Decline of the American Empire?

[Skylar]

America is not an empire.

Neither was Rome, until it became one.

We haven't become one.

In some aspects we have (e.g. we forcefully exert direct and indirect control over areas outside of our sovereign borders, we have an ever increasing concentration of power at the center), sure it's not as complete and sudden a transformation as what took place for the Roman Republic ala Ceasar (Dictator perpetuo) --> Augustus (Emperor) but the parallels are pretty striking.

No, they're not. The 'parallels' are laughably false equivilancy fallacies, on par with assuming that a bicycle and an F-16 are the same thing because they both have wheels.

Even your time line is just nonsense. As the empire was expanding under Caesar and Augustus. And would last for about another 4 centuries before its collapse. It wouldn't even reached its high point under Trajan for a century or so.

And of course, we don't have a dictator.

Making your entire false equivalency fallacy an obtuse, confused pile of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

*YAWN* Uh-huh, thank you for the entirely superficial and equally meaningless "analysis" based on a completely twisted interpretation of what I wrote, if I ever need happen to need a coloring book for propagandists designed I'll give you a call.

Laughing.....notice how you don't actually contradict anything I've said. Or offer any plausible explaination in its place.

Your time line was shit, with the 'parallels' being off by nearly 4 centuries. You literally cited the period of the empire's expansion as its decline. And of course, we don't have a dictator. Cutting any possible 'parallels' by any rational standard.

Your argument is garbage. And even you can't make it work.

 

[NightFox]

Your time line was shit, with the 'parallels' being off by nearly 4 centuries.

Are you hallucinating? There was no "time line" ya retard other than pointing out the fact that Caesar proceeded Augustus during the final transformation from Republic to Empire.

You literally cited the period of the empire's expansion as its decline. And of course, we don't have a dictator. Cutting any possible 'parallels' by any rational standard.

No I didn't ya moron , I cited the point at which the Republic ceased to exist and was replaced by Empire (ya know when the Augustus (aka Octavian) became the first fucking Roman EMPEROR).....

Your argument is garbage. And even you can't make it work.

You don't have an argument or even a coherent rebuttal, in fact all you've demonstrated is that you lack the ability to read English with anything approximating comprehension.

Did you perchance take a double dose of your stupid pills this morning?

 

[gipper]

We have nothing like what the Roman's experienced. And it was the *civil* wars that tore the empire apart. With generals trying to make themselves emperor by force fighting the existing emperor or emperor wanna be. With every casualty a Roman. It obliterated entire legions. To destroyed the leadership of entire armies. And it lead to gross instability for centuries.

And the *mexicans?* They are migrant workers. They wash cars, flip burgers, pick tomatoes....and then go home. The Roman's faced massive invading armies in a migration of people unmatched in human history. With most of the roman military at the time of their fall being the very peoples that had invaded them lead by a handful or Roman military officers that had survived the devastating civil wars and plagues.

We have nothing like what they faced.

Correct.

Comparing the Roman Empire to the United States is sophomoric idiocy.

No, not being able to learn from history and the comparisons for today is idiocy.

The Roman Empire fell for very specific reasons. Those reasons don't exist today with the US in any significance. Thus, a false analogy fallacy.

Of course, statists like you wish to believe that their new form of government is somehow new and different from all before it. Their ideology will somehow evade the pitfalls of previous empires.

Everything is eventual. But not for the same reasons. And that is where your logic breaks. As the Roman collapse and the current state of the US have little to nothing to do with each other.

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels exist and you have even identified more than what I posted. Rome allowed massive immigration of foreigners into their nation, just at the US is doing. Just another element of similarity. Rome was in constant wars, like the US, and wars are very expensive. There are more similarities than dissimilarities.

True no nation can take us down militarily today, like was done to Rome. Our military is stronger than all others, but this can change quickly. This may be the only difference. Remember prior to WWI, the Limeys ruled the world and had for a couple centuries...after WWI, not so much...and after WWII, they were a shell of what they were in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Unkotare]

America is not an empire.

Neither was Rome, until it became one.

We haven't become one.

Yes we have.

You're a one-trick pony, anarchy boy.

 

[U2Edge]

For any of you who may be familiar with the decline of the Roman Empire, do you see any parallels to the United States at this point in its history? In my view they are astoundingly similar, from the abandonment of public moral standards to paying off our adversaries (e.g., Iran) as they continue their inexorable encirclement. Is our current political process anything more than a modern version of bread and circuses for the masses?

The only difference I can see is the compression of time from centuries to decades. We became a world-dominant superpower in a fraction of the time it took the Romans. Is there any reason to believe that our decline won't be just as quick?

First, the United States is not an Empire and never has been.
Second, the United States has economic strength, influence, as well as allies far beyond anything the Roman Empire had.
Third, the Roman Empire relied on brute force and subjugation of various populations. Essentially enslavement. In contrast the United States relies on its ideas and sets examples that friends and Allies generally tend to willingly unite behind and copy.

The United States is a successful world leader that countries all around the world rely on and connect with in many different ways. The Roman Empire collapsed because its ability to subjugate its people and defend its borders eroded. The United States is a leader of a global economic and political order that most nations support or at least engage in.

 

[bendog]

For any of you who may be familiar with the decline of the Roman Empire, do you see any parallels to the United States at this point in its history? In my view they are astoundingly similar, from the abandonment of public moral standards to paying off our adversaries (e.g., Iran) as they continue their inexorable encirclement. Is our current political process anything more than a modern version of bread and circuses for the masses?

The only difference I can see is the compression of time from centuries to decades. We became a world-dominant superpower in a fraction of the time it took the Romans. Is there any reason to believe that our decline won't be just as quick?

For anyone with an even passing acquaintance, they're uselessly dissimilar. The primary cause of the decline of the Roman empire was relentless civil wars and the single largest migration of people in recorded history......right through their territory.

We don't see either.

The MEXICANS are breaching the Walls! Hide the women and silver.

 

[Skylar]

Your time line was shit, with the 'parallels' being off by nearly 4 centuries.

Are you hallucinating? There was no "time line" ya retard other than pointing out the fact that Caesar proceeded Augustus during the final transformation from Republic to Empire.

Laughing......oh, I believe you. But this NightFox guy? He has a starkly different story.

In some aspects we have (e.g. we forcefully exert direct and indirect control over areas outside of our sovereign borders, we have an ever increasing concentration of power at the center), sure it's not as complete and sudden a transformation as what took place for the Roman Republic ala Ceasar (Dictator perpetuo) --> Augustus (Emperor) but the parallels are pretty striking.

You specifically cited the rise of dictators as an allegory for the 'increasing concentrations of power at the center'. Citing Ceasar and Augustus.

Um, NF? That Roman Empire wasn't in decline during Ceasar or Augustus. But in expansion. Its collapse wouldn't follow for another 4 centuries or so.Longer than the US has even existed.

There are virtually no applicable allegories between the US and Rome in collapse. And certainly none that are remotely relevant or significant.

 

[Skylar]

Correct.

Comparing the Roman Empire to the United States is sophomoric idiocy.

No, not being able to learn from history and the comparisons for today is idiocy.

The Roman Empire fell for very specific reasons. Those reasons don't exist today with the US in any significance. Thus, a false analogy fallacy.

Of course, statists like you wish to believe that their new form of government is somehow new and different from all before it. Their ideology will somehow evade the pitfalls of previous empires.

Everything is eventual. But not for the same reasons. And that is where your logic breaks. As the Roman collapse and the current state of the US have little to nothing to do with each other.

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels exist and you have even identified more than what I posted.

No, they don't. The 'debasing of the currency' wasn't a major cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Civil wars, technological stagnation and massive invasion were.

Rome allowed massive immigration of foreigners into their nation, just at the US is doing.

Obvious and blithering nonsense. The Gallic tribes that invaded, the Germanic Tribes that invaded were not 'allowed' in. They fought their way in. Armed to the teeth. They didn't come to landscape, make food and clean hotel rooms.

You're laughably confusing invading armies with migrant workers. Your allegory is simple nonsense.
Nonsense only underlined by the fact thatRome was faced with territorial pressures from all sides. The Visigoths from the West, the Ostrogoths from the East, the Parthians from the East, the Huns, Gallic armies from the North.

None of which are 'migrant workers'. But invading armies and migrations of entire peoples.

We have no such territorial pressures. Nor do we face any existential threats. And of course, you ignore the ENTIRITY of the Roman Civil wars, despite them being the single greatest factor in the collapse of Rome. While our military is at its apex, having never been stronger than it is right now.

Just another element of similarity. Rome was in constant wars, like the US, and wars are very expensive. There are more similarities than dissimilarities.

Wars of 'conquest' largely wrapped up With Tragan at the beginning of the 2nd century. What followed was overwhelmingly defensive actions, defense of their own territories from outside threats....and most commonly by far, CIVIL WARS from within.

We have none of that. Nor are any of our wars involving our own territory. Nor do we face any conventional existential threats. Nor have we had a civil war in 150 years.

You're desperately ignoring enormous causation in the collapse of the Roman Empire. With decades of civil war never even mentioned. And just as desperately stretching to an absolutely ludicrous degree to make your 'parallels', confusing migrant workers with invading armies.

 

[gipper]

No, not being able to learn from history and the comparisons for today is idiocy.

The Roman Empire fell for very specific reasons. Those reasons don't exist today with the US in any significance. Thus, a false analogy fallacy.

Of course, statists like you wish to believe that their new form of government is somehow new and different from all before it. Their ideology will somehow evade the pitfalls of previous empires.

Everything is eventual. But not for the same reasons. And that is where your logic breaks. As the Roman collapse and the current state of the US have little to nothing to do with each other.

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels exist and you have even identified more than what I posted.

No, they don't. The 'debasing of the currency' wasn't a major cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Civil wars, technological stagnation and massive invasion were.

Rome allowed massive immigration of foreigners into their nation, just at the US is doing.

Obvious and blithering nonsense. The Gallic tribes that invaded, the Germanic Tribes that invaded were not 'allowed' in. They fought their way in. Armed to the teeth. They didn't come to landscape, make food and clean hotel rooms.

You're laughably confusing invading armies with migrant workers. Your allegory is simple nonsense.
Nonsense only underlined by the fact thatRome was faced with territorial pressures from all sides. The Visigoths from the West, the Ostrogoths from the East, the Parthians from the East, the Huns, Gallic armies from the North.

None of which are 'migrant workers'. But invading armies and migrations of entire peoples.

We have no such territorial pressures. Nor do we face any existential threats. And of course, you ignore the ENTIRITY of the Roman Civil wars, despite them being the single greatest factor in the collapse of Rome. While our military is at its apex, having never been stronger than it is right now.

Just another element of similarity. Rome was in constant wars, like the US, and wars are very expensive. There are more similarities than dissimilarities.

Wars of 'conquest' largely wrapped up With Tragan at the beginning of the 2nd century. What followed was overwhelmingly defensive actions, defense of their own territories from outside threats....and most commonly by far, CIVIL WARS from within.

We have none of that. Nor are any of our wars involving our own territory. Nor do we face any conventional existential threats. Nor have we had a civil war in 150 years.

You're desperately ignoring enormous causation in the collapse of the Roman Empire. With decades of civil war never even mentioned. And just as desperately stretching to an absolutely ludicrous degree to make your 'parallels', confusing migrant workers with invading armies.

I am posting the similarities between US and Rome. You are posting why Rome fell.

 

[Skylar]

The Roman Empire fell for very specific reasons. Those reasons don't exist today with the US in any significance. Thus, a false analogy fallacy.

Everything is eventual. But not for the same reasons. And that is where your logic breaks. As the Roman collapse and the current state of the US have little to nothing to do with each other.

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels exist and you have even identified more than what I posted.

No, they don't. The 'debasing of the currency' wasn't a major cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Civil wars, technological stagnation and massive invasion were.

Rome allowed massive immigration of foreigners into their nation, just at the US is doing.

Obvious and blithering nonsense. The Gallic tribes that invaded, the Germanic Tribes that invaded were not 'allowed' in. They fought their way in. Armed to the teeth. They didn't come to landscape, make food and clean hotel rooms.

You're laughably confusing invading armies with migrant workers. Your allegory is simple nonsense.
Nonsense only underlined by the fact thatRome was faced with territorial pressures from all sides. The Visigoths from the West, the Ostrogoths from the East, the Parthians from the East, the Huns, Gallic armies from the North.

None of which are 'migrant workers'. But invading armies and migrations of entire peoples.

We have no such territorial pressures. Nor do we face any existential threats. And of course, you ignore the ENTIRITY of the Roman Civil wars, despite them being the single greatest factor in the collapse of Rome. While our military is at its apex, having never been stronger than it is right now.

Just another element of similarity. Rome was in constant wars, like the US, and wars are very expensive. There are more similarities than dissimilarities.

Wars of 'conquest' largely wrapped up With Tragan at the beginning of the 2nd century. What followed was overwhelmingly defensive actions, defense of their own territories from outside threats....and most commonly by far, CIVIL WARS from within.

We have none of that. Nor are any of our wars involving our own territory. Nor do we face any conventional existential threats. Nor have we had a civil war in 150 years.

You're desperately ignoring enormous causation in the collapse of the Roman Empire. With decades of civil war never even mentioned. And just as desperately stretching to an absolutely ludicrous degree to make your 'parallels', confusing migrant workers with invading armies.

I am posting the similarities between US and Rome. You are posting why Rome fell.

Oh, I beleive you. But this 'gipper' says you're changing your story;

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US. Rome debased their currency, pursued constant war, morals and ethics declined...very much like the USA.

So when you said 'same reasons that caused rome's demise'.....you didn't actually mean the reasons that caused Rome's demise.

Sigh.....if even you're going to ignore the blithering nonsense you post, surely you'll understand why I do the same.

 

[gipper]

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels exist and you have even identified more than what I posted.

No, they don't. The 'debasing of the currency' wasn't a major cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Civil wars, technological stagnation and massive invasion were.

Rome allowed massive immigration of foreigners into their nation, just at the US is doing.

Obvious and blithering nonsense. The Gallic tribes that invaded, the Germanic Tribes that invaded were not 'allowed' in. They fought their way in. Armed to the teeth. They didn't come to landscape, make food and clean hotel rooms.

You're laughably confusing invading armies with migrant workers. Your allegory is simple nonsense.
Nonsense only underlined by the fact thatRome was faced with territorial pressures from all sides. The Visigoths from the West, the Ostrogoths from the East, the Parthians from the East, the Huns, Gallic armies from the North.

None of which are 'migrant workers'. But invading armies and migrations of entire peoples.

We have no such territorial pressures. Nor do we face any existential threats. And of course, you ignore the ENTIRITY of the Roman Civil wars, despite them being the single greatest factor in the collapse of Rome. While our military is at its apex, having never been stronger than it is right now.

Just another element of similarity. Rome was in constant wars, like the US, and wars are very expensive. There are more similarities than dissimilarities.

Wars of 'conquest' largely wrapped up With Tragan at the beginning of the 2nd century. What followed was overwhelmingly defensive actions, defense of their own territories from outside threats....and most commonly by far, CIVIL WARS from within.

We have none of that. Nor are any of our wars involving our own territory. Nor do we face any conventional existential threats. Nor have we had a civil war in 150 years.

You're desperately ignoring enormous causation in the collapse of the Roman Empire. With decades of civil war never even mentioned. And just as desperately stretching to an absolutely ludicrous degree to make your 'parallels', confusing migrant workers with invading armies.

I am posting the similarities between US and Rome. You are posting why Rome fell.

Oh, I beleive you. But this 'gipper' says you're changing your story;

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US. Rome debased their currency, pursued constant war, morals and ethics declined...very much like the USA.

So when you said 'same reasons that caused rome's demise'.....you didn't actually mean the reasons that caused Rome's demise.

Sigh.....if even you're going to ignore the blithering nonsense you post, surely you'll understand why I do the same.

Okay you got me.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We have nothing like what the Roman's experienced. And it was the *civil* wars that tore the empire apart. With generals trying to make themselves emperor by force fighting the existing emperor or emperor wanna be. With every casualty a Roman. It obliterated entire legions. To destroyed the leadership of entire armies. And it lead to gross instability for centuries.

And the *mexicans?* They are migrant workers. They wash cars, flip burgers, pick tomatoes....and then go home. The Roman's faced massive invading armies in a migration of people unmatched in human history. With most of the roman military at the time of their fall being the very peoples that had invaded them lead by a handful or Roman military officers that had survived the devastating civil wars and plagues.

We have nothing like what they faced.

Correct.

Comparing the Roman Empire to the United States is sophomoric idiocy.

No, not being able to learn from history and the comparisons for today is idiocy.

The Roman Empire fell for very specific reasons. Those reasons don't exist today with the US in any significance. Thus, a false analogy fallacy.

Of course, statists like you wish to believe that their new form of government is somehow new and different from all before it. Their ideology will somehow evade the pitfalls of previous empires.

Everything is eventual. But not for the same reasons. And that is where your logic breaks. As the Roman collapse and the current state of the US have little to nothing to do with each other.

Many of the same reasons that caused Rome's demise, are present today in the US.

No, they aren't.

The Roman empire fell because of *rampant* civil war, technological stagnation, and a massive migration of people's into its territory. On par with say, the whole of South American flooding into North America in vast Armies.

The Civil wars were by far the most immediate cause. With one general after another trying to make themselves emperor by the sword. In the 3rd century that had literally 50 years of nearly non-stop civil war.

A full half century.

It took a horrendous toll on their ability to govern, their infrastructure, their military and most importantly, their officers. The roman army that existed in 285 was a shadow of the force that existed in 235. So depleted where their ranks that they had to heavily conscript and incorporate foreign auxiliaries until these forces were the bulk of their own. With Roman or Roman trained officers leading the forces.

We have *nothing* like that. Nothing.

Rome faced territorial pressures from the Parthians (Persians) to the South East, the Gallic and Germanic tribes to the North, and the Goths and Huns from the North East. All while it pureed itself with civil wars from the inside.

We have no parallel for this either. As we have oceans on either side of us. There is no nation that is putting territorial pressure on us. Nor plausibly could. Our military is at its technological and practical apex. Our territorial boundaries, their furthest extent. There are no civil wars, nor have been for 150 years.

The 'parallels' are a joke.

The parallels of the US and rome decline are frightening.