June 29, 2008
By: Miss Green
The probable causes for the fall of Rome are practically endless. Many scholars have debated over these issues for many years. Some of the major reasons include, but are not limited to, political corruption, inflation, and military spending. Even though civilization is expected to learn from mistakes, the same issues can be seen in America’s society even today. Unfortunately, history is doomed repeat itself unless the correct changes are made. One of the main theories for the fall of Rome was due to political corruption.
In the history of many countries, political corruption is not a rare find. One of the most difficult events for Rome was choosing a new emperor. For many countries, this has not been a difficult task. However, Rome never set up a standard system for determining an emperor. Previously, the choice was to be debated between the old emperor, the emperor’s private army, and the army of Rome. Nonetheless, the emperor’s private army, the Praetorian Guard, gradually gained complete control of choosing the emperor. They would appoint an emperor who, in turn, would reward them. This made them even more influential than they already were. However, in 186 A. D., the army strangled the new emperor. This began the practice of selling the throne to the highest bidder. Over the next 100 years, Rome had 37 different emperors. 25 of the emperors were removed from office by assassination. These series of events weakened the Roman Empire, and many believed it to be the eventual fall of Rome. Political corruption can be found in many governments today, including the United States. Money has great influence in politics, and lobbyists will convince leaders to go against moral understanding by offering large amounts of money. Other times, using fear tactics to scare citizens into giving away their personal rights has been used. The government even has agendas that make money for special interests, but at the cost of endangering citizens. With political corruption comes greed and spending, which causes inflation.
Inflation is thought to be another major factor in the fall of Rome. The Roman economy suffered from inflation beginning after the reign of Marcus Aurelius. When the Romans stopped conquering new lands, the amount of gold dramatically went down. However, the Romans were luxurious people and continued to spend lots of gold even though they did not have as much. In turn, their gold coins began containing less gold, which made them less valuable. To make up for the loss in value, Roman merchants raised prices on goods. Because of this, many people stopped using coins and began to barter to get their necessities. Eventually, salaries had to be paid in food and clothing, and taxes were collected in fruits and vegetables. Like political corruption, inflation is also a problem in today’s American society. The value of the United States dollar is dropping rapidly. When the Federal Reserve prints more money, they do not have enough gold to back it up. For every dollar that is printed, the overall value of the dollar decreases. Nevertheless, more money is being printed every day, which has caused the United States to fall into a recession. This may not have been the leading cause for the fall of Rome, but definitely had an impact on it. Like the United States, one of the major expenses of Rome was military spending.
The Roman Empire was under constant strain trying to maintain an army to defend the border from barbarian attacks. Since vast amounts of money were spent on the army, other services were cut down. These services included providing public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Eventually, this led to frustrated Romans who lost the determination to fight for their empire. This forced the government to begin hiring soldiers from foreign countries or the unemployed city mobs. During the Civil War, which started in 49 B.C., both sides recruited from non-Romans and non-citizens. Pay was also doubled, no doubt to secure loyalty. This particular army was not only undependable, but very expensive as well. Once again, the emperors were forced to raise taxes which, in turn, contributed even more to inflation. Again, this same issue can be found in the present America. Billions of dollars are spent every year fighting the War in Iraq. While the troops are away from home, the borders are susceptible to illegal immigrants and terrorists. American troops are desperately needed, but recruiting is at an all-time low. The United States’ foreign policy is forcing the country to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The leaders of America have also directly disobeyed the Constitution of the United States in order to gain power or wealth. David Walker, comptroller general of the US, says “our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernize everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.” The similarities between the Romans and the United States are astonishing.
The fall of the mighty Roman Empire seems like a fairy-tale to many. It is hard to imagine that the most powerful, wealthy nation could be brought to its knees. However, this is a vital concept that current American citizens need to recognize. Just as the Roman Empire fell, the United States could fall as well. Political corruption, inflation, and military spending are only a few of the many problems Americans face today. Not only does the United States share these common problems with Rome, but also share other issues like unemployment and poor public health. Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”. If Americans continue to repeat history, the same results will be seen, and yet another mighty empire will crumble.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 987 reads
One thing is true of the fall of Rome, they were a republic built on laws , NOT MEN!, they shifted this into a democracy and then in turn moved into socialism that was ruled by an oligarchy. Either way it caused the demise and failure of such a system, What wiped out Romans? we probably will never know if it was greed or the form of government that eliminated the movement from this rock, but one thing is for sure, it can happen again , even if we think the human race has evolved enough in terms of humanity to deviate from such a course. Looks like we still are in the learning process.
This country is in a revolution and I am lucky to be part of it!
"Ron Paul 2008"
Daniel, one of the criteria in the critique of Ms. Green's comparison is indeed time, as you well noted. However, you cited events that took place within 80 years of eachother. Ms. Green wrote about events separated by as much as 2000 years.
There is also a divide of space, both physical and cultural. America is far from Rome. And as many cultural and intellectual similarities exist between modern Westerners and Romans, so there are 10 times more differences. A great portion of the Romans' basic way of thinking was immensely divergent from ours. Furthermore, the ties that we feel exist between us and Rome are based on the intellectual ideals of the Renaissance. These ideals grew into the aristocratic and imperialist education system of 18th and 19th century Britain, France, and Germany and Prussia. America's democratic and egalitarian culture is a subtle, if not sometimes an open (e.g., Thoreau, Emerson), rejection of the admiration of the Romans.
Even more importantly, Miss Green is citing "facts" from disparate times in Roman history. They come from disparate sources, which she does not name. These sources have disparate transmission histories - that is, how they got from papyrus scrolls in antiquity to a monk's copying desk in the middle ages, and into the hands of humanists and intellectuals of the Renaissance, eventually to be continually edited and reprinted today. What about relevant archaeological evidence? Epigraphic evidence? Papyrological evidence? These all come with their respective opportunities and problems. Opportunity to further knowledge about the ancient world. Problems about methodology, dating, and interpretation. To take just one example, most of our information about second and third centuries A.D. comes from a text called the Augustan History. It contains biographies of emperors, but its style and format and narratives closely parallel those of Roman novels. How can "fact" be separated from fiction, literally, in this smorgesborg of history and tall tales?
It should be noted that the Augustan History is the source of the imperial assassinations that figure in Miss Green's essay.
And that is, in fact, what most of Ms. Green's "facts" are: interpretation. And because her objective is to convince you that America is on the brink of a disaster as fatal as the fall of the Roman Empire, because the historical depth of her essay will appear so astonishing and the parallels so undeniable, you will all the more jump into the arms of her argument.
But let us talk about that "fall." Was it a fall? This is worth asking. The drama and tragedy of a great empire's fall from grace into defeat is a compelling story. We want to hear it. For that reason we should be wary of its factuality. Archaeological evidence - art and architecture, pottery, etc., does not change very much after that memorable date of A.D. 476. So the material lives of the Romans was not much disturbed. What about the sack of Rome in 410 by Alaric the Visigoth? It was the first time that the city had been sacked by a foreign army since the Gauls in the 3rd century B.C. Why does the Empire "continue" for a full two more generations? And why didn't Alaric establish his own power in Rome, the greatest city in the Mediterranean? Is it possible that the "sack" was really negotiated by both sides and part of the deal was to let Alaric pillage the city? Why else would he just up and leave a city he had conquered? Finally, is it possible that the "fall" of the Empire is really just a set of extraordinarily complex changes that, yes, did dismantle the existing political framework? And was this dismantling any different than the changes instituted by Diocletian (i.e., splitting up the Empire into rule by four people, called the tetrarchy)?
Miss Green cites a number of historical events, and social, cultural, and economic trends covering a wide range of time. If Rome was experiencing problems with foreign mercenaries in 49 B.C., why did the fall occur in A.D. 476? How did the Empire survive nearly 300 years after the deadly practice of "selling the throne" started in A.D. 186? If the Empire reached its greatest extent in A.D. 117, why did it take so long for the subsequent lack of conquered gold sources to produce the coin devaluation that Miss Green makes the prominent feature of her economic history of Rome? And did ancient economies even work like modern, capitalist economies? Did Romans even think in economically rational terms, because after all extant histories written by Romans show little concern for economics (begging the question, what are our sources of evidence for ancient economic history?)? If anything, these conditions described by Ms. Green, if they are true, coalesced into the disaster of the 3rd century A.D., which was a period of virtual anarchy. How did the Empire survive and thrive for another two centuries? Why did it recover then and "fall" later? There are legions of scholars who will debate these issues until the last drop of ink or blood has hit the page.
As someone who loves the study of the ancient world, I appreciate this essay's serious engagement with Roman history and its assumption that ancient history is important and relevant. But I find no compelling reason to believe that America is the new Rome, and that soon she will fall. Glen Bowersock, a historian of ancient Greece and Rome, commented that we are obsessed with the fall and that it has become a symbol for all of our fears. And I think that the fall is being used here in that way.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
I am no historian, and this was a college paper for Humanities. I researched, and wrote what I learned. I'm not trying to say that America will fall because it's the New Rome, all I'm trying to do is provide collaborative comparisons so that we *might* be able to learn from mistakes of others, and *hopefully* not make them again because of it.
Thank you for your insight.
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Miss Green,
The essential message of your essay is that "those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." It is an old and well-worn adage.
The problems of the "fall" of the Roman empire, if it indeed may be called a fall, are and have been under examination and debate since the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. and there is no fixed reason to which we can point as the demise of Rome - even putting that aside there seems to be theoretical problems in comparing histories across time and space.
Assume, first, that Roman history and American history are monolithic blocks: a perhaps dubious notion, I admit. The circumstances that shaped Roman history into a continuous state of being and becoming - that is, a narrative of institutions and people, places, and environments that constantly interacted to drive the decision-making of elites (and in many less-noticeable instances, non-elites) happened in another time and place under circumstances that could not be ever again reproduced. Simply said, Rome was a different time and a different place, affected by severely different ideas, technologies, and histories.
Romans and Americans have very different ideas about how the world works and their place in that world. Hell, forget the Romans - Americans today and Americans in the 1790s have very different ideas about the world and our part on its stage - and about the role of government in our lives. So then, how big a gulf exists between Rome of 476 and America of 2008?
Comparisons of histories between time and space are a difficult sell. I've heard the Roman/American comparison before and it is rhetorically appealing but logically dissappointing. Drawing the line between two cultures demands a more exact set of comparanda than we actually have, and to force the parallel lines to be straight we often impose our own worldviews on an ancient history where such views were non-existant.
Why bother to compare then?
By your logic, the only historical comparison that can be made is when a comparison is made of the same things, and at the same time, and at the same place. I mean, if I wanted to examine a situation where I stood up now compared to where my friend stood up 5 minutes ago, it won't work because he is 45 miles away from me. I am indoors and he is outdoors. The affects of place and time on each of us is in stark contrast because it's storming outside, but nice and dry in my house. He's playing a sport and I am typing on a computer keyboard.
Sure, that simplifies it greatly when comparing it to the complexity of an entire civilzation, but why should it?
Let me follow your logic and apply it in these three cases:
To compare the united states of America (circa 1850) to the United States of America (circa 1914) to the views of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (circa 1933) is to be an unfair scale of judgment because of the "Time" difference?
Your logic allows for no comparison to anything because "time" is the first criteria, or did I read this all wrong?
Wondering in SC,
DanielC
Touche, Daniel.
Exactly what I was thinking.
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
"Change your thoughts and you change your world". That's the message people ought to be hearing and practicing. We create our reality moment by moment. We are seeing in the outer world that which was created in years past by humanity as a whole, and yes by us Americans for believing that nuclear threat is all around us. Non-sense I say, FEAR ( false evidence appearing real ), or as sold to us by the controlled media. We have the ability to change the future, not just by "breaking the news matrix", but by guarding every word and thought we have, especially when we put it in writing, or out to the public. We have to take responsibility for ourselves, our actions, our words and our behavior.
We have been given the promise ( by Our Galactic Brothers & Sisters ), yes those who stand with us and as guardians over this sacred planet called Gaia ( Earth ), that nuclear war ( like during Atlantis ) will not be tolerated. We must become the change we want to see in America., and we accomplish this by participating together as one people, one voice, and then the rest of the world will repsond.
This 4th of July 2008, marks the ushering in of the new "Declaration of Independence", its out there I've not only seen it but my signature is on it as well as many others and can be viewed at "We The People For Peace".org. Enjoy !
I'm not OK about the comparison of currrent times with Roman Times, nor with the Nazi era. Today we have atomic bombs. Then... people did not have these bombs. The death of the world was not a possiblity, at least not by humans. Now, it is a clear possiblity. War and revolution during the nuclear age is an entirely different matter. The past does not give us much precedent.
_________________
Freedom is an inside job
The fall of Rome was in many ways catastrophic for Europe, leading to much lower standards of living for centuries. Were America to fall in a similar way, the existence of nuclear weapons extremely complicates matters. No one could loot atomic bombs from the corpse of Rome, but what could happen if the American government were to collapse so completely? What would become of the nukes? Nukes don't rule out a collapse, but rather make the prospect of one much more frightening. History does not follow any inevitable path of progress, and America may yet prevail or fall. The big question is, if it's the latter, what then for mankind?
you adopted the idea that the fall of America will occur despite having a nuclear arsenault and before it ever comes to nuclear proliferation. Even from a theologian standpoint, the end of times isn't denoted by a nuclear fallout, it's denoted by the fiscal failure of a Western empire. Now to Scott or Tom or whomever doesn't want to choose to believe in the Bible, that's fine - just mark the stark resempblance of and parallel to a scriptural prohecy of the end of times to Miss Greens comparison between the fall of Rome and America.
Truth, have you ever wondered what happened to the Mayan civilization? I mean seriously, here's a very advanced society, building pyramids, and understanding solar and lunar affects on things like tides and time... and yet, they up and vanished -- long before nuclear tehnology existed. It's not unreasonable to believe that even with changing times, sometimes the most basic failures can occur within a civilization.
You don't have to be OK with it or not, the facts are still there. Sure, there weren't atomic bombs when Rome fell. But there was still inflation, welfare, poor health care, unemployment, military spending, and most of all political corruption. The A-Bomb has nothing do to with those issues, so I really don't understand you're point. Could you explain further, please?
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
I have to agree with Miss Green's confusion. I'm not sure where your discussion of nuclear arms fits into the conversation. Are you saying that a country such as the U.S. cannot fall in the tradition of Rome because if nuclear arms?
it would make for a very long bumper sticker
You are right on the mark, although you are being too nice. America is about to fall, just like Rome, and for the same reasons. However, you left out one: Welfare.
I know it probably seems like I harp on this, but this is the 800 pound gorilla hiding in the corner of the current political debate. Even most members of this site would rather ignore the fact that we spend 10 times as much on welfare as we do on "the War on Terror."
Like the United States, Rome had two political parties - the Optimates were roughly equivalent to our Republicans (the old ones, anyways), and the Populares were roughly equivalent to our Democrats. There were important differences in both cases, but this generalization is "in the ballpark."
Rome had huge welfare programs, called "alimenta," that contributed as much to their inflation as the standing army protecting their empire. The Roman elite provided "bread and circuses" to their people in order to appease them as they robbed the people of the vast majority of their wealth through military spending and the welfare programs themselves. Add a paragraph on welfare programs in Rome to your piece and you have covered the canvass completely.
Keep the good stuff coming!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Your "harping" about welfare is indeed necessary. Although I did not mention it in my article, welfare was a major catalyst in the fall of Rome, and will be in the fall of the United States, as well. The reason why it wasn't mentioned in my article is because of the sheer fact that I only picked 3 topics. :)
I have always been against the welfare state because with freedom comes responsibility, right? Doesn't matter though, because I'm sure our government loves having tons of people entirely dependent on them. And that leads me to my next point: "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
Thank you for your input. :) It's always welcome in my articles!
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
military blunders and successes of empires throughout history
one of the biggest lessons is that hiring mercenaries will always lead to downfall
the reason being that when they win, you are more beholden to them than them to you and they can demand all sorts of spoils
when they lose they can just walk away and go home
That's so true!
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Your statement "..led to frustrated Romans who lost the determination to fight for their empire. This forced the government to begin hiring soldiers from foreign countries or the unemployed city mobs. During the Civil War, which started in 49 B.C., both sides recruited from non-Romans and non-citizens. Pay was also doubled, no doubt to secure loyalty. This particular army was not only undependable, but very expensive as well. "
Sounds like Blackwater mercenaries being hired at double the military rate, in order to meet shortfalls in the current all-volunteer force.
maybe I will start to accept fruits and vegetables as payment!