Thread: Compareing History: Roman- <> "Western"-Empire

I've been quite interessted in this for quite a while, because it's fun to think about

I thought, how would people 1000-2000 years from now think and read about our times in their history books.

And in my impression, the "Western-Empire" (Nato,European Provinces, puppets around the globe and the leadnation US) looks quite alot like Rome.
Of course this is simplified... extremly!
But I think there are at least parallels.. and perhaps it's interessting for others to talk about these and perhaps learn from Roman mistakes & successes.
(Because I really don't think that politics changed EXTREMLY from the very beginning of human history... History Books sometimes simplify the reasons for war... but I guess that ecconomic & political interrests, influence & "security" always played and still play the leading role for wars and all other political actions)


El Zoido,
writting from "Europa-Germania" Province of the Western Empire

(edit
I hope nobody things that I want to hijack this subject to "bash" somebody...
I obviously consider myself as a member of this "Western-Empire" (or whatever the people in 1000 years call our "common interesst Block")
But I want to compare the Western world of the last 100 years with the times of Roman Republic & Empire.

Some Parallels from Roman and "Western Empire" history and present:

"The Limes" and "customs frontiers" of today (I dunno of "customs frontier" is the right word... I mean boarders like the Mexican one)

<=>


The Limes (border) was the Roman answer to their failed warefforts into Germanic Territory in Central Europe (The Roman-Germanic Wars looked quite alot like the Vietnam war btw.. come back to that later).
It was basicly a wall & military base system that was supposed to keep "babarians" out of the Roman Empire.
At first it was not more as a plaited fence and a network of wodden guard towers but it got more and more improved over time.
It is known though, that it was more that a Military bastion, but more like a ecconomic border.
There was a booming ecconomic traffic between the Roman & "Babarian" side of the wall.
The Germanic tribes traded basic products like grain, fur, leather or wood for luxuary products and other products of roman culture.
The Germanic territories also ment a neverending flow of cheap labour force for the Roman Provinces, because the "Roman Culutre" was the envy of the world and promised a better life. (hopes that didn't came true usually)

It was even possible for Germans to enlist into the Roman armed forces, explore the world and if lucky enough to survive become a Roman citizen after 10 years of service.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Some Parallels from Roman and "Western Empire" history and present:

"The Limes" and "customs frontiers" of today (I dunno of "customs frontier" is the right word... I mean boarders like the Mexican one)

<=>


The Limes (border) was the Roman answer to their failed warefforts into Germanic Territory in Central Europe (The Roman-Germanic Wars looked quite alot like the Vietnam war btw.. come back to that later).
It was basicly a wall & military base system that was supposed to keep "babarians" out of the Roman Empire.
At first it was not more as a plaited fence and a network of wodden guard towers but it got more and more improved over time.
It is known though, that it was more that a Military bastion, but more like a ecconomic border.
There was a booming ecconomic traffic between the Roman & "Babarian" side of the wall.
The Germanic tribes traded basic products like grain, fur, leather or wood for luxuary products and other products of roman culture.
The Germanic territories also ment a neverending flow of cheap labour force for the Roman Provinces, because the "Roman Culutre" was the envy of the world and promised a better life. (hopes that didn't came true usually)

It was even possible for Germans to enlist into the Roman armed forces, explore the world and if lucky enough to survive become a Roman citizen after 10 years of service.

The "Western" Empire has also been compared with the Greek Empire, built on persuasion and negotiations.
There are parralels, yes this is true.

Originally Posted by Sucre

The "Western" Empire has also been compared with the Greek Empire, built on persuasion and negotiations.
There are parralels, yes this is true.

I find it funny
Of course it's generally abit simplified...
But considering all the security measures and the media attention for Bushs visit to Germany today...
Kinda feels like the POTUS Maximus Bushii visits his Pro-Consul Gerhard Schroewder in Imperial Provice of Europa-Germania



The Pretorian-Guard (Secret Service) took control over the local Palast in the city of Mainz and the local Consul was happy to serve special foods from the region...

I saw an article proclaiming that America was the new Rome-I think it was in the Times,--will look for it.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

I find it funny
Of course it's generally abit simplified...
But considering all the security measures and the media attention for Bushs visit to Germany today...
Kinda feels like the POTUS Maximus Bushii visits his Pro-Consul Gerhard Schroewder in Imperial Provice of Europa-Germania



The Pretorian-Guard (Secret Service) took control over the local Palast in the city of Mainz and the local Consul was happy to serve special foods from the region...

I find it funny too.
I forgot a bit about the Greek comparison because I don't know Greek history very well, but I will try to look for my source and come back to you.

In fact, regarding Mainz, there was a quite humorous article in my newspaper this morning. They were describing all the security measures around Mainz - 14,000 policemen (there were only 1,000 when Bush senior came in 1990), five motorways closed "just in case", and the people quite unhappy and grumbling. The journalist concluded that, anyway, there has been many foreign "State visitors" in Mainz and that the only time something happened was in 235 when Roman Emperor Severus Alexander was murdered on his visit to the city .

So, well, maybe we shouldn't push the comparison too far

Zoido, very interesting thread. I think there are indeed some valid parallels there that can be perhaps learned from.

Originally Posted by Sucre

The "Western" Empire has also been compared with the Greek Empire, built on persuasion and negotiations.
There are parralels, yes this is true.

Which "Greek Empire" do you refer to? Not to be pedantic, but I know not of any of that name.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Zoido, very interesting thread. I think there are indeed some valid parallels there that can be perhaps learned from.


Which "Greek Empire" do you refer to? Not to be pedantic, but I know not of any of that name.

Well, you had at least the Empire of Alexandre the Great ?

But that is not what the comparison is about.
It is to compare with the Ligua of Delos - if that is the appropriate English translation (?), a confederation of cities with Athen at the center after the first Persian Wars. The largest cities gave ships, the smallest just a monetary contribution. In this constellation, the US would be Athen. This comparison is very favourable because it describes some kind of democratic leadership. It is like the NATO if you like .

It's favourable to the US because the Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, was built on military force and coercition. Not really democratic.

However, the comparison with Athen stops here.

After a while, the "liga" degenerated. Most of the allied cities rather than providing ships, sent a monetary contribution. Athen used these monies to build its own forces and use them against the cities that rebelled and used it as well to build the Acropolis !

Reg. sources, there is a book published at the Oxford University Press and called "The Athenian Empire".

Originally Posted by Sucre

Well, you had at least the Empire of Alexandre the Great ?

Alexander's Empire is more accurately called a Macedonian Empire rather than a Greek one since the majority of the 'famous' Greek city-states were sworn enemies of Alexander and his Pan-Hellenic crusade (Athens, Sparta and Thebes, most notably, Corinth was the only 'ally' of Philip/Alexander in the Greek mainland). Personal Note: I've just finished two days ago reading a newly written history of Alexander the Great - an excellently researched book by Paul Cartledge (NY 2004) - one of my most favourite topics!

Originally Posted by Sucre

But that is not what the comparison is about.
It is to compare with the Ligua of Delos - if that is the appropriate English translation (?), a confederation of cities with Athen at the center after the first Persian Wars. The largest cities gave ships, the smallest just a monetary contribution. In this constellation, the US would be Athen. This comparison is very favourable because it describes some kind of democratic leadership. It is like the NATO if you like .

It's favourable to the US because the Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, was built on military force and coercition. Not really democratic.

However, the comparison with Athen stops here.

After a while, the "liga" degenerated. Most of the allied cities rather than providing ships, sent a monetary contribution. Athen used these monies to build its own forces and use them against the cities that rebelled and used it as well to build the Acropolis !

Reg. sources, there is a book published at the Oxford University Press and called "The Athenian Empire".

Yes, I'll certainly agree that the Athenian League of Delos, is indeed about the closest thing to a 'Greek' empire that ever did exist, apart from the Spartan hegemony of the post civil war era (after 404 BC).

As for the modern parallels, this does appear to be a good one on the grounds that you mention, though Athen's leadership was hardly democratic towards the other members of the League (English equivilent of liga) though, that too perhaps may be apt given present affairs with the USA.

Your comment about the suitability of the US comparison with Rome vs the Greek one seems also to be quite perceptive. I've personally never been comfortable applying the US-Rome analogy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that American conservatives seem to like it and ultimately, the Roman Empire was pure fascism in itself.

Btw, in case anyone is curious, fascism is named for the fasces that were the symbol of the Roman civil office of Lictors - those armed with whips who 'made way' through the crowds for the important Romans - similar to the motorcycle riders in a motorcade procession).

But one must not be too hasty in impinging Rome as 'the first and last word' in fascistic imperialism. There was a strong 'cultural' component to Roman success - particularly in the West. In the East, Rome brought 'good government' to a region suffering intercene warfare since the death of Alexander (a true born heir to Alexander the Great is one of the great 'what if?" questions of all history in my opinion!).

Well,
I didn't want to concentrate just on the US, because they aren't alone in our "wealth-o-sphere"

The compareison with the "Greek Empire" is also quite vallied When we look at the Military situation... and in inner politics non of the old empires is similar to the todays one...


Rome got a different ability though...
They brought wealth and their culture to some people... they installed puppets and fake kings in other places... They also shut out others and exploited them in a evil way.
This fits quite well for todays world (aka lets say the last 100-200 years)
(people are usually not very detailed concerning decades when talking about the Roman empire and their politics, so I doubt the people of the future would be so kind to look at our time with so much fondness for dates...


I see it like that,
Within the Western hemisphere, many struggled for a dominant position...
After the UK lost their leading role, there was something like a struggle for supremacy (like the struggle for supremacy in Italy or perhaps even the Mediterranean)

The US came out as the pre-dominante power...