When in history...

[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.

[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).