What are your views on analogies of the current USA to the Roman Empire? Obviously there are some similarities, but just as obviously there are many, many aspects which are completely different. I'm no expert on politics but I do love the Romans..

Completely different. The only thing they have in common is Rise-Apogee-Fall.

Yes, fall. You just wait.

Well, I've always noticed similarities between USA and the Romans (the Republic era), mainly due to the fact they both consider themselves houlier than thou and pride themselves as being leaders in democratic rule. There is also the fact that they both constantly butt in other people's buisinesses, which almost always leads to military conflict.

Although the Romans seem more badass about the whole thing

This whole American bashing trend is getting quite old. America and the Roman Empire aren't very similar at all.

Didnt mean to bash America if its my post you're referring to.

If only our military stormed other countries with swords and spears and did alot more yelling...


Seriously though, I can see how some people can see things like that. I don't really blame our government for "constantly butting in other people's buisinesses" considering how many other countries hate us. Our government will most likely fall in the future, just like every great (or not so great) empires have in the past.

Well, the badassness comes from the fact the Romans did all this centuries before I was born, and all these movies and books sure help

What do you think is more badass:

-Running towards an army with a sword in your hand.

-Pressing a trigger from a rifle and killing a man feets away from you.

I think modern warfare is more badass than anything pre-gun.

Big difference is this: America have been involved in just about every major war in the 20th century and thereafter....they stopped India from marching into Pakistan in the 70s, they backed Kuwait in the Gulf War, of course in WW-II, they supported England and France against Germany. And yet, they have wanted to give the impression that they are not too comfortable with war and are at pains to find some justification that appears reasonable to at least American citizens. Romans had no such qualms and ran roughshod over just about wherever and whatever they could..but then, back in those days, conquest was supposed to be a good thing.

those were the days

It isn't as romantic.

Pearl Harbour over LOTR?? No way.

How? Neither are romantic. War is war.



Show me some real life wizards and orcs and we'll talk.

Which is why the word 'romantic'. Get it? I don't think even Ktulu meant romantic as in love/affection but rather in the sense of being fascinating. Yep, it is fascinating to watch a white knight in shining armour, not so to watch a grim and gritty soldier....atleast on cinema.

I know what he meant by the word romantic, and I still disagree. LOTR is high fantasy, I am talking about historical war.

If you mean fascinating, modern warfare can be just as fascinating as any ancient battle.

Well, despite Brad Pitt's infinite tendency to be boring as hell, I did like Troy a lot more...modern warfare gets umm... a little too noisy and 'dusty' (right, coming from a metalhead, that's a hard swallow, but I am positively Victorian when it comes to cinema ).

I believe John Lennon was the first to compare the US to the Roman Empire.

- Warning, random claim ahead -
Countries like China will only threaten the U.S once:

1. They have a genuinely decent military (no, having that many people really does NOT mean much), with enough transport and especially aircraft carriers, which they are woefully lacking in (a couple of rusty old Russian buckets, and one of their own in progress, IIRC). India has a very well trained military, a large population, and some good hardware, but not enough.

2. They no longer benefit more from trade with the U.S than they would from conflict (for resources).

Sure the U.S may fall, but not for a while yet. Not in my lifetime, I expect (assuming I live a further 50-60 years).

@Thread author :

Which aspects of both states do you compare ? Please be so kind as to point them out.

I guess the whole comparisson comes from the fact that both are big and powerfull, and are involved in avery war/guerrilla/conflic/street fight/whatever they can find. The big difference is, in my oppinion, the motivation, Rome invaded 1/2 of the world for the sake of Rome, power if you will, US goes to war for economic interests, which in the end, mean power as well, different qkind of, but anyway

I think the early Romans would kill everyone who would compare a christian country with them actually.

Early Romans would try and then get destroyed by superior weaponry and fighting tactics.

Rome ruled the world for 500 years. The US has ruled for about 60 years. We have a long way to go. Old world powers don't die off, they just change and become less significant. Look at Spain, France and the UK. Our fate will be similar.

Probably, though I think when the US will "fall" the whole world will come down as well ... so they'd still be a super power but only because the rest is weakened too. I don't see US losing all power anywhere in the near future, tbh.

Hmmm, true, they probably wouldn't get far with their ships as well

I wasn't trying to make some political point one way or the other; but it's a comparison I've heard many times and I was wondering how the good (and usually well educated) people of this forum thought about it.

I wasn't specifically taking about how we waged war because, along with the way we transmit information, that's probably one of the things that's most different. I guess more like the cultural implications of being a world power, for the government and the common people- have we become more hedonistic, more insular/more imperialistic, more corrupt; and if so, does that have any relation to the state of the Romans or is it just a product of modern times and power? Is it a sign of a decline, or a sign of strength? Another idea I'm interested in is something I think Rousseau brought up, about how once a nation reaches a certain size, it can no longer support democacy... Fear of invasion from the North (uh, I mean South), spreading of the imperial tongue (in a thousand years, will there be an "Anglic" family of languages in parallel to the Romance languages?), rise-fall-decline...

Again, I'm not trying to make some moral point, I'm not anti-American (or anti-Roman), but it's a topic I think about every now and then I'm interested in what other people think.

EDIT: I guess one of the concepts that interests me most is whether human societies follow certain rules, and what they have in common throughout the ages. US/Roman Empire is one example, but it could be the Chinese or Zulu empire for all I care. Maybe I just read too much Isaac Asimov (where's the Mule when you need him?)

I think I was saying that two years ago when I was still posting daily.

What I've noticed is that the man running your country is a fucking psycho.

You want to talk about military conflict? Watch when your guy makes the wrong move which he will inevitably make. Syria = caused all the shit on Lebanon.

I wish the US was more similar to the roman empire.Politicians cover up their tracks and if they're caught they just get removed from office, In the roman empire they just executed them. I think politicians would be less likely to screw people over with the threat of the people being able to kill them.

Well this thread certainly isnt titled 'your thoughts on Syria', but I will respond to your post

First, I doubt you have the sufficient information to make such a 'grand' assumption about the Syrian President,
Second, 'Syria = cause all the shit in Lebanon' is an obviously misguided assumption that again shows your lack of information on the subject, I wont go deeper into that since this is not what the thread is all about.
Third, 'Watch when your guy makes the wrong move...', way to enforce the the same exact shit you're attacking me for saying

1. Prove me wrong.

2. Prove me wrong.

3. I wasn't enforcing what you said. You misunderstood what I was getting at, clearly.

But the Emperor's cohorts will lick his arse with every drop of saliva filled in their sorry bodies no matter how much the common man suffers....in a democracy, the public can and will vote with their feet despite all the rigging and malpractices..take a look at what happened at Pak, the General has been overthrown (though, as a selfish Indian, I had wished he would stay on, because with a likely incompetent democracy in place in Pak, the militants might have a free hand now and run Kashmir as they please :/).

I do agree that the U.S. is similar to the Roman Empire, although I'd prefer to liken it to the British Empire. I'd even go as far as to say that we, along with Britain, are trying to resuscitate the latter empire.



Sound familiar?


Back to the Romans, though, there are plenty of intriguing parallels. Not just in flagrant militarism, but also in the propaganda machine that feeds it. The Roman's had coliseums to keep the people entertained and distracted, with the additional benefit of subliminally fostering carnality through the violent displays held there, which I'd compare to today's sporting events. There was also Christianity, the greatest propaganda tool ever devised, to instill uniformity and unquestioning reverence. Today, we have various mediums of mindless entertainment: pop music, hollywood films, cable television, etc, rounded out by public education, media saturation, and religious "values". Again I'll repeat Huxley's aphorism, that, ideally, the people are not to be forced into servitude, but made to love it.

Freedom Daily also gives a good comparison between U.S.A. and the Romans in economic terms: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp
The first paragraph is particularly poignant, when you consider the grand political opportunity that we just squandered.

"Nearly four decades before the birth of Christ, the Roman orator Cicero offered this sound advice: "The budget should be balanced, public debt should be reduced, the treasury should be rebuilt, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

Well, the Romans didn't take his advice and guess what? Rome fell."

That way that quote is used is misleading, since Rome fell over 400 years after Cicero's death. And then it was chiefly because of barbarian hordes advancing on the city and forcing the last emperor to abdicate. Though one would be equally deceptive not to say that the (Western) Roman Empire had been in decline for quite some time before 476, but there were many, many reasons for this. You can pretty much pick your favorite.

There are similarities in that America has, for the most part, more than Russia, and along with England, been the biggest driving cultural/national force for the entire world since the end of WWII.

I think the impact of America, England, is maybe just as substantial or more substantial than Rome in some ways, in that we have influenced quite certainly every nation in the world in one way or another with regards to culture, science, and maybe most importantly, in language, or "universal communication".

As for "falling", I never really think of it in that way, and it is misleading and incorrect to consider things such as the "end" of Rome, or the end of America, as Rome never really ended, just changed a bit and was no longer the main significant force in Europe, just as the US is no longer necessarily the greatest international driving force for the World.

And I will add, that Italy was still a great force in the future of Europe, playing a very vital religious, artistic, and scientific role, and later nations that would lead Europe, in particular: France, England, Spain, Germany, all were in many important ways related and of "Rome".

I think while others are coming up, the leader role will be more often shared now, but as far as falling, I don't really see how that will be the case, the borders are very clear and wars where national borders change are all but a figment of the past.

And the nature of America now, as a place of constant change and outside influence keeps it up to date with other nations, it's hard to think that America's industrial strongholds become stagnant. Japanese and Chinese populations here keep us in contact and part of Japan and China, and vice versa, and so America to me has changed, even more so than before, into a country that paradoxically belongs to other countries, but also to itself.

Well, the Romans had their "panem et circenses" (bread and games) philosophy to keep the masses dumb, calm and entertained, the US has Hollywood and other media-conglomerates for that.

Have you see 'future weapons'? Some pretty interesting stuff on there thats totally badass

I HATE the guy that narrarates that show.

Wrong. At the height of its popularity, middle-to-late Imperial Rome, any form of manly virtues had died down in Rome, which had just become a multicultural mass of sprawling plebeians. Few armies were mustered from Rome's citizenry anymore, as national pride had died down due to that same multiculturalism and abolishment of exclusiveness of Roman citizenship. The games merely existed to keep that rabble of debauched malcontents in line. "O Tempora, O Mores"...


Wrong. Uncounted Christians were martyred on the account of treason to the Emperor, as the early Christians refused to acknowledge an earthly King above, or next to, the Lord Jesus. Regardless of that, by the time Christianity was finally officialised and ready to be used by the Emperor, Rome was in the autumn of its existence. In fact Christianity was one of the many deathblows of the Roman Empire.