Modern-day U.S. = Roman Empire circa AD 100?

[dfitzo53]

I agree with this assessment, and I would add that another thing that makes America truly unique is our high level of immigration. There has never been a major power where essentially the entire population migrated from elsewhere basically since the nation's birth. Our strength is in the fact that rather than taking over territory and trying to assimilate people into our empire, we welcome people into our territory who can assimilate within our culture much more easily than the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire. In this way, we get the renewed vigor of an expanding empire without all the administrative problems of rebellious provinces.

This is a very astute point. Although there are varying degrees of commitment and patriotism from the American public, no one is forced to be an American against their will. People come here because they want to.

To be fair though, many of the great empires in history, such as the Roman Empire in its heyday and the Persian Empire under Darius and Xerxes weren't bad places to live. People assimilated fairly easily in a sense because they were allowed to keep their local customs and religion, and persecution was generally low. As far as the average Joe was concerned, the only difference was that the governor was now Persian instead of Turkish. Life went on much as it always had. (There were exceptions, as with uprisings in Jewish territories, where they refused to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a god.)

The main difference is that inhabitants of those territories never considered themselves to be Roman. They were from Lugdunum, Gades, Carthage, Antioch, Constantinople or Athens, not the Roman Empire. We all consider ourselves to be Americans, not Germans, Slavs, Chinese or Balinese. (Although we used to call ourselves Virginians, Georgians or the like in the early days of the Union rather than Americans.)

DjTj, it's entirely likely that we said the same thing and I agree with you. I'm just adding my two cents.

While I disagreed with the premise on which the thread was based, it has turned out to be a particularly interesting discussion. Kudos to all.

[Raub]

I really think it's the opposite. The Roman Empire didn't fall because it was dependent on other nations. Its mistake was becoming too insular and too complacent. If we do the same thing and turn away from the international market, we will end up just like the Romans.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. One of the reasons Rome fell is because it became harder and harder to distinguish between the Romans and the barbarians. The Romans increasingly relied on conquered peoples to provide its military might and defense. When these peoples decided they didn't want to play nice anymore, the Romans had no recourse. They had lost the capability to effectively defend themselves.

In much the same way, we are increasingly relying on other countries for the material goods and finances we need to support our country. What happens when these countries no longer want to play nice? Will we have the capability to overcome it?

[DjTj]

I'm going to have to disagree with this. One of the reasons Rome fell is because it became harder and harder to distinguish between the Romans and the barbarians. The Romans increasingly relied on conquered peoples to provide its military might and defense. When these peoples decided they didn't want to play nice anymore, the Romans had no recourse. They had lost the capability to effectively defend themselves.

In much the same way, we are increasingly relying on other countries for the material goods and finances we need to support our country. What happens when these countries no longer want to play nice? Will we have the capability to overcome it?

There's a big difference between conscripted armies and trade.

The Romans themselves traded with Northern Europe, Arabia, and the Far East - territories that they would never conquer. This trade didn't occur because other civilizations were "playing nice" - it occurred because the Romans had something that they wanted.

The United States doesn't trade with other countries right now to "play nice" - we do it because it makes money on both sides. If other countries stop providing us with goods, they too will suffer.

Rome didn't fall because foreign powers stopped trading with them; they lost control of their own territories and their own armies. If the United States starts hiring foreigners to serve in our army or if we start colonizing far-flung territories, we will run into the same kinds of problems. However, we have thus far been perhaps better than any nation in history at operating a citizen army and, at least in the past half-century, have been averse to creating a colonial empire.

[Raub]

The Romans didn't just conscript, they also hired foreigners to fight their battles. When the Roman money or promises weren't adequate anymore, these hired armies turned on the Romans and that was that.

In the same way, we are "hiring" other countries to do our manufacturing for us and provide funds for us. Sooner or later whatever we trade for these goods is no longer going to be enough for these countries and we'll have a problem on our hands.

It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. Obviously military composition and trade are two different animals.

[Dallsux]

The first thing that popped into my head when I read this is that it will more likely be "Presented by Microsoft.....the USA!!"

Which will be owned & operated by AOL. :puke:

[Thanos]

Raub,

What spurs most wars in the past? Commerce and trade.Europe fought over trade routes for centuires.The next big war will be fought over resources such as water and oil.I've read that there has been some fighting already over Nile River water rights in Africa.

To be honest I view the European Union as a modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire than the US.Alot of smaller nations/states under one monetary and governmental system with little in common.

America like Rome will eventually have to deal with what is "Americaness" , if there is such a word.Let's jump to the year 2060 when California ,Texas and maybe Florida have majority/minority populations.Will that shift in population create a rift with the more homogenized areas of the country?

[Dallsux]

It's all about complacency in my opinion. We become "fat and happy" and all of our efforts are refocused on keeping what we have rather than pushing the limits, economically. It's human nature, but I believe this is at the root of why all dominant societies are eventually doomed to fail.

I can agree with this line of thinking. Complacency, I believe will be our greatest downfall. That's how we fell victim on 9/11. We became complacent with our world. I still believe that we are complacent people, even after that. I have no doubt that we will fall into that same trap again, one way or another.

[dfitzo53]

Raub,

What spurs most wars in the past? Commerce and trade.Europe fought over trade routes for centuires.The next big war will be fought over resources such as water and oil.I've read that there has been some fighting already over Nile River water rights in Africa.

To be honest I view the European Union as a modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire than the US.Alot of smaller nations/states under one monetary and governmental system with little in common.

America like Rome will eventually have to deal with what is "Americaness" , if there is such a word.Let's jump to the year 2060 when California ,Texas and maybe Florida have majority/minority populations.Will that shift in population create a rift with the more homogenized areas of the country?

Fifty years into the future is a reasonably long way. I expect to see some of the immigrant populations dispersing across the country just as African Americans have done since the end of slavery. In all likelihood they will continue to be concentrated in the areas you mentioned, but I don't think it would really cause a rift. States have always had differences in interest due to demographics or economic bases.

On the other hand, if a hispanic majority were elected to the legislature in Texas and they seceded to join Mexico, we might have a problem.

[DjTj]

America like Rome will eventually have to deal with what is "Americaness" , if there is such a word.Let's jump to the year 2060 when California ,Texas and maybe Florida have majority/minority populations.Will that shift in population create a rift with the more homogenized areas of the country?

Unless there is a mass exodus of white people from those areas, I can't see this happenning ... the United States went through a similar problem during the Civil War, but the South was a much more cohesive geographic and cultural unit. California and Texas disagree on just about everything, so I can't really see them deciding to secede together.

On the other hand, if a hispanic majority were elected to the legislature in Texas and they seceded to join Mexico, we might have a problem.

Luckily, Texas and California are full of Mexicans that wanted to get the heck out of Mexico. Voting to join Mexico again is probably the last thing they would do.

...as we agreed on earlier, one thing that really distinguishes the United States from Rome or previous empires is that the people that are here for the most part chose to be here.

[dfitzo53]

Luckily, Texas and California are full of Mexicans that wanted to get the heck out of Mexico. Voting to join Mexico again is probably the last thing they would do.

...as we agreed on earlier, one thing that really distinguishes the United States from Rome or previous empires is that the people that are here for the most part chose to be here.

Oh, I know. The serious part of my post was the first paragraph.

[LD0506]

I think we may just have to offer the "What if?" thread as a regular feature. Between this one and the one on attacking Germany in 1930 there has been some serious highlevel blue sky BS been flung around here, and I like it! These kind of conversations that begin and wander around wherever they find themselves sure make for entertaining reading. :applause: Nice job to all feeding the debate! Some people have been doing an outstanding job knocking the rust off their memories of history class.

Here's a thought, what if we DON'T decline and fall? Where do we end up in 50 years if say, sustainable fusion ends energy problems? America recommits to space and the attendant industries reinvigorate the nation? It's not necessarily written in stone that we are going to take a big historical pratfall.

[Raub]

If the United States made an all-out effort to find a sustainable alternative energy source and succeeded, this whole conversation would have to be postponed. That would be an event that would change the course of history for sure. If we were no longer dependent on others for energy and had another source of energy to use as a cash cow, things would change in a hurry.

[DjTj]

If the United States made an all-out effort to find a sustainable alternative energy source and succeeded, this whole conversation would have to be postponed. That would be an event that would change the course of history for sure. If we were no longer dependent on others for energy and had another source of energy to use as a cash cow, things would change in a hurry.

What does that have to do with Rome? No empire in history was ever successful by being completely insular and independent of the rest of the world ... empires are built and sustained by reaping the benefits of the world, not by shutting them out.

I think our situation with resources and trade is fundamentally different from the Roman Empire or even the more recent European colonial empires. Although we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil, we are not dependent on military force to acquire it. Where the Romans conquered more territory to provide more farmland, minerals, and labor to fund their lifestyle in Rome, the United States is merely trading with other nations to acquire our goods. We are not an "empire" in the classical sense because we don't acquire our goods through imperialism - we act through the marketplace.

What that means is that our economy continues to produce enough money to purchase goods from other countries, which is a perfectly sustainable and dynamic arrangement. We don't need to send out our armies to acquire more oil; we can simply sell more computers and Big Macs and use that money to purchase our oil. If oil becomes more expensive, we will then move towards alternative energy sources, which is what we're doing right now.

The empires of the past ran into problems because they expended too much effort seeking precisely the kind of economic independence you advocate. They wanted the silk in China or the gold in South America or the fertile land in the Nile delta, so they kept conquering more and more territory to become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, they were then stuck trying to govern colonies and manage armies that weren't necessarily friendly towards the imperial power. The United States since World War II has resisted this temptation, and as long as we remain comfortable within our borders while enjoying the benefits of the world through trade and immigration, I think we will be just fine.

[Jizmaglobin]

i had a college class where we debated the similarities and the differences and we found there were many likenesses between the two.we concluded that once again social evolution would eventually replace an over-powerful government.

[LD0506]

If the United States made an all-out effort to find a sustainable alternative energy source and succeeded, this whole conversation would have to be postponed. That would be an event that would change the course of history for sure. If we were no longer dependent on others for energy and had another source of energy to use as a cash cow, things would change in a hurry.

The worst part of this is that there are just such options available now without positing some kind of Star Trek tech. Several have proposed over the years building very large fixed turbine systems to be placed in and driven by the coriolis currents, ie. Gulf Stream, Japanese current. It's stronger and steadier than wind, non-polluting, and doable with our current level of tech-savvy. Say you have five turning 24/7 to do nothing but generate electricity to crack water for hydrogen. It doesn't even matter about the energy input/output ratios, it's virtually free once the infrastructure is in place. You get a substantial % of cars running on hydrogen and you start to put a dent in the bigger problems.

Scientists have been working on superconductors and are getting closer, a LOT closer to figuring them out. Make a serious push funded by a govt. cooperative and crack that, almost instantly you regain a huge amount of electricity that is lost in transit. You get magnets that increase the efficiency of motors by an order of magnitude. Electric cars get a lot closer, window fans have a motor the size of a D battery, we get a huge range of efficiencies without even addressing malleability/ wire production issues.

There are geothermal options and temperature differential devices (ie the Stirling engine) exploiting the Carnot cycle that could be used on a large scale to produce usable energy, again electricity and/or hydrogen. It goes on and on.

The problem seems to be the will on a national or international level to make these things a priority. I know I keep harping on that but look what was done with what we would today consider a crude level of technology when the US got a bug up its a** about the Russians and declared that we would go to the moon.

[Raub]

I always like to use the Manhattan Project as an example of what the country is capable of when it throws everything it has at a problem. I'm positive that if the government put its full weight behind an alternative energy project like this the solution would be a few short years away.

I know that's off the topic, but it does address one of our weaknesses.

[LD0506]

I always like to use the Manhattan Project as an example of what the country is capable of when it throws everything it has at a problem. I'm positive that if the government put its full weight behind an alternative energy project like this the solution would be a few short years away.

I know that's off the topic, but it does address one of our weaknesses.

I don't think it's off topic at all, it directly bears on the question of do we decline and fall or see our way to another alternative. We have historical hindsight going for us if we are willing to use it and make ourr own destiny by acting instead of just letting history dictate to us.

[spm]

Every great western world power since 500 AD has compared themselves to Rome, so it's nothing new to compare the US. However, I think we are different, mainly because of globalization. We'll gradually lose worldwide influence, but still have a strong economy tied to the rest of the industrialized world. We're not destined for decline and fall; we're more likely to settle into a role as the most important country in the Americas; as such we'll have an influential hand in deciding the world order but we'll have to listen to other countries much more than in the past.

[CounterTrey]

I think the US would kick the living **** out of the Roman empire. We gots aircraft carriers and whatnot.

Nest time pls think before you impart on the rest of us your supreme knoweldge..Seriosuly if I read posts like this all day, I can feel myself getting dumber.

[dfitzo53]

Nest time pls think before you impart on the rest of us your supreme knoweldge..Seriosuly if I read posts like this all day, I can feel myself getting dumber.

Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you have it surgically removed?

[LD0506]

Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you have it surgically removed?

Maybe he just had it slowly and painfully ground away here in the Tailgate...... I could see it happening

[PleaseBlitz]

Nest time pls think before you impart on the rest of us your supreme knoweldge..Seriosuly if I read posts like this all day, I can feel myself getting dumber.

Obviously you getting dumber has been going on long before you got to my post. Learn to take a joke.

[jbooma]

The US will be around for a long, long, long, long time. We have already been through a war that could have torn us a apart (cival war) but did not. You mention immigrants, however that is the strength of this country without the massive immigrans moving into the US in the 20's to 40's we would not be where we are now.

Rome failed because they were so set in their cause and led by curruption. Yes some of our congressmen and senate may be currupt but that is not the majority. We are an open country and always aware of what our enemies are doing. Unless a insane leader were to take over the us like a hitler this country will never have to worry. The election process is built so that can never happen though.

The one thing we have benefited from for many years is the fact we are surrounded by water on both sides and it would be incredibly hard for any nation to ever take us over, I would say impossible.

[dfitzo53]

Rome failed because they were so set in their cause and led by curruption. Yes some of our congressmen and senate may be currupt but that is not the majority. We are an open country and always aware of what our enemies are doing. Unless a insane leader were to take over the us like a hitler this country will never have to worry. The election process is built so that can never happen though.

The one thing we have benefited from for many years is the fact we are surrounded by water on both sides and it would be incredibly hard for any nation to ever take us over, I would say impossible.

How do you mean the election process is structured to prevent a fanatical leader? I would think that would lie more with the system of checks and balances.

[jbooma]

How do you mean the election process is structured to prevent a fanatical leader? I would think that would lie more with the system of checks and balances.

The electoral college can go against the vote if they feel the person is a fanatical type, like Hitler.