Okay, guys, pardon me as I interrupt your strumming up of cords and picking up a good spot on the hills, in preparation to watch Rome burn.
All of you who are waiting to be witnesses to the apocalypse – please stop saying we’re going to collapse like Rome.
Yes, it’s a thing everyone says. Yes, it’s something that much more erudite people than I have said. That is because it is a … “intellectual meme.”
Everyone has been comparing every power that rises… well, since Rome, to Rome. And EVERYONE has been comparing every time when life gets relatively easy and prosperous to the Rome of the decadence.
Sigh. Roll of eyes.
Look, it’s been an awful long time since I studied Rome in detail. The way I work, and the reason I can write historicals in various centuries is that I don’t have perma-memory for details. I’m pretty good with general framework – and this is what my education strove for. Yeah, we got some details too, but our history classes were less about names and dates (It shocked me very much that’s what American history classes were about when I moved here) and memorizing who said what, than about the movements. For instance, until I had to read up on the French revolution (years ago, I had this idea bout a series of mysteries set in the French revolution. It didn’t happen because the French revolution depresses me to an unbelievable degree.) I just had this idea of a few reasonable demands going off the rails due to both what we could call the “radicalization” of the populace (which was primed for it by the broadsheets, etc) coming up against a very incompetent (and reluctant, weirdly) king, the whole thing exacerbated by debt from helping the American revolution, which in turn was also a spark to the radicalism of the French populace. (Yes, across the pond equal before the law became “equal” with horrible consequences. Also, next time you look at a revolution full on, be suspicious of any which promises to bring fraternity.)
Yes, if you look at it close up it’s not quite like that, and there’s all sorts of other things. BUT I have the framework, and can research the details and deepen it very rapidly.
(Practically the only era in which I have more detailed research is Tudor England, and even there I need to research the particular people/time for a couple of months before writing a book – which is why book four and five of the Shakespeare series, should there be enough interest, might be a kickstarter. So far, not seeing enough sales to justify it, though. I was putting up the first two books on Barnes and Noble yesterday – since the first rolled off Prime – and kept looking at the names of friends and neighbors and people in that era and going “good Lord. I’d have to re-learn all this again.” Of course, it’s been a dozen years.)
By nature, at any rate, I’m a generalist/synthesist. I can glue on the details for a project but I don’t remember them unless I’m working on that project. (And then they come back very quickly. Same thing with languages. I would probably take me six months to get Portuguese, French and Italian to the “doing scientific translation to and from” level again. Probably a year for German and Swedish. Of course, it would destroy the colloquial nature of my English, which is why I don’t do it.)
My peculiar brain aside, and explaining why I can sound abysmally ignorant on details, you don’t need details to see how different Rome was from the United States.
Yes, yes, it was a melting pot of sorts, but then every “lead civilization” of the world has been, just not acknowledged. It was a melting pot because it was wealthy and people flocked to it. And yeah, okay, in the beginning, people might even have flocked to it out of loyalty to an idea that was SOMEWHAT similar to America – the idea being that a Roman citizen had some rights, while in the more Eastern Style monarchies they had none.
This is of course where our founding fathers got the foundational ideas for our own republic… but…
But you’ll admit the republic was of a different kind and order, and more concerned with families than with the individual.
And then there’s the fact that the Rome that fell not only wasn’t a republic, but hadn’t been a Republic in a long, long, long time.
We’re not going to argue on whether the conversion to Empire prolonged the existence of Rome. And we’re most certainly not going to argue on whether the US is an empire. It isn’t. Not an empire on the framework of Rome.
Rome might have started as an agrarian and trading republic, (and no matter how much the founding fathers admired it, NOT a republic on our terms. Don’t forget the founding fathers built in stuff to make us different. But also, and beyond all that, despite the self-conscious imitation of Rome, the Rome these people admired had never existed. It was an idealized, cleaned up thing, a Rome as it never was but should have been) but it took a sharp turn weird after the attack by Hannibal. Mostly because the Punic wars exposed (if you forgive me mixed historical metaphors) the Achiles heel of the Republican system. You can’t have a war when your leaders keep changing mid-stream. (We’re discovering that same thing with our own war with the descendants of the Phoenicians. Even if our stream is longer)
That was the beginning of the end for the Republic and the beginning of military leaders as rulers. But that was the BEGINNING. From there on, the system rapidly became one of those oriental monarchies, including a god-king.
Okay, I often call the president godemperor, because he is to his followers, but the majority of the country would rise up if he were to declare himself just that.
Even before that, the Roman Republic was of a different… kind than the US. The US started as a colony. (Oh, don’t argue that so did Rome. Go back far enough every country did. Yes, Rome started as a band that conquered the natives. But they didn’t do so in the service of a compact of beliefs. At least that we know. And they didn’t win independence against a colonizing power – at least that we know – and they started off as a kingdom, that we do know.)
We went from colony to Republic.
Rome on the other hand started the way normal nations do, kingdom. Then Republic. Then Empire. And all through it, it sent out colonists and created colonies.
Yes, you could compare the taking over the Italian peninsula to our own conquest of most of the continent. You could but you shouldn’t. It might look the same if you squint and shake up the snow globe, but it isn’t. European colonists came from a densely populated land to one not only sparsely populated, but populated by natives who lived in a completely different way. (Some of them. Yes, I know it’s not all. But the ones who remained hunter gatherers simply didn’t hold the land in a way Europeans understood.) Rome was a power of that time and region doing what powers of that time and region did.
And by the time Rome became an Empire, it had more in common with the USSR than with us.
What exactly do I mean by that?
Well, first, while Rome had in common with us a genius for synthesis – for taking bits from everywhere and making it into something different – it was not, that I know, at any time the driving innovator of anything. Greece, if anything, deserved that title. I was thinking the other day that our relationship with Japan is similar to Greece and Rome, except for THAT. Rome conquered Greece but took Greek culture. However, Greece also had more innovation than Rome. This is not true between us and Japan, except perhaps in entertainment (and I’m not sure that’s innovation so much as their mixing in their traditional forms which, of course, are quite new to us.)
Perhaps in the early Republic people came from all over bringing their skills. By late republic, let alone the Empire, people came to Rome for the bread and circus. And Rome had colonies. No, not economic colonies. Real colonies, which required real legions to keep them in check. Protect them against the barbarians? Sure. But also protect against uprising.
Before you bring up stuff like American troops abroad… Guys it is doubtful we could protect anywhere against real determined barbarians. I’ve heard our troops in South Korea called “the trip wire.” Their function is to go down fighting and give us an excuse to send our REAL forces in. And that’s in Korea, where the danger is greater. Say that Germany, of one mind, decided to become a Russian Satellite and toss us out (it might very well, btw, these days.) Do you think we’d do anything other than politely apologize and leave?
We were invited in and stayed not as a force of occupation but as defense against Russian aggression.
The people who came in and occupied were the USSR. The people who treated lands they “protected” as colonies and occupied land were the USSR. The people using foreign, “colonials” as their shock troops were.. the USSR. (What is Cuba and Africa?)
More importantly, like the later day Rome, Moscow because sort of a central bureaucratic hold, with the “provinces” producing anything that was useful or new, or…
Rome of its kind was less abusive and in the end less oppressive than the USSR only because it was an agrarian empire with slower transportation and communication. The USSR was trying to be a Roman empire on a foundation of industrial might. Apparently, it doesn’t translate well.
It translates even less to us, because we don’t take lands and hold them. We don’t make conquered peoples citizens. We don’t take their natural (and unnatural ;)) resources to feed a huge central bureaucracy.
As bloated as our bureaucracy is – and guys, I’m not arguing that – it’s only bloated for US, not in comparison to the USSR, and not even in comparison to the rest of Europe which operates on the French model. (Aka “we will generate as much paperwork as possible.”) I grew up with an ID card, without which it was impossible to operate. It is normal in Europe. Here we use a patchwork of driver’s license and social security, but at least it’s not ONE centralized number you’ll wear through life and which is used for EVERYTHING. (Yes, okay, our SS# is close enough to that, but at least it’s being used for that illegally, and we can claim that and use that to fight it.)
And we’re certainly not plundering the resources of everywhere else in the Empire to feed the central, restive population.
Yes, I know, Marxists say that we’re an economic empire, and we’re plundering our economic colonies to feed our prosperity, but that’s poppycock. If we were that, we’d take all the oil from the Arab countries we’ve been fighting in, instead of letting them do their own deals (with FRANCE!)
The Marxists believe that because they’re working outward from the “finite pie” model, and can’t figure out how the US got so rich, so it must be taking from other countries which are poor in comparison. They fail to explain how every country in the US sphere also got richer. Maybe they don’t know it. Or maybe they REFUSE to know it because it conflicts with their religion.
(We used to dream of being invaded by the US back in the seventies. And no, I’m not joking.)
Curiously, in the seventies, the USSR and its satellites promoted the idea of The-US-As-Decadent-Rome. I still have clue zero why or how they could think that, except of course that by that time they’d given up on their model being as prosperous as ours, so they had to hold themselves as being “virtuous/Spartan” against our decadent “too well off” ways which were corrupting the moral fiber, etc.
In fact, by signs of decadence as such, they were in far more trouble. As it proved. Real signs of decadence: failure to reproduce. Failure to marry. Failure to take up useful work. Disengagement from the ideological frame work of the empire, failure to look after one’s own kids already born…. Etc. (And no, again, yep, we have some of that, every society does, and now our leaders are doing their best to drive us to a crash, so some of that shows, but that is nothing compared to how bad it was in the USSR at that time, or in Rome before the collapse.)
We tend to confuse the “signs of the decadence” with “excesses of wealth” partly because our view of the late Rome is tainted by the early church fathers. Let’s remember the church started as a slave religion. Talking about how “pure” they were in opposition to the people better well off and how this would win them heaven was a great part of the selling pitch. (Yes, yes, moderation of physical appetites is Christian praxis too, but that’s not why they spent so much time describing the decadent Romans eating sandwiches made of skylarks’ tongues.)
The excesses seen in “the Rome of the decadence” are seen in any society that becomes affluent enough. It’s just human. Make enough money and get everyone well off enough, and soon you’ll see people wanting to eat chocolates modeled on some “anus model’s” relevant part. (You think I’m joking. David Burkhead posted this on Facebook.) It’s the way humans are. Only our “decadent waste” (waste according to whom, Tovarish? Did you buy Marxist lies?) is – particularly in Roman terms – spread throughout every class and all through our sphere of influence. When a “poor” person has a choice between more than one kind of food, it’s sybaritic “decadent waste” in Roman terms.
And if you look at it, the USSR’s collapse modeled Rome’s pretty closely. It was just faster because well, they started truly from an Empire, even if not called that, and because I would guess that empire frame work translates badly to an industrial model which requires skilled workers, not slaves.
But the USSR was HATED by all its satellites, and they were gleefully waiting its fall (so was Rome) but when it fell, they still looked for orders from Moscow, and many of them, even the ones that proclaim themselves free, are working on a modified communist/socialist system. If they fall out of it, it will be slowly, as people fell out of the Roman system.
We? Heaven knows. Again, despite the self-conscious classical influence, it was given a twist and a change by our founding fathers. And then the technology spun it up more.
For one we’re not hated in Europe – not really. Mostly we’re despised, which neither the USSR nor Rome were. We’re not taken seriously. (And part is our rotating leader thing, and complete change of policy.) We’re seen as a little mad, and not just in our sybaritic excesses.
As I said before, the other nations can’t make heads or tails of us, because we’re the Aspergers kids of the international community. Depending on what is being taught over here, we actually try to do things no other nation ever did. Like declare a war over without thoroughly reducing the other country to rubble. (And it’s not working in the Middle East, but that’s a problem with what is being taught/believed by our leaders. Honestly anyone asking about an “exit strategy” at the beginning of a war should be kicked fifty times around the room, and then told “we break everything first, then they beg us to stop and promise to do what we’re told, then we exit.” What? These people never fought in pre-school? Well, maybe not. Our idiot educators stop that because “violence never solved anything.” We’ll pay for that nonsense.)
So, we’re going to crash. But will our crash be like Rome’s/the USSR’s?
Oh, please. Pull the other one. It plays Hail to the Emperor.
Look, first, Europe NEVER used our system. Their system is closer – though not the same – to the USSR. And part of that perhaps is because they feared the USSR and USSR infiltration more than they feared us, and they trusted neither our numbers of troops nor our resolve to keep us safe.
They’re not going to be holding on for centuries, trying to imitate a lost system and looking to us for direction that never comes.
As for our states doing that?
Oh, PLEASE. Do think of different technologies. We might hold more land area than the Roman empire at its apex, but you can travel from one end to the other of it in less than a week – which you couldn’t. And you can communicate across it instantly, which the Roman Empire never could, unless you’re counting an alternate Roman empire where they had magic.
If you think that makes no difference in a collapse, we need to talk. I mean, seriously talk.
That’s leaving aside all the rest, including that we’re not holding the country together by force. Yes, there IS the civil war, but that was more than 100 years ago, and do tell me where our troops had to be sent in to pacify a state recently.
It’s leaving aside too the fact that until very recently people came here to work, and because they believed in Freedom. It’s leaving aside the inherent American “ungovernability” or the tendency to hold up a middle finger skyward when the people in Washington get TOO funny.
Rome to an extent was a creature of its legions. This is like the USSR was a creature of its armies. When it could no longer support its armies, it fell.
We’re a country that reluctantly engages in war to protect our right to be left alone (though the foreign adventurism of the left side of our politics can’t be erased. And don’t tell me that’s not the left side. Go look at ALL our major wars.) Or, in the apropos phrase of Dave Freer “Americans are horrible imperialists. All they want to do is go home.”
Do we have similarities to Rome? Well, we’re the most prosperous land of our time; we sometimes get a bit funny with our chocolates and our sexual behavior in a way that no doubt would shock the goat herders of Afghanistan or the slaves of Rome (but then, dears, their behavior would shock us too) and have a kickass military.
But we don’t use the kickass military the same way. We not only don’t take over and integrate the lands we conquer, we don’t even demand they mirror our model. Most of them end up mirroring the European model.
And our sybaritic excesses are distributed in a completely different way. In the US, butthole chocolates are NOT “too good for the common people” provided the common people are out of their minds and pay for them.
As for leading the world, mostly we do it not through our legions expropriating other countries and forcing them to wash behind their ears, but through shopping. “Stop acting like idiots, or we send over legions of grannies with American express” might be a terrible threat (have you met some of these women?) but it’s not on the same order as “we’ll crush you flat beneath our heel.”
Will there be a crash? The magic 8 ball says “the probability is high.” I mean a miracle could occur. The thin air we’re running on could become solid rock. Or in other words, there could be some breakthrough in energy production or otherwise, that fixes everything. To an extent computers saved us from the sure crash we were headed to in the seventies. It could happen. Who was it who said G-d protects children, drunkards and the United States of America?
But the chances are high there will be a crash. Will it mirror Rome/the USSR’s? Um… not a chance. We’re a different sort of animal altogether.
Will the rebuilding be fast and will we keep the Republic?
Making predictions is hard, especially about the future. BUT look, guys, those who are disengaged from the Republic are mostly our Eureopanized leaders. (Totally a word) Yes, its fashionable to make sounds like we are. But when the excrement hits the rotating object, like, say, 9/11, suddenly the fashionable lefties go around complaining they’re being oppressed by all these yahoos with American flags. And when the people who despise our model take DC, the populace arise in untold numbers for working people who have to earn their keep, and in a model expressly harking back to our founding.
So, after the collapse, will the “elites” and the “intellectuals” want to keep the Republic? Chances are no. Chances are they’ll offer themselves as nobility. But this surprises you because? I just hope we retain the sense not to chase them out of town by hitting them over the head with their “no blood for oil” signs.
The rest of us? My guess is we’ll spit on our hands and get back to rebuilding.
Is that guaranteed? No. See above where making predictions is hard, particularly about the future. Also, my crystal ball is out of batteries.
BUT from the movements of history and the trend of our culture, I’d say it was the most likely.
What turns likely into history? The way people act when the crunch comes.
That means you. And you. And you. Your input might be fractional, but your aggregate isn’t.
It all depends on your preparation, your fortitude, your strength, your dedication to the principles we were founded on.
Do you think it’s ever been otherwise, since our founding? This oddity of a nation can only subsist as is because of the devotion of its citizens.
Same as it ever was.
A republic, if you can keep it.