No more Rome and USA comparisons

[guy]

I admit it. All political parties quote prominent Ancient Romans or cite Ancient history to support their partisan view.

 

I admire, however, those who use their vast scholarship to make sometimes valid points; e.g., Victor Davis Hansen on the right or Jeremy McInerney on the left.

 

http://main.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=C91F01D2-EC04-081B-8D5354823752C51F

 

That said, others seem silly and sophomoric. Some writers feel that quoting some bit of obscure Ancient history gives their specious and superficial argument the patina of legitimacy and depth:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/18/784045/-Two-Wars-at-Once:-Roman-Success-USA-Defeat

 

The Roman historian Levy[?]and Italian humanist Machiavelli both noted that one source of strength the Romans demonstrated in their first 500 years was never to under take two wars at the same time. Military historians have debated the importance of this over the past 500 years, arguing that the scale of the war (vs. the Gauls as opposed to the Carthaginians) was the real test. This may be true, but the several continuous colonial wars the UK fought after WWI and WWII finally destroyed its power. The USA is following on this course with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the client war over Israel. It is true the Romans fought the Equeans and Volscians early in their history, but it taught them a lesson not to repeat. It is also obvious that the Afghan war is entering a wider phase in both Pakistan and in the political corruption in Kabul.

 

 

In response to the quote above from the Daily Kos, I must wonder how The Roman Republic ever took on two enemies simultaneously (Carthage and the Macedonians in the 200s BCE or Corinth and Carthage a generation later, for example)? [My statement should be read with sarcasm.]

 

Oh, well. I guess I'm not that smart.

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited September 18, 2010 by guy

[caldrail]

Politics. The wars of the Republic weren't always expanionist conquests as is popularly imagined, but sometimes situations and crises forced on them by other nations. Granted the Romans were always up for a fight as martial virtue had been part of their culture right from the beginning, but Rome had suffered defeats in their early history and really once their influence expanded into the Mediterranean all that changed was the scale of conflict.

[guy]

Politics. The wars of the Republic weren't always expanionist conquests as is popularly imagined, but sometimes situations and crises forced on them by other nations.

 

I was reacting to the silly blog quoted from the Daily Kos.The Roman Republic was never *lotus land.

 

Any attempt to portray even the early Roman Republic as a peace-loving, non-aggressive "brotherhood of men" is sheer fantasy.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

*lotus land: "[named] after the Land of the Lotus-eaters in the Odyssey, meaning a [mythical] place or state of languid contentment."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters

Edited September 18, 2010 by guy

[caldrail]

In as much as the Romans were a society based on martial virtue right from the beginning, I agree, however painting them as the villain in every case distorts history somewhat. Yes, it was a society that was far from perfect, but whose is?

[Ludovicus]

Sorry to say, but the " Daily Kos" is in error. The US is fighting four wars at the same time:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and a new covert one in Yemen.

[caldrail]

Sorry to say, but the " Daily Kos" is in error. The US is fighting four wars at the same time:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and a new covert one in Yemen.

 

And probably involved in more conflicts than that. I'm not concerned with the morality of it. Most powerful nations indulge in military or paramilitary activity on some scale or other because that's how such nations safeguard their interests - though it does sometimes backfire, and the nature of the global ideological struggle of the last century demanded responses in secondary fronts, and also since the religiously motivated ideological struggle of this century has resulted in deaths home and abroad, the desire to suppress aggression at source is identifiably strong.

[guy]

Similarly, the Roman Republic was involved in the internal politics of many foreign nations simultaneoulsy in order to protect Roman interests.

 

guy also known as gaius

[Artimi]

Roman Projections/

 

This a very short but succinct article on this subject. Well thought out.

[guy]

Roman Projections/

 

This a very short but succinct article on this subject. Well thought out.

 

Wow. Thank you for the article. This must be one of the few times I agree with Krugman.

 

I thought one of the responses posted by MJCIV on 10/4/10 quoting Victor Davis Hanson was spot on:

 

I like Victor Davis Hanson on this topic: "The dissimilarity that led to the end [of the Roman Empire], was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but of something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared."

 

Thank you, again, for linking the article.

 

Here's some other views by Victor Davis Hanson:

 

 

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071307.html

 

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021410.html

 

and the article quoted:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/arewerome.htm

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 12, 2010 by guy

[Artimi]

thanks for the links, Guy,

I have bookmarked them for reading later.

[Ludovicus]

"Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared."

Sounds like an apt comparison to the US today.

With empire comes the loss of democracy. Resources (material & intellectual) that once sustained the republic are wasted on propping up the empire.

 

Good quote.

[Ursus]

If the US is torn apart by constant civil wars and ultimately taken over by foreign peoples, then I will say that, yes, we ended up like Rome.

 

The civil wars, at least in the Roman sense, seem to be at bay for now. As far as an influx of aliens who refuse to acclimate to the host culture, the US does have a certain dynamic with Hispanic immigration, while Europe has a certain dynamic with Islamic immigration. It's dangerously politically incorrect to draw such parallels, of course, but I think if any comparison is to be made that isn't pure hyperbole it is with that angle.