Does The US Act Like Rome Before It Fell?

Post Reply New Topic

Actually the Asian countries like Vietnam, Laos, and others turned to communism when the U.S. decided to back France over them at the San Francisco Treaty negotiations.

Ho chi men (?), lead the Vietnam delegation to the treaty negotiations and pushed for independence.
Truman and the American delegation snubbed them and told them the U.S. would not accept their independence from France, and would help France maintain their Asian possessions.

So he went to the Soviet Union, who was willing to fund the independence movement in Asia.

@Inventor

The Roman Empire definition of slave is vastly different then the modern definition of slave.

The U.S. has borrowed money almost every year since the 1850s to fund the government, because the American people are hell bent on keeping taxes low.

Most of the U.S. debt is held internally by the American people, Social Security & Medicare (which these two hold almost $6 trillion of it), and other government agencies (including the federal reserve system).
As of now ~67% of the debt is held internally, mostly by Social Security & Medicare and the Federal Reserve.
Though at least 20% is held by the American people and the banks.

~33% is held by international institutions and banks, and foreign governments (mostly by the former).

Buying U.S. government debt is the best and most stable investment in the world as it has been for over 100 years.

Right now the U.S. government can borrow money at less than 2%, being one of the cheapest borrowing periods ever!
Many industrial governments have the same borrowing rates, with the exception of Swiss which is negative (meaning you lose money holding Swiss bonds).

Right now the U.S. economy stands $17.7 Trillion, with the national debt being about equal due to the Great Recession, bail outs, and slow recovery.

If the economy grows at 3% as predicted for 2015, then it will add $531B to the economy.
This current greater than the amount the federal government borrows.

GDP/Deficit is the most important ratio when it comes national debt (not to be confused with total national debt)
Thes second most important is the amount owed to external creditors (this is what did the British and French in)!

As long as the economy and economic growth is decently greater than deficits, then you have nothing to worry about.

The U.S. military has kept the world at peace for the most part, which in turn has allowed the global economy and trade to grow at a rapid pace. Since 1945 there has been no major disruption to international trade routes.

Lastly the U.S. has no land based empire and hasn't since the Philippines gained independence.

As for the countries you have listed doesn't count as empire building.

Syria has no direct U.S. involvement militarily as of now, though U.S. and allies are sending arms and training.
Russia is also doing the same

Libya was a UN sanctioned mission led by NATO, primarily by UK and France with little U.S. involvement.

Iraq well Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, slaughtered millions of his own people, and regularly harassed the UN no fly zone plans.
The U.S. simple decided to put an end to it, though Brenner's handling of the occupation made things so much worse.

Afghanistan was also a UN sanctioned mission because the Taliban were giving Al-Qaeda a safe haven and working with them.
The Afghanistan mission was mainly U.S. troops with money and resources given by the other allies, China, Russia, and others.
It succeeded in cleaning out Al-Qaeda and severely disrupting them, while offing their leadership.
It also has led to Afghanistan to become democracy, where women can now stand in elections, go to school, and hold job.
Though admittedly Karzai's government was horrible corrupt which made things worse.

If you want a US/SPQR parallel, the fall of the Republic is much more apt.

The Republic fell because of extreme partisanship, class warfare, and a loss of respect for the Roman Constitution/social contract. Sound familiar?

Actually The Republic had no independent judiciary to enforce the constitution and readily convict those on power for breaches and corruption.

The Republic didn't pay the troops a living wage for the service, instead had the generals pay them out of the loot.
The military ended up being loyal to their generals, instead of the government themselves.

This in end, saw the Senate lose control of the military to the generals.
The Senate was unwilling to give full rights and powers the Plebeian Tribunal, in order to keep the power in the Senate as rich boys club.

When the middle and lower classes rose up against the Senate's refusals, the military refused to take action.
Then the generals eventually realized they had enough power to compel the Republic to do their bidding.
Eventually the Republic was plunged into a long period of civil wars, where the generals were fighting each other for power with their troop legions.

The Republic ended when Julius Caesar defeated his rival generals for control of the Republic.
He quickly stripped the Senate and others of their powers, which lead to his assassination followed by another civil war.
Octavian won that civil war and was granted the title of Emperor by the Senate and brought much needed stability to Rome.

The U.S. Constitution and government structure was intended to be perfected form of the Roman Republic by the founding fathers.

The U.S. Constitution has too many checks and balances, and division of power between the states to go the way of Rome.

Unless you can convince 38 states and 2/3rd of both houses of congress to vote for it.

Anyways the U.S. is way less corrupt than it was in the 1880s.

Actually he never called himself emperor (or dictator being the more era accurate term), he had the senate declare him Princeps, or first citizen-- operative term being citizen. Julius Caesar never called himself dictator either-- both understood Roman politics and rectified the approach Sulla took a few decades earlier by not outlandishly brandishing their power. Both Julius and Augustus were keen on keeping the facade of a republic intact so as not to alienate the social structure below them.

America never rose to power, Great Depression America lucked out when world wars demolished the rest of the world. Lend Lease, the Payday Lender of war.

Not having an empire of land is worse, an empire of military bases does not produce income.

The dollar did fill a post war need, as long as it was backed by gold.

An expanding economy can be making things, or making those outside trade in dollars. The Petro Dollar supports our printing press. We export inflation.

The economy expands when Congress mandates that poor people have to buy medical coverage, or else.

America sells Protection. The People pay to protect Banks, Brokers, Insurance, Medical.

Income has been moving upward and outward, Net Worth for most moving down, for a huge number, below zero.

Rising prices are not a sign of a growing economy. $20 now buys what $1 did fifty years ago.

It is not the economy growing by 3%, it is inflation. Buying Bonds at 2% is proof that the loss of 1% is the best deal available.

This pushes investment into Stocks, Gold, Oil, which have all crashed, taking retirement income with them.

Looting the Middle Class has been the most recent economic boom, for some.

When there is nothing left to steal, when all social bonds have been broken, Governments fall.

I agree with the parallels to a considerable extent, although the Roman Empire lasted longer than 70 AD-195 AD. 70 AD is the date of the destruction by the Romans of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. I am not sure where you get 195 AD from, unless its the end of the Principate (early imperial, but still post-Res publica Rome) and beginning of the Dominate (later imperial, but still pre-Byzantine).

The city was traditionally founded some time around the 750s BC (roughly contemporary Greek poet Homer if he existed, with the Assyrian Empire, Biblical prophets Isaiah, Hosea and Amos, and with kings Uziah/Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judah, the end of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, Cushite/Nubian/Ethiopian rule over Egypt, part way through Zhou Dynasty China by way of context) and within the legendary or semi-legendary period of the "Seven Kings of Rome" had already begun to dominate the Italian peninsula, although they had rivals such as the Etruscans, from whom some of their kings came. This period ended circa 509 with the founding of the Res publica "public thing" or "people's thing" or Republic. Incidentally, as with Athens one is dealing with a system that is in some ways more democratic (for example having a citizens' assembly or assemblies involved in at least some of day to day politics) but in many ways less so than the various forms of representative democratic government that may be seen today (example, restricted franchise, initially system dominated by old noble families from pre-monarchical period, later by the wealthy in land or other worldly goods). During the long Republican period, the Romans came to dominate the Mediterranean through confrontations with their rivals the Carthaginians (Carthage was a city founded in what is now Tunisia a little earlier than Rome by the Phoenicians, seafarers of Canaanite descent from powerful merchant cities such as Tyre and Sidon in what is now Lebanon, then merely the name of a local mountain range famed for its cedars, whose wood was used in the construction of temples in Babylon and the First Temple in Jerusalem). The Carthaginians like their Phoenician kin had colonies as far west and north as Spain.

So there was an Imperium Romanum or Roman Empire before there imperator ceased to be a military title and came to mean emperor - Rex or king was never used although the Byzantines used the Greek equivalent βασιλεύς (Basileus).

Then in the Late Republic a number of powerful military leaders became dictators (formerly this title and its position were an emergency measure like declaring martial law; by this period we're talking people much more like dictators in the modern sense) and frequent civil war and coup d'état culminating in Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian for short) Julius Caesar's grand-nephew and adopted heir, becoming Princeps. He died in c. 14 AD. His family by birth and marriage, the Julio-Claudian dynasty reigned until Nero's death in c. 68 AD, followed by the Year of the Four Emperors, the last of whom, Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian for short) founded the short Flavian Dynasty of himself and his two sons, his elder also Titus Flavius Vespasianus, called Titus for short and to distinguish him from his father, and younger known as Domitian. Vespasian would also have in your scheme reinaugurated the Pax Romana, although the Jews probably do not remember him and son Titus fondly (no one, or very few, seem to remember Domitian fondly) given the destruction of the Second Temple during the reign of Vespasian, who had been commanding Roman forces in Syria Palestine before going off back to Rome to become emperor, and the generalship of his son Titus whom he left behind in Judaea.

Sorry I have belatedly realised your dates were probably for the Pax Romana (this had existed earlier than 70 AD but was interrupted by such events as the Jewish Revolt in Judaea/Syria Palestine and the earlier campaigns of Boudicca Queen of the Iceni in Britain, as well as the Year of the Four Emperors in Rome itself) rather than the Roman Empire as a whole. I hope these details have been of interest, although doubtless most of the above will be know to many of you.

Julius Caesar did receive the title Dictator Perpetuum (literally eternal dictator but more commonly and accurately rendered Dictator for Life - though his was to prove short) from the Senate. But, yes, both he and Octavian/Augustus cast themselves as continuing Republican norms with some reforms rather than as becoming despots. And Augustus' title of Princeps was a republican one, although subsequently a number of languages derived their word for prince from it.

This is a good summary.

Surely you are not as bad as the Peloponnesian War yet!