The United States of America and Roman Empire

[Ykpaihaa]

After watching a movie about the fall of the Roman Empire, I couldn't help but draw similarities.
1. Both began under a monarchical system, eventually becoming a republic.
2. Both eventually increased the power of the executive dramatically.
3. Both experienced a time of great influence, wealth, and prosperity.

Now we are seeing the symptoms of decline:

- Careless public, concerned only with entertainment and extravagance.
- The decline of the cities. In the Roman Empire, cities once great became filthy, poverty was unchecked, and we're seeing the same problems in the United State.
- Increased government apathy and corruption.
- Endless wars - (Barbarian invasions for Rome, and the Middle East for the United States).

America is probably the closest thing we have seen to a Roman Empire since the Roman empire itself, and is America beginning the same form of decline? If history shows us anything, America has about 100 or 200 years before collapse and the creation of a new country, or many small ones. Like in Western culture, dynasties in China had to come to an end as well. They had to die to be replaced by new ones.

So, NS, does the US have a chance at avoiding collapse? Is there a 'lifespan' for nations and empires?

Personally, I just want my lifetime to be characterized by peace and opportunity, just like the lifetimes of Americans before me.

[South Lorenya]

The US was never a monarchy. It was several colonies RULED by a foreign monarchy, but that monarchy was expelled as part of the uniting.

[Wamitoria]

Did you just see Capitalism: A Love Story?

[Zephie]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

[Wamitoria]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

How can you have inflation without paper currency?

[Zephie]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

How can you have inflation without paper currency?

back in the old days gold, or whatever other precious metal was used would be mixed with different metals.

[Ykpaihaa]

The US was never a monarchy. It was several colonies RULED by a foreign monarchy, but that monarchy was expelled as part of the uniting.

I never said the United States was a monarch. My words were "under a monarchical system" meaning rule by a monarch. It could be argued that it was the same for Rome even in that respect, seeing as they were ruled by and Etruscan King, not a Latin one, whom they eventually overthrew and established a republic.

[Avenio]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

[South Lorenya]

Impure coins, shaven coins, new gold sources found...

[Lackadaisical2]

After watching a movie about the fall of the Roman Empire, I couldn't help but draw similarities.
1. Both began under a monarchical system, eventually becoming a republic.
2. Both eventually increased the power of the executive dramatically.
3. Both experienced a time of great influence, wealth, and prosperity.

Now we are seeing the symptoms of decline:

- Careless public, concerned only with entertainment and extravagance.
- The decline of the cities. In the Roman Empire, cities once great became filthy, poverty was unchecked, and we're seeing the same problems in the United State.

Not really. NYC, the biggest city in the nation has cleaned up considerably as far as crime goes.

Personally, I just want my lifetime to be characterized by peace and opportunity, just like the lifetimes of Americans before me.

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

[Vetalia]

I'd say the British Empire had a lot more in common with Rome than the United States.

[Lackadaisical2]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

How can you have inflation without paper currency?

back in the old days gold, or whatever other precious metal was used would be mixed with different metals.

Also see Spain during the colonization of SA. Increased gold supplies caused inflation.

[Conserative Morality]

...

No.

First off, the Roman Kingdom was only loosely a monarchy, it was essentially an Oligarchy from the beginning, when the Kings were kicked out, well, that was just a weakening of the executive branch.

Second, the supposed strengthening of the executive branch you claim happened did not happen legally, nor did it happen as a slow deal, it consisted mainly of Sulla marching on Rome and claiming to be dictator (Which was a valid title, though illegally gained) for life (Which was not a valid term, though for life was not the term he used, it was essentially what it was). After that, well, he resigned, and it was a Civil War merry go round after that.

[Techno-Soviet]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

Holy Roman Empire is a good five hundred years after the Roman Empire...

[Zephie]

One of the Main reasons the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be was because of Massive inflation.

How can you have inflation without paper currency?

back in the old days gold, or whatever other precious metal was used would be mixed with different metals.

Also see Spain during the colonization of SA. Increased gold supplies caused inflation.

well I guess it could work both ways, but what happened was the government would take for example half the gold, and mix the other half that goes back into circulation with copper or something.

[Zatarack]

A large problem with the comparison is the vastly different geopolitical situation. The only other major powers Rome dealt with was Parthia, and when it failed it totally collapsed, while such is not the case now.

[Quake Strogg]

What people fail to realise is that nations rise and fall. They are birthed through turbulence, then whither and die, It is the cycle that has gone on for as long as civilization has existed. One day, the United States Of America will fall, and it's death will bring about the birth of other nations. Who will again one day wither and die. It is something that always happens. And it is a cycle that will never be broken.

[Rolling squid]

If we're anything like rome, we're still in the republic stage. We have to have a few more civil wars, stab some politicians, and invade canada before we can even begin to think about falling.

[Ykpaihaa]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

Why would it be invalid? I'm not seeing how the enlightenment would stop a nation from declining...the way we think today is different than the way Romans thought about individuals, individual rights, etc, but we're still human, and our inherent natures have not changed.
How does technology make the United States immune from political changes that have been occurring since history itself began?

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

[Caninope]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

Why would it be invalid? I'm not seeing how the enlightenment would stop a nation from declining...the way we think today is different than the way Romans thought about individuals, individual rights, etc, but we're still human, and our inherent natures have not changed.
How does technology make the United States immune from political changes that have been occurring since history itself began?

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

This war has reached our doorstep?

[Ykpaihaa]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

Why would it be invalid? I'm not seeing how the enlightenment would stop a nation from declining...the way we think today is different than the way Romans thought about individuals, individual rights, etc, but we're still human, and our inherent natures have not changed.
How does technology make the United States immune from political changes that have been occurring since history itself began?

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

This war has reached our doorstep?

Remember 2001?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

The USA has yet to be consistently invaded by a force determined to take it's territory and make sovereign kingdoms from it. Rome was ended by conflict, conflict will not happen inside mainland USA. Might decline as a world power, and have to realize the reality of a multipolar world, but America has enough resources and population that it will never fade to insignificance.

[South Lorenya]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

Why would it be invalid? I'm not seeing how the enlightenment would stop a nation from declining...the way we think today is different than the way Romans thought about individuals, individual rights, etc, but we're still human, and our inherent natures have not changed.
How does technology make the United States immune from political changes that have been occurring since history itself began?

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

This war has reached our doorstep?

Remember 2001?

How many american states did they conquer in 2001?
How many american cities did they conquer in 2001?
How many isolated, poorly-defended american anthills did they conquer in 2001?

[Lackadaisical2]

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

Its an insult to Vietnam to compare this to it, imho. 58,159 dead, 1,719 missing vs. 4,400 killed and 1 missing in Iraq and 1,123 dead in Afghanistan.

In terms of casualties, Vietnam was literally 10x worse.

[Zatarack]

Personally, I don't think any comparison between a pre-Enlightenment nation and a modern, technologically advanced state like the U.S. can ever be valid. Therefore, though the U.S. will 'eventually' (And I use this in the broadest sense of the word) evolve into something different, there is no reason as to why it should have a 'lifespan'

Why would it be invalid? I'm not seeing how the enlightenment would stop a nation from declining...the way we think today is different than the way Romans thought about individuals, individual rights, etc, but we're still human, and our inherent natures have not changed.
How does technology make the United States immune from political changes that have been occurring since history itself began?

Theres been a war for at least every generation, stop sugar coating the past.

But there has never been a war like what we are experiencing, save for Vietnam. Plus, the wars we have fought never actually reached our doorstep, save the Rev. and War of 1812. *Yes I know about Alaska, but that's insignificant.

This war has reached our doorstep?

Remember 2001?

That was a terrorist attack, that, while traumatizing, did little actual damage to the United States.