Comparison of Ancient Rome and Modern America

This more or less comes straight out of my World Civ. class.

We've been studying the Roman republic/empire as of late and I noticed that my professor has a bad habit of comparing Rome with America. She's one that believes the America (nay, many civilizations before and after Rome) follow a strict order of sequences beginning with their rise (duh) and ending with their timely demise (more duh).

Here's where we differ. She believes that America is on the downward slope in that sequence of events. In other words, that America has since seen it's hay day and is now just winding down. She does believe that it will be sometime before it actually happens, but she says it still. In her defense, there are some striking commons for the Roman civilization and the American one. To cite a short summary of events (very short) for Rome...

The Monarchy:

c. 753 B.C. Founding of Rome (April 21, 753)

The Republic:

c. 509 B.C. Republic established (Res Publica)

c. 509-350 B.C. Wars with surrounding tribes (Etruscans, Latins, Gauls, etc.)

c. 490-281 B.C. The Struggle of the Orders (Patricians vs. Plebeians)

c. 450 B.C. Law of the Twelve Tables

c. 390 B.C. Rome captured by the Gauls

c. 350-338 B.C. Rome subdues the Latin League

341-264 Rome’s conquest of Italy

341-280 B.C. The Samnite Wars

264-146 B.C. Rome’s conquest of the Mediterranean world

264-146 B.C. Wars with Carthage:
1st Punic War (Conquest of Sicily): 264-241 B.C.
2d Punic War (Hannabalic War): 218-202 B.C.
3rd Punic War (Carthage destroyed): 149-146 B.C.

200-146 B.C. Wars in the East:
1st Macedonian War: 215-206 B.C.
2d Macedonian War: 200-196 B.C.
War with Antiochus the Great of Syria: 191-188 B.C.
3rd Macedonian War: 171-167 B.C.
Achaean War (Corinth destroyed) 146 B.C.

133-31 B.C. The “Roman Revolution” (from Republic to Empire)

133-121 B.C. The Gracchi brothers attempt reforms - murdered

112-31 B.C. Foreign Wars of the Late Republic:
Jugurthine War (112-105 B.C.)
Cimbric Wars (113-101 B.C.)
Wars against Mithridates of Pontus (89-63 B.C.)
Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul (58-50 B.C.)

88-82 B.C. First Period of Civil Wars (Marius and Sulla)

49-45 B.C. Second Period of Civil Wars (Caesar and Pompey)

44 B.C. Caesar assassinated (March 15, 44 B.C.)

43-31 B.C. Third Period of Civil Wars (Octavian, Brutus, Antony)

31 B.C. Battle of Actium (Octavian defeats Antony) - end of Civil Wars



The Empire:

27 B.C.-A.D. 68 The Julio-Claudian Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero)

69 “Year of the Four Emperors” (Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian)

69-96 The Flavian Emperors (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian)

96-180 The “Five Good Emperors” (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius)

180-193 Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus (Empire auctioned off by Praetorian Guard)

193-235 The Severan Dynasty (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Severus Alexander)

235- c. 270 The "Time of Troubles"
Germanic tribes breach northern frontiers
Persians seize East (Zenobia of Palmyra)
Gaul breaks free into separate empire
Economy collapses.

270-275 Aurelian - “Restitutor orbis”

284-305 Diocletian and the “Tetrarchy” - Four co-emperors rule Empire

312-337 Constantine the Great reunites the Empire

330 Constantinople founded

376 Visigoths cross the Danube.
Battle of Adrianople - death of Emperor Valens (378)

378-395 Theodosius the Great - last ruler of united Empire

406 Germanic tribes invade the Western Empire

476 Last Roman emperor in the West deposed (Romulus Augustulus)

527-565 Justinian the Great

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

1453 The Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople
May 29, 1453 - Death of Constantine XI

Just for those who might not be up on the subject

Anywho, the commons can be varied depending on who you ask. For a good example of this look at the trait in later Rome of having totally insane rulers filled with greed, corruption, and lust. Caligula, Nero, ect. Some would go so far as to compare these two our three most recent leaders, Bush, Obama, and Clinton (to match the previous adjectives). Again though, that is a matter of opinion and depends greatly on who you ask.

Some of the un-commons, to me, are even more striking on this subject. For instance, Rome was rather famous for expansion. America how ever, is *technically* not an expanding country in terms of taking land and keeping it.....except...one might argue, for the many military bases set up throughout the world. Again, up for debate (yay!). So perhaps this un-common is actually a common.

The same can be said about Romes ability to peacefully attain land instead of taking it by force. They would go into a foreign land and the locals would have already heard about the great positives about being a Roman citizen and willfully would give themselves over in a trade off for Roman citizenship.

How does America do this you ask? Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Nike, ect. ect. The millions of illegal (and legal) immigrants crossing into our country can be proof of how many people would want to be American citizens. This, to me at least, seems to be an obvious common.

A lot of this is up for debate and civil discussion however...so......eh?

it seems to me like the romans didn't have as much competition going for them, so it's only natural that people gravitated towards that power structure.

The US has plenty of "competition" in the field of quality of life, which is what most citizens are concerned with rather than military protection.

Does that make sense?

I'm merely speculating.

By competition I assume you mean which country people want to live in most. If so, then yes, that would seem accurate. In the Roman era it was pretty much Rome or Egypt (which eventually became part of Rome really) so it is a fair assumption to say that. Meanwhile, in modern America it seems that many actually want to remove themselves from the country for hopes of a better life or maybe even an easier one.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

Here's where we differ. She believes that America is on the downward slope in that sequence of events. In other words, that America has since seen it's hay day and is now just winding down. She does believe that it will be sometime before it actually happens, but she says it still.

I'd be more inclined to say that America is in it's prime right now. It likely won't get much more powerful or make much more progress, but it's not on a downward spiral yet. When the UNSC structure changes (more countries gaining permanent seats or permanent seats being abolished or something like that), THEN maybe America will begin a decline. Until then, unless a VERY unpredictable event upsets EVERYTHING, it's pretty much king of the world.

Some of the un-commons, to me, are even more striking on this subject. For instance, Rome was rather famous for expansion. America how ever, is *technically* not an expanding country in terms of taking land and keeping it.....except...one might argue, for the many military bases set up throughout the world. Again, up for debate (yay!). So perhaps this un-common is actually a common.

That's more due to a change in the nature in warfare itself. Cities and countries are easy to capture, but difficult to occupy. It makes military sense that the U.S. should not occupy too much land, but still maintain widespread deployment. Bases worldwide means that American forces are always within striking distance of a given target.

On top of this, the British Empire was largely the same - it focused on its navy, asserting dominance over the oceans rather than on specific land. Because of its naval superiority, it could easily pick fights with nations as large and powerful as China, simply because they could restrict fighting to the coastline, where they could easily maintain the supply line without any serious threat of it being cut off.

America, though maintaining relatively sparse foreign territory, have set up an impressive network of allies and have near-total naval superiority, meaning that they can easily launch an invasion in any area of the world with ample support and little threat of reprisal. For example, they don't own North Korea but they can easily throw its weight around in that area because of its South Korean allies who allow US bases, and its naval superiority in the Yellow Sea.

Essentially, my point is that the U.S. doesn't NEED overseas territory, as this would simply become an easy target for tactical strikes and guerrilla warfare. Its military bases, on the other hand, can be easily evacuated and if they're hit, the U.S. suffers minimal damage and can simply retaliate.

I'm not really planning on getting too deeply into this discussion but I do want to correct a few historical errors.

264-146 B.C. Rome’s conquest of the Mediterranean world

This is a bit misleading, because by 146 BC, while Rome had become the dominant power in the Mediterranean, there were still significant stretches of land in the Mediterranean world not under Roman control.

312-337 Constantine the Great reunites the Empire

330 Constantinople founded

Constantinople was founded in 667 BC as Byzantium (Hence the "Byzantine" Empire). Under Constantine it was merely made capital of the Empire.

Also, I find it curious that you neglect to mention the fact that he first legalized Christianity, what with it being one of the single most significant things to have happened in the history of the Empire.

Anywho, the commons can be varied depending on who you ask. For a good example of this look at the trait in later Rome of having totally insane rulers filled with greed, corruption, and lust. Caligula, Nero, ect. Some would go so far as to compare these two our three most recent leaders, Bush, Obama, and Clinton (to match the previous adjectives). Again though, that is a matter of opinion and depends greatly on who you ask.

I've never heard such claims but anyone making them is really, really silly.

Also, note that both Caligula and Nero were actually among the earlier Emperors of Rome.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

In the Roman era it was pretty much Rome or Egypt (which eventually became part of Rome really) so it is a fair assumption to say that.

Now this is just flat-out incorrect. Throughout the Roman era, Rome has conquered multiple superpowers, including Carthage, Macedon, the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaeic Egypt, and they were never able to defeat the Parthian kingdom, nor the Sassanid Empire that succeeded the Parthians. So yeah, in the Roman era it was pretty much a hell of a lot more than just Rome and Egypt. :>

I hear such claims all the time honestly.

I didn't really mention Constantine legalizing Christianity because I didn't find it relevant to the actual comparison.

You've got me on the Constantinople thing though, I was mainly referring to it being moved as the capital, not the actual name more or less.

You're technically right on the Rome being the only real place to live back then thing, but I stand by my statement. It's known that many people sought out to become Roman citizens, all over the western world. Either that or it's just an effect of the fact that Rome is more commonly known modernly than any other. At least until the Germanic tribes showed up.

Well you could make an argument for Clinton being comparable to Caligula in that history remembers them more for their sexual/personal controversies. And Bush is comparable to Nero in that they both are looked at as incompetent leaders.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

Anywho, the commons can be varied depending on who you ask. For a good example of this look at the trait in later Rome of having totally insane rulers filled with greed, corruption, and lust. Caligula, Nero, ect. Some would go so far as to compare these two our three most recent leaders, Bush, Obama, and Clinton (to match the previous adjectives). Again though, that is a matter of opinion and depends greatly on who you ask.

Did you just seriously just compare Caligula and Nero to Bush and Obama? While I personally think that Bush was a tad incompetent, and Obama is a tad useless (at least this far in his term), they are neither insane nor have they mass murdered their own citizens.

In the Roman era it was pretty much Rome or Egypt (which eventually became part of Rome really) so it is a fair assumption to say that.

Who the hell teaches your history class anyway? There were tons of independent cultures the Romans were in contact with throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Anyway, I see no unique similarities, and the ones you have brought up could just as easily be applied to the Ming Empire or the Macedonian Empire, or pretty much anything.

Originally Posted by SacredSturgeon

I'm not really planning on getting too deeply into this discussion but I do want to correct a few historical errors.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. I love you so much.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

You're technically right on the Rome being the only real place to live back then thing, but I stand by my statement. It's known that many people sought out to become Roman citizens, all over the western world. Either that or it's just an effect of the fact that Rome is more commonly known modernly than any other. At least until the Germanic tribes showed up.

wut? Rome was one city in the Empire. There were hundreds of cities all over the Empire that sprung up in almost the same manner as Rome, all Imperial cities were modelled after it. None captured it's splendour true, but all cities had lived the Roman way of life with running water, sewage, etc. There were even villas on the frontiers that lived as luxuriously as those who lived in Roman cities.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

Well you could make an argument for Clinton being comparable to Caligula in that history remembers them more for their sexual/personal controversies. And Bush is comparable to Nero in that they both are looked at as incompetent leaders.

Clinton made his horse a senator?

In conclusion, while yes you can draw similarities between the Empire and the USA, you've yet to properly compare anything for us.

Also, Ancient Rome is used improperly in the title. Ancient Rome is used to refer to the time before the Republic, before Tarquinius was overthrown by Brutus.

I believe Doctor Who pretty much confirmed to us that by the year 3000 the world will be ruled by the New Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Did you just seriously just compare Caligula and Nero to Bush and Obama? While I personally think that Bush was a tad incompetent, and Obama is a tad useless (at least this far in his term), they are neither insane nor have they mass murdered their own citizens.

No, I didn't compare them. I said some could and some have.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

wut? Rome was one city in the Empire. There were hundreds of cities all over the Empire that sprung up in almost the same manner as Rome, all Imperial cities were modelled after it. None captured it's splendour true, but all cities had lived the Roman way of life with running water, sewage, etc. There were even villas on the frontiers that lived as luxuriously as those who lived in Roman cities.

I meant the Roman empire, not Rome the city exclusively.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

Clinton made his horse a senator?

In conclusion, while yes you can draw similarities between the Empire and the USA, you've yet to properly compare anything for us.

I've only compared how they are reflected upon. When most people think of Caligula, they think of the perverse acts he engaged in. Clinton is jokingly portrayed as a womanizer who likes "meaty looking women". In other words both Clinton and Caligula tend to remembered more for their personal lives rather than their quality as leaders.

Now this isn't to say that Clinton was a terrible leader or that Caligula was a good leader or vice versa. From what I heard Caligula was initially well received as an emperor for a short period until he started failing as both a leader and a person. And what do we remember Clinton for? The good economy during his term? The impeachment?

He was impeached for lying under oath. What did he lie about? Underhanded business dealings? A Watergate-like scandal? No, it was getting a blow job from a meaty looking woman in the Oval Office.

I never said that Clinton was as perverse as Caligula, or that Caligula was as effective a leader as Clinton. But it seems the face of historical perspective will focus on their personal lives while anything more than that will be buried deeper.

The Bush and Nero comparison is actually a lot easier to establish. Just switch fiddle for horse ranch, Rome for New Orleans, and fire with Hurricane Katrina.

The same can be said about Romes ability to peacefully attain land instead of taking it by force. They would go into a foreign land and the locals would have already heard about the great positives about being a Roman citizen and willfully would give themselves over in a trade off for Roman citizenship.

Woahwoahwoah, what. Everywhere Rome went, Romans spilt blood. Gaul, Germania, Britannia, Carthage, Egypt, the Greek city states, all wars fought for land. Hell, Caesar fought a battle in nearly every major region in the Empire. They fought for every inch of Italy proper. I can't think of a single example of what you're speaking about.

Ok, I'm going to admit fault on that one. I'm not sure why I put it like that really. But my point is still half valid. Yes, they did fight, but many of the locals still praised them in order to receive citizenship, it just wasn't as how I previously said.