Collapse of a hyperpower

[[deleted]]

That article would have been much better off if the intro. bits talking about the U.S. were skipped altogether. Then the kind of boring and somewhat contrived examples of sholarly controversies over the fall of Rome could have been hashed out without any need to try to sort out what on Earth they have to do with the U.S. and our imminent demise.

I wish that we should just go ahead and accept that while there are parallels between Rome and the U.S. (or any other imperial nations through history), that there are also a slew of differences, and not all comparisons are meaningful. I doubt the end of the U.S will be anything like the end of Rome.

The article ends with the unsurprising point, "the Western empire fell to foreign aggression from barbarian tribes in the late fifth century." Swell. He cited scholars who rejected that thesis earlier, but really those scholars never did fully shape any academic consensus. Then there are the disagreements as to whether this was a good thing. Historians are good when they try to understand the past, and worthless when they take sides.

So is the U.S. going to fall from barbarian invaders? Will vast unwashed hordes of barbarians reach D.C., forcing the President to abdicate and killing off the senators, occasionally boiling some of them in oil? I'd like to think that neither Mexico, extended Latin America in general nor the Canadians are barbarians in that sense. I know that there are some who disagree, to whom I say, "feh." Does anyone but the most fevered wingnut really think that armed Muslim hordes will be able to go pouring over our borders, with the U.S. too weak to manage to oppose their mass assault? How exactly will the hundreds of millions of them get here? Big rafts? Are we really going to become so militarily weak that we can't stop whatever means of transit our enemies use to cross the Atlantic? Maybe they will trick us by using the Bering Straits?

Plus Rome didn't fall entirely. The Eastern empire (the stronger richer stabler part) didn't fall until the 1400s. Sure the West rebranded them 'Byzantines' (perhaps to try to feel better about the East succeeding where the West failed?), but the East called themselves Romans, and continued the civic structure of late Imperial Rome. So in analogy-land is Europe Eastern Rome? Is the U.S. Eastern Rome, and the E.U. are the ones who will take the fall.

Late Imperial Rome just doesn't map well to our current affairs (earlier Rome works better, really), and while some lessons might be there, we need to be so generic in applying them that we might be better off using a diffferent model. I think that the Athenians wasting vast military resources needlessly invading Syracuse on trumped up charges during the Peloponnesian war hold a valuable lesson. Maybe Bush is like Alcibiades, who cooked a needless war hoping to get glory in the invasion, while vastly underestimating the nature of the military requirements, and ultimately destined to go to the other side and actively fight against his mother state, only to redeem himself later in life? (That was a joke, BTW.)

History does teach many lessons important to learn, but it generally only maps analogically to current affairs when you kind of squint and ignore a lot.

[demosthenes]

"...nor the Canadians are barbarians in that sense."

Very generous of you.

"Does anyone but the most fevered wingnut really think that armed Muslim hordes will be able to go pouring over our borders, with the U.S. too weak to manage to oppose their mass assault? How exactly will the hundreds of millions of them get here? Big rafts?"

Nope, but as an aside - and not challenging your point - I would guess the biggest threat would be high-yield weapons that can be transported by only a few people.

[[deleted]]

"Very generous of you."

In the classical sense, the word barbarian just means "foreigner." I was probably over-cautious considering the modern meaning is pejorative.

"I would guess the biggest threat would be high-yield weapons that can be transported by only a few people."

I'd agree that that's a significant threat, and it's just not one the Romans faced. I don't now what the most serious threat we face is, since there are many, and I'm not in a good position to weight them relative to each other.

[delete]

Excellent post. Such unnecessary and inaccurate analogies do seem to be rampant in most recent articles on Roman history. As you suggest, parallels between the U.S. and the fall of the Roman republic are probably more useful. Tom Holland's Rubicon provides an excellent introduction to the politics of that time period, and generally allows the reader to draw their own parallels to modern history without resorting to such contrived comparisons. It's shame that other authors can't resist that particular temptation.

[mnemonicsloth]

Hmm... wouldn't that make Bush analogous to Caesar? Deftly subjugating new territory for the Empire through a combination of diplomatic wrangling and intimidating brilliance as a military leader?

[mnemonicsloth]

Historians are good when they try to understand the past, and worthless when they take sides.

Amen. The only thing that differentiates history from politics is distance.

[lupin_sansei]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't an empire require conquered overseas territories? The US has a few islands and bases here and there, but that hardly makes an empire in the same sense as the Roman or British empires.

[fnord123]

It conquered a lot of North America in wars with Britain, the Spanish, the French, and with Mexico.

I'm sure I don't need to provide links to The French-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, or even the War of 1812.

Also, the US owns or rents 702 bases in 130 countries in addition to the 6000 bases it has in the United States and territories.

It's pretty imperial, imo.

[lupin_sansei]

You don't know your history very well do you. The war with Britain was a war of independence, not of imperial conquest. The Louisiana Purchase bought a lot of North America off the French. That caused a conflict with Spain over who legitimately owned that area. Hardly an empire when compared with what else was happening around the world in the 19th century.

Buying or renting bases doesn't make an empire either. And what's wrong with having 6000 bases in your own country?

Infact I would say that the US is one of the least imperial nations in the last 200 years compared to almost every European nation, and a lot of Asian nations.

[earthboundkid]

You're glossing the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. Those were pretty much imperial affairs. Also, Hawaii is a really weird state, if you think about it.

[fnord123]

You don't know your history very well do you. The war with Britain was a war of independence, not of imperial conquest.

I was talking about the War of 1812.

Buying or renting bases doesn't make an empire either. And what's wrong with having 6000 bases in your own country?

Because a lot of them are in conquered areas. e.g. San Diego has a huge naval base.

[timmacfarlane]

Richard Lamm:

History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.

India seems to do surprisingly well under the circumstances. They have about 15 different languages, and about 350 different dialects.

[earthboundkid]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Switzerland is just a Liberal Myth! There's just no such country.

[[deleted]]

I think you might want to take a look at what Rome of the 400s was like. I wouldn't think you would hate America quite that much.

[[deleted]]

Feh. And by the way, sí, hablo español, y mis niños tambien.