The fall of Rome equals US today?

Van Basten said:

There's a lot wrong in this post, but none more than the Usurper comment.

Do you even know what an Usurper is? Obama is no such thing. I get that you don't like or respect him, that is your right, but this is just disingenuous and ignorant to a fault.

Click to expand...

Usurpation was given as one of the main reasons for the decline of the Roman empire in my research.

Roman usurper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether Obama is actually a usurper will be left for history to decide. IMO, he lacked the proper credentials and experience to be POTUS therefor he's encroaching on the WH.

Fiddytree said:

Beware of the single factor explanation of complex social and political changes. It will do you some good.

Click to expand...

Never said it was a single factor, but a critical factor. Much of what you posted is correct up to a point. We know that lead pipes, lead paint and so on lead to lead poisoning. Roman women used lead laced make-up. Some believed that adding lead to wine was healthy. The list goes on and on, and we know today that lead products are bad.. very bad.

Now was it the sole reason? Of course not, but it was a considerable if not critical aspect of the decline over a long period of time.

keep in prospective the roman republic, and the roman empire.

PeteEU said:

Never said it was a single factor, but a critical factor. Much of what you posted is correct up to a point. We know that lead pipes, lead paint and so on lead to lead poisoning. Roman women used lead laced make-up. Some believed that adding lead to wine was healthy. The list goes on and on, and we know today that lead products are bad.. very bad.

Now was it the sole reason? Of course not, but it was a considerable if not critical aspect of the decline over a long period of time.

Click to expand...

Yet even that I demonstrated was in contention, as it was the author's thesis that it was not a critical aspect.

Fiddytree said:

PeteEU said:

Never said it was a single factor, but a critical factor. Much of what you posted is correct up to a point. We know that lead pipes, lead paint and so on lead to lead poisoning. Roman women used lead laced make-up. Some believed that adding lead to wine was healthy. The list goes on and on, and we know today that lead products are bad.. very bad.

Now was it the sole reason? Of course not, but it was a considerable if not critical aspect of the decline over a long period of time.

Click to expand...

Yet even that I demonstrated was in contention, as it was the author's thesis that it was not a critical aspect.

Click to expand...

There is other evidence of the importance of lead poisoning than that to be found in ancient texts and archaeological finds of lead pipes and other artifacts: -- Lead Poisoning in Roman Skeletons

A friend alerted me to an IO9 post, "The First Artificial Sweetener Poisoned Lots of Romans." It's a (very) brief look at some of the uses of lead (Pb) in the Roman world, including the hoary hypothesis that rampant lead poisoning led to the downfall of Rome - you know, along with gonorrhea, Christianity, slavery, and the kitchen sink.

The fact the Romans loved their lead isn't in question. ... but what almost all stories about the use of lead in ancient Rome miss is the osteological evidence.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Rome fell because of the military costs of maintaining its empire. Most great empires fall due to out of control defense spending.

Click to expand...

Ummm... They were overwhelmed by rampaging hordes of "barbarian" Eastern European and Germanic peoples, who were sent fleeing in the general direction of the Roman Empire by the migration of the Huns across the Eurasian Steppe, which, in turn, the Chinese Han dynasty had unintentionally kicked off centuries earlier by chasing the Xiongnu off of their own borders. Rather large portions of the Empire and its military had also been depopulated by the combination of plague and civil war in the decades leading up to the invasions, which basically left Rome's economy and ability to defend itself compromised in comparison to earlier eras.

I kind of doubt that a reduction in defense spending would have made things any better here. :lol:

A smaller, less well defended empire would have only been easier to ravage.

Sherman123 said:

I think the comparisons to Rome usually just result in very poor analogies. It's the attempt to fit the square pegs of modern policy dilemmas into the circles of Roman civilizational woes. Even the tropes like 'Roman military spending' aren't as simple or accurate as they are being presented and certainly can't be easily compared to the United States or any other country in the world today. The differences between our world and theirs is more extraordinary than we give ourselves credit for.

Click to expand...

Only an idiot will believe "Yeah, but this time it's different." Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Gathomas88 said:

Ummm... They were overwhelmed by rampaging hordes of "barbarian" Eastern European and Germanic peoples, who were sent fleeing in the general direction of the Roman Empire by the migration of the Huns across the Eurasian Steppe, which, in turn, the Chinese Han dynasty had unintentionally kicked off centuries earlier by chasing the Xiongnu off of their own borders. Rather large portions of the Empire and its military had also been depopulated by the combination of plague and civil war in the decades leading up to the invasions, which basically left Rome's economy and ability to defend itself compromised in comparison to earlier eras.

I kind of doubt that a reduction in defense spending would have made things any better here. :lol:

A smaller, less well defended empire would have only been easier to ravage.

Click to expand...

That was the point though. Huge empires are extremely expensive to defend and invariably they collapse because of that. Rome simply did not have the resources to maintain the level of military needed to defend their empire indefinitely.

radcen said:

The fall of Rome equals US today?

You hear this a lot. People pointing out the poarallels between the US today and the fall of the Roman empire. Implying, of course, that we are on the downslope of our phase as a country.

Do you believe this is true? If so, why? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

Not even remotely.

Aside from some tenuous parallel with comparison of 'empires', the US isn't in decline.

sawyerloggingon said:

Rome fell because its citizens became a culture that felt entitled to oppulance. The people became weak celf centered and spoiled much like the libs in US society.

Click to expand...

You mean 'opulence'. This is possibly the most bizarrely inaccurate interpretation of Roman decline I've ever encountered in my entire life. I'd give a lot to see you stand up and make this claim at an esteemed convention of historians.

PeteEU said:

An Empire is only as strong as its ruling class is it not? If that ruling class is weak or dying out then you start getting problems.

Click to expand...

This thread and concept is a false equivalency. The reason this country is the big dog in the world is our middle class.

We built the largest middle class the world has ever known post WWII. A lot was luck. The only undamaged infrastructure after the war. We got to provide the materials to rebuild after the war. Plenty of jobs. They in turn spend the money. Created more jobs. We have been living off that kick start since.

Without a strong middle class we are done as a country. Thats the danger for us. If the income inequality keeps whacking the middle class it will lead to slow decline but an ending that works out well for no one.

NoC_T said:

Not even remotely.

Aside from some tenuous parallel with comparison of 'empires', the US isn't in decline.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... technologically it is. It's not going down economically but it is losing it's technological advantage. That's one thing the Western Roman empire never lost even at the very end, it was always technologically superior than it's foes...

But the US has nothing to fear militarily. You have nukes. Nobody attacks a country that has nukes... well, no reasonable country attacks a country that has nukes. The USA can dwindle down it's defense spending to a skeleton crew army and still be safe.

I did some research and talked to quite a few people who were there and the fall of Rome was basically caused by Bush and Obama.

NoC_T said:

You mean 'opulence'. This is possibly the most bizarrely inaccurate interpretation of Roman decline I've ever encountered in my entire life. I'd give a lot to see you stand up and make this claim at an esteemed convention of historians.

Click to expand...

Does any of this seem vaguely familiar?


"Society and Culture
By this time social classes in Rome were very different, the rich living extravagantly while the poor had not even the necessary to live. There were many unemployed people, which the government had to feed daily."

"Roman society is often represented as one of social extremes - with the wealth, power and opulence of an emperor existing alongside the poverty"





The Roman Empire - CDA's World History Wiki


Obama and Michelle live like royalty while so many have suffered so much under his rule.

Rainman05 said:

Hmmm... technologically it is. It's not going down economically but it is losing it's technological advantage. That's one thing the Western Roman empire never lost even at the very end, it was always technologically superior than it's foes...

But the US has nothing to fear militarily. You have nukes. Nobody attacks a country that has nukes... well, no reasonable country attacks a country that has nukes. The USA can dwindle down it's defense spending to a skeleton crew army and still be safe.

Click to expand...

True. I meant that, what's happening is other regions of the world are beginning to pull themselves up by the boot straps. Take China, for example. In effect, US hegemony would decrease as other nations advanced and become ever more self-sufficient. I don't subscribe to the idea that this in itself equates with decline.

BigRedChief said:

This thread and concept is a false equivalency. The reason this country is the big dog in the world is our middle class.

We built the largest middle class the world has ever known post WWII. A lot was luck. The only undamaged infrastructure after the war. We got to provide the materials to rebuild after the war. Plenty of jobs. They in turn spend the money. Created more jobs. We have been living off that kick start since.

Without a strong middle class we are done as a country. Thats the danger for us. If the income inequality keeps whacking the middle class it will lead to slow decline but an ending that works out well for no one.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but in many ways the strong middle class is also the elite of the modern day. In Roman times only the ones with money had any power... in the US thanks to a strong middle class, then many more have money and hence power. That this is now declining in the US only shows the similarity with the Roman Empire again.. where a decline in the elite lead ultimately to the end of the Roman Empire.

But yes, your so called "luck" after WW2 is the reason the US became the superpower it is today. Now we can discuss how much luck was involved in it..

sawyerloggingon said:

Does any of this seem vaguely familiar?


"Society and Culture
By this time social classes in Rome were very different, the rich living extravagantly while the poor had not even the necessary to live. There were many unemployed people, which the government had to feed daily."

"Roman society is often represented as one of social extremes - with the wealth, power and opulence of an emperor existing alongside the poverty"


Obama and Michelle live like royalty while so many have suffered so much under his rule.


The Roman Empire - CDA's World History Wiki

Click to expand...

Sure it seems familiar. With every other empire and nation that ever existed.

NoC_T said:

Sure it seems familiar. With every other empire and nation that ever existed.

Click to expand...

Yes every other empire that FELL.

sawyerloggingon said:

Yes every other empire that FELL.

Click to expand...

Along with sovereign nations that have yet to do so. The US included.

Inequality doesn't necessarily precipitate collapse.

sawyerloggingon said:

Does any of this seem vaguely familiar?


"Society and Culture
By this time social classes in Rome were very different, the rich living extravagantly while the poor had not even the necessary to live. There were many unemployed people, which the government had to feed daily."

"Roman society is often represented as one of social extremes - with the wealth, power and opulence of an emperor existing alongside the poverty"


The Roman Empire - CDA's World History Wiki

Click to expand...

There have always been poor people and rich people.

Today however, the poorest american is wealthier than the wealthiest emperor of Rome of all time. And I'm not even joking.

Giving food to people was a common way to earn popularity and keep the peace. This was done because the Romans had a top notch agricultural system, best of it's time, and could produce a lot of food. Irrigation was top notch, etc. The fact that there is abundance is not sign of "collapse", it's a sign that things are going well and of progress and prosperity. Yes, politicians used that prosperity to garner votes and popularity but that's not to say that abundence in itself is wrong.
Jesus Christ man. The Church, after it became established, did a lot of charity in the Roman Empire.

Rome fell due to a lot of factors. Health was one -> as many said, lead poisoning was a serious thing. Romans were smart but it would be centuries after that people found the properties of lead, scientifically. The next thing was the separation between east and west. It was just the western roman empire that collapsed. The other was that there were too many enemies on too many frontiers. The next thing was tribalization of the army if you will. Powerful generals that lead large armies would earn the loyalty of those armies and then they'd make a civil war to become emperors. This was because the military stopped being made just by romans with roman values, but also of people who weren't fully romanized yet and they didn't have any loyalty to the notion of republic. They were loyal to the "strongman" in charge and to whom paid them.

So. Lead poisoning. multiple enemies. Splitted empire. Fractured military. Barbarian invasions. Religious turmoil -> Christianity became the norm but not everyone in the empire wanted to be a Christian. Court intrigues.
The only way abundence played into this is because abundence made the Romans targets. That's it.

PeteEU said:

Well yes, but in many ways the strong middle class is also the elite of the modern day.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what that word means.:roll:

NoC_T said:

Along with sovereign nations that have yet to do so. The US included.

Inequality doesn't necessarily precipitate collapse.

Click to expand...

The similarities to a failing Rome are there. The emperor (obama) living like royalty while more and more citizens are unemployed and become dependent on the government for the basics of life (food stamps).

BigRedChief said:

I don't think you know what that word means.:roll:

Click to expand...

Yes I do... I maybe should have used "ruling class" instead though, which is closer to what I am trying to point out.

sawyerloggingon said:

The similarities to a failing Rome are there. The emperor (obama) living like royalty while more and more citizens are unemployed and become dependent on the government for the basics of life (food stamps).

Click to expand...

Dude, it's spurious to attempt any ahistorical comparison, simply because there are the oppressed. You could make just as compelling a case for comparison with Australia, Tibet or Outer Mongolia.

Rainman05 said:

There have always been poor people and rich people.

Today however, the poorest american is wealthier than the wealthiest emperor of Rome of all time. And I'm not even joking.

Giving food to people was a common way to earn popularity and keep the peace. This was done because the Romans had a top notch agricultural system, best of it's time, and could produce a lot of food. Irrigation was top notch, etc. The fact that there is abundance is not sign of "collapse", it's a sign that things are going well and of progress and prosperity. Yes, politicians used that prosperity to garner votes and popularity but that's not to say that abundence in itself is wrong.
Jesus Christ man. The Church, after it became established, did a lot of charity in the Roman Empire.

Rome fell due to a lot of factors. Health was one -> as many said, lead poisoning was a serious thing. Romans were smart but it would be centuries after that people found the properties of lead, scientifically. The next thing was the separation between east and west. It was just the western roman empire that collapsed. The other was that there were too many enemies on too many frontiers. The next thing was tribalization of the army if you will. Powerful generals that lead large armies would earn the loyalty of those armies and then they'd make a civil war to become emperors. This was because the military stopped being made just by romans with roman values, but also of people who weren't fully romanized yet and they didn't have any loyalty to the notion of republic. They were loyal to the "strongman" in charge and to whom paid them.

So. Lead poisoning. [B]multiple enemies. Splitted empire. Fractured military. Barbarian invasions. Religious turmoil -> Christianity became the norm but not everyone in the empire wanted to be a Christian[/B]. Court intrigues.
The only way abundence played into this is because abundence made the Romans targets. That's it.

Click to expand...

I put in bold the similarities in your post America has to a Failing Roman empire