When in history...

[Zaknafien]

The US Empire works in much the same way the Roman Republic's Empire did-- military expansion or threat of intervention brings favorable circumstances for mercantile efforts and colonization. The US has hundreds of what amount to military colonies scattered across the globe, for instance.

[Cyclops]

Fair enough, but still exceedingly similar to the Roman Empire around 250-ish BCE to 70-ish BCE.

Both republics with a somewhat violent public life, but I think the differences are greater than the similarities.

I think Rome expanded aggressively and opportunistically during the late republic. The system they built to survive in the bloodpit of 4th cent BC Italy channelled the upper, middle and lower classes into a pragmatic unified goal where wealth status and plotical office were all integrated into military service.

Once Italy was in hand the system needed new conquests to keep the wheel turning. I don't buy all the Bellum Justum rubbish, Rome found enemies when they needed them, and chewed them to keep its triumph mill turning over.

In contrast the USA has a fairly decentralised system, and their military tradition is far from glorious or decisive in their political scene. Grant and Eisenhower were generals who took office but McArthur and McLellan failed: military glory did not automatically mean political success. I feel Kennedy proved the politicians call the shots, not the generals.

As for being expansionist, the USA pursued the Monroe doctrine for almost a century, a decidely limited horizon for expansion. The cynical episode of the Spanish war was a deviation: the US has bugged out of the Philipines and lost Cuba as a dependency.

At the decisive moment at Versaille, when Wilson stood astride the ruins of Europe and everyone "saw the Elephant" of US hegemony, Congress turned its back on the world. Only post WW2 has the USA come out swinging as an interventionist power. They don't have Romes record of success or the stomach for the slaughter required to be an Empire.

The three major actions of the US military since WW2 are Korea (messy draw), Vietnam (messy loss) and now Iraq (whatever you call that, its messy). None have been wholehearted or overly glorified, and have provoked strong negative reactions at home. All have been sold as "defensive wars" (which is Roman enough) but the first two at least were definitely "not for profit".

Also the Yanks would smash the Romans at baseball, proving their non Imperial status. Although I have a feeling the legionaries could have given them a tussle in the American football. "Triarii, hup hup!"

[Cyclops]

The US Empire works in much the same way the Roman Republic's Empire did-- military expansion or threat of intervention brings favorable circumstances for mercantile efforts and colonization. The US has hundreds of what amount to military colonies scattered across the globe, for instance.

Yes but those guys go home whereas I think colonae were the nails that held Roman rule in place. The USA is simply not interested in acquiring huge tracts of real estate the way the Romans did.

I don't think your analogy flies. Maybe Rome is more like Carthage? Incredibly rich metropolis, strong commercial ethic, wide spread network of outposts, strong brilliant navy, variable perfomance in land wars, and a senate willing to tolerate but suspicous of military adventurers. Hannibal Bushca?

[Watchman]

Watchman, are you saying Rome owned the Silk Trade route? Do you have any evidence of this, this is groundbreaking stuff!

...what are you talking about ?

[Sarcasm]

Don't mind him. He's that old creepy uncle that smells like cabbage which people tolerate on account of old-age.

[Watchman]

Ah, that explains things.

The USA is simply not interested in acquiring huge tracts of real estate the way the Romans did.

Which is to a large part because the Age of Empire style of colonies has been found to be a Bad Idea, in some cases through bitter lost wars. It's just not really possible to try to directly lord it over the natives from overseas in the era of national sentiment and cheap guns.

Which is why they cut deals with the local crooks in charge instead, and let the money-men in suits do the rest. Much more cost-effective, and doesn't lose you elections half as readily.

[Horst Nordfink]

I don't think that the US is an empire. At least not in the convential sense. Although, it does throw it's weight around in an imperialistic manner sometimes.

Although, rarely too succesfully, which I think is the main difference between Roma and the US.

[iwwtf_az]

The USA does not acquire land because that is completely unnecessary for todays world economy.

To control and make money off the Greek states, Rome had to take it over and keep it.

Nowadays, the USA only needs to leave a military base and spread "democracy" to make money. The corporate companies that move in for the score don't need the country to be American, only controlled by America.

[Zaknafien]

Exactly. Cyclops, in today's world empires do not need to gain huge tracts of land. Empires today are economic and influencial, not colors on a map. the US controls most of the world economically and poliitcally through either direct military or economic (loans) control, or implied threat of military intervention if said country doesnt do what its told. Luckily, some countries like China and Venezuela are starting to shirk the US' hegemony to prevent total domination, but for the past 50 years the situation has been pretty bleak.

[Watchman]

The USSR might of have had something to do with that, mind you. "Pick your poison."

Then again, it could be argued the running necessities of maintaining that global power - starting with the obscene running costs of the military alone - conversely haven't exactly been doing good things to the country either... one gets a bit of "imperial overreach" vibe every now and then.

Well, especially when one takes a look at how thoroughly the economy is dependent on someone else (mainly the Japanese, and nowadays China too) being willing to buy dollars out of it...

[Zaknafien]

Agreed; but its significant that the USA today is largely a militarized counry much as the Roman Republic was. While the ratio of manpower directly serving in the armed forces is not nearly as high, the number of people and dollars invested in the total military-industrial complex is staggering. One could almost say the US economy is dependant on the MIC, which is a self-perpetuating cycle of war and buildup for war, the permanent military footing that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address.

[geala]

The USA does not rule the world similar to Rome and it is dangerous to think that USA is "the" dominating economic power. It is one of the dominating economic powers and the one with the political will and ability to throw the power in to achieve certain goals. A dangerous way sometimes btw. There are other mayor powers and will-be powers in the world. Some, like the EU, are politically a bit like a laughing stock. At first glance at least. But beware. The hidden resistance to EU integration and the many efforts to settle the trade wars between USA and EU can tell you something. And China and India and Russia are there too.

The USA and Europe fortunately have in many aspects the same interests; it was not the fear of the mighty US army or economic pressure that forced many European states (except France, Germany and some others) to join the second Iraque war. The feeling that the attack at the World Trade Center was not an attack at the USA but the western culture and economic "empire" is widely spread in Europe and also right in my opinion. The answer to the threat was wrong in the mind of some states, although they see the threat. And the USA could not dare to be angry very long with the deniers, because the USA is not a Rome like empire. You know what Rome did to Rhodes because they missed some Rhodian eagerness in the help of the Romans against the Macedons.

Btw "empire": I think the origin of the word is yet important. The word comes from the Roman empire and many people have such a construction in mind, when they speak from empires. Empire stems not only from imperator, but from imperium which is the name for the power of a administrative official to rule in a certain area. Later it is the term for the Imperium Romanum. After the Roman empire many states tried to copy the great antetype. The Holy Roman Empire is a good example. In state theory the Roman empire never died but remained as a, no, as "the" form of power. Charlemagne had this idea and the Ottonic kings, later emperors in Germany had the same idea. So the German state was named "Imperium Romanum", although it has not much in common with the real Roman empire.

From that time the term empire was used for many different things, so a satisfying definition is no longer possible. It can mean everything and can be used for every time. The Persian Achaemenid state is better called an empire for example than the German empire after 1871, but you can use it now for both terms.

[iwwtf_az]

This is scary:


even though the USA doesn't own the countries, they still make their intentions quite clear. International Military and Economic Dominance - much like Rome.

[Watchman]

Then again, the pale pink "with US troops" includes ones which makes me suspect they're little more than military attachés... I mean, there for sure ain't any US combat troops here in Finland for example. Ditto, no doubt, for the stubbornly neutral Sweden next door. And weren't many if not most of the European NATO-member bases scheduled for serious downgrading if not outright disbanding as unnecessary post Cold War ?

"Economic Dominance" also seems a bit questionable for me, given the parasitic tendencies of Das Kapital which notoriously knows no fatherland - only opportunities.

[Cyclops]

The USSR might of have had something to do with that, mind you. "Pick your poison."...

The USSR met most of my criterea for an empire: they had a favoured homeland (Great Russia), heaps of military conquests (eastern Europe) followed by an occasional aggressive adventure (Hungary, Prague Spring, Afghanistan). the conquests were given a subordinate status and paid heavy tribute (lopsided command economy), and there was plenty of horrific population relocations. I don't know abiout actual colonies per se. Did lots of Russians settle at Konigsburg? It seems to have become Russian politically.

The Soviet "Empire" contrasts with the US dominated zone in Western Europe. After WW2 the French turned their back on US alliance, and Germany promptly allied with France. The US definitely exerted a looser "dominion" over its "conquests". I think the term Empire is not the right one.

[Zaknafien]

Well by your own definition the US clearly qualifies.

Favored homeland (the eastern seaboard)

Military Conquest (The rest of the United States)

Aggressive Adventures (Too many to name here, but paticularly Invasions of Canada, Mexico, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, dozens of countries in South America, Grenada, Hawaii, etc, etc etc, etc).

Colonies (Hundreds of military bases and economic enclaves across the world).

[Horst Nordfink]

The USA does not rule the world similar to Rome and it is dangerous to think that USA is "the" dominating economic power. It is one of the dominating economic powers and the one with the political will and ability to throw the power in to achieve certain goals. A dangerous way sometimes btw. There are other mayor powers and will-be powers in the world. Some, like the EU, are politically a bit like a laughing stock. At first glance at least. But beware. The hidden resistance to EU integration and the many efforts to settle the trade wars between USA and EU can tell you something. And China and India and Russia are there too.

The USA and Europe fortunately have in many aspects the same interests; it was not the fear of the mighty US army or economic pressure that forced many European states (except France, Germany and some others) to join the second Iraque war. The feeling that the attack at the World Trade Center was not an attack at the USA but the western culture and economic "empire" is widely spread in Europe and also right in my opinion. The answer to the threat was wrong in the mind of some states, although they see the threat. And the USA could not dare to be angry very long with the deniers, because the USA is not a Rome like empire. You know what Rome did to Rhodes because they missed some Rhodian eagerness in the help of the Romans against the Macedons.

Btw "empire": I think the origin of the word is yet important. The word comes from the Roman empire and many people have such a construction in mind, when they speak from empires. Empire stems not only from imperator, but from imperium which is the name for the power of a administrative official to rule in a certain area. Later it is the term for the Imperium Romanum. After the Roman empire many states tried to copy the great antetype. The Holy Roman Empire is a good example. In state theory the Roman empire never died but remained as a, no, as "the" form of power. Charlemagne had this idea and the Ottonic kings, later emperors in Germany had the same idea. So the German state was named "Imperium Romanum", although it has not much in common with the real Roman empire.

From that time the term empire was used for many different things, so a satisfying definition is no longer possible. It can mean everything and can be used for every time. The Persian Achaemenid state is better called an empire for example than the German empire after 1871, but you can use it now for both terms.

The USA doesn not rule the world AT ALL!

[Watchman]

Doesn't mean it wouldn't like to, in some fashion at least.

[Horst Nordfink]

Agreed.

It annoys me that that is how some Americans see it though. What really infuriates me is when they call the President the "leader of the free world". It's just pretentious nonsense.

And don't get me started on the EU either!! The biggest mistake Britain ever made was to join that Franco-German mafia.

[Watchman]

I've found the common currency and easy border crossing quite convenient, myself. And anything that helps get rid of the lingering 1800s jingoism and longstanding European tendency to go beat up your neighbour for fun and profit is a plus in my books.

[Horst Nordfink]

Seen as I live on an island off Europe who hasn't subscribed to this white elephant currency, I don't get those benefits.

You are correct about the binding countries together though. I just hope it doesn't go too far.

[Cyclops]

Well by your own definition the US clearly qualifies.

Favored homeland (the eastern seaboard)

Military Conquest (The rest of the United States)

Aggressive Adventures (Too many to name here, but paticularly Invasions of Canada, Mexico, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, dozens of countries in South America, Grenada, Hawaii, etc, etc etc, etc).

Colonies (Hundreds of military bases and economic enclaves across the world).

Yes but the USA usually gives nominal independence to its client states: Rome did that too, but usually appoointed direct rulers and heavy taxation.

Rome gradually extended citizenship to virtually all its subjects, but late in the day and I think its was a failed experiment. The USA generally extends citizenship to its subjects ASAP.

Romes conquests were generally celebrated triumphs, which kept the fame mill turining over. US adventures are sideshows and often fought for foggy ideological resons (those semi-feudal peasants must be commies!) or domestic consumption rather than to garner fame and wealth for the next generation of rulers.

The colonies were permanent settlements, not bases (Rome had both, US only bases).

I still think Carthage is a better (but far from perfect) analogy. There is a long established position, often in the ascendant, that has a deep distrust of foreign engagement, and would happily return to a less extended posture if they safely could.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure it's regarded as a bad form to make direct comparisions like that without accounting for the vast differences in communications, economy and pretty much everything else you know...

[geala]

@ Watchman: I concur.

@ horst nordfink: I don't like the centralistic and only partly democratic attitudes of the EU central administration that much, too. Esp. if you have also to deal with EU law (as I have to do) sometimes you feel the pressure to say words which polite people should not use. And the difference between the states is a problem, the UK is for example a big hindrance to get social standards for a worthy labour for everybody, not only the upper two-thirds. The EU has merits however, it is also a mighty economy. But if the EU only were a method to stop European wars (and it is) I would rather suffer a lot from its existence instead of having back "the good old time".

[Philip of Massalia]

Agreed.

It annoys me that that is how some Americans see it though. What really infuriates me is when they call the President the "leader of the free world". It's just pretentious nonsense..

Agreed !

And don't get me started on the EU either!! The biggest mistake Britain ever made was to join that Franco-German mafia.

And the biggest mistake France and Germany ever did was to accept Mr Heath appliance back in 1972. Without the UK, Europe would be federal now. And a big power indeed.

[Horst Nordfink]

@ Philip of Massalia : You say that like being a federal European state is a good thing! You would lose many freedoms to govern yourselves, and be rules by Belgian beaurocrats. Also, as far as I'm aware, it was the Dutch and French who blew that the EU Contstitution out of the water before we got the chance to kill it.

@ geala : I don't understand what you mean when you say that the UK is a hindrance to get social standards? Could you please explain further?

[Watchman]

The last I checked EU members were quite autonomous enough. Too autonomous in some cases, given France's deep-seated habit of going its own way irrespective of earlier agreements...

[Horst Nordfink]

Yes, they're autonomous enough at the minute, but if it became a federal state, then they would lose that.

Because of EU regulations, you can be arrested and given a criminal record for selling vegetables/meat/fish in imperial measurements, which people in Britain know, rather than in metric, which is alien to some. This is the kind of pointlessness of the EU that irks people.

[Watchman]

That sounds like total BS, you know.

...incidentally, is it just me or would this perhaps not be the best place to discuss this...?

[Horst Nordfink]

Honestly, it really isn't BS! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2129528.stm

You're right though, it isn't really the best place. I didn't really plan to talk about it, it just happened.