Notices

View Poll Results: do you think this statement is accurate

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    2 66.67%
  • No

    1 33.33%
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: America is like Rome

  1. #1 America is like Rome 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    8
    some one once said that "WE WERE BORN AMERICANS BUT WILL DIE AS ROMANS" refering to America was born unlike any country that has ever exsisted but now we are appearing to renact the down fall of rome.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: America is like Rome 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    How are we unlike any country that ever existed? I wonder what you are thinking of, when in the same sentence you say that we are like Rome. Is sounds pretty simplistic to me, unless the whole point is that the U.S. is now falling. By the way, the U.S. has not been invaded yet, which was a sine qua non in the fall of Rome.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    With over 700 bases in 130 other countries Empire sound right. :wink:

    The US Empire is obviously different from the Roman Empire, but there are paralells with the Roman Empire, more so than Palau or Iceland.

    The name Empire was not used in rome at the point in time where we consider it an Empire, they still called themselves a Republic (Like the US today). I think the Romans did not notice Romes imminent fall either (sometimes when you're too close to it its tough to have a big picture perspective).

    By the way, the U.S. has not been invaded yet, which was a sine qua non in the fall of Rome.
    Although it sometimes sounds like people from the southern border states dont quite agree , I agree. The US Empire's collapse will probably be more similar to the USSR, crumbling from within form corruption and under the crushing weight of its military expenditure, than from any actual invasion.

    Should the US collapse, lets say the dollar crumbles, everything will still be there, the people, the realestate, the infrastucture, the only thing that changes if the value of the fiat money, and the relationships between people, which is sufficent to cause famine and misery. Those who will foresee it (such as some bankers apparently knew about and withdrew from the stockmarket before the Crash of 1929) and foreigners, will be able to buy-back and own america for peanuts and might have a mass of uneducated or desperate uninsured cheap-labour to slave for them, heck they may even bring back the plants that left the US for third world countries. Bad scenario overall, hope it doesnt come to that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    The US is obviously different from the Roman Empire, but there are paralells with the Roman Empire, more so than Palau
    A member of the coalition of the willing.

    The name Empire was not used in rome at the point in time where we consider it an Empire, they still called themselves a Republic
    I don't understand. When Octavian took the title of Emperor Augustus in 27 B.C., it ceased to be a Rebublic, did it not?

    I think the Romans did not notice Romes imminent fall either (sometimes when you're too close to it its tough to have a big picture perspective).
    Yes, we think that we will be on top forever, so it seems.

    I agree. The US Empire's collapse will probably be more similar to the USSR, crumbling from within form corruption and under the crushing weight of its military expenditure, than from any actual invasion.
    So, there are very few similarities with Rome other than those that are shared by all empires, namely that they eventually fall.

    Should the US collapse, lets say the dollar crumbles, those who will foresee it (such as some bankers apparently knew about and withdrew from the stockmarket before the Crash of 1929) and foreigners, will be able to buy-back and own america for peanuts and might have a mass of uneducated or desperate uninsured cheap-labour to slave for them, heck they may even bring back the plants that left the US for third world countries. Bad scenario overall, hope it doesnt come to that.
    We shall see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote:
    The name Empire was not used in rome at the point in time where we consider it an Empire, they still called themselves a Republic
    I don't understand. When Octavian took the title of Emperor Augustus in 27 B.C., it ceased to be a Rebublic, did it not?
    I may be wrong on that. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Just a few words for updated vocabulary about what we are otherwise all too familiar with. The spectacular cheapness of life - the perceived devaluation of human life, squandered as entertainment and cheap thrills is well known, about the Roman Coliseum.

    The empirical mentality has gone moribund a million fold via ElectroniColiseum.
    (By far, the most widely read printed material in the United States is TV GUIDE. Draw your own literary conclusions.)

    (Never mind the sky, the perceived value of human life is falling?)
    ((We're practicing for something?))
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Just a few words for updated vocabulary about what we are otherwise all too familiar with. The spectacular cheapness of life - the perceived devaluation of human life, squandered as entertainment and cheap thrills is well known, about the Roman Coliseum.
    Is that what you think that it was all about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Dear Hermes:
    Not by any means do I think that is what it was all about. Whereas, in the Hollywood scripted words of the enslaved Marcus Decimus Meridius immediately after he perished six opponents unleashed on him simultaneously:
    "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? That's what you came here for, isn't it?"

    Surely the methods of crowd control and increased tolerance thresholds nurtured in the policy of 'bread and circus' in the Roman Colisieum - and the whetting of the public appetite for violence and victimology - is not lost in the inevitable comparison of specious superviolence - as entertainment, featuring a passively pizza partying and beer drinking TV audience. Electronicoliseum.

    Rome's theater of violence for fun, profit, public diversion and desensitisation was limited to 50,000 capacity four months out of the year, during daylight hours; whereas today's hi tech has enabled tens of millions of people to share boiling point endocrinal systems, simultaneously, 24-7-365. Surely no new ground is being broken here in the indictment of American TV programming.

    The 'consumer appetite' leans heavily away from identifying with victims - even persecuting them furthermore for being victimized. The reptile mind does not identify with Janet Leigh - the terrified loser of her life - under the big butcher knife in the shower. No indeed. Consciously or not, the reptile mind identifies with the leering butcherknife wielder - 'the winner'; the one who prevails and does not perish. On loop.
    Truly yours doesn't anticipate that you disagree with these observations, Hermes. Whereas, not by any means, is this, that, or any other specific feature at issue here, all that I think there is to it. I've authored and small press published one book and three essays on the causes, effects and possible remedies for domestic violence and international warfare.
    Incidentally, I am among the many who enjoy and learn from your posts. Please do, by your usually impressive means, carry on. Sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    The 'consumer appetite' leans heavily away from identifying with victims - even persecuting them furthermore for being victimized. The reptile mind does not identify with Janet Leigh - the terrified loser of her life - under the big butcher knife in the shower. No indeed. Consciously or not, the reptile mind identifies with the leering butcherknife wielder - 'the winner'; the one who prevails and does not perish. On loop.
    Interesting observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Actually there's a whole school of political historians who spoke about the 20th century US as an Empire and a new Rome. If you'd asked president Wilson or Roosevelt whether they led an Empire, they probably would've said yes. "The American century" by David White is full of quotes about this.

    But whether the comparison between the US and Rome is really helpful, I don't know. The only thing we compare the US with is our own steriotyped image of Rome. Rome wasn't always as powerful as we think. During it's first centuries it had to fight for survival, being brought near submission more then once. And after it's short rise to power Rome subsequently had to buy it's survival from it's powerful neighbours with gold.

    And how can we compare such completely different contexts? The US can destroy others and be itself destroyed completely with nuclear bombs. Does that mean it really dominate the world? Rome could not destroy it's neighbours in such a way, but didn't have to fear sudden destruction either. Does that mean Rome was less powerful, or more powerful?

    Small detail:
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Quote:
    The name Empire was not used in rome at the point in time where we consider it an Empire, they still called themselves a Republic
    I don't understand. When Octavian took the title of Emperor Augustus in 27 B.C., it ceased to be a Rebublic, did it not?
    I may be wrong on that. :wink:
    As far as I know Octavian never really accepted the title of Emperor (as far as this title even existed in Rome back then). His trick was to feign continuity by leaving the republican institutions intact, as empty shells. He did use some titles for himself (which could be seen as substitutes for an emperial title), like Princeps (~'first citizen', later became Principe or Prince) and Augustus (~'the higher one'), but he required these in a normal, republican way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •