United States and Roman Government

[Acrinimiril]

Maybe you can help me?

 

I'm doing a short presentation on how the United States was founded as a republic of law with the Constitution focused on protecting the Liberty of the people, and quickly grew to the most prosperous and powerful government in the world. However, in recent history the United States is quickly becoming more of a democracy, with a massively expanding government, controlling almost all aspects of life, supported mainly on inflation of currency and high taxes. The average American now has half their money taken by the government in taxes, fees, licenses, and registrations, not to mention the largest tax of all, inflation through creating fiat money, multiplied by fractional reserve banking. It now appears that the United States is expanding into an empire, invading countries across the world, maintaining military bases in countries decades after wars end -- out of 190 countries, the U.S. has bases in 130 -- and expanding forward with globalist agendas such as the U.N., Council on Foreign Relations, and even a North American Union.

 

I'm not very familiar with Roman History, but from what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

 

In researching, there are endless opinions and mountains of information, so I thought it might be most effective to ask such a question of those who are likely already gurus. I'm wondering if the above is generally true, the time frames that it took to happen, how the government changed, and if inflation, increasing taxes, and expansion along with the resulting loss of liberty and freedoms of the people eventually put a strain on the government to the point that it was a major contributor to the collapse. I'm most interested in a brief general time frame and any parallels that can be draw with the United States.

 

Thanks for any brief concise answers!

Edited July 30, 2008 by Acrinimiril

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks for any brief concise answers!

 

Let's try MPC

I'm not a fan of the game where we find random similarities between the US and Rome. BUT, I think there are clear influences of Roman literature and civilization on the American republic.

 

Check this thread about some of such classical influences on the Founding Fathers.

 

I should add: trying to find random similarities between any country and Rome may become an extremely dangerous game.

Just check on il Duce Benito Mussolini and herr Adolf Hiler.

 

"History does not repeat itself.

The historians repeat one another".

Max Beerbohm (1872-1956).

 

Anyway, you will find some additional reflections on Rome:US comparison HERE.

 

And if you keep searching UNRV, you will eventually meet the Gurus.

[Acrinimiril]

Thanks for the reply, but that's not what I'm asking, and I did read those threads. I'm not trying to draw specific parallels, I merely want to briefly compare the progression of both governments.

 

...what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

I would like to know if that is accurate, and if so, what were the approximate dates of progression.

[P.Clodius]

It sounds like you wish to know if the US will have a reign of Caesars.

[Ingsoc]

...what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

I would like to know if that is accurate, and if so, what were the approximate dates of progression.

 

No it's not, Rome was never "republic for the people" nor a "democracy of government bureaucracy". if we are talking about republican Rome it's was rule by a small circle of aristocracy, the Nobilitas, who were only a fraction of the overall population. they weren't able to agree about sharing the power between them and thus the later republic period (133 BC -27 BC) is a period of instability and civil wars that in the end an autocratic form of government is created.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I would like to know if that is accurate, and if so, what were the approximate dates of progression.

That's inaccurate, as Ingsoc told you.

 

And that's exactly what Mussolini pretended to do with 1930's Italy; a way of explaining himself as a new Caesar.

Edited July 31, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Chris08]

I agree its inaccurate, sounds like someone trying to make a conspiricy theory to me, heh, but no i agree with Ingsoc

[ASCLEPIADES]

I agree its inaccurate, sounds like someone trying to make a conspiricy theory to me, heh, but no i agree with Ingsoc

I think modern scholar consensus would be that Roman Republic was far more representative and democratic that it has been commonly considered at the early XX century.

 

The extreme position would be that Rome was a de facto democracy, at least from Polybius to Cicero. We're talking about Fergus Millar, Morstein-Marx and of course our MPC within UNRV.

 

Of course, that depends mostly on what's your operative definition for "democracy". Most Hellenic oligarchies (the most prevalent form of government among their hundreds of Poleis most of the time) would be also considered democratic by using the same standard, even Sparta. Rome was never democratic by Athenian standard.

 

In fact, if you read carefully the Liber VI of the Polybian Histories and its derived Ciceronian "Scipio's dream" (De Re Publica), you will find the Roman constitution is depicted there as neither democratic nor aristocratic nor monarchical, but as a fourth way that would have gotten the best of the other three systems without their shortcomings. That's the main way both authors explained their perceived Roman jingoistic superiority.

[Ludovicus]

Both Rome and the US began as limited republican democracies. Then both became empires.

I associate Cincinnatus, citizen-farmer-consul, with the Roman Republic. Likewise, the early farmer-settler-small business owner with our former republic.

[sonic]

I can think of one parallel. At the end of the Republic to be Consul of Rome you needed to be very wealthy and have the ability to gain support from a number of disparate political areas: Caesar built huge debts in order to sustain his ambitions and managed to win over enough people to be given control in 'Gaul'.

 

Now, to be President of the US you have to be a multi-millionnaire with the support of one of the two political parties. Even then you spend time asking for donations!

 

High-level politics both at the end of the Roman Republic and in the US in the 21st century is way beyond the vast majority of people. They simply don't have the means to compete, instead having to choose from a limited number of options.

[Segestan]

In fact, if you read carefully the Liber VI of the Polybian Histories and its derived Ciceronian "Scipio's dream" (De Re Publica), you will find the Roman constitution is depicted there as neither democratic nor aristocratic nor monarchical, but as a fourth way that would have gotten the best of the other three systems without their shortcomings. That's the main way both authors explained their perceived Roman jingoistic superiority.

Could you further expand on Romes fourth way?

 

What sort of example ?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Could you further expand on Romes fourth way?

 

What sort of example ?

Salve, Segestan.

 

Here comes Polybius of Megalopolis, Historiae, Liber VI, cp. III, sec. V-VII:

"Most of those whose object it has been to instruct us methodically concerning such matters, distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they call kingship, aristocracy, and democracy. Now we should, I think, be quite justified in asking them to enlighten us as to whether they represent these three to be the sole varieties or rather to be the best; for in either case my opinion is that they are wrong. For it is evident that we must regard as the best constitution a combination of all these three varieties, since we have had proof of this not only theoretically but by actual experience".

 

and ibid, cp. XI, sec. Xi-XII:

"The three kinds of government that I spoke of above all shared in the control of the Roman state. And such fairness and propriety in all respects was shown in the use of these three elements for drawing up the constitution and in its subsequent administration that it was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical. This was indeed only natural. For if one fixed one's eyes on the power of the consuls, the constitution seemed completely monarchical and royal; if on that of the senate it seemed again to be aristocratic; and when one looked at the power of the masses, it seemed clearly to be a democracy".

[ASCLEPIADES]

Both Rome and the US began as limited republican democracies. Then both became empires.

I associate Cincinnatus, citizen-farmer-consul, with the Roman Republic. Likewise, the early farmer-settler-small business owner with our former republic.

Rome began as a monarchy.

The idea of democracy in both Republics was extremely different.

US is an empire in the geopolitical sense, never as a variety of Monarchy, ie as the Roman Emperors.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a proud patrician and a persistent opponent of the egalitarian laws for the plebeians, presumably a landlord. He was an example of modesty and civic virtue, not of poverty.

Do you like self-made men? Better think in Maximinius Thrax.

Edited August 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

I can think of one parallel. At the end of the Republic to be Consul of Rome you needed to be very wealthy and have the ability to gain support from a number of disparate political areas: Caesar built huge debts in order to sustain his ambitions and managed to win over enough people to be given control in 'Gaul'.

 

Now, to be President of the US you have to be a multi-millionnaire with the support of one of the two political parties. Even then you spend time asking for donations!

 

High-level politics both at the end of the Roman Republic and in the US in the 21st century is way beyond the vast majority of people. They simply don't have the means to compete, instead having to choose from a limited number of options.

That's an easy and fallacious parallel, because it applies to most of the humans during most of History.

 

Even today, it's no easy to find any head of state not backed by an army and/or a fortune.

 

BTW, the US log-cabin presidents (Andrew Jackson, James K Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln and James A Garfield) were not a fable.

Edited August 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'm not very familiar with Roman History, but from what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

It seems you're quite familiar with Roman History.

 

Anyway, the Roman Republic was a geopolitical empire (an imperialist power ruling over other countries) since at least the fall of Veies in CCCLVIII AUC / 396 BC.

 

The Roman Senate and people satisfactorily ruled such Empire for more than three centuries.

 

Then, why would "only" a dictatorship have been able to "control" it?