Parallels between the US and Rome?

[OSUViking 505]

I'll star this out by saying that I used to be a firm believer that the US would not end up like the great Roman Empire. However, I recently read an article that compared the gradual fall of Rome to what lies ahead of the United States.

 

Here is the article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/obama-two-front-war-rome-110779.html

 

 

 

Forr many years, the world’s greatest power faced two grave external threats: from irregular groups of non-state actors and from large, newly empowered, rising states that wanted to displace it. Massive amounts of national treasure were expended on military operations ranging from tactical raids to full-scale war. Negotiation alternated with conflict, thousands of troops were deployed permanently abroad and allied states were built up as a buffer against both threats. But in the end all this wasn’t enough: National exhaustion and a breakdown of political legitimacy led to the eventual collapse of the state. Why? Because it never fully realized that its security crisis was ultimately as much a domestic issue—a question of getting its politics in order—as it was an external one.

The power described above is not 21st century America, but rather ancient Rome. And today, nearly a decade and a half after the terror attacks of 9/11, the United States appears to be entering an environment analogous to the one in which Rome found itself. On the one hand, terrorism is more dangerous today than it was in 2001, with the Islamist non-state actors who practice it metastasizing around the Middle East and North Africa. On the other hand, great-power competition has re-emerged with the disruptive actions of Russia in Europe and China in East Asia, and a possibly a nuclear Iran in the Middle East. Just like Rome, America faces a two-front conflict to preserve its power and prestige—and as with Rome, these threats are not going away. They will last at least a generation, and most likely more.

 

This quote analyzes the possible similarities between the US and Rome. It starts out by listing why Rome fell: overreaching itself on its various military campaigns, succumbing to seemingly weaker and disorganized foes to its north, pressure from geopolitical foes, and the decay of its once revolutionary political system that caused it to rot from within. I'm going to state my own opinion on how each of these relates to the United States. I'll admit, I haven't actually finished the article yet, but reading through the first few portions of it made me think hard enough on whether I should rethink my stance on Rome-US comparisons.

 

1) Overextending itself: When I hear people say that eventually drones will replace infantry and are the weapons of the future, (if they are serious) I go through a explanation of why two things in the military will not be replaced for the forseable future: infantry and logistics. Logistics, in my opinion, are the bloodlines of a strong military, whereas the infantry are essentially the backbone. However, I'm going to focus on logistics.

 

It's undeniable that even compared to the warfare experienced in the mid 20th century, America's logistical might has progressed. Its arguably unmatched. The USN can project itself to any corner of the globe and even engage some fleets with daunting defensive firepower, such as Russia's or China's, potentially even Iran's. However, its ability to transport supplies is what stands out most when analyzing its ability to project itself. Although the war itself is controversial and also used as an example of how the United States is overreaching itself, the fact that our military has been able to sustain and supply a conflict in Afghanistan for over a decade speaks enough on behalf of our reach. While continued deployment and deploying into too many areas will certainly test the ability of our forces, I don't think the US is at risk of hitting that any time soon. We, as a military, are still more than capable of responding to a threat in Europe, Africa, South America, or East Asia just as we could to a threat in the Middle East.

 

2) Smaller enemies: I don't have as much to say about this one because I honestly have no clue how active terrorist cells are in the United States or if our border is as easy to penetrate for terrorists as people claim it is. However, I will say that I don't believe any cell to be capable of entering our country and ransacking our cities as the barbarian Germanic tribes did to Rome. I have a hard time believing that even if China somehow managed to make a landfall on the United States (which itself is very unlikely) that it would be able to ransack our cities. The United States has a very heavily armed population, let alone its National Guard which although uses older technology than the active military is still a potent and mobile defensive force. The US could certainly suffer damaging terrorist attacks in the future, but none so bad that it would be as crippling as the Barbaric Raids on Rome.

 

3) Geopolitical foes: The United States survived the Cold War. Its capable of surviving a resurgent Russia and a rising China. For starters, the Chinese and American economies are too connected at this point for either of them to want to consider aggressive policies towards each other without legitimate reason. However, a resurgent Russia might be a threat. That being said, while Russia is certainly stronger than it was ten years ago, I think its power play in the Ukraine has isolated it even further from Europe. Its stock market took a big hit when the Russian Army officially entered Eastern Ukraine. Russia is a force to be reckoned with in or around Russia. I'm a firm believer that Russia currently does not have the power projection needed to even be a threat to Western Europe. The US had made itself clear that any assault on a NATO nation is an assault on the US, so moving into places like the Baltic Countries seems ill-advised for an economy that has become increasingly fragile just supporting rebels in Ukraine. Russia is more of a threat than it used to be, but it won't be anywhere near the strength of the USSR during the Cold War for some time. Even if that time comes, the US can survive - even if that means it isn't as strong (relatively) as it was after the Cold War.

 

4) Political instability: This is what changed my perception of the similarities between Rome and the US. I've fallen out of my political activism from a few months ago, mostly because I haven't had time for anything given my preparation for college and now actual college. This is where I don't have much of an opinion. And this is where I'd like to generate the most discussion. The US political system is pathetic right now, but is it so bad that it rivals the system which brought Rome's downfall?

 

Again, all of the above is my opinion. You can refute it or agree with it. I just want to discuss this, because I think it's interesting to think about how our future might go. There's been a trend with global powers either falling or fading away into obscurity, but will the US face this fate?

Edited September 11, 2014 by OSUViking

[The Burfict Storm 39]

Yes, the United States is the new Roman Empire falling under the weight of its own excesses. Scary times….

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Problems with the political system:

 

• Representative government may be archaic with the new ability (via technology) for everyone to voice their opinion right from their home.

 

• This would go away if we had something other than representative gov't but just to piggy-back on it: Congressional term limits. That would seem like a good thing as someone can't just sit comfortably and do nothing or do wrong because they're there for awhile. But the problem is: campaigning. Most Congressmen/women spend most of their tenure fundraising and gearing up for their next election. So because of this they rarely have time to get shit done. People speak of Congress not doing anything and they're right but a huge part of the reason is because the system makes it to where their primary focus is to try to get re-elected, not get things done.

 

• Money in politics. Again, this would get rid of the second problem I listed as well. But this is the main root of why this system is in shambles. This is the root to why we only have a choice of two candidates (Rep. or Dem.) This is the root to why corporate interest and not the citizen's interests are number one. This is the biggest problem with our political system. Get money out of politics, and witness a revolution of the political system. Witness progress, real problems being addressed, etc. There is a huge growing voice of the population who understands this is the biggest problem of the political system. The hope is that it gets so loud that it can no longer be avoided for fear of massive dissent. Will this happen? Time will tell. But that should be the main goal of every single American citizen to play a part in it.

[Vin+ 3,121]

Overextension only applies if you can't, or don't have the ability to, get supplies to all areas of your region, which the Romans couldn't. We might have our fingers in a ton of pies, but I don't think we're anywhere close to the point of overextension.

 

 

Rome essentially collapsed from within. The barbarians at the gates were merely the tipping point. By the time of it's downfall, Rome didn't have the manpower to successfully uphold everything. Weak population coupled with a ton of weak rulers (In the case of the U.S., despite everyone's cries that every current president is the worst president ever, I don't think we've had a legitimately bad on in a long time) led to the collapse.

 

I know everyone likes to compare Rome and the U.S., but I just don't see it. So many things had to happen for Rome to collapse. And while it may be possible (anything's possible) for a collapse, I find it incredibly unlikely.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I don't like quoting long posts, but Campin, I agree with your assessment, and the idea about the digital age giving birth to self-representation is a fascinating one. Also, our current system has several other issues, in my opinion:

 

• All the voting structures favor a two-party system, which has become counterproductive.
• Gerrymandering means Congressional districts are all kinds of messed up.
• The Electoral College.

Edit: I just realized this post has no direct corelation to Rome and is therefore off-topic, so let me say I think there are a lot of parallels between the two, sometimes to a scary extent. Some comparisons, however, don't really make sense because of the different eras, as Vin pointed out.

Edited September 11, 2014 by SteVo

[OSUViking 505]

There's credence to talking about flaws in Americas political system given political instability is one of the topics I mentioned.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

4) Political instability: This is what changed my perception of the similarities between Rome and the US. I've fallen out of my political activism from a few months ago, mostly because I haven't had time for anything given my preparation for college and now actual college. This is where I don't have much of an opinion. And this is where I'd like to generate the most discussion. The US political system is pathetic right now, but is it so bad that it rivals the system which brought Rome's downfall?

 

Yeah this is why I only focused on the political system. But I didn't equate it to Rome because honestly I don't have enough knowledge of Rome's political system during their reign nor downfall so I just left that alone.

[OSUViking 505]

Now that I have a computer. I'd like to say that electronic based self-representation seems risky. The US Govt can't even protect its best kept military secrets from hackers anymore, so there's no telling what people could do with voting that's on a network like that. Then, we have to factor in the volume of votes coming in (that is, unless you set times for specific areas to vote). People are also generally uneducated when it comes to politics, which is a reason why we are so fucked right now.

 

 

Isn't there a constitutional amendment going through that tries to ban corporations from political speech (i.e. giving funds to parties or politicians)? I remember reading about it when Ted Cruz said it posed a risk to things like SNL, because that involves a private organization engaging in political expression.

 

I do think that either negating or overturning the SCOTUS decision that says that corporations have the same rights as people is necessary as a step to fixing how much money affects our system.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I'll add more this weekend if I have time, but to add to what VIn said: The nature of the US economy and the Fed in conjunction with a global economy puts the US in a position unique to Rome. It would be incredibly difficult for anyone or anything to inflict an event so devastating that it triggered the downfall of the US. And should that happen, economies, currencies, and trade are so intricately linked globally that you're looking at the collapse of just about every developed and developing nation.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Now that I have a computer. I'd like to say that electronic based self-representation seems risky. The US Govt can't even protect its best kept military secrets from hackers anymore, so there's no telling what people could do with voting that's on a network like that. Then, we have to factor in the volume of votes coming in (that is, unless you set times for specific areas to vote). People are also generally uneducated when it comes to politics, which is a reason why we are so fucked right now.

 

 

Isn't there a constitutional amendment going through that tries to ban corporations from political speech (i.e. giving funds to parties or politicians)? I remember reading about it when Ted Cruz said it posed a risk to things like SNL, because that involves a private organization engaging in political expression.

 

I do think that either negating or overturning the SCOTUS decision that says that corporations have the same rights as people is necessary as a step to fixing how much money affects our system.

 

Yeah I've thought about the hacking/manipulation factor too. Wasn't necessarily recommending that, I was just using that to keep stacking up to how if you take money out of politics those problems wouldn't exist anymore. That's why I kept saying, "and again, piggy backing off of.." etc.

 

Agreed, in regards to the rest of your post

 

I'll add more this weekend if I have time, but to add to what VIn said: The nature of the US economy and the Fed in conjunction with a global economy puts the US in a position unique to Rome. It would be incredibly difficult for anyone or anything to inflict an event so devastating that it triggered the downfall of the US. And should that happen, economies, currencies, and trade are so intricately linked globally that you're looking at the collapse of just about every developed and developing nation.

 

Yep. The fear is though that countries stop using the US Dollar in trade. We've seen rumbles about that a lot the past few years or so.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

It seems to me most of those rumblings come from those who want the US to go back to the gold standard (It's also a funny irony that the leads of this movement all invest heavily in gold and thus stand to profit in a big way should the world go back to the gold standard). These groups often try to make the argument that any country would have a good reason to abandon the US dollar when careful examination suggests everything to the contrary, but I digress...

 

There are a million reasons the Roman empire was destined for failure politically and economically. I've never really understood these comparisons of the US to Rome, although I guess it's much easier to draw broad similarities between the two than explain what makes them so different and virtually incomparable.