The Cause Of The Fall Of The Roman Empire Was Political Corruption

[Visbek]

Name fifty countries you don't have occupation troops in.

Again:

• We have about 180 troops in Australia. Does that mean that the US has the same level of control, as Rome had over Egypt or Gaul?
• We have 45,000 troops in Germany. Does that mean the US has the same level of control, as England exerted over India?

Since you apparently haven't figured it out, the answer to these rhetorical questions is NO.

For example, we invaded Iraq, threw out its existing leaders, built a bunch of infrastructure, whipped a little democracy on them, and almost completely withdrew. Who got the oil? Not the US; most of the contracts went to China. Iraq has imposed very strict conditions and low margins, so Western companies passed.

Would the Romans have acted this way? Certainly not. They would have stayed permanently, perhaps put a puppet leader in charge, levied huge taxes on resources, and demanded the citizens worship the cult of the Emperor (regardless of any local religious beliefs). Individuals who protested would be crucified for sedition; uprisings would be tamped down by slaughtering citizens and razing cities to the ground.

The US does meddle, interfere, and engineer "regime changes" (covertly or via invasion) but almost never exert imperial control. In those few instances, it's often brief, e.g. Panama and the Philippines both became independent after a few decades. We usually step in, break a bunch of stuff, get rid of the Commies and leave.

 

[Andalublue]

*Snicker* Yea... How well has that worked out for Spain in the last couple of centuries?

The country is undeniable proof that when world class powers fall, they fall hard, and they tend to stay down.

That kind of depends what you are judging on. Spain may well be on its uppers at present in economic terms, but not to the extent that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants aren't still braving the straits of Gib in an effort to get here. As far as 'falling', to use your terminology, what does that mean exactly? Until the crash of 2008 the idea that Spain was somehow a failing nation was frankly laughable. It enjoyed one of the best quality of life standards in the world, considerably higher than Canada, the US, the UK or Japan, according to the EIU Quality of Life Index. Even now, amongst the economic pessimism, it is in 28th place out of 111 countries surveyed, just one place behind the UK and 12 behind the US.

It is perhaps, the pound-for-pound pre-eminent sporting nation in the world - in recent years it has won the World Championships in football, basketball, handball, waterpolo, Formula 1, Moto GP, Taekwondo, Kayaking. It is by far the most successful tennis-playing, motorcycling and road cycling nation.

Culturally Spain remains a powerhouse. Its artists, musicians, film-makers and performers shine on a worldwide stage. It has some of the world's greatest chefs, restaurants and wine-makers and attracts 60 million tourists every year. It has a low mortality rate and a very low infant mortality rate. It has a murder rate lower than any other comparable nation with the exception of Japan. It has a below average 13% obesity problem against 14% for Canada, 23% for the UK and 30% for the US. It is 4th in the world for life expectancy (tying with Canada) against the UK's 27th and the US's 33rd. It has well below average crime stats and numbers of prisoners incarcerated.

Perhaps you're going to claim that none of these things are relevant. I do hope so! Could I ask you in advance to be able to use such a comment in my sig line?

Tell me, in what way would you like to assess Spain's great failures? Let me start you off with the unemployment rate which, although ridiculously inflated by the flood of people from the private sector into the black economy, is horrifically high. I'll give you that one. Now....what next?

 

[Andalublue]

For example, we invaded Iraq, threw out its existing leaders, built a bunch of infrastructure, whipped a little democracy on them, and almost completely withdrew.

You forgot the bit about leaving it with no civic infrastructure, but with a Balkanised political framework that's ready to fall apart, the highest murder rate in the world, inter-communal mistrust almost at the point of explosion and poof! You're gone. Saddam was good for virtually nothing at all, except the avoidance of full-blown civil war. The jury's out on whether the US Axis intervention has achieved even that minor benefit.

 

[Gathomas88]

That kind of depends what you are judging on. Spain may well be on its uppers at present in economic terms, but not to the extent that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants aren't still braving the straits of Gib in an effort to get here. As far as 'falling', to use your terminology, what does that mean exactly? Until the crash of 2008 the idea that Spain was somehow a failing nation was frankly laughable. It enjoyed one of the best quality of life standards in the world, considerably higher than Canada, the US, the UK or Japan, according to the EIU Quality of Life Index. Even now, amongst the economic pessimism, it is in 28th place out of 111 countries surveyed, just one place behind the UK and 12 behind the US.

It is perhaps, the pound-for-pound pre-eminent sporting nation in the world - in recent years it has won the World Championships in football, basketball, handball, waterpolo, Formula 1, Moto GP, Taekwondo, Kayaking. It is by far the most successful tennis-playing, motorcycling and road cycling nation.

Culturally Spain remains a powerhouse. Its artists, musicians, film-makers and performers shine on a worldwide stage. It has some of the world's greatest chefs, restaurants and wine-makers and attracts 60 million tourists every year. It has a low mortality rate and a very low infant mortality rate. It has a murder rate lower than any other comparable nation with the exception of Japan. It has a below average 13% obesity problem against 14% for Canada, 23% for the UK and 30% for the US. It is 4th in the world for life expectancy (tying with Canada) against the UK's 27th and the US's 33rd. It has well below average crime stats and numbers of prisoners incarcerated.

Perhaps you're going to claim that none of these things are relevant. I do hope so! Could I ask you in advance to be able to use such a comment in my sig line?

Tell me, in what way would you like to assess Spain's great failures? Let me start you off with the unemployment rate which, although ridiculously inflated by the flood of people from the private sector into the black economy, is horrifically high. I'll give you that one. Now....what next?

They spent basically the entire 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries being bitch slapped and repeatedly humiliated by nations like Britain, France, and even "Johnny come lately" powers such as the United States. They were invaded, occupied by foreign militaries, and had their government toppled more than once.

Until relatively recently, they were one of the poorest and least developed nations in all of Europe as well. Even now, they're only second or third rate, and struggling badly with today's economic crisis.

I dunno... This would all simply strike me as being kind of a pathetic state for a nation that once all but ruled the world. :roll:

Heh. Maybe I'm being overly critical. After all, they do have some decent chefs... and a low obesity rate. :lamo

In any case, I think it more or less goes without saying that holding Spain up as being any sort of example of what a post-imperial power should be is simply absurd. They're sort of a joke, and have been for centuries.

 

[Smeagol]

Guess What?

Right now the average bill passed in our congress is 600-1000 pages long filled with special gifts from our taxes to the biggest companies and special interests in the country. In the 30's, 40's and 50's the average bill was 30-50 pages long. Our entire political system has been taken over and is being run by professional lobbyists who walk the halls of the capitol building in $1000 Gucci shoes and $2500 suits. In the 40's 3% of our ex congressmen took a job as an influence peddler. Now 46% of ex house members move to K street and 50% of ex senators. What goes up must come down. Our empire is no different.

They own most of the press and all of the congress so what can we expect?

Corruption is an economy killer. After WWII I think it could be said Japan and The Philippines were on parity as economic powers. Japan rolled up its sleeves, went to work, had a zero corruption policy and became the second leading economic power in the world recently bumped down to third after China. The Philippines was corrupted by Ferdinand Marcos and although they had a somewhat modern capital, the rest of the country stayed in poverty. Mexico is right on the southern border of the United States, the world's leading industrial power. Huge advantages for trade and commerce. A better climate that most of the US benefiting year round agriculture as well as snow-bird tourism where the well to do often head south to places like Florida, Hawaii, Southern California and Arizona for the entire winter. A major oil producer. And all within driving distance of the US and they're pretty much a third-world country due to corruption as well as crime while Japan, an ocean away is one of the leading economies on earth. Nearly all of Africa has struggled with corruption and they're dirt poor despite have more natural resources than most places on earth.

 

[Penderyn]

Again:

• We have about 180 troops in Australia. Does that mean that the US has the same level of control, as Rome had over Egypt or Gaul?
• We have 45,000 troops in Germany. Does that mean the US has the same level of control, as England exerted over India?

Since you apparently haven't figured it out, the answer to these rhetorical questions is NO.

For example, we invaded Iraq, threw out its existing leaders, built a bunch of infrastructure, whipped a little democracy on them, and almost completely withdrew. Who got the oil? Not the US; most of the contracts went to China. Iraq has imposed very strict conditions and low margins, so Western companies passed.

Would the Romans have acted this way? Certainly not. They would have stayed permanently, perhaps put a puppet leader in charge, levied huge taxes on resources, and demanded the citizens worship the cult of the Emperor (regardless of any local religious beliefs). Individuals who protested would be crucified for sedition; uprisings would be tamped down by slaughtering citizens and razing cities to the ground.

The US does meddle, interfere, and engineer "regime changes" (covertly or via invasion) but almost never exert imperial control. In those few instances, it's often brief, e.g. Panama and the Philippines both became independent after a few decades. We usually step in, break a bunch of stuff, get rid of the Commies and leave.

Just how many troops did the UK have in the princely states in India? It is the whole nature of imperialism to find puppets if you can (as you did in Iraq and Afghanistan). The US totally controls the UK ('England' was last a political entity about three centuries ago - I wish someone would teach yanks history) rather than Germany, together with a whole list of other European states, as you know. What the US gets rid of - as did the Romans - is anyone who isn't bought up. Your description of Roman rule is melodramatic: as far as I can make out, it left us in Cymru freer to live our own lives than yours does.

 

[Visbek]

You forgot the bit about leaving it with no civic infrastructure....

The issue isn't "how much damage did the US do to Iraq."

The question is "did the US treat Iraq the same way Rome treated its foreign conquests." The answer is obviously "no, not even close."

 

[Visbek]

Just how many troops did the UK have in the princely states in India?

It's not about the number of troops -- which is why I listed two nations, one with a very small number, and another with a very large number.

Again, there should be absolutely no question that the US does not control either Australia, or Germany, or most of the other nations where it has troops in the same way Rome treated its foreign conquests like Gaul, Egypt or Judea.

The US totally controls the UK....

No, it really doesn't.

If the US exerted the same type of control over the UK as Rome had over its client states, the US would be selecting its leaders, exacting massive taxes, seizing locals as slaves, setting local laws and ordinances, controlling the currency, arresting and crucifying everyone who protested American actions or rule, and slaughtering entire cities if protests became organized.

The US is not commanding the UK to continue using the pound sterling; the US does not draft laws for Parliament to pass; the US does not have a say in who is or is not elected; the US does not decide how medical care is managed in the UK....

I.e. despite blips like Blair failing to restrain Bush, and going along with his war plans (for which he was thrown out of office, and Labour weakened), there should be no question that the UK is a sovereign nation.

Your description of Roman rule is melodramatic: as far as I can make out, it left us in Cymru freer to live our own lives than yours does.

No, it really isn't.

Read up on how Rome treated Judea. "Bandits" (who were really proto-rebels) and self-proclaimed messiahs were arrested and crucified for sedition. Herod was selected by Rome to rule Judea, and frequently relied on violence to keep things under wraps. When his sons failed to tamp down rebellion, Rome did away with a Jewish client state, and sent several governors -- each more corrupt and incompetent than the last. When Judea exploded into open revolt, the Romans slashed through numerous major cities, before assaulting Masada and Jerusalem.

With Jerusalem, they surrounded the city with another wall; anyone who tried to escape would be caught and crucified. The citizens were starving, and the Roman commanders could observe the chaos from the Mount of Olives. Rather than let them die off, Vespasian needed a Triumph (as he had just become Caesar), and the Romans laid siege. When they finally breached the walls, they slaughtered everyone they could find, set fires around the city, plundered and then completely destroyed the Second Temple -- the spiritual home and focus for Jews throughout the world.

And, of course, there's a few hundred years of vicious and violent persecution of Christians. After all, their program at first was to get rid of Roman rule; it took a long time for the teachings of a peasant firebrand to be transformed into one of peace, redemption and revelation.

This is not a "melodramatic" reading of events, it's a well-documented historical account. Dissent and independence were not coddled by the Caesars.

 

[Campbell]

It's not about the number of troops -- which is why I listed two nations, one with a very small number, and another with a very large number.

Again, there should be absolutely no question that the US does not control either Australia, or Germany, or most of the other nations where it has troops in the same way Rome treated its foreign conquests like Gaul, Egypt or Judea.



No, it really doesn't.

If the US exerted the same type of control over the UK as Rome had over its client states, the US would be selecting its leaders, exacting massive taxes, seizing locals as slaves, setting local laws and ordinances, controlling the currency, arresting and crucifying everyone who protested American actions or rule, and slaughtering entire cities if protests became organized.

The US is not commanding the UK to continue using the pound sterling; the US does not draft laws for Parliament to pass; the US does not have a say in who is or is not elected; the US does not decide how medical care is managed in the UK....

I.e. despite blips like Blair failing to restrain Bush, and going along with his war plans (for which he was thrown out of office, and Labour weakened), there should be no question that the UK is a sovereign nation.



No, it really isn't.

Read up on how Rome treated Judea. "Bandits" (who were really proto-rebels) and self-proclaimed messiahs were arrested and crucified for sedition. Herod was selected by Rome to rule Judea, and frequently relied on violence to keep things under wraps. When his sons failed to tamp down rebellion, Rome did away with a Jewish client state, and sent several governors -- each more corrupt and incompetent than the last. When Judea exploded into open revolt, the Romans slashed through numerous major cities, before assaulting Masada and Jerusalem.

With Jerusalem, they surrounded the city with another wall; anyone who tried to escape would be caught and crucified. The citizens were starving, and the Roman commanders could observe the chaos from the Mount of Olives. Rather than let them die off, Vespasian needed a Triumph (as he had just become Caesar), and the Romans laid siege. When they finally breached the walls, they slaughtered everyone they could find, set fires around the city, plundered and then completely destroyed the Second Temple -- the spiritual home and focus for Jews throughout the world.

And, of course, there's a few hundred years of vicious and violent persecution of Christians. After all, their program at first was to get rid of Roman rule; it took a long time for the teachings of a peasant firebrand to be transformed into one of peace, redemption and revelation.

This is not a "melodramatic" reading of events, it's a well-documented historical account. Dissent and independence were not coddled by the Caesars.

"And, of course, there's a few hundred years of vicious and violent persecution of Christians."

LMAO....Bush said he prayed before he invaded Iraq and besides that being a goddam lie he still killed an estimated 120,000-200,000 innocent Iraqis, wounded twice that many and caused 2 million to leave everything they had behind and flee to Syria and Jordon. It's takes a real set of balls to even mention Christianity in one of these "Winner Take All" discussions. I've read the new testament no less than ten times and the way this country has acted on the world stage during the last 12 years would be totally and completely against any of the main theme presented there:

"Walk The Extra Mile"
"Do Unto Others"
"If Sued In Court For Coat...Voluntarily Give Cloak Also"
"Love Thine Enemies"
"Care For The Poor"
"Be Ye Also Perfect...Even As The Father Is Perfect"

Anyone who dares even mention Christianity when speaking about the activities of this country during the last decade really needs a fresh dose of reality. We spend more on our war machine than the next thirteen most powerful countries combined.

 

[babilfish]

Guess What?

Right now the average bill passed in our congress is 600-1000 pages long filled with special gifts from our taxes to the biggest companies and special interests in the country. In the 30's, 40's and 50's the average bill was 30-50 pages long. Our entire political system has been taken over and is being run by professional lobbyists who walk the halls of the capitol building in $1000 Gucci shoes and $2500 suits. In the 40's 3% of our ex congressmen took a job as an influence peddler. Now 46% of ex house members move to K street and 50% of ex senators. What goes up must come down. Our empire is no different.

They own most of the press and all of the congress so what can we expect?

Despite the title of this thread, your post is curiously devoid of any references to the Roman Empire.

Certainly, I would have expected you to at least justify your statement that "The Cause Of The Fall Of The Roman Empire Was Political Corruption"...

 

[Campbell]

Despite the title of this thread, your post is curiously devoid of any references to the Roman Empire.

Certainly, I would have expected you to at least justify your statement that "The Cause Of The Fall Of The Roman Empire Was Political Corruption"...

Sound Familiar? We have troops in 170 countries and our defense budget is larger than the next thirteen most powerful nations combined.

Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard. The power of the Praetorian Guard, the elite soldiers who made up the bodyguard of the emperor, led to political corruption and grew to such an extent that this massive group of soldiers decided on whether an emperor should be disposed of and who should become the new emperor! The story of Sejanus, who was the commander of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of Tiberius, illustrates the extent of the power of the Praetorians. At one point the Praetorian Guard sold at auction the throne of the world to the highest bidder.

Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending. Constant warfare required heavy military spending. The Roman army became over-stretched and needed more and more soldiers. The barbarians, who had been conquered, and other foreign mercenaries were allowed to join the Roman army.

 

[Penderyn]

It's not about the number of troops -- which is why I listed two nations, one with a very small number, and another with a very large number.

Again, there should be absolutely no question that the US does not control either Australia, or Germany, or most of the other nations where it has troops in the same way Rome treated its foreign conquests like Gaul, Egypt or Judea.



No, it really doesn't.

If the US exerted the same type of control over the UK as Rome had over its client states, the US would be selecting its leaders, exacting massive taxes, seizing locals as slaves, setting local laws and ordinances, controlling the currency, arresting and crucifying everyone who protested American actions or rule, and slaughtering entire cities if protests became organized.

The US is not commanding the UK to continue using the pound sterling; the US does not draft laws for Parliament to pass; the US does not have a say in who is or is not elected; the US does not decide how medical care is managed in the UK....

I.e. despite blips like Blair failing to restrain Bush, and going along with his war plans (for which he was thrown out of office, and Labour weakened), there should be no question that the UK is a sovereign nation.



No, it really isn't.

Read up on how Rome treated Judea. "Bandits" (who were really proto-rebels) and self-proclaimed messiahs were arrested and crucified for sedition. Herod was selected by Rome to rule Judea, and frequently relied on violence to keep things under wraps. When his sons failed to tamp down rebellion, Rome did away with a Jewish client state, and sent several governors -- each more corrupt and incompetent than the last. When Judea exploded into open revolt, the Romans slashed through numerous major cities, before assaulting Masada and Jerusalem.

With Jerusalem, they surrounded the city with another wall; anyone who tried to escape would be caught and crucified. The citizens were starving, and the Roman commanders could observe the chaos from the Mount of Olives. Rather than let them die off, Vespasian needed a Triumph (as he had just become Caesar), and the Romans laid siege. When they finally breached the walls, they slaughtered everyone they could find, set fires around the city, plundered and then completely destroyed the Second Temple -- the spiritual home and focus for Jews throughout the world.

And, of course, there's a few hundred years of vicious and violent persecution of Christians. After all, their program at first was to get rid of Roman rule; it took a long time for the teachings of a peasant firebrand to be transformed into one of peace, redemption and revelation.

This is not a "melodramatic" reading of events, it's a well-documented historical account. Dissent and independence were not coddled by the Caesars.

You think dissent and independence are coddled by your occupation forces and spies? And I don't live in Palestine, and as far as I know none of my ancestors lived in Judea. On all the evidence I have, life under them was better than anything we experienced later except for the period between kicking them out in 410 and the coming of the Normans in 1090.

 

[Campbell]

You think dissent and independence are coddled by your occupation forces and spies? And I don't live in Palestine, and as far as I know none of my ancestors lived in Judea. On all the evidence I have, life under them was better than anything we experienced later except for the period between kicking them out in 410 and the coming of the Normans in 1090.

They think times were better before electricity, indoor plumbing and the space program? Those folks didn't even have tissue to wipe their asses.

 

[Penderyn]

They think times were better before electricity, indoor plumbing and the space program? Those folks didn't even have tissue to wipe their asses.

Lend me your face, if you mean 'arse' rather than 'donkey'. Rich Romans had excellent indoor plumbing, incidentally, and had crucifixion instead of electric chairs.

 

[Campbell]

Lend me your face, if you mean 'arse' rather than 'donkey'. Rich Romans had excellent indoor plumbing, incidentally, and had crucifixion instead of electric chairs.

Hell that ain't nutthin'........they had castrated Eunuchs to guard their harems. They would select the biggest, heaviest, best built male citizens, cut off their total package(dick, scrotum and balls), march them miles through the desert and the ones who lived were trusted with their women.......you know.......kinda like the Republicans try to do to their political enemies today.

 

[babilfish]

Sound Familiar? We have troops in 170 countries and our defense budget is larger than the next thirteen most powerful nations combined.

Frightening, really.

Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard

Ah, here we go.

One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard. The power of the Praetorian Guard, the elite soldiers who made up the bodyguard of the emperor, led to political corruption and grew to such an extent that this massive group of soldiers decided on whether an emperor should be disposed of and who should become the new emperor! The story of Sejanus, who was the commander of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of Tiberius, illustrates the extent of the power of the Praetorians. At one point the Praetorian Guard sold at auction the throne of the world to the highest bidder.

...And what parallel are we supposed to draw from this? Unless you mean to imply the military picked our current President?

Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending. Constant warfare required heavy military spending. The Roman army became over-stretched and needed more and more soldiers. The barbarians, who had been conquered, and other foreign mercenaries were allowed to join the Roman army.

...I guess we should be more worried about the two wars we've ended/are in the process ending?

 

[Penderyn]

Hell that ain't nutthin'........they had castrated Eunuchs to guard their harems. They would select the biggest, heaviest, best built male citizens, cut off their total package(dick, scrotum and balls), march them miles through the desert and the ones who lived were trusted with their women.......you know.......kinda like the Republicans try to do to their political enemies today.

In Constantinople, perhaps. After our time with Romans. I thought the Republicans had all had the operation anyway?

 

[Campbell]

Frightening, really.



Ah, here we go.



...And what parallel are we supposed to draw from this? Unless you mean to imply the military picked our current President?



...I guess we should be more worried about the two wars we've ended/are in the process ending?

LMAO!!! Republicans just don't get it. One good thing...they're beginning to pay the price at the polls.

 

[babilfish]

Republicans just don't get it.

So no intelligent reply, then? Okay.