rome second century bcIIAmerica late 20th early twenty-first century

[Hamilton321]

So I have a rather intriguing theory; America is currently in the same phase of its history as the Roman Republic was during the second century, around the mid second century to be exact. The reasons for which I think this are that we have like they had then the rise of political families, Rome had always had political families but in the second century they became much more powerful and prominent. Instability in the middle east which draws the country into repeated conflicts. During the third century bc Rome had very few dealings in the middle east but in the second century Rome was drawn into some of its most famous conflicts in the middle east, facing such famous middle eastern kings as Jugurtha, Mithridates and Tigranes.

The general power and wealth of Rome grew exponentially yet the wealth gap also grew exponentially. The plebeians and patricians liked each other less and less. Politics became increasingly vitriolic and violent, by the end of the second century political leaders were being assassinated by the other side, political quarrels broke out into armed struggle on the streets of Rome. Also Roman culture was starting to lose some of its latinness and adopting an increasingly greek quality.

Also I would like to submit that perhaps the first and second punic wars are perhaps analogous to the cold war in some way, it may sound weird but well there was no actual engagements between American and russian troops during the Cold war and we weren't fighting incredibly bloody battles, what the two have in common is that the first and second punic wars made Rome into the dominant power of the civilized world which is also what the cold war did for the united states of america

 

[Kyriakos]

US still has by far the largest army, and now there are nukes, which complicate things -- but at some point in time there will be some SDI-type defense.
I don't think the US is in parallel to Rome. It mostly is a decadent state with many inner problems and weaknesses, and divisions of population not just due to gap in income/wealth but also racial tensions. Maybe it is closer to Persia, or the latter Western roman empire, or some eras of the Byzantine empire ^^
(although the rest of the entities aren't full-barbaric, like at the time)

 

[Olleus]

I'm also confused by your comparison between the punic war and the cold war. Surely the obvious correspondence is with the punic wars and the world wars?

Also, Roman power and influence was growing hugely in the 2nd century BC, I'd be hard pressed to say that American power is doing the same. It's willingness to project force appears to have peaked in 2003, Rome was projecting ever more and more. Another major difference is that early 21st Century US has gone from a period of no comparative rivals (since the fall of the USSR) to the rise of a potential challenger (China). Rome went through the exact opposite transition when it eliminated Carthage and then the successor states.

I can see that there are a few point of similarities in your comparison, but there's a lot which is a polar opposite. Seems like you're cherry picking. After all, give me any two nations at any two points of history and I'm sure I can find some similarities.

 

[Hamilton321]

I think that I am being badly misunderstood. First of all I am not attempting to establish a direct parallel between that period in Roman history and our current day. I am merely saying that America is in the same phase of its republic as Rome was in the second century. Also it is interesting that you say that Rome did not see the rise of a "potential challenger" during the second century, I don't know, Parthia.

 

[Olleus]

Rome in the 2nd century BC was rising, and rising fast. It was going from a regional power to a global one (within the context of what global means in this context). 21st century USA has crested and is either going straight-and-steady or started going downhill, depending on who you ask. Parthia in 150BC was not a challenger in the slightest.

There might be some parallels in polarisation in politics. But that's such a common thing in History that it's bizarre to draw a parallel between different countries and periods solely based on that. Political families are less of a thing in the US than 20 years anyway.

 

[innonimatu]

I see parallels with the British Empire, but not with Rome. Rome did not fell, it disintegrated through secessions. The US is not in risk of disintegration.

What seems to be happening is imperial overstretch, increasing resources poured into the military, and competition by rising powers that will ultimately prove too strong to be kept subdued.

 

[Lexicus]

The parallels are with the Roman Republic. Rome's empire opened up opportunities for hitherto-unheard-of wealth to flood the political system. This is almost exactly what has happened in the United States. At bottom the Republic simply couldn't survive the existence of men as rich and powerful as Pompey and Caesar, and the republic in the US will not survive the existence of men as rich and powerful as Jeff Bezos and the Koch brothers.

Rome did not fell, it disintegrated through secessions.

I think the analogy is between the Republic collapsing and turning into the Empire rather than with the Empire disintegrating.

 

[Olleus]

At bottom the Republic simply couldn't survive the existence of men as rich and powerful as Pompey and Caesar

That's one view of it. But considering the amount that has been said about the end of the Roman Republic, presenting that single sentence as absolute fact is somewhere between misleading and completely wrong.

But even if you accept it, you'd have to show that the 'rich and powerful' in the US now are richer and more powerful than 100 years ago. Considering Rockefeller was 4 times (comparative to GDP) richer than the richest man currently alive, that seems like a tall order.

 

[Lexicus]

But considering the amount that has been said about the end of the Roman Republic, presenting that single sentence as absolute fact is somewhere between misleading and completely wrong.

No, just because lots of people have said lots of things about the subject doesn't mean what I said is misleading and completely wrong. One could argue, in both the case of US and Rome, that there was never really a "free" political system given the presence of aristocrats and the fact that both systems were built on the institution of chattel slavery. But I think it is impossible to argue against the proposition that, in a literal sense, the Republic was brought down because the most powerful men in it were able to create networks of patronage that "surpassed" and ultimately supplanted the state.

But even if you accept it, you'd have to show that the 'rich and powerful' in the US now are richer and more powerful than 100 years ago. Considering Rockefeller was 4 times (comparative to GDP) richer than the richest man currently alive, that seems like a tall order.

It is trivial to show that the top 1% now claims a higher share of wealth and income than at any previous time in US history.

 

[Olleus]

No, just because lots of people have said lots of things about the subject doesn't mean what I said is misleading and completely wrong. One could argue, in both the case of US and Rome, that there was never really a "free" political system given the presence of aristocrats and the fact that both systems were built on the institution of chattel slavery. But I think it is impossible to argue against the proposition that, in a literal sense, the Republic was brought down because the most powerful men in it were able to create networks of patronage that "surpassed" and ultimately supplanted the state.

That was shorthand to say that there are lots of reasonably well accepted positions on the matter, all of them presumably being important to various degrees. Cherry picking a single one in order to highlight a dubious analogy is not exactly the peak of reasoning. Somewhat discounting the importance of the other reasons is misleading, completely discounting them is completely wrong.

It is trivial to show that the top 1% now claims a higher share of wealth and income than at any previous time in US history.

So, to recap:
In 1880 America had fairly well distributed wealth, but a few incredibly wealthy individuals (who controlled a few % of GDP each). In 2010, more wealth is held by the top 1%, but there no longer are a handful of individuals (literally 1-5) who dominate on their own.
In 200BC Rome, there is a class of a few hundred to a thousand individual who are very wealthy, but none among them who particularly stand out. By 70BC this class is less important (rise of Equites class, both politically and in wealth), but there are a handful of individuals (Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, ect...) who control wealth completely beyond the comparison of their peers.

So, it is possible to look at the evidence and conclude that the journey Rome did in terms of wealth distribution from 200BC->70BC is the exact opposite of what happened to the US from 1880->2010. Therefore, even if we accept the thesis that elite wealth is the reason the roman republic fell, mapping that to the US fails.


There really is little reason to say that 150BC Rome is like the USA today on historical grounds. I'm sure you can find a few things that are similar, but that's because countries are big complicated things, you can *always* find similarities between any two. But that's cherry picking and doesn't give any useful insights, understanding, or predictive power. Pretty much the only reason to do it is to justify an already held political belief, because grand comparisons to Rome always sound good and intellectual. I could just as well say that the Roman Empire fell because of immigration, there's been lots of immigration in the US recently, therefore if the US is to survive it has to curb immigration. Ie: It's wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, we'll make the experiment. If the US disintegrates or turns into an authoritarian state due to wealth inequality you admit I was right.

 

[Olleus]

That would require:
1) The US disintegrating or turning into an authoritarian state (highly unlikely)
2) Such event being uniquely attributed to wealth inequality (basically impossible, historians never agree)
3) The fall of the Roman Republic being uniquely attributed to wealth inequality (basically impossible, see above)

But, sure, if all three of those happen I'll come back with some humble pie and agree that early 21st century america bore meaningful similarities to 2nd centry bc Rome

 

[Hamilton321]

Parthia in 150BC was not a challenger in the slightest.

I was not saying that Parthia was big threat to Rome at the time but I was just using them as an example of an enemy of Rome that arose during the second century. If you actually look at the second century BC its history was one of Rome putting down a long series of powerful regional powers which caused some temporary panics even though they faced no existential threat. In that way it is very much like today in that America has faced regional threats from terrorism and is now facing rivalries with China and Russia. And in the second century Rome was delivered small but embarassing blows but always recovered. Their society and culture changed and their minor military disruptions led to military and class reforms, good for military victories, and ensuring loyalty to generals, but bad for senatorial authority, stability, or internal peace. We have faced small blows as well which have racked our economy and culture and the reactions were economic reforms, good for overall world trade and big business but bad for the middle class and for actual economic output. Also I'd say that America's economic power could be considered analog to Rome's military power. I think Lexicus testified to one point of mine. That modern day billionaires are in many ways analog to the powerful generals of the Roman age

 

[Lexicus]

1) The US disintegrating or turning into an authoritarian state (highly unlikely)

The US is turning into an authoritarian state as we speak, actually.

 

[Olleus]

The US is turning into an authoritarian state as we speak, actually.

Let's not go too crazy. A lot of media likes to exaggerate things, but come on, take a step back now and then.

 

[Olleus]

I think Lexicus testified to one point of mine. That modern day billionaires are in many ways analog to the powerful generals of the Roman age

Maybe. But the Rockefeller's of 100 years ago were far more similar to powerful roman generals of the 1st century BC than today's billionaires, read my long post a little above to see why.


And I agree entirely with your other points. There are things which happened in a particular period of Roman history which have parallels in what's happening in the US now. But, there is also a vast amount of stuff that doesn't have parallels. Neither of those statements necessarily mean anything. It's not even a coincidence, it's just noting that two large complicated things sometimes have a few things in common. It's nothing more than statistics. Sure, you can turn it into an exciting argument to support whatever political viewpoint you happen to hold, but somebody else could use exactly the same comparison to draw opposite conclusions with just as much (ie, 0) validity.

 

[Lexicus]

Let's not go too crazy. A lot of media likes to exaggerate things, but come on, take a step back now and then.

Right, so I think this is the basic disconnect here. Clearly, we disagree on what an 'authoritarian state' even looks like. The media's trying to pretend Trump si the problem, but we've been sliding into authoritarianism for years, since long before Trump took office. Sort of a decades-long Machtergreifung.

Maybe. But the Rockefeller's of 100 years ago were far more similar to powerful roman generals of the 1st century BC than today's billionaires, read my long post a little above to see why.

Rockefeller had far less control over the political system than today's billionaires. It's not the individual ones but the organization of a whole lot of them (e.g. the Koch network).

 

[Olleus]

Rockefeller had far less control over the political system than today's billionaires. It's not the individual ones but the organization of a whole lot of them (e.g. the Koch network).

And that's where the analogy with republican Rome breaks down. It 300 BC this network of rich people *was* the Roman state. In 50BC this network was not powerful enough to contain it's strongest members, and it broke down. By your own admission what's happening in the US at the moment is the exact opposite - at the very least in terms of the political power of the wealthiest individuals.

 

[Lexicus]

I doubt we're going to end up in an autocracy. The dictatorship of capital is quite another matter.

 

[Karpius]

America's position in the world today more closely resembles the British Empire of the late 19th century than period of Rome. The British Empire was once the 'globocop' who essentially kept everyone else from fighting any major wars (until 1914) and in the process spurred economic growth across the globe because of it. This indirectly (and often directly) aided the industrial development of Germany as well as America. Either might have become Britain's bitter enemy, but it happened to be Germany who was really looking to match growth with the British Empire and that eventually led to war.

Today, America is the globocop and China is one of the major beneficiaries of this. It should be noted too that China seems to have generally learned from history and is seeking other ways to rival the US rather than head-on confrontation. The x-factor is a depleted Russia that often finds itself stymied at every turn to expand its influence. In that sense, one might argue it is in a similar situation as 1930's Germany - once big, proud and powerful and now a shadow of its former self.