A Roman Empire Today..

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, though I believe it was a bit earlier... about 212 AD, under Caracalla.

[Locke]

Um, technically, there were pure-blooded romans. I mean, I see your point, but...

 

In his Res Gestae Augustus notes with pleasure the census he took of the Roman citizens, registering their increase in numbers from 4,063,000 in 28 B.C. to 4,937,000 in A.D. 14. While some of this must represent the regular population increase of existing citizens, it also includes grants of Roman citizenship made to non-Romans (peregrines). Throughout the principate the custom of extending Roman citizenship went on through grants both to entire communities and to individuals, until in A.D. 212 Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to the entire freeborn population of the empire. In the process the concept of Roman citizenship had greatly changed. It no longer had anything to do with either Latin culture or participation in the political institutions of the city of Rome. Instead, "Rome" now signified not the city on the Tiber but the area ruled by the Roman emperor. In this sense, all his subjects were Romans

 

 

Roman people, pure blooded, were just Latin folk, so I would like to correct what I said earlier by saying that in order for you to find a pure-blooded roman, you would have to go off of the known latin DNA stuff. But Latium (Italy), the place that surrounded Rome were not citizens of Rome until rome conquered them. They were given a higher rank in the "peregrine" class because of their closeness to the Roman society. Other people were just "peregrines", for example, the Jews, a conquered people were not granted Roman citizenship, but rather were treated like dogs, so they would not be related in anyway to the Roman's. Same with the Britains, after being conquered, I'm sure some blood was mixed together, but a very small portion.

 

So, I think that it is possible to find a pure blooded roman, just that it would be very hard.

[Ursus]

I still don't see the relevance, though, of "pure blooded" Romans in the hypothetical refounding of the empire. Maybe you could find one, but why bother? Who cares. To paraphrase what Shelly said of the Greeks, we're all Romans.

[Lex]

Hey Locke, don't forget about all the Roman emperors that weren't born in Italy...

[Silentium]

i live in england and i want nothing to do with the EU,our government is trying to convince us that its a good idea but all we see is corruption and  a waste of tax payers money.

 

 

I'm not going to comment this post since "de gustibus non est disputandum" hehe but I'll just say that being a citizen of the EU I can say I am really enjoying its benefits. If you came to Italy you'd hear people complaining about inflation and blaming euro for that, whereas the cause lies somewhere else..but it's not easy to make people understand complex economic measures and operations. Anyway as I was saying the EU as a student gave me a lot more opportunities (that I won't bother writing atm) and in my opinion it should be seen more as an attempt of integration rather than a burocratic obstacle to national parliaments.

[lucius artorius castus]

if there was a vote in a country to adapt roman culture i beleive it could happen but they would not be able to create a empire just a modern replica of a roman province which was a modern country in ancient times

[Ursus]

If the recent referendums on the EU are anything to go by, it seems the Western world is not quite in the mood for an encompassing superstate.

[Zeke]

if there was a vote in a country to adapt roman culture i beleive it could happen but they would not be able to create a empire just a modern replica of a roman province which was a modern country in ancient times.

 

I agree with that statment lucius,

You could adapt make a goverment just like Rome expect without the Imperlism and slavery and mass empire and such lol. You could have a totattly new Roman Republic. I think that is possible.

 

Zeke

[Publius Minius Mercator]

Personally I believe Romanising an entire country or region won't happen. Thinking that is just unrealistic and quite franckly a bit crazy (no offence to the poster though ) But I do think that building a community based on Roman culture and the Roman way of life is possible...

Look at Archeon in Holland, an archeopark which recreates an entire Roman town! archeon

Such a thing could be realised by a private community... (such as nova roma,...)

 

Publius Minius Mercator

[Favonius Cornelius]

I honestly see a LOT of close compairisons between the fall of the Roman Republic and the situation America is in right now. I am going to post something I wrote a while back. It could be edited and expanded, but I don't quite have the time right now. It does lay the groundwork for the parallels I speak of.

 

I also wanted to mention that expecting to see a modern day empire in the same mold as an ancient one is impossible. For one thing the annexation of land is largely useless these days. Real empire today comes in the form of military and economic power, not the number of provinces you have or indeed the superficial/supposed governmental form you have. Does it not make sense that a new empire would be of an altogeather new form, because this is how humans progress.

 

********************

 

The Parallels Between the American and Roman Republic

 

When I read my Roman history and think about our modern times, I am always struck with the remarkable similarity of the history timeline of both. I believe it's the Chinese who believe that all history is cyclical, and if you do any reading of the history of man I think you will indeed notice the pattern. I'm not sure I ever listed out the similarities, so here it is:

 

First think of the origins of both nations. The Roman Republic was created from the grip of Kings after they threw out the last Etruscan overlord, Tarquinus Superbus. So too in America did we throw off the regal control of the English crown to maintain our independence. After both of these occurrences, the structure of the Republic was formed. For the Romans it was more of a gradual development, but the Americans had the benefit of previous experience and much of the original structure is still there to this day, but even our Republic has undergone change over time.

 

The Roman government was composed of the Senate, the elected magistrates with 'Imperium,' and had courts and a state religion. American government has basically the same thing, except that we have a congress of two houses rather than one, elected magistrates who are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, which in many ways functions just like the courts, tribunes, assemblies and religious leaders of the Roman Republic combined.

 

In politics there developed two general factions in Rome, the optimates and the populares. Now historians get pissed about this when you compare them to American Republicans and Democrats, but you have to admit, especially today, there are remarkable similarities. For instance the optimates were a conservative bunch, favoring the status quo and the rich and the old customs. The populares favored attaining their goals through the voice of the people by using the power of the tribunes and the assemblies.

 

They were also rabble rousers who didn't think anything of antiestablishment rhetoric to attain their own goals. (And really for both parties those goals always boiled down to personal power as it does today).

 

Those who were actually elected to high office in both Republics are a part of the aristocracy. Clearly with Anglo-Saxon names predominating the government of America we can see this old money and old blood influence, though in the outlaying 'provinces' of the American republic, such as California, you get leaders of a different stamp, just as local leaders of Further Hispania could be expected to have Iberian ties.

 

The moral fiber of the Roman Republic was based on the citizen farmer who had an share in the function of the government and its administration. So too was America founded upon an agrarian base, and we romantically view the farmer's life as a simple and Godly way of life. Over time the successes of the Romans, with the treasuries of foreign kings pouring into the pockets of rich and ever richer Romans, brought an end to the idealistic farmer past. Huge farms called latifundia were formed by rich men buying out all the land from citizens who eventually could not keep up with the money power of the rich, who populated their farms with slaves. So too in America have we seen the effect of industrialization squeeze out the small farmer as during the industrial revolution during the turn of the century. Mega monopolies grasping all control and enforcing ever stricter work hours and conditions on their workers.

 

Rome had a convenient way of rationalizing its empire building: it was all defensive. THEY started the war, and Rome must complete it for its own defense. I know of no wars America has started without giving the same 'moral' pretext.

 

Then came the revolutionary change started by the brothers Gracchi. They realized that this trend could not continue, and so too did America impose monopoly and social reform from late 1800s to the 1960s.

 

The old ways however could not be revived, because Rome swelled with money, foreigners, and foreign ideas which so besieged the collective Roman conscience that it lost its old identity, and the only social glue which kept it all together was the universal concept of greed. So too in America, after the liberation of African slaves, immigration of Asian, Latin and other peoples from across the world mixed up the united conscience of the Anglo-Saxon colony into one of world metropolitanism. America has more social problems than many for the simple fact that all are so different from one another. But as America swells with power from the fact that it alone is the only super power in the world, the remaining trait that all share in common is greed.

 

So in Rome the old morals were thrown out the window, and the decadent Roman ways became more popular. So too do we see a social relaxation of the classic morals of America's yesteryear. Shocking is not shocking enough, ideas of sexuality become blurred, and we are bombarded with a blitzkrieg of extravagant crap on the TV that tell us a million vapid messages about how inadequate we are, how we need more and more, how we must buy ever larger vehicles, make ever bigger boobs and biceps.

 

And so the Roman Republic ended when one man of military standing, leading legions who could not be beat, who dominated the world, made a grab for it all.

 

I wonder what America's fate will be.

[Lex]

Apparently the flag most flown in the USA is the Mexican flag....perhaps the fall of the USA will be the absorption of too many people who are culturally not American? Does anyone see any similarities here?

I don't mean to be offensive here but I see a similarity between Romes absorption of barbarians in their territories and Americas absorption of non-Europeans in theirs.

 

Studies show that in 45 years the USA will no longer have a white majority...

[Virgil61]

I honestly see a LOT of close compairisons between the fall of the Roman Republic and the situation America is in right now. I am going to post something I wrote a while back. It could be edited and expanded, but I don't quite have the time right now. It does lay the groundwork for the parallels I speak of.

 

 

I think you've fell into the trap that most young historians fall into, parallels are the easy way to analyze history; they're clever, you can find linkages anywhere and make things fit into a nice pattern. Unfortunately the devil is in the details.

 

********************

 

The Parallels Between the American and Roman Republic

 

When I read my Roman history and think about our modern times, I am always struck with the remarkable similarity of the history timeline of both. I believe it's the Chinese who believe that all history is cyclical, and if you do any reading of the history of man I think you will indeed notice the pattern. I'm not sure I ever listed out the similarities, so here it is:

 

 

The idea that history is cyclical isn't exclusive to the Chinese; take a historiography course at the graduate level or at a decent undergrad college. Toybee, Spengler, et al., were talking about historical cycles one hundred years ago. There are patterns, but I think you're far too simplistic in your analysis. I could easily make a link between the Rome and British Empire, the Chinese and the Aztecs and so on. I'm not saying that there aren't commonalities between historical entities, but the link between the U.S. and Rome doesn't parallel as closely as you've made out.

 

First think of the origins of both nations. The Roman Republic was created from the grip of Kings after they threw out the last Etruscan overlord, Tarquinus Superbus. So too in America did we throw off the regal control of the English crown to maintain our independence. After both of these occurrences, the structure of the Republic was formed. For the Romans it was more of a gradual development, but the Americans had the benefit of previous experience and much of the original structure is still there to this day, but even our Republic has undergone change over time.

 

 

Tarquinus was an Etruscan not a Roman; both the colonials and George III were English, same society, same language and same political culture. The colonies had self-government for over 100 years before the revolution with sanction and charter from the king. If you don't believe me take a look at the colonial histories of the legislatures of Mass, RI, NY, Virginia, et al. Democracy- of some form- was alive and well before the revolution both in the colonies and in George III's English parliament.

 

The Roman government was composed of the Senate, the elected magistrates with 'Imperium,' and had courts and a state religion. American government has basically the same thing, except that we have a congress of two houses rather than one, electe[d magistrates who are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, which in many ways functions just like the courts, tribunes, assemblies and religious leaders of the Roman Republic combined.

 

 

I'm not sure how this counts [though I know of no "state religion"]; sure the Founders based part of the structure and much of the terminology on Roman institutions but they also had years experience in running colonial governments. As I wrote above, colonial legislatures had been in existence since the first colonies. Our judicial branch wasn't created out of scratch, colonial courts and judges had also been in existence in the U.S. and based their standards and conduct on English legal traditions and common-law. I think it's a real stretch to think the judicial branch is anything like the tribunes, assemblies etc. of the Republic.

 

In politics there developed two general factions in Rome, the optimates and the populares. Now historians get pissed about this when you compare them to American Republicans and Democrats, but you have to admit, especially today, there are remarkable similarities. For instance the optimates were a conservative bunch, favoring the status quo and the rich and the old customs. The populares favored attaining their goals through the voice of the people by using the power of the tribunes and the assemblies except in the broadest of definitions. If you ever study law and the U.S. court system you'll note that they are worlds apart.

 

 

The distinction between optimates and populares is a economic and political split common from ancient Athens to the U.S. or even a newer democracy like Poland.

 

They were also rabble rousers who didn't think anything of antiestablishment rhetoric to attain their own goals. (And really for both parties those goals always boiled down to personal power as it does today).

 

Those who were actually elected to high office in both Republics are a part of the aristocracy. Clearly with Anglo-Saxon names predominating the government of America we can see this old money and old blood influence, though in the outlaying 'provinces' of the American republic, such as California, you get leaders of a different stamp, just as local leaders of Further Hispania could be expected to have Iberian ties.

 

 

Except for the fact that the Romans and U.S. started with somewhat homogenous cultural groups doesn't make it some sort of deep parallel. The forces behind U.S. immigration were vastly different politically, culturally and economically from conquered peoples moving within Roman borders.

 

The moral fiber of the Roman Republic was based on the citizen farmer who had an share in the function of the government and its administration. So too was America founded upon an agrarian base, and we romantically view the farmer's life as a simple and Godly way of life. Over time the successes of the Romans, with the treasuries of foreign kings pouring into the pockets of rich and ever richer Romans, brought an end to the idealistic farmer past. Huge farms called latifundia were formed by rich men buying out all the land from citizens who eventually could not keep up with the money power of the rich, who populated their farms with slaves. So too in America have we seen the effect of industrialization squeeze out the small farmer as during the industrial revolution during the turn of the century. Mega monopolies grasping all control and enforcing ever stricter work hours and conditions on their workers.

 

 

Again forces at work are so different in time, quality, technology etc, that I think the comparing the loss of Roman farms to a major economic and technological force like the Industrial Revolution which touched across nations and boundaries makes the parallel very flimsy at best.

 

Rome had a convenient way of rationalizing its empire building: it was all defensive. THEY started the war, and Rome must complete it for its own defense. I know of no wars America has started without giving the same 'moral' pretext.

 

 

A Rome-America parallel? Most nations use the same rationalization. Even Hitler rationalized the attack on the Soviet Union with the same argument.

 

Then came the revolutionary change started by the brothers Gracchi. They realized that this trend could not continue, and so too did America impose monopoly and social reform from late 1800s to the 1960s.

 

 

The better question is what country hasn�t conducted a spree of social, legal and economic reforms or indeed an upheaval based on similar forces such as the French and Russian revolutions?

 

The old ways however could not be revived, because Rome swelled with money, foreigners, and foreign ideas which so besieged the collective Roman conscience that it lost its old identity, and the only social glue which kept it all together was the universal concept of greed. So too in America, after the liberation of African slaves, immigration of Asian, Latin and other peoples from across the world mixed up the united conscience of the Anglo-Saxon colony into one of world metropolitanism. America has more social problems than many for the simple fact that all are so different from one another. But as America swells with power from the fact that it alone is the only super power in the world, the remaining trait that all share in common is greed.

 

 

The availability of open lands, slavery, a labor shortage in our early history, political unrest and poverty in other countries brought immigrants to the U.S. Romans were more apt to colonize overseas.

 

So in Rome the old morals were thrown out the window, and the decadent Roman ways became more popular. So too do we see a social relaxation of the classic morals of America's yesteryear. Shocking is not shocking enough, ideas of sexuality become blurred, and we are bombarded with a blitzkrieg of extravagant crap on the TV that tell us a million vapid messages about how inadequate we are, how we need more and more, how we must buy ever larger vehicles, make ever bigger boobs and biceps.

 

 

I don't see how Gibbon's and Suetonius' imagery of a few decadent Romans compares to the social movements of today except in the most general sociological manner.

 

And so the Roman Republic ended when one man of military standing, leading legions who could not be beat, who dominated the world, made a grab for it all.

 

I wonder what America's fate will be.

 

 

It's a nice try, but I honestly think you've chosen poor thesis. The Rome-America parallel isn't new and while it looks good on the surface I don't think it's ever stood up well to critical analysis.

[Ursus]

Apparently the flag most flown in the USA is the Mexican flag

Um, what?

[Virgil61]

Apparently the flag most flown in the USA is the Mexican flag....perhaps the fall of the USA will be the absorption of too many people who are culturally not American? Does anyone see any similarities here?

I don't mean to be offensive here but I see a similarity between Romes absorption of barbarians in their territories and Americas absorption of non-Europeans in theirs.

 

The most commonly flown flag isnt' the Mexican, at least nowhere I've ever lived in the South, the East coast or the Northwest. I'm not sure what a "culturally not American" immigrant is. Say black and brown if that's what you mean.

 

Studies show that in 45 years the USA will no longer have a white majority...

 

 

No, studies show that using the criteria AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY will result in a certain type of growth. It doesn't take into account changes that happen a year [or ten years] later in birthrates, intermarriage, etc.

 

I don't think there is any more similarity to Rome than the similarities between it and the influx in immigration of Africans and Indians to England, Africans and Algerians to France [both of which are actually more "parallel" to Rome] or even Zimbabweans into South Africa. People move, it's happened throughout history. I think the relevance of this issue is floating away from the topic anyway.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think you've fell into the trap that most young historians fall into, parallels are the easy way to analyze history; they're clever, you can find linkages anywhere and make things fit into a nice pattern. Unfortunately the devil is in the details.

 

 

You're never going to find historical situations that are exact matches of each other, but I think there are enough similarities to speculate. Remember, I said this was a quick draft, not an in depth analysis.

 

The idea that history is cyclical isn't exclusive to the Chinese; take a historiography course at the graduate level or at a decent undergrad college. Toybee, Spengler, et al., were talking about historical cycles one hundred years ago. 

 

 

I did not say it was exclusive to the Chinese, I think its just the most commonly known one so that's why I mentioned it.

 

Tarquinus was an Etruscan not a Roman; both the colonials and George III were English, same society, same language and same political culture. The colonies had self-government for over 100 years before the revolution with sanction and charter from the king. If you don't believe me take a look at the colonial histories of the legislatures of Mass, RI, NY, Virginia, et al. Democracy- of some form- was alive and well before the revolution both in the colonies and in George III's English parliament.

 

 

There is no need to split hairs here. Like I said there will be dissimilarities all over in any historical compairson, it does not mean that it is invalid to make that conpairson. I think the important aspect here is the fact that control, even if loose control, was thrown off by active effort and a Republic was formed. Matters little if the controlling hand was heavy or light over time, the same level of strife at the moment it happened is apparent.

 

I'm not sure how this counts [though I know of no "state religion"]; sure the Founders based part of the structure and much of the terminology on Roman institutions but they also had years experience in running colonial governments. As I wrote above, colonial legislatures had been in existence since the first colonies. Our judicial branch wasn't created out of scratch, colonial courts and judges had also been in existence in the U.S. and based their standards and conduct on English legal traditions and common-law. I think it's a real stretch to think the judicial branch is anything like the tribunes, assemblies etc. of the Republic.

 

 

And also many offices of the Republic were nothing new but actual existing Etruscan creations.

 

The distinction between optimates and populares is a economic and political split common from ancient Athens to the U.S. or even a newer democracy like Poland.

 

 

There are still plenty of similarities.

 

Except for the fact that the Romans and U.S. started with somewhat homogenous cultural groups doesn't make it some sort of deep parallel. The forces behind U.S. immigration were vastly different politically, culturally and economically from conquered peoples moving within Roman borders.

 

 

That hardly matters about the particulars of how it happened, what counts is the population becomes mixed and you have a similar blood aristocracy in effect.

 

Again forces at work are so different in time, quality, technology etc, that I think the comparing the loss of Roman farms to a major economic and technological force like the Industrial Revolution which touched across nations and boundaries makes the parallel very flimsy at best.

 

 

Rome was an agricultural based economy, and it was the fundamental of what fueled its economy. The fundamental of the American economy are corporations. Same patterns of wealth distribution, matters not if its in grain or software.

 

A Rome-America parallel? Most nations use the same rationalization. Even Hitler rationalized the attack on the Soviet Union with the same argument.

 

 

I think I agree with ya on this one.

 

The availability of open lands, slavery, a labor shortage in our early history, political unrest and poverty in other countries brought immigrants to the U.S. Romans were more apt to colonize overseas.

 

 

Hm I dunno, you still have a large scale mixing of populations in the form of slaves and immegrants to Italia, and particularly to Rome. Its these areas that form the tempo of political and social life in their entire empire.

 

It's a nice try, but I honestly think you've chosen poor thesis. The Rome-America parallel isn't new and while it looks good on the surface I don't think it's ever stood up well to critical analysis.

 

 

Particularly if that analysis is OVERLY critical!

 

Out of curiosity, do you have any better ideas for parallels for America's situation, or even a different matchup that works better for your seemingly impossible standards?