• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
 
Last edited:
We could elect good, honest men and women to represent us and reject the culture of cronyism and kickbacks that is destroying our system.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...
 
Na what's scary is that they have a what low 20's approval rateing? If that?
Which means that around 80% or higher of people DO NOT like the job there political representives do. But a good most of them will be relected anyway.
 
Na what's scary is that they have a what low 20's approval rateing? If that?
Which means that around 80% or higher of people DO NOT like the job there political representives do. But a good most of them will be relected anyway.

That in essence describes the problem. When folks vote they vote their own back into office because they bring "pork" back to projects in their state. The assholes are the 500 who represent the other 49 states. As long as that continues kiss the old America goodbye.

The last thing we can expect is for anyone to condemn their own. Red states send red pricks back to Washington and Blue states send Blue assholes back. I don't think the concept is new, just one helluva lot more money. Here's something Will Rogers said 80 years ago:

"Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat nowadays."
 
Last edited:
Na what's scary is that they have a what low 20's approval rateing? If that?
Which means that around 80% or higher of people DO NOT like the job there political representives do. But a good most of them will be relected anyway.

It's not my elected officials that are the problem, it is the one's others elect. There seems to be a lot of that kind of attitude and many, I would say almost all, don't even know what their elected officials actually do or what they voted on. I certainly don't know all of it, although I have occasionally looked at the voting record and what some bills say.

My Reb in the House, I would replace if someone decent would run against him. But I'm not voting for someone who is totally against my beliefs just to get rid of him.
My Senators, I don't really have too many complaints with at the moment. Will have to see who runs against Cornyn next year, but anyone left of a moderate Dem, and probably not even a Dem at all at that level, will get my vote.
 
One of the key reasons for the fall of the real Roman Empire is that they committed themselves to spend far too much on the armed forces, who got first pick at all the money and gradually reduced the number of soldiers, hiring foreigners to do much of the fighting.
 
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?

That's disappointing! I was hoping for a discussion on Gibbon, the Crusades, Byzantium and the Palaeologi, the Ottomans and Mehmet the Conqueror. What do we get? Grubby shenanigans in DC. Boo!
 
Guess What?
Guess what? Comparisons of the US to Rome have no real basis.

There are numerous theories about why Rome fell, few of which have any parallels to the much shorter-lived US. Which, by the way, isn't an empire.


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.
And for the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the average was around 15 pages. If it's gone up in the past few years, it's mostly because the Republicans have decided to grind the legislature to a halt.

By the way, the "1000 page bill" was Obamacare. That's not typical.


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.
That kind of influence has been around almost since day 1. It certainly wasn't any weaker in the early 20th century, and yet we somehow seem to survive.

It's also worth noting that populism constantly bubbles to the surface, and the government does often (though not always) bend to the will of the public.


The US doesn't hold a candle to Rome, at pretty much any point in its history, in terms of "letting the wealthy run roughshod over government." The Senate was composed exclusively of aristocrats (patricians) and men whose comparative wealth has no equivalent today. The Tribune was the voice of the plebians, and had a decent amount of power; but the role eroded over the years, and was essentially ended by Augustus (the second emperor).

And the fall of the Roman Empire, whatever its cause, was characterized by the losses of remote holdings throughout Europe and North Africa, a process that took a few hundred years and still left a very large empire in the East, which we now call "Byzantium."

So. Care to run that analysis past us again? ;)
 
That's disappointing! I was hoping for a discussion on Gibbon, the Crusades, Byzantium and the Palaeologi, the Ottomans and Mehmet the Conqueror. What do we get? Grubby shenanigans in DC. Boo!

Expectations....that's what the Republican party has. It's the only thing they have left. Add Fox News and you have a majority. The problem is that the majority doesn't vote for them while Fox viewers do.
 
Guess what? Comparisons of the US to Rome have no real basis.

There are numerous theories about why Rome fell, few of which have any parallels to the much shorter-lived US. Which, by the way, isn't an empire.



And for the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the average was around 15 pages. If it's gone up in the past few years, it's mostly because the Republicans have decided to grind the legislature to a halt.

By the way, the "1000 page bill" was Obamacare. That's not typical.



That kind of influence has been around almost since day 1. It certainly wasn't any weaker in the early 20th century, and yet we somehow seem to survive.

It's also worth noting that populism constantly bubbles to the surface, and the government does often (though not always) bend to the will of the public.


The US doesn't hold a candle to Rome, at pretty much any point in its history, in terms of "letting the wealthy run roughshod over government." The Senate was composed exclusively of aristocrats (patricians) and men whose comparative wealth has no equivalent today. The Tribune was the voice of the plebians, and had a decent amount of power; but the role eroded over the years, and was essentially ended by Augustus (the second emperor).

And the fall of the Roman Empire, whatever its cause, was characterized by the losses of remote holdings throughout Europe and North Africa, a process that took a few hundred years and still left a very large empire in the East, which we now call "Byzantium."

So. Care to run that analysis past us again? ;)

If the US isn't an Empire why does it spend such incredible sums on arms and occupy so very, very many countries?
 
The fall of the Roman Empire can be largely attributed to the practice of storing wine in lead lined vats.
They found that even a bad vintage could be made to taste sweet when stored in lead. Lead oxide has a sweet taste to it.
Lead poisoning brings on brain damage, irritability, memory loss, mood disorders and loss of cognitive skills.
Many contend that the Romans poisoned their minds with excesses when in fact they poisoned their minds with ... poison.
 
The fall of the Roman Empire can be largely attributed to the practice of storing wine in lead lined vats.
They found that even a bad vintage could be made to taste sweet when stored in lead. Lead oxide has a sweet taste to it.
Lead poisoning brings on brain damage, irritability, memory loss, mood disorders and loss of cognitive skills.
Many contend that the Romans poisoned their minds with excesses when in fact they poisoned their minds with ... poison.

Others say it was the pipes that brought in the water. As England has proved, however, a State can survive a long time with an imbecile aristocracy: it is the economic/social/military conditions that matter. Rome came to dominate because she had a professional army and collapsed for the same reason.
 
The Roman Empire fell primarily due to a combination of chronic political and economic instability weakening the foundations of classical civil society, declining populations and technological sophistication relative to Rome's "barbarian" neighbors making meaningful military supremacy over potential rivals difficult to maintain, and the pressure exerted by the Huns' western migration across the Eurasian steppes forcing every militarized tribe within a thousand miles to flee in the general direction of the Empire's borders.

Frankly, the scary thing here is that there are plenty of parallels to be made between the situation of the later Roman Empire and the modern West without needing to address congressional politics at all.

The "barbarians" are already more or less at our gates. :lol:
 
Last edited:
If the US isn't an Empire why does it spend such incredible sums on arms and occupy so very, very many countries?

Exactamento!

This country put companies and their high paid employees in Saudia Arabia in the 1930's. They've been there in number ever since. Add to that the invasions and slaughters which this country has been responsible for ever since and WTF!

Now all the benevolent Christians in this country have declared war on Muslims. I have an idea if armed troops had been strung out in nearly every one of the 50 states we might be a little pissed too. How would the "so called" Christians feel if foreign troops were all around us waiting for one of us to make a move they didn't agree with? We have troops in 170 countries and the last time anyone surrendered to us was 1945. Get Real Sport's Fans.
 
If the US isn't an Empire why does it spend such incredible sums on arms and occupy so very, very many countries?
We do have some imperialist tendencies. However, nothing the US does compares to Roman control of its provinces. E.g. post-WWII Britain, France, Italy and Germany were all US allies and sovereign nations; the Warsaw Pact nations were all thoroughly under the thumb of the USSR.

And which are these "very, very many" countries that the US occupies? Putting a small base on Okinawa hardly qualifies as "occupying" Japan.
 
Frankly, the scary thing here is that there are plenty of parallels to be made between the situation of the later Roman Empire and the modern West without needing to address congressional politics at all. The "barbarians" are already more or less at our gates.
And which "barbarians" are those? Which American territories abroad are being invaded repeatedly by these "barbarians?"

When the Vandals invaded North Africa, they choked off a major source of grain. Which modern-day vandals threaten the US food supply?

Do we see locals giving up on the art of politics, refusing to or losing the ability to communicate with Washington? Do we see Texans giving up on being American, and swearing loyalty to Mexico instead?

Is there an equivalent to the upheaval due to Rome's conversion to Christianity? Or should we ignore all claims that the strains of such a major cultural change like that placed on the empire?

Why isn't the parallel to Britain, which only recently lost its empire -- and has continued as an economic and cultural powerhouse anyway?

Will California become the New Byzantium? ;)

The only similarity here is in the minds of the declinists, who find it convenient to paint a dramatic narrative to suit their own ends. Seriously, we've been hearing this "the US is doomed!" stuff since the 1970s. The idea that the US is falling apart is practically an ancient belief by now. :mrgreen:
 
This country put companies and their high paid employees in Saudia Arabia in the 1930's.
There should be no question that however friendly the Saudis are to the US, Saudi Arabia is without question a sovereign nation that almost always does whatever it wants.

The US only put bases into SA during the first Gulf War, and they were pulled out in 2003. It's not like US troops were wandering around Medina.

Or do you genuinely believe that the US has total political control of Spain, equivalent to Roman control, because we have a single Navy base in Spain?
 
And which "barbarians" are those?

I can think of Latin America, India, East Asia, and the Middle East, to name just a few.

They are rapidly catching up to the old Western powers in terms of economic power and technology, and they already outpace us by a significant margin where population size is concerned.

None of this really bodes well for future Western power.

When the Vandals invaded North Africa, they choked off a major source of grain. Which modern-day vandals threaten the US food supply?

Countries like Iran already threaten our supplies of essential materials like crude oil, and China could very easily send Western economies reeling by denying us access to their manufacturing sector or financial investment.

Do we see locals giving up on the art of politics, refusing to or losing the ability to communicate with Washington? Do we see Texans giving up on being American, and swearing loyalty to Mexico instead?

Well... The current "leader of the free world" does just so happen to be a Muslim Kenyan. :mrgreen:

I keed! I keed! :lamo

In any case, I didn't say the Western world was collapsing per se. I simply said that there are a lot of similarities between the world of Late Antiquity and today. I don't think that this is necessarily a coincidence.

Is there an equivalent to the upheaval due to Rome's conversion to Christianity? Or should we ignore all claims that the strains of such a major cultural change like that placed on the empire?

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Christianity played a role in the decline of the Roman Empire. That argument is little more than a lot of bogus unsubstantiated conjecture that some quack of an historian happened to pull out of his rear end one day in the 19th Century and those with anti-Christian agendas have taken to blindly parroting even since.

However, if you do want to go that route, I would point out that the spread of Islam through much of Europe does bearing a certain similarity to the rise of Christianity several centuries earlier. ;)

Why isn't the parallel to Britain, which only recently lost its empire -- and has continued as an economic and cultural powerhouse anyway?

Meh... I basically consider Europe to be the Greece to the United States' Rome. Their glory days have come and gone, and now they basically live under the sphere of economic, political, and military protection we provide.

I don't really consider the UK, or any European nation, for that matter, to be that much of an "economic and cultural powerhouse" anymore either.

They're honestly more than a little pathetic in comparison to up and coming powers like China and India.

The only similarity here is in the minds of the declinists, who find it convenient to paint a dramatic narrative to suit their own ends. Seriously, we've been hearing this "the US is doomed!" stuff since the 1970s. The idea that the US is falling apart is practically an ancient belief by now. :mrgreen:

Frankly, the supposed "collapse" of the Roman Empire is a bit of a false "dramatic narrative" in and of itself. The Empire did not cease to exist simply because Rome itself fell.

It simply moved to the east, where it continued to steadily decline in power, influence, and global relevance until finally being put out its pathetic misery by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th Century almost one thousand years after the supposed "fall" of the Western empire.

I'm beginning to think more and more that this latter path might very well be the one the Western world is currently on.
 
Last edited:
We do have some imperialist tendencies. However, nothing the US does compares to Roman control of its provinces. E.g. post-WWII Britain, France, Italy and Germany were all US allies and sovereign nations; the Warsaw Pact nations were all thoroughly under the thumb of the USSR.

And which are these "very, very many" countries that the US occupies? Putting a small base on Okinawa hardly qualifies as "occupying" Japan.

Like I said...the last time anybody surrendered to us was 1945:



Year Total troops Overseas

1950 1,460,261 471,894
1953 3,555,067 1,216,688
1954 3,279,579 1,120,175
1955 2,930,863 927,851
1956 2,795,460 881,548
1957 2,758,069 927,537
1958 2,598,015 811,254
1959 2,492,449 708,618
1960 2,492,037 685,582
1961 2,552,912 705,109
1962 2,687,690 766,628
1963 2,695,240 731,045
1964 2,690,141 737,433
1965 2,723,800 832,364
1966 3,229,209 1,051,893
1967 3,411,931 1,228,538
1968 3,175,263 1,074,983
1969 3,132,766 1,041,094
1970 2,718,027 875,423
1971 2,392,412 682,672
1972 2,111,403 496,830
1973 2,006,926 456,242
1974 1,945,818 420,684
1975 1,901,661 407,287
1976 1,866,960 389,894
1977 2,074,543 459,385
1978 2,062,404 471,874
1979 2,027,494 458,424
1980 2,050,826 488,726
1981 2,082,897 501,832
1982 2,108,612 528,484
1983 2,123,349 519,517
1984 2,138,157 510,730
1985 2,151,032 515,367
1986 2,169,112 525,328
1987 2,174,217 523,702
1988 2,138,213 540,588
1989 2,130,229 509,873
1990 2,046,144 609,422
1991 1,986,259 447,572
1992 1,807,177 344,065
1993 1,705,103 308,020
1994 1,610,490 286,594
1995 1,518,224 238,064
1996 1,471,722 240,421
1997 1,438,562 227,258
1998 1,406,830 259,871
1999 1,385,703 252,763
2000 1,384,338 257,817
2001 1,385,116 254,788
2002 1,411,634 230,484
2003 1,434,377 435,766
2004 1,426,836 458,449
2005 1,389,394 503,097
2006 1,384,968 491,947
2007 1,379,551 538,743
2008 1,401,757 511,250
2009 1,418,542 493,293
2010 1,430,985 499,386
 
I can think of Latin America, India, East Asia, and the Middle East, to name just a few. They are rapidly catching up to the old Western powers in terms of economic power and technology, and they already outpace us by a significant margin where population size is concerned.
So, the world was a better place when the British ruled India, the Spaniards controlled South and Central America, and Europeans were carving up Africa and the Middle East for their own ends?

Is Mexico's declaration of independence equivalent to the Vandal seizure of North Africa?

Did the Romans have a multi-million-Solidus trade deficit with the Huns?

Does it make sense to compare a combination of the US, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany -- nations that only stopped fighting each other 70 years ago -- to the Roman Empire?


None of this really bodes well for future Western power.
Yes, I can see how rising economic prosperity, stronger sovereignty, improved education, and political freedoms in those nations would be a huge threat to the West.


Countries like Iran already threaten our supplies of essential materials like crude oil
1) "Our" supplies? As in what, the US has a trans-national right to all natural resources anywhere in the world?
2) Did you not notice how Iran hasn't been selling its oil to the US since the 1970s?


China could very easily send Western economies reeling by denying us access to their manufacturing sector or financial investment.
Sure, if they want to throw their own economy into a total tailspin. At this point, they need consumers as much as we need producers.


That argument is little more than a lot of bogus unsubstantiated conjecture that some quack of an historian happened to pull out of his rear end one day....
Or, it's an understanding that the adoption of Christianity was a major upheaval for the empire, which eliminated the cult of the Emperor, and undercut the basic structure of Roman society...


I don't really consider the UK, or any European nation, for that matter, to be that much of an "economic and cultural powerhouse" anymore either.
Germany = 4th largest GDP in the world
France = 5th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
UK = 7th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
Italy = 8th largest GDP

London rivals any city in the world as a financial center. The UK has a vibrant contemporary art scene, world-class theater, a huge music industry. Yes, clearly Europe has no international influence at all....

Maybe the proper takeaway is that a nation doesn't need to be "Top Dog" in order to wield influence, protect its citizens, procure necessary resources and maintain a national identity.

Or perhaps it's that there really aren't a lot of good parallels between the US / West today, and the enormously different Western Roman Empire.
 
Like I said...the last time anybody surrendered to us was 1945...
Troop numbers are down to 175,000. I.e. not sure of your source here.

Anyway. Again, having a small base doesn't mean that the US actually controls those nations. E.g. we have around 180 troops in Australia; does that mean they are not a sovereign nation, and under full control of the US?

Or, on the high side, we still have around 45,000 troops in Germany. Does that mean they are not a sovereign nation?

So again, I ask: What nations does the US currently "occupy?"
 
Exactamento!

This country put companies and their high paid employees in Saudia Arabia in the 1930's. They've been there in number ever since. Add to that the invasions and slaughters which this country has been responsible for ever since and WTF!

Now all the benevolent Christians in this country have declared war on Muslims. I have an idea if armed troops had been strung out in nearly every one of the 50 states we might be a little pissed too. How would the "so called" Christians feel if foreign troops were all around us waiting for one of us to make a move they didn't agree with? We have troops in 170 countries and the last time anyone surrendered to us was 1945. Get Real Sport's Fans.

we have all sorts of foreign troops on US ground right now.

through my career, i've trained with members of dozens of dozens of militaries from other countries.... my personal favorites were the German airmen stationed at Ft Bliss.... had great times with those hard chargers... the UAE guys were rather boring , though.

anyway, once again, your opinion is premised on false rhetoric.

yes, we have troops in 177 countries... of course, if you take out the troops who are stationed at embassies, that number dwindles to only a handful of countries, most of which we are there by invitation or consent... but meh, who care about accuracy and reality when wild yammerings and bufoonery is so much more fun.
 
So, the world was a better place when the British ruled India, the Spaniards controlled South and Central America, and Europeans were carving up Africa and the Middle East for their own ends?

For Westerners, absolutely.

Does it make sense to compare a combination of the US, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany --

I only said that there were similarities. Everything doesn't have to be a one for one match. :roll:

In any case, I'm comparing Classical Civilization as a whole with Western Civilization as a whole. Both rose out of relatively impoverished obscurity in order to become the undisputed centers of cultural influence, scholarly learning, economic prosperity, and military power in their respective eras.

For Classical Civilization, this rise began with the conquests of Alexander the Great, and culminated with the rule of the Roman Empire. For Western Civilization, it began with the European colonial conquests of the 15th through 19th centuries and seems to have reached its culmination with US global military, economic, and political hegemony.

In the end, Classical Civilization went into decay and was ultimately overturned and almost completely supplanted by the very cultures it had once ruled over with an iron fist.

It remains to be seen what will become of Western Civilization, though I would say that, current trends being what they are, our future prospects aren't exactly looking bright.

nations that only stopped fighting each other 70 years ago -- to the Roman Empire?

The Soviet Union, one of the largest and most powerful "empires" in human history by far, rose, hit it's golden age, and collapsed into oblivion in the span of less than seventy years.

What can I say? Things move faster in the modern era. :shrug:

Yes, I can see how rising economic prosperity, stronger sovereignty, improved education, and political freedoms in those nations would be a huge threat to the West.

Again, that's great... for them. It is not so great, however; for the Western World. It is especially bleak when you consider the fact that several of the nations which are currently set to supplant us just so happen to be holding grudges against the Western world held over from the Colonial and Cold War eras.

I don't doubt for a single moment that they'll all positively leap at the opportunity to "put us in our place" if the opportunity should present itself.

China would do it because they want to supplant us at the top. Russia would do it out of spite alone.

1) "Our" supplies? As in what, the US has a trans-national right to all natural resources anywhere in the world?

There are no thing as "rights" where the affairs of nations are concerned. Resources ultimately belong to whomever has the strength to claim them.

The Middle Eastern powers have a monopoly on the world's oil resources, and have attempted to lord this fact over the Western World in the past.

1973 OPEC Oil Embargo

It failed then, because the economies of the Middle Eastern powers were dependent upon oil exports, and they didn't really have anyone else to sell to who could match the demand of the Western World. Today, they wouldn't have this problem, as China and India both have oil demands that easily match or surpass those of Western nations.

Saddam Hussein tried the same tactic in the early 1990s, but that failed because he was facing the military might of a United States military that was just coming out of the Cold War.

Will the economically and politically crippled nation the United States is shaping up to be in the 21st Century be able to pull off the same feat should need arise? We'll see, but again, our chances aren't exactly looking great at the moment.

2) Did you not notice how Iran hasn't been selling its oil to the US since the 1970s?

Did you not notice how they basically have the ability to hold the global economy hostage by closing the Straight of Hormuz? :roll:

What do you think will happen if Iran even actually gets the nuclear weapons they're after? They'll be effectively untouchable.

They'll be able to do whatever they damn well please because no Western power will have the political courage necessary to risk a possible nuclear confrontation.

Sure, if they want to throw their own economy into a total tailspin. At this point, they need consumers as much as we need producers.

I think you might be surprised what the Chinese are willing to risk on a long term basis in order to accomplish their goals.

Or, it's an understanding that the adoption of Christianity was a major upheaval for the empire, which eliminated the cult of the Emperor, and undercut the basic structure of Roman society...

At best, it is a popular misconception.

Name a single concrete problem brought about by the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity. I dare you.

Germany = 4th largest GDP in the world
France = 5th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
UK = 7th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
Italy = 8th largest GDP

London rivals any city in the world as a financial center. The UK has a vibrant contemporary art scene, world-class theater, a huge music industry. Yes, clearly Europe has no international influence at all....

China has cities with greater populations than most countries.

China to create largest mega city in the world with 42 million people

They are planning on building several more.

Hell! They've got so much extra money and labor lying around that they literally build entire replicas of famous Western cities just for sh*ts and giggles.

China Tried To Build A City To Replicate Paris ... And Here's What It Looks Like Now

chinatower.jpg

Even more frightening, India is set to actually become more powerful than China in the long run.

India's Economic Miracle

Is India Surpassing China

I'm sorry, but in comparison to that, the UK, and really all of Europe, are petty much an insignificant speck on the geopolitical map.

Europe no longer has any real "power." It no longer has any real "influence." It is simply coasting off of the credibility granted by its past glories.

The sad truth of the matter is that kind of thing simply isn't going to last forever. Whatever value a person might happen to get out of a strong reputation is inevitably doomed to fade if they do not also have the ability to back it up with strong actions.

Maybe the proper takeaway is that a nation doesn't need to be "Top Dog" in order to wield influence, protect its citizens, procure necessary resources and maintain a national identity.

*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.

Or perhaps it's that there really aren't a lot of good parallels between the US / West today, and the enormously different Western Roman Empire.

To the contrary, I think there are plenty of comparisons to be made. You just have to know where to look for them.
 
Last edited:
So, the world was a better place when the British ruled India, the Spaniards controlled South and Central America, and Europeans were carving up Africa and the Middle East for their own ends?

Is Mexico's declaration of independence equivalent to the Vandal seizure of North Africa?

Did the Romans have a multi-million-Solidus trade deficit with the Huns?

Does it make sense to compare a combination of the US, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany -- nations that only stopped fighting each other 70 years ago -- to the Roman Empire?



Yes, I can see how rising economic prosperity, stronger sovereignty, improved education, and political freedoms in those nations would be a huge threat to the West.



1) "Our" supplies? As in what, the US has a trans-national right to all natural resources anywhere in the world?
2) Did you not notice how Iran hasn't been selling its oil to the US since the 1970s?



Sure, if they want to throw their own economy into a total tailspin. At this point, they need consumers as much as we need producers.



Or, it's an understanding that the adoption of Christianity was a major upheaval for the empire, which eliminated the cult of the Emperor, and undercut the basic structure of Roman society...



Germany = 4th largest GDP in the world
France = 5th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
UK = 7th largest GDP (and permanent member of the UN Security Council)
Italy = 8th largest GDP

London rivals any city in the world as a financial center. The UK has a vibrant contemporary art scene, world-class theater, a huge music industry. Yes, clearly Europe has no international influence at all....

Maybe the proper takeaway is that a nation doesn't need to be "Top Dog" in order to wield influence, protect its citizens, procure necessary resources and maintain a national identity.

Or perhaps it's that there really aren't a lot of good parallels between the US / West today, and the enormously different Western Roman Empire.

The U S has dominated. We are the only nation in the history of the world which has killed or injured over 200,000 people with two experimental bombs. We spend more on our war making capabilities than the next thirteen most powerful countries combined. I assure you the Roman Empire had nothing on us:

Hiroshima Nagasaki


Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
 
Last edited:
We do have some imperialist tendencies. However, nothing the US does compares to Roman control of its provinces. E.g. post-WWII Britain, France, Italy and Germany were all US allies and sovereign nations; the Warsaw Pact nations were all thoroughly under the thumb of the USSR.

And which are these "very, very many" countries that the US occupies? Putting a small base on Okinawa hardly qualifies as "occupying" Japan.


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