Is the US just a modern day version of the ancient Roman Empire?

[Joe the Liberal]

I know many make this analogy, it was even in Michael Moores movie but do you actually think it is? The similarities are everywhere....

Large militaristic imperial conquest.
People too distracted by the gladiatorial events now known as football/UFC/celebrity gossip and worship.
Extremely corrupt government, especially the senate in both cases but corrupt overall still.
The imperial eagle as a major symbol.
Pretty diverse group of people as we are now, so were they.
Incredibly arrogant both are.
Rome had slaves as did we and still do except they live in China now.
Majority of the people here are white, same with Rome, both were still diverse but the majority were white.
They had Emperors, we have Presidents, same shit different name.
Some lunatic was at the top running everything, we had Bush/republicans they had Nero and Caligula and various other sociopaths.
We are a "Republic" so were they, really it was just a veil to hide what they both are, empires.
Lots of poverty in both.
Barbarians run-a-muck, they had the goths to deal with, we have the tea-baggers.
Large sense of exceptionalism.
Both used torture for interrogation.
Ignorant public.
Similar architecture.
Trying to impose our values on others across the globe, they did that too.
The Colosseums have been replaced by football stadiums now.
Exploitation of weaker countries.
Wealth concentrated at the very top.
Both know how to keep their people in check, "bread and circus" then is now "religion and football".

The list goes on and on, those are the only similarities I could think of but I'm sure there's tons more, feel free to add. With that being said, do you think we are just a modern day version of Ancient Rome? History does repeat it self over and over again. Throughout history there is always some mega, bully superpower trying to control everything. The US fulfills that role in the 21st century as did Rome for their time period.

[rcrush]

1. I dunno I think we've killed more people than Rome.

So you could say we've improved on what Rome did.

[mix]

42. truth

and that is what most Americans spend their whole life denying: our entire way of life is based on violence against others in order to sustain it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I think these comparisons are ridiculous.

[mix]

6. Why? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Christ, you want me to go through the list?

You almost always see these complaints when people go on and on about the decline and fall of America, and how the sky is falling, and how Rome declined and fell. We saw this all the time back in the nineties during the militia movement. It was often keyed in with gay rights. "Oh, the gays are getting rights! The Romans had gays and they declined and felled!" Nevermind that the Romans "had gays" in its beginnings and during its rise. And it only fell after it adopted conservative Christianity.

"Large militaristic imperial conquest."

Rome was militaristic and imperialistic during its rise. Its failure to hold on to its territory is what led to its decline. In contrast, the US has, well, the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii... uh... Guam. Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands... and that's pretty much it. Sure, the U.S. has various military bases in various countries, in some cases to protect citizens from the imperialism of others, in most cases to protect shipping, and in most cases at the request of said countries. To compare this to Roman imperialism is to compare apples and oranges.

"People too distracted by the gladiatorial events now known as football/UFC/celebrity gossip and worship."

Some people like football, some people don't like football. Some people like celebrity gossip, you don't. If I compared whatever it is that the author does for enjoyment (crochet, water polo, posting on the internet, furry porn, etc.) with taking actual enjoyment in watching people kill each other, and called it a distraction from whatever it was I thought was really important, then that would be pretty stupid and insulting, now wouldn't it?

"Extremely corrupt government, especially the senate in both cases but corrupt overall still."

Can you show me a government that didn't have corruption? I can show you plenty of governments a lot less corrupt than Rome, and a lot more corrupt than the U.S. And of course this only applies to the Roman republic, because after it became a dictatorship concepts like "corruption" become too ridiculous to apply.

"The imperial eagle as a major symbol."

And this is apropos of what? Should we be the Fighting Buffaloes? The Titmouses? The Cougars?

"Pretty diverse group of people as we are now, so were they."

Hold this thought for a moment...

"Incredibly arrogant both are."

By what standard?

"Rome had slaves as did we and still do except they live in China now."

The U.S. doesn't have slaves. China doesn't either. Buying products from a country which has poor labor practices is a pretty shitty comparison to actual slavery.

"Majority of the people here are white, same with Rome, both were still diverse but the majority were white."

...alright, now release that thought.

"They had Emperors, we have Presidents, same shit different name."

Emperors are thugs that can rape your sister and kill your dad and you can't do shit about it. Presidents are elected by the people. This comparison is a joke.

"Some lunatic was at the top running everything, we had Bush/republicans they had Nero and Caligula and various other sociopaths."

And now, thanks to everything that's good about America, we've got Barack Obama.

"We are a "Republic" so were they, really it was just a veil to hide what they both are, empires."

Is the person who wrote this aware of the differences between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire? Like most who compare the U.S. with ancient Rome, I suspect even basic Roman history is beyond them.

"Lots of poverty in both."

For the most part of the Roman empire, you had a small rich aristocracy, and basically everybody else was poor peasants. Sure, you had the makings of a middle class in Rome itself, but not much. In the U.S. you've got the rich, you've got just about everybody in the middle class, and then you've got the poor which are supported by a social structure. Nobody's a slave. Nobody's dying of starvation.

"Barbarians run-a-muck, they had the goths to deal with, we have the tea-baggers."

This comparison is an insult to barbarians. Rome dealt with barbarians, real barbarians, and throughout its whole existence. The teabaggers are a joke, and irrelevant to history.

"Large sense of exceptionalism."

Both Rome and the U.S. are exceptional. The U.S. less so.

"Both used torture for interrogation."

Rome used it prolifically and with no qualms about it. Torture is illegal in the U.S. Thanks to that same voting system that gave us Barack Obama.

"Ignorant public."

Very few in Rome could read or write. Most in the U.S. can. Most in the U.S. were provided with many years of childhood education. Even the poorest educated Americans are far better off than most Romans. Oh, and hang on a second....

"Similar architecture."

Except for a short period of neoclassicism which imitated Greek architecture (and is only connected with Rome by their imitation of Greeks) and can only be seen to day in historical buildings that have survived since the neoclassical period, most U.S. architecture isn't like Roman architecture at all. And claims otherwise are frankly rather ignorant. See above.

"Trying to impose our values on others across the globe, they did that too."

Which values are these?

"The Colosseums have been replaced by football stadiums now."

Is there any sizable civilization in the world that doesn't or hasn't built arenas? Aside from the fact that they're big and round and they seat lots of people, there's no connection. The Colosseum (note it's singular) was built by slaves for the public exhibition of events that typically involved executions of one form or another. Football stadiums are built by skilled contractors and used for playing sports. Again, some people like sports. Get over it.

"Exploitation of weaker countries."

Again, apropos of what? That's almost a tautology. Strong countries "exploit" weak countries.

"Wealth concentrated at the very top."

Again, same sort of thing. If poor people were rich they wouldn't be poor.

"Both know how to keep their people in check, "bread and circus" then is now "religion and football"."

Fucking christ, if the OP was bullied by jocks in high school it's really time they got over it.

[terrell9584]

21. Except

As of 212, all of the provinces became formal Roman territory and remained so until each was picked off. And truthfully, the United States is not one nation and never has been one nation. Most "nations" don't have the kind of splits that have always dominated us.


America has been an empire ever since it formed. Can you honestly tell me that, really, truthfully, anything unites people in Arkansas and people in Vermont beyond the national flag, the IRS and national popular culture?

[cali]

27. why, yes. yes I can.

farming and rural culture, for one thing. language of course- and that's a biggy, culturally speaking

[terrell9584]

28. The problem with that

Roughly a fourth of Arkansas's population lives in metro Little Rock-Hot Springs. And other large towns in the state help to drive up the urbanized population to at least half the state.


I don't think there's even a town with 10,000 people in all of Vermont. Little Rock is one of the major banking centers of the country. So, that comparison sort of falls flat.

[cali]

31. ridiculous. first of all, although Burlington only has about 40,000 people

(4x your made up 10,000), greater Burlington has about 150,000- about 25% of the population. Secondly, Vermont is home to the largest Captive Insurance Industry in the country, but so what? that's about as germane to what I originally pointed out as your declaration that LR is a major banking center.

I live in Vermont. I've spent time in Arkansas. I see similarities between the culture. To put it bluntly, your claim that the citizens of Vermont and Arkansas have nothing in common, is absurd. Of course there are differences, but sorry, there's more in common.

[terrell9584]

33. I disagree

Arkansas is a state that is predominantly Evangelical Protestant, with the Southern Baptist Convention in ascendancy. It has been a one party state since the 1870s (don't believe me, google the stats on the Arkansas legislature). Of the Deep South states it is actually the least diverse, in terms of both in state cultural regions and population diversity. However, it is still far more racially diverse than Vermont.


And the 750,000-800,000 in metro Little Rock-Hot Springs is a far cry from greater Burlington. Little Rock proper has more people in it than Burlington metro. About the one thing Vermont and Arkansas might have in common is that both are devoutly pro-gun states, with Vermont actually having more gun friendly laws than Arkansas. But it is for different reasons.


When you get down to things like religion, cultural values, voting patterns, etc, that's where the difference comes in. Like homosexuality. Vermont has a very open attitude towards homosexuality. Arkansas does not. There is also the fact that Arkansas has a slew of majority black counties in the eastern part of the state while you could probably count Vermonts black population on your body appendages (figuratively speaking)

[nemo137]

29. A set of fairly durable political institutions?

An easily traceable line of descent from either British crown colonies or other US states? Transportation links in the forms of (originally) rivers and canals, and later railroads and highways? More darkly, a history of exploitation of blacks and immigrants and theft and outright genocide of native peoples?

I mean, I joke that midwesterners are as distinct from southerners as the English are from the Scots, but there are some pretty strong connections there.

[MajorChode]

24. You must still be under the false assumption that reason and logic actually count for something

The age of reason was abandoned for the age of hyperbole back in the 80's. You really do need to get with the times.

[Boojatta]

35. Did you switch from caterpillar to butterfly while I had you on ignore...

or is your post out of character?

[CTyankee]

37. well, hi fruc, there are those you can and those you cannot, compare.

I did a little delineation downthread on the Medicis and their destruction of the Florentine Republic over the quattrocento and its denoument in the cinquecento (altho I didn't go into their ballot stuffing, judge corrupting, signoria rigging, etc. shenanigans) but there are also a few analogies with Athens in 6th century B.C. As you must surely know, the Athenian League, a democracy, lost its war with autocratic Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. They lost their empire and to a large extent, their democracy, altho not totally, even tho their purported mission in Sicily was to "spread democracy" (and where have we heard THAT in recent history?). There ARE analogies in their war in Sicily (an island "too far"), which led to their ultimate demise with their fleet being destroyed in the port of Siricusa, with our own overreaching in Iraq. And there are other more recent historical examples, including Napoleon's overreaching and retreat from Russia. Not perfect analogies, but some that should give us pause, don't you think?

Historians warn that republics are fragile things. Benjamin Franklin knew this well when he was asked, emerging from the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government do we have?", he said " A Republic, madame, if we can keep it!" It's a dicey proposition. Our founders knew this well. They were doubtful that, in the wheel of fortune which was fated as they saw it, we would go from republic to empire to decline and then to fall and decline. They did see hope in extending this in geography as when Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase...

If you are interested, I will give you some interesting historical research sources: Wiltsie's "The New Nation", Larkins' "Reshaping of Everyday Life" and McCoy's "The Elusive Republic", for a start on social and political thought of that era in social and political thought in America's new republic.

As for the Peloponnesian War, I recommend "The History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides. He warns of future empires copying Athens in the first page of the first chapter...just a thought...

[mix]

38. not convinced

Every great modern empire--Spain, Great Britain, France, and the USA--has patterned itself after Rome.

Empire as "a way of life" and as an economic and political system has endured cross-culturally and throughout recorded history. Empires are also inherently unstable, despite their pretensions to eternity, due to the problems associated with ruling--and extracting tribute and other wealth--over different cultures and ethnicities.

Modern Americans seldom recognize the imperial world they live in. Manifest Destiny, for example, was an imperial project of conquering "others." After these early territorial acquisitions, the American empire now consists of client states, protectorates and occupations, not to mention spheres of influence.

Westward the course of empire takes its way, US House of Representatives


Comparing empires will not allow us to predict the future, so the USA does not necessarily have to suffer the same fate as Rome, but it will permit us to see our own history of conquering and exploiting weaker cultures and powers in a familiar light.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Boy I need to go back to France, cause from what you've listed

The United States sucks like a giant size turd that needs to be flushed!

Is that what you were trying to convey; that America stinks like shit,
now and forever? :shrug:

[daninthemoon]

4. We are Rome, just as Constantinople was Rome. Rome moves.

[KittyWampus]

5. All Empires have their rise and fall. There will be many more after ours crumbles into dust

just as their were many before us stretching back through history and spanning all continents on Earth except the poles. And possibly Australia/New Zealand?

[Uzybone]

7. probably the most lazy and tired comparison out there

people have been using it for hundreds of years for the US and the British Empire before it.

[Posteritatis]

8. My inner historian just set himself afire in protest. (nt)

[Gravel Democrat]

9. Philip K. Dick said

"The Empire has never ended-
just shifted geographically"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K_Dick

[mix]

17. I agree. nt

[nemo137]

10. No. Saying that "x is the modern day version of y" is not useful

Especially since what you're doing is taking bits and fragments from Republican, Principate and Dominate Rome and trying to shoehorn them in to those you see the US. I mean, for one thing, you say "We are a "Republic" so were they, really it was just a veil to hide what they both are, empires," which is true about Rome, but only to a point, and only at some times in history. Talking about "ignorant public" and "lots of poverty" and "large sense of exceptionalism" is true for every country and more or less all times.

The Rome comparison gets muddied ever further by the fact that early republicans, both here and in Europe (and I think South America, but I'm fuzzier on that), consciously adopted names and symbols and trappings from Rome (especially republican Rome). It's no accident that we have a Senate, for example, or that we have lots of Neoclassical architecture (which, admittedly, comes in several waves as that style waxes and wanes in popularity).

You're more on track with your last paragraph, where you say "Throughout history there is always some mega, bully superpower trying to control everything," but even that's only true in some times and some cases. Situations where one power is clearly in control are less common that situations where two or more groups are vying for control.

Finally, I'd just like to ask you to consider history as contingent; that is, that there is no grand scheme guiding history. Things did not have to turn out like they did, and it is possible to change outcomes.That may very well be more fruitful, politically, than comparing America to Rome.

[mix]

13. this is entirely false

And your examples only strengthen the OP.

Contingency is important, but so is recognizing enduring structures, like empire.

But this is the kicker:

Talking about "ignorant public" and "lots of poverty" and "large sense of exceptionalism" is true for every country and more or less all times.

This quote is a nice example of ahistorical thinking.

Not every country that has these phenomena conquers and exploits weaker power and cultures, as empires do. Therefore this cannot be true for all time, everywhere.

[nemo137]

25. Calling empire an "enduring structure" is iffy, though.

The Persian empire was managed quite differently than the Roman Empire, which was quite different in both management and goals than the Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch empires in the 16th-17th century, which was in turn different than the British and French colonial empires in the 19th century. You have different ideas about race, money, religion, etc motivating them. To get any kind of over-arching definition for empire, you have to make it extremely broad, and it begins to lose its usefulness.

While the quote you pulled from me was flippant and overstated, I'd argue that trying to project back ideas like "ignorant public" and "large sense of exceptionalism" on to Rome is worse. Romans did not, for all the we love them for being a republic and see ourselves in them, have the same ideas about public participation in government and the need for an informed public that we do. Neither does reading "exceptionalism" back on to them work. Our idea of exceptionalism is deeply informed by the medieval idea of "translatio," where authority to rule continually moves west (Troy to Greece to Rome to England or France or Spain, depending on who you're reading). There are very few ideas from the present, if any, that you can project backwards and have them work.

[mix]

41. Empire is not "an idea from the present," it is a political structure inherited from the past.

Your point is pedantic. Of course, there is no absolutely perfect comparison between past and present, but there are enough similarities between Rome and the USA to merit understanding aspects of our own history in Rome's. There are also significant differences, some of which you've chanced upon, but this doesn't diminish the common characteristics of all empires, such as the conquest and exploitation of other cultures and societies.

[nemo137]

43. I think that that definition of "empire" is too broad

and that the different political and economic systems in the modern US and ancient Rome make for less-than-profitable comparisons.

[CTyankee]

18. Nemo, I also see some resemblance to the Florentine Republic and its eventual demise

due to the machinations of the Medici dynasty and also some of their own willingness to go along with it. The Florentines were hotly proud of their republic, their "communune" and stoutly, in many instances, refused to give it up. But the Medicis quietly and secretly subverted that republic and democracy. I wish we gave a bit more study to the Medici in Florence than Rome, altho I have a lot more to say about Rome but won't in the interest of time here. After all, the Medici invented modern banking and we would do well to examine their excesses and their abject LOSSES (their family simply died out eventually)and the cost to the republic of Florence. A sad thing, indeed. However, we do have some magnificent architecture and art as a result of the spending of the Medicis, Cosimo and Lorenzo in particular...

[nemo137]

26. I'm going to straight up say that I question the value of these kinds of comparisons

You're never going to get anything close to a 1-to-1 match for anything, ever. Also, the internal and external political positions of the US and Florence are so different (and late medieval/renaissance Italian politics is so goddamn complex) that I'm not sure you could strip enough away to make a useful comparison.

Having said all that, Florence and its history is fascinating, and the city itself is a treasure.

[CTyankee]

40. Of course and of course Florence is a treasure.

I have often wondered how Florence accomplished what it did in art and culture and I come away just dazzled. How did it have the genius of Brunelleschi and his dome, Massacio and other painters in perspective, the sheer genius of Leonardo, the fineness of Lippi, Boccacio, Fra Angelico and Raphael, the sculpture of Donatello, the magnificence of Michelangelo. The dedication of so many to humanism.

I make my comparison based on how we see democracy, a republic, manipulated by "special interests" to defeat itself. THAT is what I find so interesting. People voting against their own self interest. Their republic, their civic values and interest, the stubborn faith in the "popoli" the people against the rich and powerful. And it is, so often, a losing battle, as it was for the Florentine Republic. That's sad...

[Junkdrawer]

11. Somewhat...but the parallels with the British Empire are better..

and more recent.

[apocalypsehow]

12. Not even close. For all sorts of complicated reasons that would take thousands of keystrokes.

You may find this link useful:

http://www.unrv.com/

[Zywiec]

14. Yeah, it would suck to live in Rome now

:eyes:

[branders seine]

15. the romans were pikers

except for the whole emperor-as-god thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Rent the DVD "Medieval Lives" by Terry Jones (of Monty Python) and watch the extra

on Gladiators.

[CommonSensePLZ]

20. An empire yes, but one of a kind. Sort of.

...Well, India's empire is kind of like ours. In many empires land and civilians are captured, but they retain a separateness from the now-ruling people. America is made of all kinds of people who are subjected to the same law equally (except maybe on Indian reserves, but of course many Indians live under the American law same as everyone else). This also happened in India's empire when it was pulled together centuries ago.

As far as the architecture and symbols we use you can thank Freemasonry for that, and a lot of our founding fathers were members as well.

[Richard D]

22. Well

Rome to the Holy Roman Empire to Europe to America.

[cynatnite]

36. well, while you're at it...

I find these comparisons hilarious.

[terrell9584]

23. this says it all

http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/g101ilec/namer/nac/nacnine/na9intro/nacninfr.htm

[spin]

30. That link has a great map! ...

We are to a great extend nine separate nations.

[Odin2005]

32. We are equivalent to the last century of the Roman Republic.

[terrell9584]

34. By that logic

It means that we have yet to go to imperial stage and will peak under it (power wise).


It's rare someone brings up that comparison but it is one I have thought of.

[JNelson6563]

39. In a word: Yes.

I'm just glad I'll be long dead when the next dark ages hit.