Similarities through history.

[NeoSpartan]

I believe you guys are generalising American foreing policy a little too much.

From about 1788-1860 (after the ratification of the Constitution 'till before the Civil War) American's intention was to EXPAND. Weather by taking the land of the Indians, buying it from the French, or taking it from Mexico. Everheard of Manifest Destiny????

But right before the Civil War the issue of Slavery prevented any further expansion North or South of the continent.

After the Civil War America's intention turn to Imperialism (well actually before the Civil War, America had forfully open up Japan to foreing trade, but any further Imperialistic expansion was interrupted by the Civil War). JUST LIKE ALL OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS OF THE TIME. Due to the European Powers already having colonies or economic influences in most of the world, the US turn to open up Japan, and to kick any European powers out of South America, (especifically Spain). That way effectively making "American for Americans". The US also took over Spanish colonies in South East Asia, and took over the Hawaii.

However, WWI started to somewhat put the breaks that Imperialist trend the world powers where having, plus most of the world was already under some power's influence. That is why when Japan started its Imperialistic campains in China and South East Asia, it came into MAJOR diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans and Americans. So bad that the US cut Oil Exports to Japan and Japan decided it cold destroy the US Pacific Fleet (which it almost did) and give itself time to finish up in Manchuria and grow its Navy even more. So it could effectively fight the Americans when they returned.

After WWII, it was the COLD WAR.
The Soviets wanted to expand Communism and the Americans wanted to stop them. Both sides used any means nessesary but comming short of provocing eachother into direct nuclear confrontation. (especially after the scare of 1962).
ex:-The USSR backed North Korea and China during the Korean war but it didn't become directly involved. It did the same in Vietnam. In Angola the USSR equiped Cubans and the MPLA to fight there. (my brother almost went there)
-The US trainned and equiped Cuban exhiles to take Cuba from Fidel. Also the US backed the Mujahadim (sp) in Afganistan. The US backed the Contras in Nicaragua....
.... there are many more "Small wars" in South America, Africa, South East Asia, Middle east, that followed this pattern.

The interesting thing is, that in this time the US decided to take an "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Where the US and Nato will hold off the Soviets, but the US will share most of the expense. As a result, this didn't compel the other members of Nato to become again a major military power. Plus, the US basically forbade Japan from becomeing another world power by putting in its Constitution that Japan should only have a "Security Force" not a military capable of expanding. (to this day Japan has Security Force)

After the Cold War:
-The US being the sole world Power, and continuing its "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Goes into war, imposes sactions, etc. to any nation who threatens its ECONOMIC INTERESTS and its SECURITY. Just like any other nation would do in its place and ALL nations, empires, etc have done before.

In the case of Iraq, the leaders here got really overconfident expecting the Invasion of Iraq to flow like the Invasion of Panama in 1989. Which it aint ....

[Zaknafien]

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

[KARTLOS]

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

[Zaknafien]

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

[NeoSpartan]

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

True... the only major difference that comes to mind is that Hitler wanted to "purify" the Reich. All those whom were not considered arian were to be disposed off. While the Romans did most of the genocide in the invasion, but later they tried to win over thier new-found subjects and make them part of the empire and their military.



p.s all this roman talk is making me want to start a new Romani campain....

[abou]

If there is one thing I wish the US could take more of from Rome, it would be the architecture. I think one of the guys said that they really just ripped it off from the Greeks and Etruscans, but having studied it that really isn't something very fair to say at all. The Romans were certainly evolutionary in their application, but many times they were quite revolutionary.

Now, a lot of stuff in DC takes direct inspiration from from Rome, but I really wish there was more of it. A lot of the presidential libraries in particular are absolutely atrocious. That's why if I were to become president my library would be based either on Trajan's forum or the Sanctuary of Fortuna. Hell, that's campaign material right there: Vote for me. I won't have an ugly presidential library.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

in regards on the subject of these postings the romans took the best of what they learned and assimilated it into their culture. for example the gods, also military technologies(example gladius, from the Iberian peninsula and helmets from the gaulic tribes and( the extra layer of chainmail around their shoulders once they ran into the dacian rhomphi I think.)

[KARTLOS]

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

I agree what many people forget, Rome was not a etnical empire....the roman citicenship could be granded virtually to everybody who earned it or pay for it (look Paulus he was not a etnical roman).

About fascism, well I do not entirely agree, of course for those days it was wery advanced, and usually fascist states (mussolini for the first, but also Hitler) tryed their best to copy the romans. But we can not compare a anciet government structure using our modern standart.

[pezhetairoi]

To answer the original query, the Almogavars' being so similar to the EB-era Iberian units are hardly a coincidence. Their armed forces' equipment and fighting style is really decided by the major factors of available resources, and geography. Iberia is hilly, and has few fields that permit massive Cannae-style battles. Fighting in Spain has necessarily been guerrilla, from then until the modern day. That fundamental rule decides the reason why them Iberian fellas are all so identical despite their time period. Firstly, javelins were cheap to produce, could cause helluva damage when hurled from high ground (of which there was plenty in Iberia), and they permitted the Iberians to keep at arms' length from melee combat, which allowed them to melt away quickly without committing themselves to fighting which would cost them as heavily as the enemy. Though to compare the Lusotana and Iberi troops in EB to the Almogavars is perhaps not fully accurate, since the Almogavar were light troops, whose closest equivalent in EB are perhaps the Caetrati. Surely they must have had a larger variety of heavier troops too, though these were necessarily rarer in proportion to the cost and complexity of their panoply.

Hope this answers some part of your query at least.

[fatsweets]

Come on people, this is not a political forum let us talk about the game we love and not about nationalism and comparisons between the US and government 2000 years ago. This could turn ugly really quick.

[Treverer]

Come on people, this is not a political forum let us talk about the game we love and not about nationalism and comparisons between the US and government 2000 years ago. This could turn ugly really quick.

Seconded!
Is there no kinda "off-topic" / "open" (sub-) forum, where threads / discussions like these might fit in? If no, I suggest to create one (a subforum!).

[russia almighty]

^I agree with you on that . There are things that are sorta related to EB like this but don't go along with the main boards focus .

[Incongruous]

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

I have never, ever heard that from any of the Classics lecturers who have ever visited or taught at my uni. I would be interested to know if you have writtne on this thseis? Seriuosly.

[Zaknafien]

I havent but I probably could. More precisely I would say that the early Principate of Augustus would be most similar to the early Nazi regime. Charismatic, energetic and brilliant leader, full-swing propaganda machine that is designed to worship the cult of the state, rampant racism and fear of outside 'evil doers', and an increasingly important military-industrial complex.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for similarities through history:
The word MIC became widely known after the 'Good-bye speech' of D. "Ike" Eisenhower, shortly before his succession by J. Kennnedy. Since then the word has been applied to describe nearly all military organisation, most notably Rome's.

(It's interesting to compare both speeches - you can really feel how Kennedy needed to make a statement of (military) power when Eisenhower had just warned the nation against hot-headedness & mindless determination. That way, even Bush's speeches can be seen as a similarity through history.)

Also: the Roman attitude towards a revolt that eventually became the cause for the Punic War & The Monroe Doctrine (1823) & the concept of NIMBY.

[Incongruous]

I havent but I probably could. More precisely I would say that the early Principate of Augustus would be most similar to the early Nazi regime. Charismatic, energetic and brilliant leader, full-swing propaganda machine that is designed to worship the cult of the state, rampant racism and fear of outside 'evil doers', and an increasingly important military-industrial complex.

Interesting that you chose the nazi regime, surely one of the European Imerial powers would also be a fit, maybe even a better one?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Another similarity I just came across: nowadays people give credit to others by stating "Kudos too...". Guess what an ancient Greek word for such "credit" is?

[Spoofa]

Kudo?

sounds like a bird.....