. is still the best place on earth to live.

[Doug H]

The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.

Before anyone gets started on the "corporate greed" thing, (and yes, it is getting out of hand, I agree) corporate America, operating profitably and trading globally, is the reason the US is so affluent.

The great colonial empires that collapsed after WW2 have been replaced by international corporate empires. I just hope the international political and legal systems can catch up to a point where they can effectively regulate the current global business situation.

Doug H.

[Doug H]

That, I think, finally points to why the USA can become a convenient symbol of the dark side of globalization. Most of these multinational corporations are headquartered in the US. And some of the corporations probably are conducting their operations in a shady and/or exploitive manner. To someone under- or mis-educated on the reality, separating the policy of an American corporation from the policy of the American government would be understandably difficult.

Another reason to push for a more effective international regulatory climate.

Doug H.

[threadbare]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug H:
[qb] The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.
Doug H. [/qb]

---

And the reason for this is(I'll probably catch a rash of sh*t for this) labor unions. Don't get me wrong, when unions were first formed they were a good thing. Back then the man leading the union actually worked on the line with others. Now, all who are in the union are working hard, getting overpaid, and the head of the union sits in an office, doesn't do a damn thing and makes 6-figures.
For instance, at the GM parts warehouse not far from me, a friend of mine worked part-time during college ( this was in '82 ), sat on a stool, took one part off a conveyer, put in a box and put it back on the conveyer------ he made $15.50/hr. The only union job where I've seen a man get paid what he was worth was a friend uncle, he made $92.00/hr-----he hung on a rope and welded watertowers together.
Everyone deserves the right to EARN a living.

I better quit, I could go on!