View Full Version : Is America the new Rome?
PanzerJaeger
10-04-2004, 06:40
They say history repeats itself, and after slogging through Rome, im wondering how true that is.
I hear america called the new rome every once in a while, but if you really think about it, connections can be made.
-America, like Rome, started off as a virgen republic, in a world hostile to that type of govt. Also like the romans, the USA threw off oppressive rulers with war.
-Americas eventual takeover of the west could be compared to Romes takover of italy.
-Just like with rome, leading Politician-Generals battled for control over the country.
-In this sceme, Europe is most definately Greece. Once the rulers of the world, but too fragmented to hold onto its power forever. Just like greece, Europe was divided into many states powerful enough to sustain themselves, and take over much of the world. Germany would be sparta, while France would be Athens... Military prowess vs "higher thinking" and democracy. Just like Greece as well, the major powers got greedy and weakened themselves greatly by attacking one another. Just like what the Romans did in greece, America stepped in and sorted Europe out, retaining behind the scenes power over the continent.
-Now russia could be seen as 2 different forces.. Carthage or Persia.. I would go with carthage, just because its a better comparison imo. America and Russia, just like rome and Carthage, battled for ultimate superpower status in the known world. And america, just like rome, prevailed in this struggle.
-Now we come to the modern day, which in my comparison would be the Pax Romana era. After fighting a string of wars, which catapulted Rome into the Superpower of the world, rome sought to keep the peace by punishing any who threatened the world order. It could be said that actions like Panama, Iraq 1 and 2, afghanistan, kosavo, ext. are the same kind of thing.
So here we are in a world with only one superpower and no contenders in sight. (some would say China, but their economy is too closely linked to that of america to give them the ability, or will to make a run at america.) Just like Greece, Europe pitches a fit about america, but with US troops stationed there, and no real collective will to abandon their cushy lifestyle and oppose America, they do nothing but talk. And with the quick and ruthless dismantling of the 4th largest army in the world in 1991, with only about 400 US casualties, most countries dont even bother spending much on a military.
American culture, economics, and ideaology are spreading. Just like with rome, there were those who opposed it violently, but it continued to spread nonetheless.
So are we in for a century or so of US domination, relative world peace, and a long lasting world order, or is my theory ridiculous?
Red Peasant
10-04-2004, 09:03
I found the following passage from the introduction to a recent publication (The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, 2004), very interesting. The author, an American scholar, was not discussing the US at all, yet it struck a deeply resonant chord as a description that could well be applied to the United States. Remember, that here the author is talking of the early to middle Roman republic, a timescale of some 400+ years if reckoned from the beginning of the republic in 509 BC, or c. 200 years if reckoned from the Punic War era to the beginning of the principate in 27 BC:
"The Romans were slow to annex extensive territories and to subject them to direct control; instead, Rome sought hegemony as a means of pursuing its actual goal: international stature and recognition [and, more importantly, the securing of commercial privileges and material resources]. Despite Rome's aggressive actions, the rhetoric of Roman imperialism, especially in the wake of the Second Punic War, tended to be couched in terms of self-defence and security. Its power was articulated by a series of expanding spheres of influence and areas of operation rather than defined by fixed frontiers of the sort that would be termed an 'empire' in a colonial or postcolonial sense.This gradual change is reflected in the Latin language. Provincia initially meant a sphere of operations assigned to a general and his army; only much later did it come to designate a foreign territory under direct Roman rule."
lancelot
10-04-2004, 11:28
The US has always wanted to be the new Rome, to further Panzer points on the start as a republic...look at many US buildings...all tall columns and triangle shape roofs-very Rome.
The have a senate and senators-also very Rome.
Thats all I can think of at the mo.
The_Emperor
10-04-2004, 13:09
If America is the new Rome, then we could say that the Barbarians have already knocked at the gates in dramatic style in 9/11...
But I do not think America is the new Rome, unlike Rome America is an Empire in denial and does not have the support to go out and conquer as much territory as Rome did by force of arms.
After all it was founded as a nation against all things linked to Empire.
Red Peasant
10-04-2004, 13:32
If you read my previous post you will see that it can be interpreted that Rome was also an empire "in denial" for a very long time. ~;)
Anyway, surely the massive continental expansion into the West by the US and the (very imperialistic) ideology of 'Manifest Destiny' are strong evidence for territorial imperialism as conceived in simplistic terms. However, I would suggest that imperialism is much more than just setting up physical frontiers with neat little border posts.
The United States is no more the 'new Rome' than the British Empire, the French under Napolean, the Ottoman Empire at its peak, or even the Holy Roman Empire (which literally WAS seen as Rome v3.0). Of all these, I think the British came the closest to achieving a Roman-style empire and even they were a long way off. The US is simply the current top dog in the nations game. China and the EU are both up and coming contestants for the role and Russia will be back eventually. 100 years of US dominance does not come close to equaling the impact of the Romans.
Certainly there are similarities, but I do not believe they extend much beyond the 'current superpower' role, which could equally be applied to many other nations at various periods in world history. You might as well just say that the US is the new '15th-16th Century Spain.' IMO Rome has something extra to it that raises it to an entirely different level in world history. Something that will only be equalled or surpassed if the nations of the world begin to unite into a single entity.
I'd say the US is more likely the new Athens. ~D
So... who's Sparta?
The_Emperor
10-04-2004, 14:19
If you read my previous post you will see that it can be interpreted that Rome was also an empire "in denial" for a very long time.
Not really to the same extent. Rome had no qualms about conquering anyone anywhere when it wanted to, and the people of Rome were always very enthusiastic about wars and new conquests, no matter who they were fighting or why.
Also Roman society was geared towards war in a way the US doesn't. Military service was compulsory during the republican era, and was also a requirement for non-Romans to gain citizenship. (Yeah imagine that any asylum seekers must serve in the armed forces before they get admitted into the country).
America as a whole is not geared towards conquering as much as possible and its people do not back each and every war that comes along.
So... who's Sparta?
Nobody is, I don't think there is a society today where every aspect of their culture is devoted to warfare (even their music). Sparta was one of a kind I think.
Red Peasant
10-04-2004, 14:33
I'm not saying that the US is the New Rome, merely that there are some interesting, even if superficial, correlations. For the purpose of discussion these have to be elicited by comparison. However, if people aren't interested in doing this then we shall have to beg to differ and go our own ways. ~:cheers: ~;)
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2004, 05:18
Good points.. and very revealing excerpt Red Peasant, and i hadnt thought of the whole building thing Lancelot.
America as a whole is not geared towards conquering as much as possible and its people do not back each and every war that comes along.
Id say that, even with the whole iraq thing, militarily conquering things is going out of style.
I think america is geared, and has no qualms about spreading a capitolist empire around the world.
Some people (not me), see the.. at some times aggressive.. spreading of american styled capitolism as a destroyer of cultures. If the subject population has grown up eating McDonalds, watching american movies, and buying american crap... well id say they are, in a way, conquered.
Rome took much of their culture from greece, and molded it to fit their own standards, then spread it around the world. The same could be said about America and Europe.
Also it was said that military service was mandatory in Rome during the early eras.. well the draft was in place until very recently here in america.
And now with americas continued troop obligations around the world, the pentagon has considered hiring out many more jobs to contractors, including combat roles! It is concievable.. probably not in our lifetimes... that we'll see americas wars being fought with hired soldiers in the primary combat roles.. No bodybags.. no guilt for US prez's to deal with. Just like with rome, the more mercinaries and "non roman" romans killed in battle, the less "real" romans, which meant less war exhaustion at home.
Of course im just grasping at straws, but some of the comparisons are uncanny. ~;)
Tribesman
10-05-2004, 08:55
It is concievable.. probably not in our lifetimes... that we'll see americas wars being fought with hired soldiers in the primary combat roles..
Havn't they been doing that already for the past 50 years ?
Gregoshi
10-05-2004, 12:43
Do you want to clarify your comment/question Tribesman? I'm not sure I follow your meaning.
BTW, interesting topic. Also, as long as we can keep on-topic, keep politics out of the discussion and remain civil, this topic can remain in the Monastery. So far you are all doing a fine job. :pleased:
It is concievable.. probably not in our lifetimes... that we'll see americas wars being fought with hired soldiers in the primary combat roles..
Havn't they been doing that already for the past 50 years ?
No, it hasn't been done yet. The current conflict is certainly interesting because there are a large number of paid 'contractors' over there. Even so, those people are almost all former US military personnel and they are not in combat roles, exclusively support. If you are referring to the US tendency to bankroll certain sides in various conflicts around the world, that has certainly been going on for much longer than 50 years and it is not unique to the US. Pretty much every nation that has ever existed has shown a willingness to fund conflicts that are in their interest without sending in their own forces. It makes sense to provide financial support to a side you want to win, yet that is certainly a long shot from mercenary warfare.
However, historical examples do exist. Carthage is of particular note here. If you want to learn about something that is very startling, read up on the South African mercenary group Executive Outcomes. Before they were disbanded, they did some crazy stuff.
PanzerJaeger
10-06-2004, 04:45
Ive been thinking about the english comparison, and its very comparable as well.
In particular, france would be carthage.. the blood rival who wasnt particularly militarily great, until one famous general took command and seemed to be invincible on the battlefield. Napoleon could be Hannible?
Also, england left the world with alot culturaly, scientifically, ext. And also, unlike america, England actually took alot of territory..
Ive read that English is becoming the dominant trade language in the world.. (dont quote me on that one as im not sure).. IF that is true, matched with all the advancements made under british supremacy... they are definatly more comparable than america, as someone above already stated.
discovery1
10-06-2004, 04:45
I don't think that the comparison is appropraite. Rome viewed military service as a duty and an honor. We view even relative minor true social oblications, like jury duty, with distain. We also lack the unity of purpose the Romans had. I suspect that the enthusiasum that the Romans had for going out and subjugating others is much greater than that we feel towards Iraq.
Ive been thinking about the english comparison, and its very comparable as well.
In particular, france would be carthage.. the blood rival who wasnt particularly militarily great, until one famous general took command and seemed to be invincible on the battlefield. Napoleon could be Hannible?
Also, england left the world with alot culturaly, scientifically, ext. And also, unlike america, England actually took alot of territory..
Ive read that English is becoming the dominant trade language in the world.. (dont quote me on that one as im not sure).. IF that is true, matched with all the advancements made under british supremacy... they are definatly more comparable than america, as someone above already stated.
I am completely in agreement. Apart from Rome, the British Empire has done more to influence the course of human development than any other nation.
A sidenote:
Which Emperor would relate to George W. Bush? :)
DisruptorX
10-10-2004, 16:02
Some of you mentioned the British, and while they were certainly the greatest empire the Earth has ever seen as far as territory goes, they certainly were not in a similar position to the Romans. The Romans constantly made sure that they were safe by subduing their neighbors. The British did not have that luxury. In fact, the biggest threat to their power, France (and later, Germany) was literally right next to them. The immense size of their empire didn't help them out when they finally went to war with Germany, as the Germans could simply bomb London at a whim (well, the British could bomb them back too, but you get the idea) To even get close to Rome, Hannibal had to march halfway across western Europe.
One could even argue that the British army was never actually truly superior to the French or Germans. Heck, America actually stunned the Europeans during the American Civil War by effectively demonstrating the sheer amount of conscripts they could raise. The British ruled through their navy, which was never rivalled untill the very end of the 19th century.
The British also did not have the same cultural dominance that the Romans did. The French and Germans contributed just as much in every field as the Brits: science, psychology, technology, etc.
America, in an economic and cultural sense, rather than militarily, is in the same position that Rome was. American culture has invaded much of the world the same way the Romans did, by being invited in willingly, and only then the other countries realising that America now has a measure of control of them, although in America's case it is economic domination, not military.
The British were the most powerful country on earth for several hundred years, but they did not have the monolithic dominance of Rome or America. The British had the French and Germans, who remained constant rivals. Rome had Carthage, and America, Russia, and both Rome and America became sole super powers.
Stefan the Berserker
10-10-2004, 18:06
Is America the new Rome?
No.
If we want to be precise with out analogies, no, America is not the new Rome, any more than any other Empire has been Rome. And if you're looking for an analogy from that period, I'd venture that Carthage fits the bill better. Rome, despite claiming that every war was a defensive war, wanted land. Carthage wanted trade and mobile (sea) dominance.
So a proper Roman would march troops in and say, "Everything here is ours." No Roman would have given the Philipines independence, or tossed the Panama Canal back to the people who live there.
A Carthiginian (based on what little documentation is left) was more likely to march his troops in and say, "Trade with us or die." That seems much closer to the U.S. of A.
But the truth is that the world is different, the technologies are different, even the way war is waged is different.
How would a Roman have responded to the rebellion in Fallujah? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? March in the legions, take losses, kill every man over the age of twelve, rape all of the women over the age of eight, burn down the buildings and erect a line of crucifixes along the highway.
Nobody's allowed to play the game that way anymore, at least not major nations. So all of these America-is-Rome arguments sound a little flat to this lemur.
DisruptorX
10-11-2004, 01:09
Just a question for the last two posters, you do realise that the comparison is figurative, right?
Amon_Zeth
10-11-2004, 02:44
I do not think it is proper to compare America, or any other nation other than Rome, with the Roman Empire. The setting, technology, players, cultures, rules, etc. are just so completely different from that era that it is like trying to compare a gecko with a fish. There are a handful of similarities, but otherwise they are radically different. If you are trying to compare the two because of certain historical cycles, that is fine, but I think it is still far-fetched.
DisruptorX
10-11-2004, 05:33
. If you are trying to compare the two because of certain historical cycles, that is fine, but I think it is still far-fetched.
I don't think that it is too far fetched. Napoleon and Hitler are both compared due to a certain history altering decision that they both foolishly made. America is the first nation since Rome to have monolithic power. While this won't last forever, I certainly think comparissons are valid.
Just a question for the last two posters, you do realise that the comparison is figurative, right?
I think we're all pretty clear on that.
America is the first nation since Rome to have monolithic power.
Heh, if you were living and breathing in the 1800s you'd be saying the same about the British Empire. They looked pretty huge and unassailable at the time. I need a Briton to help me out here -- what portion of the world's land did the Empire control at its peak? A fifth? A third? It was some monstrous number. Far more turf than America has ever conquered.
DisruptorX
10-12-2004, 02:55
I think we're all pretty clear on that.
Heh, if you were living and breathing in the 1800s you'd be saying the same about the British Empire. They looked pretty huge and unassailable at the time. I need a Briton to help me out here -- what portion of the world's land did the Empire control at its peak? A fifth? A third? It was some monstrous number. Far more turf than America has ever conquered.
The number i've heard is one-fourth, largest empire in the history of the world, unless I'm mistaken. However, I went to all the trouble of writing out a post above explaining why I don't think the British compare in the same way.
Lonewarrior
10-12-2004, 05:54
Let me put it in simple words, NO.
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2004, 08:43
Far more turf than America has ever conquered. ...and kept. ~D
But the truth is that the world is different, the technologies are different, even the way war is waged is different.
How would a Roman have responded to the rebellion in Fallujah? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? March in the legions, take losses, kill every man over the age of twelve, rape all of the women over the age of eight, burn down the buildings and erect a line of crucifixes along the highway.
Nobody's allowed to play the game that way anymore, at least not major nations. So all of these America-is-Rome arguments sound a little flat to this lemur.
Tell that to residents of Dresden or anyone living on the Eastern Front during WW2. Sure, we've been pretty civil (relatively) in the last 50 years but on a historical level, that's a drop in the bucket. These things happen often in major wars. In my opinion the only reason we haven't seen them amongst major nations in the last 50 years is because the major nations havent had a major war in the last 50 years. As much as it saddens me to say it, I think we will see it again eventually.
I went to all the trouble of writing out a post above explaining why I don't think the British compare in the same way.
And I hadn't read that post nearly carefully enough. You spell it out very clearly, and you make some excellent points.
I wonder if English will have the same long-term impact as Latin? Admittedly, the British and American empires haven't been around for more than a fifth of the time that the Romans were dominant, and there are lots of essential differences between the British, American and Roman empires, but here's the thing -- both the British and the Americans pushed the use of English. And if, say, India becomes the next great power, they're probably going to push English as well, for exactly the same reason they adopted it as their governmental language.
So you currently have two, and potentially three Great Powers pushing the same language. Should have interesting side-effects.
solypsist
10-13-2004, 22:43
Is America the new Rome?
sure, why not.
I doubt it's a concious effort, but often two political trajectories compared to each other show similarities (due to a finite number of possibilities) and this the case when looking at global power structures.
Amon_Zeth
10-14-2004, 00:47
I don't think that it is too far fetched. Napoleon and Hitler are both compared due to a certain history altering decision that they both foolishly made. America is the first nation since Rome to have monolithic power. While this won't last forever, I certainly think comparissons are valid.
It is perfectly alright to compare Hitler and Napoleon's invasions of Russia, because it is a very specific topic and a recurrent historical cycle (Plenty of other Russian invasions failed.) Certain factors can be compared and shared, and I would not call them far-fetched. I would agree that Rome and America are the only nations to have monolithic power (Rome moreso, because of their control of their region, whereas America is in a much bigger world with much more outside of their influence.) However, I think it is far-fetched to make an overall connection between the two. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. :)
Papewaio
10-14-2004, 01:17
How long did the Roman Empire last?
If including the East/West division of the Roman Empire then surely the War of Independence could we viewed as the splitting of the British Empire... and then the USA as the Western British Empire as far as comparisons not naming is concerned.
How would the Commonwealth figure into accounts?
Empedocles
10-14-2004, 22:07
Hi to everyone. May I say this is an interesting topic to be discussed.
First I’ll like to express my point of view in a number of issues that were written in this post:
1) Of course we can’t compare Rome to USA or any other country because there are many things that separate them. (not to mention 1900 years of history). But I believe PanzerJager idea was intended to compare SOME things, not everything.
2) Someone wrote: Which Emperor would relate to George W. Bush? :) I believe we can be accurate enough to say Heliogabalus. He take charge in a non really legal way (Florida election VS the Usurpation of the Purple). He considered himself in touch with divinity (God Vs The Sun). And he spend his time in problems far away with citizen’s problems (Terror and Jobs reduction VS Carnal Pleasure and the Sun again). Also we can say that under both leaders the outsiders (Barbarians Vs The rest of the World) began to see their country as a pathetic nation.
4) Please, don’t be offended cause I called the States pathetic, but this is the way it’s seen outside your borders.
5) We can not discuss the magnificence of a nation with the squares of land it holds in it’s power. If we can we will say that the greatest nation in western civilization would have been the Spanish in 1600-1700, then the British in 1800 and then Russians in 1950.
I don’t believe it’s useful to compare USA with Rome and the Barbarians with Arabs or the Europe with Greece because it makes no sense to me and can lead to an awful simplicity that will only cause problems.
Now my opinion on the subject.
No and maybe.
Why?
For the No:
Rome was above else a military power spread through much of the known world by the sword (its intentions may have been called “self defense”, but when they stepped in one land they stayed), that united every nation under one leadership.
USA, on the other hand, never won a war and then controlled other country in a direct way as the romans did (I repeat “DIRECT” because we Argentinians know what is to be controlled in other ways). It usually uses its army in order to maintain or establish economic relations to its benefit or to change political leaders that were seen as a threat to them (ejem..ejem… leave Irak…ejem…).
For the maybe:
I believe Rome and the USA could be seen as a conduct through which many ideals travelled and established themselves in others parts of the world. Rome and the Church saved and improved (not the latter one) the “Western Civilization” through the dark Ages (Without Rome the barbarians would have conquered all Europe as early as the year 0).
USA was not that much important in history (I remember you Russia and Britain could have won WWII) but was of a big help to expand Democracy through the world and served as a political example to many countries (I can recall Sarmiento but no one will know who the hell he was).
Ok, that’s my opinion. I repeat I didn’t mean to offend anyone.
Diego, from Argentina
PS: Ok, now raise bets to which candidate I would vote if I were American!!!!
PanzerJaeger
10-17-2004, 08:06
Hehe, though i may not agree with your assessment of W and the U.S., your post was very intresting, and you brought up some good points. :bow:
Empedocles
10-17-2004, 11:30
Thank you Panzer Jager. What did you mean with "with your assessment of W and the U.S"?????
W means war?
Diego, from Argentina
DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 03:33
USA was not that much important in history (I remember you Russia and Britain could have won WWII) but was of a big help to expand Democracy through the world and served as a political example to many countries (I can recall Sarmiento but no one will know who the hell he was).
err....what?
You do realise that the United States has been the dominant power of the 20th century since the end of world war 1...
The conflict between the US and USSR had a major impact on the world. I think you are letting anti-American sentiment(I'm not saying it isn't justified) get in the way of viewing things objectively.
Empedocles
10-19-2004, 17:08
I believe I exxagerated, but it wasn't until the end of WWII that USA began it's supremacy. The 1919-1945 period saw a number of superpowers growing so much that this led to a world war.
I aggre that the Russia-USA conflict was the biggest struggle in the century, but it didn't involved USA alone (which was the case of Rome for 4 centuries).
That's my point.
But now USA has supremacy and he hope it'll be used correctly. (Example: Clinton Palestinian-Israel policy and not Bush policy).
Bye
The US was the dominant power of the 20th century. It's infusion of men and material and the end of WWI help stem and then push back the Axis. It was the economic power house of the world even when it's standing army was extremely small.
One point being overlooked in this discussion is a positive one for both Rome and the US. Both states offered citizenship beyond it's ethnic base. Though Rome conquered with the sword it ruled with law. You could feel part of the empire whether you were born in Spain or Syria. Of course the vast majority were slaves and peasants but the middle class took advantage of the security Roman law offered.
Rome's downfall in the west I believe stemmed from the loss of this middle class, mostly small independent landowners, and the concentration of vast areas of land under the control of a individual family.
The US has also drawn from many peoples to create its polity. It has been a struggle but few can deny that immigrant groups on the margins 150 years ago are now mainstream.. You can tell by how much they complain about the foreigners!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.