Fall Of Rome

[Guest Max Kali]

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas?

 

oh, and who was Valens? i know he was killed by the Goths but that's about all i could find. i'm guessing he was an emperor?

[Neos Dionysos]

I can't see how you can compare the two, since America has more of an informal empire and it's reasons for 'expansion' and international conflicts is all centered around economics...

 

The causes of Rome's "fall" or "evolution", (depending on the school of thought), are exhaustive...

 

Finally, Valens was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire from 363-378 and was the younger brother of Valentinian I who ruled the Western Roman Empire from 363-375. I would highly recommend Faliure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski because it is the ONLY comprehensive work on Valens to date.

[Gini]

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas?

 

oh, and who was Valens? i know he was killed by the Goths but that's about all i could find. i'm guessing he was an emperor?

 

You've taken a hard comparison from what I know of it Romans became too civilised rather than decadent. They were much less nationalistic/patriotic than earlier times, couldn't afford to pay the army needed partly because of corruption and were not nearly as Rome centred. America is very patriotic and can affford to pay what it wants. Would love to see what you write though

[Ursus]

I think Rome's alleged inner failures are much overhyped. The Western Empire fell because Germanic supertribes came pouring through the breaches, and the empire didn't have the resources to fight both them and the Persians at the same time.

 

True, the frequent civil wars didn't help. But this business about Rome falling because of "moral failings" seems like sour grapes from cranky old men.

 

As to America's alleged moral failings - no comment. That really doesn't belong on this folder.

[caldrail]

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas?

 

There are some suprising parallels between the modern US and Rome. This is basically for two reasons.

 

The first is that america based its constitution on a roman-style model. That was a deliberate move by the men who won the War of Independence - They would have read the classics and regarded Rome (despite a few soiled edges) as a perfect example of an organised state, something to which they aspired.

 

The second is human nature. The romans and the americans are both cultures from the same species. Sure it isn't quite the same, but human behaviour is relatively similar and we see this in the terms you mentioned in your original question. Its no coincidence.

[Gini]

I think Rome's alleged inner failures are much overhyped. The Western Empire fell because Germanic supertribes came pouring through the breaches, and the empire didn't have the resources to fight both them and the Persians at the same time.

 

True, the frequent civil wars didn't help. But this business about Rome falling because of "moral failings" seems like sour grapes from cranky old men.

 

As to America's alleged moral failings - no comment. That really doesn't belong on this folder.

 

The armies that overran rome were not even big armies and would have been well dealt to by a well trained Roman one. I don't think it was moral failings by romans - if anything the opposite was true. Romans became too civilised, too cultured and joining an army to fight for an emperor just didn't work any longer Christianity also had an effect. The patriotism that had existed earlier wasn't there. There is a question Is blind patriotism inversely related to education?

[Guest Max Kali]

hmm, thanks for the tips. i can post it if anyone is interested, it'll be rather long though.

[Neos Dionysos]

I think Rome's alleged inner failures are much overhyped. The Western Empire fell because Germanic supertribes came pouring through the breaches, and the empire didn't have the resources to fight both them and the Persians at the same time.

 

I will agree Rome did not have the resources in the Late Empire to fend off so many threats at once, but the collaspe of the West was a slow, disintergration process, not the time-hallowed belief that Germanic People's en masse migrated all over at once and went about rampaging the Empire. I comment this because Ursus, your statement sounds like old sterotypical view of Rome's fall...

 

True, the frequent civil wars didn't help.

 

Which ate up the most prescious resource of the Late Empire, well trained Roman units. You can argue that the civil wars fought by Theodoisus, (against Maximus and then Arbogast and Eugenius), could have been avoided, the second with Eugenius easily so, and the empire could have had more resources than she had.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Lex]

I think the fact that so many barbarians were being incorporated into the Empire was a factor that can be compared to what is happening to the USA. Just look at all the Mexicans and illegal immigrants that are flooding into the country to do the jobs that the Americans no longer want to do.

 

Some estimates predict that the USA will no longer have a white majority in 50 years and that Spanish will be the main language in numerous states. Will the USA still be the same entity when the majority of people are no longer white?

[metforce]

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas?

 

I'll keep it simple. The "Fall of Rome" is a bit of a misnomer. In truth the lands of the Romans were still theoretically under control of the Eastern Emperors up to Justinian's time. It was through this theoretical framework that the much smaller populations of barbarians could weild some authority over the much larger population of Roman citizens. In my opinion the deathnel of the empire was the loss of its important cities and large swaths of its territory to different barbarians such as the Goths, Vandals, and and other German tribes. Without these territories the empire lacked the resources to enforce its will.

[caldrail]

I think the fact that so many barbarians were being incorporated into the Empire was a factor that can be compared to what is happening to the USA. Just look at all the Mexicans and illegal immigrants that are flooding into the country to do the jobs that the Americans no longer want to do.

 

Some estimates predict that the USA will no longer have a white majority in 50 years and that Spanish will be the main language in numerous states. Will the USA still be the same entity when the majority of people are no longer white?

 

I understand your point. Rome was being culturally diluted. They're doing the same thing in britain at the moment to deflate patriotism, so that that integration into europe won't be such a problem. Any flag-waving is currently state-sponsored or approved. Otherwise a man from the council turns up and informs you you'll be prosecuted for flying your national flag.

 

It has been said that the late senate was made of men descended from from slaves. The older families had evaporated in war and intrigue. By the time we reach Marcus Aurelius the imperial succession was not decided on merit or political influence , it was now passed from father to son in oriental style inheritance. Of course it never ran that smoothly in Rome did it? There were too many disgruntled soldiers or ambitious politicians who would rather not have to wait for things to get better (for them).

 

Rome was becoming more insular, less secure. Foreigners were becoming influential people. The legions had become 'foreign legions'. The old government and taxation structure was slowly unravelling. There are many reasons for Romes demise in the west, but it amounts to a decay in standards and expectation.

[Guest Carthage]

Rome eventually fell because of the new rise of Carthage. After the vicious sacking in 132 BC, they rebuilt their civilization at Carthago Nova and assaulted Rome again from the sea. This was taken out of history by Roman spin doctors but there is much archaeological evidence to show it.

[Kosmo]

I'm thinking at Rome fall in the West as a process of cuting unnecessary expenses. This regions did not produce as much as the empire consumed to defend them with their professional army constantly rebeling and other huge money sinks.

[Primus Pilus]

Rome eventually fell because of the new rise of Carthage. After the vicious sacking in 132 BC, they rebuilt their civilization at Carthago Nova and assaulted Rome again from the sea. This was taken out of history by Roman spin doctors but there is much archaeological evidence to show it.

 

No, there is no archaeological or written evidence to support this. Carthage as part of Africa and Carthago Nova as part of Hispania Tarraconensis were very clearly Roman provinces, essentially until the Vandals arrived in the 5th century. This is heavily supported by written, archaeological and monumental existing evidence. If you are suggesting that the Vandal invasion of Rome by sea was a Carthaginian resurgence, than I am afraid you are completely misunderstanding the context.

 

Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?

[Neos Dionysos]

Rome eventually fell because of the new rise of Carthage. After the vicious sacking in 132 BC, they rebuilt their civilization at Carthago Nova and assaulted Rome again from the sea. This was taken out of history by Roman spin doctors but there is much archaeological evidence to show it.

 

The Vandals were able to cross the pillars of Hercules, (Gibralter) and take Carthage, (after mind you they had made a treaty with Rome saying they would not expand further than the land they had but after 10 years an oppurtunity allowed them to take Carthago itself). The Vandals were Germanic and nothing at all like Carthage of old... and they would control the region of Africa and Sciliy until the Roman re-conquest of Justinian in the early 6th century.