Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I saw this comment on an article



Thoughts?

4 for 7, unless I can hear a compelling argument for "plagues" that isn't "AIDS in the 80s lol."

Anyway. If collapse means we split up the way the Roman Empire did, part of the country will become the Byzantines and it'll be another thousand years of paying everyone else to do our work for us.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I'd say that our real decline started with Lyndon Johnson, though the obvious failures began with Bush, Sr. So that's a check.

I wouldn't really say that Americans have grown weaker as soldiers. I mean, in the first millennium CE, "civilization" didn't allow for many advances in warfare. Most effective military devices during the time of, say, Romulus Augustus had already been in use for centuries. But in our age, modernity equates to fighting ability. While we may not be savages, we've still got the strongest military in the world and would still have the technological advantage in a wartime situation. So this one's a no-go.

Well, the Tea Partiers speak for themselves. They're encouraging an "us-versus-them" mentality during an era in which we should be unifying to stave off decline. So that's a check.

This one's a given.

People could argue that we've had epidemics, but they'd be ignoring the fact that "plagues" in the fifth century killed off huge portions of entire cities. So we haven't had that happen yet.

I don't see how this has anything to do with either "empire" of the two that we're discussing. Rome didn't fall because of migrations into or out of the peninsula, though the lack of communication between fragmented colonies and outposts definitely contributed to its demise. When the Romans controlled a given province, they would send a handful of governmental employees and perhaps a few settlers, but if an area was already inhabited by a large group of people, that group would be practically autonomous unless the emperor took a special interest in its affairs. And Americans haven't really "migrated" that far away from the mainland to warrant a comparison of the two empires or even bringing it up in the first place.

To be fair, that's actually something that we COULD compare to the decline of the US. The Chinese (who, like the Visigoths did to the Romans, are holding a debt over our head and are gradually going to seize power of our country, most likely through the economy) are currently in the process of building these cities in the US, which would open up new channels of communication with China while simultaneously allowing them to influence our culture. Just like the Goths.

The thing that always gets me about comparing the US to Rome, though, is that neither of them have really contributed anything to culture with their mark on it. I mean, yeah, we came up with the Internet, the atomic bomb, (working) television, and a lot of other game-changing things. But we've been influenced so much by Western Europe, much like the Romans were influenced by the Greeks, that a lot of our inventions and cultural contributions seem like knockoffs of European innovations. We're a pretty shitty empire. Our peak lasted only a few decades until the world started hating us, and during that peaks we accomplished very little relative to what the Romans managed to do. And compared to Alexander's empire, we're dust in the fucking wind.

This guy doesn't understand Roman history.

Rome endured for almost 400 years after the "Golden Age" of Rome ended - the period of its history best known and of most interest to historians and philosophers today. In fact Rome had not even reached the greatest extent of its power when its glory days were over. And as Tuhl pointed out, the Byzantine Empire continued to refer to itself as Rome for another thousand years past that.

The real causes of the fall of Rome are not what he listed. Yes those things happened. Those were the events that preceded the fall of Rome. But they were not the cause of Rome' fall.

Rome fell because its greedy and short-sighted leaders weren't willing to do what it took to fix Roman society.

That is the lesson to be learned - and that lesson ought to be a warning to those who are complacent about the festering inequities and inherent unfairness of our current society. Generations down the line, other people's personal problems will become everyone's problem.

#1 - no, actually Rome had, with very few exceptions considering its very long history, mostly highly skilled leaders. The damage its bad leaders did was very marginal compared to the longer term processes that brought the empire down.

#2 for example - it became harder to recruit not so much because the citizens became "civilized" - if this were true, modern nation-states could never have fielded armies during the World Wars since people were much more civilized than at any point during Roman history. It became harder to recruit because Romans came to see military service as something to be avoided because the leadership wasted the lives of their soldiers on petty and unnecessary wars, and because they did not provide for their soldiers' welfare. Being a soldier often meant 20 years of service in unknown lands and returning home old, weak, worn-out and poor - if at all. The abolition of universal military service in the post-Marian era was also a major factor - it drove a wedge between the military and society at large. The most apt analogy would be how Vietnam changed the relationship of the American military to the American people between WWII/Korea and the Gulf War.

#3 wasn't due so much to the Romans being unable to set their differences aside as the inability of the Roman Senate to establish viable long-term political arrangements. Because the Senate refused to delegate power or commit to decisive solutions to pressing problems, time and again things got so bad they had no choice but to give power to a single individual, and inevitably the tail began to wag the dog. We in America do not really have this problem in the sense the Romans did because our system of government is more advanced.

#4 - economic decline - this was driven, in the long term, by the Roman government's refusal to correct the inequities in Roman society that resulted in a long-term underclass with no hope and no way of providing for themselves. It wasn't as simple as shrinking revenues or whatever, but then again the same could be said about the problems today.

#7 is total bullshit because the immigrants coming to America aren't comparable to the Goths.

Anyway, tldr version:

History doesn't repeat. It rhymes. There are many obvious parallels between the United States and Rome, but America isn't Rome, and the world we live in is very different than that of the Romans. So it's foolhardy to assume our own history will parallel theirs.

America won't "fall" to an invasion of barbarians from - Mexico, China? More likely, America will go into a period of extended decline like the Ottoman Empire or Ming China or Persia. And even then, it's not the end. All those countries are now on their way back up, and their contributions to the world are still important today.

What is more worrisome is that America might turn into a degraded, burned-out country like Italy or Greece. That is a cultural change - not a political one.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

My parents' opinion - and I'd agree - is that it began with the assassination of JFK.

I think most Romans would agree - and they'd be completely correct - that the decline of the Roman Empire began with the immensely tragic Battle of Pharsalus.


Pretty much. It's also worth noting, as Pericles pointed out, that the Athenians, like many others, were more civilized than the Spartans but "were willing to face all the same dangers all the same".

Except, by the fall of the Empire, Roman military technology had actually regressed, and their weapons and armor were no better than those of the barbarians, because exorbitant military spending and oppressive policies were not sustainable.

The Byzantines (who were more Greek than Roman) hung on for another thousand years with a very well-refined "fight smarter not harder" approach.



Not true at all. Our legal system is still fundamentally Roman. Cicero wouldn't be totally lost in an American court of law. Our government is heavily based on the Roman system of government. Our ways of thinking - rational and fair - are still very Roman. The entire history of European hegemony and colonialism was driven largely by Roman example, and if it wasn't for the Romans it's likely none of that would have come to pass. Our notions of civil law and civil leadership are Roman notions.

Centuries after America fades from dominance, English will still be an important and useful language, just as Greek and Latin were for over a thousand years after Rome fell, for the same reason: there's important information available in English, written or reproduced by American authors. Future civilizations will still look to American laws and institutions for informative examples. People will still debate the nature of American civilization and character for millenia to come, just as we today still debate such issues about Greece and Rome. People will still use American infrastructure and installations for centuries to come, just as we use Roman roads and aqueducts even today. People will still use the engineering and academic standards created by Americans. They will probably still use our everyday pictographic symbols for everything. They will still be inspired by our social and political efforts even if they are not wholly successful. People will continue to read, watch and enjoy those American works that will become classics.

Future civilizations will look back on the Apollo 11 mission in the same way we today look back at explorers like Columbus or Cook, or conquerors like Alexander or Genghis Khan - they'll say, "These people must have been incredible to have achieved so much, so long ago". They will put Armstrong's quote next to Caesar's.

I bet you anything that in a thousand years, there will be classes teaching "Introduction to 20th Century American Science Fiction" right next to the classes teaching "Introduction to Homeric Epics" and "Introduction to Chinese Classics".

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

This American-Roman comparison is really quite old and it's no more valid today than it was a hundred years ago when people were suggesting the fall is right around the corner because of all these Rome-qualities we possess.



As much as I dislike the Tea Party, they aren't the start of this. They are actively hurting the political process and discussion, but they aren't the firsts. There have always been partisan shit going on, but the real fall of American politics to it's current state owes more to Gingrich's time as speaker when compromise became verboten. The people may have lost faith during the Vietnam war and Nixon, but the system shit out when it was more about the argument than the issue.

Dvergar /
Quisling

When did people compare America to late Rome a hundred years ago? A hundred years ago there wasn't nearly the general sense of pessimism there is today.

American politics have always been nasty. Go read about early 20th century machine politics. Go read about how much shit was kicked up during the election of Teddy Roosevelt. Our most scandalous president was Harding and that was 80 years ago.

The difference today is not that there is too little compromise but that there is too much of it. Every novel bill today becomes some sort of ineffectual watered-down compromise that does nothing but perpetuate the status quo. Look at Obamacare. Compare that to the New Deal, or the early business regulation laws. Legislation from 50 or 100 years ago didn't have endless riders and unrelated clauses the way modern bills do in the name of "compromise". You are less likely to get a really bold bill passed now than at any time in American history. We haven't passed a constitutional amendment in what, 40 years? And the last two (voting age and presidential succession) made no real difference in the running of the country.

What we need is not more compromise but more courage and straight talk. I believe the problem is how money, the media, and time and distance interact.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

This. Particularly concerned with our politicians in Washington continually fellating the Pakistani government in the interest of maintaining "good" relations with them.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Eh, everything is doomed in time, and everything collapses, no doubt the US will...but fuck thinking about the future for now, i'm gonna enjoy Merica the way any Merican would.

Engi-nerd

When I was in NJROTC in high school, my Commander had a framed quote on the wall off to one of the sides of the classroom. It read:



I don't remember who it was said by and I'm too lazy to search but I do believe this to be true.

The guy is from the same school of thought as the guy who wrote Starship Troopers.
It's no coincidence that he likes being an authority figure in a "military" setting.

He says that because he wants to establish a rationalization for his megalomaniacal delusions. He likes to play the hero, the champion of freedom, but really what he wants is military dictatorship because civilian rule offends him. Military people like that hate civilians because deep in their bones, they're too scared to live without the structure military life provides. Fear and envy easily becomes hate.

So he adopts a point of view that condescends the very thing he's ostensibly paid to protect and the very thing he's too scared to take part in.

Like most military people, he talks about history and politics in vague, simplistic, paranoid terms that have no real historical truth to them. Because the reality is, what that quote describes has never happened. Ever. And it's not what's happening in America, either...he just doesn't have the courage to ask tough questions about what is really wrong with this country and how the military fits into the picture. Because he'd realize he's part of the problem and he isn't a hero, he's a clown.

It's just a rationalization for his own petty power-tripping.
He's a living, breathing Colonel Jessep.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

How various democracies fell:
Athens: Defeated in Peloponnesian War by Spartans due to excessive hubris and jimboism. Unable to restore democracy because internal disarray was repeatedly aggravated by powerful external forces.

Rome: Powerful aristocracy abused the lives and property of the lower classes, discrediting representative government. Standing armies became the real power behind the state and in time became the state itself.

Kerensky Russia: Clueless, out-of-touch armchair revolutionaries didn't give the people what they wanted - peace, land and bread - so Lenin did it for them.

Weimar Germany: Greedy industrialists and disgruntled military officers refused to support a nascent democracy, preferring to stick their hopes on a dictator they thought they could control.

Fourth French Republic: Algeria LOLOL

Chile: CIA and MI6 supported military dictator when democracy didn't get the result they wanted.

Turkey/Pakistan/Israel: Military overthrew democratic governments that threatened to cut their budget or otherwise undermine their preferred policies or prestige.

-------------------------------------------------

The fall of democracies has almost invariably been connected in some way with the military. Coincidence? I think not.

EDIT: More to the point - democracies don't fall when "people vote themselves largesse". That never happens. Democracies fall when the people come to feel they can't vote themselves anything at all.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

One of the biggest reasons for the Roman Empire collasped was because it was so damn huge and spread out, subjecting it to being easily invaded..