Explain how the fall of Rome has impacted the way that people view government today. -New Thread

Perhaps researching this yourself and coming up with your own observations would be better for you in the long run?

Also, it's a very interesting question and I'm sure you'll learn much you didn't know when you do get around to doing your own homework.

Let me know what you find K?

Actually, this isn't homework. I used it as an example to another member of what my guy friends debate. They suggested starting a thread to see what other people thought. It's for other people's viewpoints that;s why it is in the forum. I do my own college level homework thanks you much. :p

My apologies then.

Although with the number of homework question the sites get and coupled with the fact that it does sound rather like a homework assignment you'll understand my post.

Once again, my apologies.

My apologies then.

Although with the number of homework question the sites get and coupled with the fact that it does sound rather like a homework assignment you'll understand my post.

Once again, my apologies.

Actually, I laughed really hard! It sounds like something I would say to a smartass teenager. No apology necessary, but thank you anyway!

Chey,

This is a very broad topic. An understanding of the subject requires a strong understanding of why and how the Roman Empire fell, as well as the ability to compare/contrast the situation then to the situation now.

Also, I need a better understanding of WHICH Roman Empire you are speaking of. There is the "Original" Roman Empire and then there's The Byzantine Empire, which was technically also the "Eastern" Roman Empire, but was actually run by Greeks and Thracians. The Roman Empire was based in Rome from about 25 BC to about 425 CE, while the Byzantine Empire was based in Constantinople from about 330 CE to about 1450 CE. To which are you referring?

Generally speaking, whether we are talking abut the fall of the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire, the reasons each of them fell can be attributed to their governing bodies/leaders forgetting the values on which the empire was built and becoming corrupt, weak and unwilling to stand up for those values and became immoral. But that is a very BROAD description of why ANY Empire falls. And those conditions can, to some degree, be attributted to the leadership of the USA as well. To really answer your question in a meaningful way, though, I would need to know which Empire you are referring to.

Elliot

It is highly unlikely that people today have learned the lessons of history, as Eliot has already said Rome fell because they took the eye off the ball and became weak and indecisive but any empire reaches a point where it is business as usual and outsiders exploit their weaknesses, Remember the Great Wall didn't keep the mongols out of China and the Barbarians ultimately overran Rome. Empire in the time of Rome lacked the communications we have today so the reasons an empire will fall today will be different
The British Empire vanished in a generation, two world wars and better communications changed peoples perspective. The Russian Empire vanished in a few years of internal division.The US Empire will probably vanish in a frenzy of market manipulation

Elliot, I was referring to the Western Empire, the original Republic. I had or have continued to think that a system of government that basically established the guidelines, and then later failed, (just like communism) would be more of a warning flag to a new and foundling government. It's always fascinated me that, though this was the first truly well documented and functioning system of government that established a representative government, eventually the system failed. How has it impacted our views of government and the way we function in modern America?

Your going to run into a snag religion

Are we talking about the fall of the Roman Republic or the Empire ? All empires are destined for destruction but I am not convinced it is true of Republics ,although the history is not promising.The rise of Rome can be attributed to the Republic .The fall of Rome to the Empire ,athlough for many years the Empire fed off what the Republic had built.

The founders learned to become wary and fearful of conspiracies against liberty .Their study of ancient Rome and Greece showed that the loss of liberty was usually incremental encroachment .


Jefferson lamented that so many "patriots "in Rome chose suicide when the remedy seemed so clear ,"a poignard in the breast of the tyrant."
Madison wrote in Federalist 41, "the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs."

Their remedy was to provide the citizenry with 2nd Amendment protections . Gibbons wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire "A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against the enterprises of an aspiring prince."

Thank you tom, that was very enlightening. You even threw in some founding fathers. I appreciate you taking the time to answer with your opinion. As for my asking about the empire OR the republic. I was speaking of them as one in the same. To differentiate wouldn't have done anything but confuse the question I was asking and as part of a nation together the generalization seemed fitting. If that's wrong then that might be why I viewed them differently myself, but we don't distinguish our government from our nation when we discuss our government. What would be the point of differentiating, maybe I should ask you that instead? Can you explain that a bit more clearly?

I consider them 2 distinctly different times and events . Rome the Republic took a long time to fall ;about 100 years .The empire lasted long after the Republic fell. The fall of the Republic began with "social reforms" to help the lower classes by Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus around 133 BC and culminated with the 1st Roman Emperor Octavius Caesar 27 BC.

During this period politics was dominated by personalities and there was a high degree of civil tension ;including civil wars ;and there were 2 dictatorships (Sulla and Julius Caesar).

To go back to the original question. The fall of Rome would be one of the last things people think about when they view government today. Wouldn't people think about taxes, inflation, and recession first?

The major reason for the fall of the Republic itself was the rise of private armies. Private armies are not a problem in a western democratic system.

It's certainly enough t think about, especially on broader terms. I suppose the guys and I were debating it for such a length of time because the question posed was TOO broad. Very interesting responses, thanks!

In a nut shell and no politics involved. Broad comparison.

At times we use the comparisons of Rome to the U.S. for many reasons
They were a highly civilized culture/society. Way ahead of most cultures in formal education of the arts and sciences. Rome also had a some of the same Government levels in place as we have today. Rome started to fall when they over extended themselves in adding to the size of there empire. As a result Rome ran into trouble feeding and paying there soldiers along with there people.

It was noted that Roman soldiers on the furtherest outpost traded with "the enemy" for food etc. The Heart of Rome was also lessened Because of Government bickering and not taking care of business at hand. To split in decisions making. Rome also became complacent with there perceived power they had.

Historians say there was a time that a Roman could walk Anywhere in the Roman Empire without any fear of being attacked. To attack a Roman was a very serious offense and death to the offender was not uncommon.

So the correlation of Rome falling and our Government today can easily reflect on how we are over extending ourselves and will eventually run out of money to feed many of our people with Government money/ afford to pay our military etc. The other correlation is Romes Government and population was mainly one culture/race. Excluding there slaves. As we were at one time

The Barbarians invaded and overtook Rome. In doing so, not only did Rome fall , Most of there advances in technologies went with it and many weren't re discovered for a thousands years. The Barbarians did not have enough education to preserve Romes advances in the Arts and sciences let alone add to it.
The parallels
Many of the Romans citizens were very educated at many levels.
So was the bulk of our society at one point
Rome had the some of the same basic Government we have
Eventually the Roman Government ran out of money. In turn couldn't feed its people.etc.
We are heading in that same direction now.
Romans could be relatively safe walking in there cities
We were there once and now we aren't'
Rome had taxes
So do we
There were many great civilizations that rose and fell. The Greeks were very influential to our culture and our language. So in many ways we seem to use them as a comparable to our Present day Government and country/Empire

Little trivia. One of the Roman Emperors wanted to charge its people for using the public bathrooms. His son talked him out of it. Romes engineering of the aqueduct provided so much water for there city, It equivalent to 300 gallons for each Roman Citizen.

Rome invented the oldest tool in the world that's used on a daily basis. The Masonry trowel. Little has changed in its design to modern day.

Excellent synopsis. I thought the original question was "Explain how the fall of Rome impacted the way PEOPLE view government" (my emphasis). As there is no quantifier supplied in relation to the word 'people' I am assuming that it refers to 'most people' or 'a majority of people'.
If this is the case then, in a nut shell, my answers is that most people don't think about the fall of Rome when they think about modern politics.

Chey,

All right, now we know which Roman Empire you are referring to. That gives me a better basis for an answer.

There are several theories as to why Rome fell. Here is a list of a few of those theories:

1) Rome began to decline because of the "Germanization" (really Ostrogothization") of the nation. When Rome was growing into its power, it did so by first conquering other nations and then assymilating those nations into the Roman nation. Within a generation or two, even conquered peoples became "Roman" in terms of their culture. They Assymilated into the culture and made it their own.

However, as Rome became complacent, they eventually were joined by such groups as the Ostrogoths (later known as "Germans"). Instead of assymilating into the culture, the Ostrogoths stood apart culturally. Eventually the Ostrogoths gained prominence, especially in the military, and the nation weakened. They stopped thinking in terms of "assymilation of cultures" and stopped putting Roman cultural survival as the main goal.

The modern parallel is the fact that the USA is no longer a "melting pot" wherein all cultures are welcome, but become homogeneous, but rather a "salad bowl" wherein there are multiple cultures, but each stands apart from the other. We are experiencing in the USA one of the main issues (in my opinion) that led to the weakening of Roman culture and the fall of the Roman Empire.

2) Another theory is that Rome lost the concept of "civic virtue". In the early days of Rome, every Roman thought it was a great thing to join the Roman military for a time to defend the country. The Spartans actually took it to an extreme. But that was the attitude of most Romans... you serve in the military because it brings personal honor and because that level of sacrifice teaches one to appreciate one's country. However, toward the end of the Roman Empire, Romans began trusting the defense of Rome to barbarian mercenaries rather than their own sons. The idea of serving in the military was "beneath" the upper crust of Roman society. Civic virtue became something talked of but not practiced, and thus APPRECIATION for Rome began to decline.

Thank G-d we are not in that place in the USA right now. We have good people from all walks of life who still volunteer for military service. Sons and daughters of Senators and Congressmen serve beside sons and daughters of farmers and factory workers in the US military. So we have not arrived at that place of lost civic virtue.

However, it does not help when those who volunteer for the military are looked down upon as being unable to hold a civillian job, or as only having joined the military because of not having enough money for college. It doesn't help when people like John Kerry make jokes that imply that those in the military are stupid for following and supporting President Bush when he was in power. It doesn't help when people like John Murtha make accusations (which turned out to be false) about the military servicemen and servicewomen being murderers and baby killers and Nazis. It doesn't help when the mainstream media makes the guards at Guantanimo out to be a bunch of slavering torturers and war criminals. That sort of thing plays down the concept of civic virtue and leads to the decline of the military and a weakening of the nation, as happened in Rome.

3) Another theory is that the decline of Rome occured when nations OUTSIDE of Rome became technologically superior to Rome. When Rome lost technological primacy, they lost the heart of Rome.

The USA is the most technologically advanced nation in most ways. Most of the world's innovations take place here. And as a result, we are the technological, and by extension the economic, center of the universe. If our technological advantage were to disappear and fall into the hands of another nation, we would be weakened economically. Once we become economically weak, it's not long until we become weak politically and militarily. Politically because most of our political might rests in our ability to manipulate the economies of other nations from the outside (the rest lies in our military power). And militarily because the military is the first place politicians cut funding.

4) One theory is that Rome was ALWAYS a weak nation. It relied on plunder captured from other nations to fund itself and it relied on slave labor captured from other nations as its main source of human capital. Such a system is, by its very nature, a weak system because any infusion of capital doesn't last longer than a generation or so. With no "middle class" to supply both buying power and an ongoing labor force, the system is unsustainable.

I will say here that I don't know whether I agree with this theory. I think that any system that promotes a "middle class" is itself a class-warfare system, and class warfare is a recipe for disaster. The reason that our system has worked so well in the USA is that there are no hard deliniations between classes. A "lower-middle-class" kid can grow up to be the richest man in the world (Bill Gates is the example I'm looking at). A kid from the projects can become rich and famous (Michael Jackson). The son of immigrant tailors with virtually no income and no assets can become a successful attorney and a very successful money manager (my father). There are no class barriers in our system, and that is what makes our system so successful. Our system is essentially classless in that the class you are born into need not be the one you die in. The idea of promoting a middle class or of promoiting the lower class is itself a CLASS WARFARE system, and thus unsustainable, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, this theory does have a lesson for us. President Obama is, through his rhetoric and legislation, recreating a class system in this country. And in doing so, his actions are designed to eliminate the middle class and small businesses. I'm not going to argue whether it is deliberate or not because in the end it doesn't really matter. But that is the fact of what is happening. If he succeeds in his plans, the "middle class" will cease to exist in any meaningful way. Which means that the buying power in the USA will decline and the human capital that supplies the labor will also decline. The poor will be content receiving its handouts from the government without working. The rich will continue to be the "idle rich", supplying neither enough capital (because they can afford to hide their wealth to avoid taxes) nor a labor force (because the rich can afford to not work at "menial labor"). Without capital and labor, the economy collapses completely, and we die as a nation.

5) One theory is that the economy of Rome collapsed due to poor inflation control. Money lost its value, and the government instead started taking goods in leiu of money for taxes. So people started losing the assets with which they could earn more money. (Take the cows from a milk farmer, and he can no longer produce milk.) eventually the people were sold into slavery to cover their tax debt. They were forced to work the land to pay the debt, which was impossible to do because the debt was too high. The workers became tied to the land itself, and when the land was confiscated, the workers went to the new lord of the land. Businesses were takne over by the government. Guilds were taken over by the government. The result was a form of socialism known as "feudalism" or "debt peonage", wherein the government controlled the businesses, the workers and the currency through its (mis)management of debt. The system fell apart because of the same reasons that EVERY socialist system falls apart... because there is no incentive to work hard, earn more, or produce more than anyone else. Why work hard when you get the same thing for not working at all.

This shows the dangers inherent in our current system of too much debt. The government can only cover that debt two ways. They can print more money (which devalues the currency, making it impossible to purchase the basic necessities), or they can increase taxes (which eliminates personal incomes and makes it impossible to buy the necessities). Either of these two options is bad for the economy and will force people into massive personal debt. That debt will either lead directly to the collapse of the economy, or else it will lead to people having to work longer and harder to pay off the government... which is a form of feudalism. Furthermore, the government will end up taking over larger parts of the economy as businesses fail... purely for the purpose of bailing out those businesses, of course. Socialism will become the reality, and we will fall for the same reasons that the Soviet Union fell.

So these are some of the possible explanations of the fall of Rome and how the lessons of history apply directly to the politics, economics and social system of the USA today.

Elliot

The other correlation is Romes Government and population was mainly one culture/race. Excluding there slaves. As we were at one timeHello boat:

I knew you'd get to it - racism that is... The implication that the fall was due to multiculturalism is disgusting. Plus, you're WRONG, of course. We were NEVER one race - NEVER!!

excon

3) Another theory is that the decline of Rome occurred when nations OUTSIDE of Rome became technologically superior to Rome. When Rome lost technological primacy, they lost the heart of Rome.

I'm not sure I know much about this, can you point me toward a book or site where I can read up? Google is not my friend today!

3) Another theory is that the decline of Rome occured when nations OUTSIDE of Rome became technologically superior to Rome. When Rome lost technological primacy, they lost the heart of Rome.

I'm not sure I know much about this, can you point me toward a book or site where I can read up? Google is not my friend today!

Well, the theory was first put forward by a guy named Radovan Richta who coined the concept of "Technological Evolution". I've never read his works directly (he wrote in Polish), but I've read ABOUT his works. His basic theory is that as societies become more advanced, they replace physical labor with mental labor, and that if societies do not keep up with these changes, they weaken and die out. His theory is that mankind started with basic tools (knife, wheel, fire), went to more advanced machines (more advanced tools, explosives, steam engine, etc.) and then to automation. Those societies that did not keep up with this progression died out just as those species that did not evolve died out.

Please note that he wasn't really writing about Rome, per se. But Rome is a good example of what he was trying to postulate.

In the case of Rome, he postulates that the invention of the horseshoe in Germanica and the invention of the stirrup in China changed the military equation world wide. These inventions, which made mounted cavalry much stronger, were just a couple of the things that Rome did NOT have, which led to their decline as a military power. Until that point, Rome was the preimminent military in the world. But when technology overtook them and they were unable to keep up, they lost their military edge.

A society MUST continue to develop or it falls behind others and weakens and dies. Military advancement is only ONE area where this is true. But it is also true in medicine and other "pure" sciences. Part of why the Soviet union fell is because the USA developed better technology than they had in most areas, because our society rewards ingenuity, talent and hard work, whereas the Soviet system stifled these traits.

The fear with regard to the USA today is that if too much of the economy is nationalized in the name of saving it, there will no longer be an incentive for creativity, ingenuity and hard work. We will then fall behind as other nations continue to advance technologically while we remain where we are right now. That would be a Very Bad Thing from a societal point of view.

Simply put, that which doesn't grow dies. That which is nourished grows and thrives. For us, "growth" means technological advancements that lead to improvement of the lives of the people as a whole and improvements in our ability to protect ourselves militarily from aggression.

Elliot

You should hear my husband's theory about if the South had won the Civil War... I don't think I could explain it as well as he does. A lot of it goes into later theory about the World Wars, Industry in the nation, and the eventual abolition of slavery because of more cost efficient means of mechanized production. Oh he also mentions States who joined later like Texas and California because of the end of the war. I have a feeling you'd dig his ideas, and refute a few. I'll have him write it and send it to you in a note.


What about the means of transportation via chariot? Wouldn't that make the stirrup obsolete?

His theory makes sense to a degree, the efficiency of tools and transportation as well as communication is a part of the inherent drive of man. To seek improvement in life and comfort ability.

The fear with regard to the USA today is that if too much of the economy is nationalized in the name of saving it, there will no longer be an incentive for creativity, ingenuity and hard work. We will then fall behind as other nations continue to advance technologically while we remain where we are right now. That would be a Very Bad Thing from a societal point of view.

I think the issue isn't this in our nation so much as we spend too much time bickering over HOW to maintain both at a level that is acceptable for the people in the nation. Kind of like the military getting a raise when Bush went into office, each party has different agendas. Unfortunately we spend so much time trying to figure out a way to do things like, give our nations people better health care. We ignore answers like, creating limits for those corporations. But that's for a different thread.

You should hear my husband's theory about if the South had won the Civil War... I don't think I could explain it as well as he does. A lot of it goes into later theory about the World Wars, Industry in the nation, and the eventual abolition of slavery because of more cost efficient means of mechanized production. Oh he also mentions States who joined later like Texas and California because of the end of the war. I have a feeling you'd dig his ideas, and refute a few. I'll have him write it and send it to you in a note.

I would enjoy the opportunity to hear his ideas.



What about the means of transportation via chariot? Wouldn't that make the stirrup obsolete?

Not at all. Chariots during Roman times were more for sport than for combat (racing, mostly). A chariot is actually a hard machine to fight from. And it requires two people to use it... one to drive, the other to fight. Also, there are certain places that horses can go that chariots cannot. Terrain is a huge factor when talking about chariots. There are very few battlefields in history that didn't include very broken terrain that would make chariots useless. And even if the battle was on flat ground, as soon as the battle began, bodies would litter the area, making it impossible for chariots to maneuver. No, in terms of a cavalry element, MOUNTED cavalry was the way to go, and the invention of the stirrup made mounted cavalry all the more powerful.

Compare the mounted cavalryman, charging with a pike. Before the invention of the stirrup, he would have to hold his pike overhand as if here were going to THROW the pike, and then use his shoulder to drive the pike into his enemy. In the process, he had to avoid falling off his horse. He really couldn't get enough power into that blow, but if he used the underhand grip that you might have seen in movies of knights jousting, he'd be knocked off his horse for sure. And a dismounted cavalryman is a dead cavalryman.

However, with the envention of the stirrup, the rider bacame much more sturdy in the saddle. He was harder to knock off his saddle. And because he could use his feet to balance himself, he could get his entire body behind a blow without being knocked off his horse. Which meant that he was able to use the more powerful underhand grip that you see from jousters. This more powerful blow, additional steadiness in the saddle, and better balance (and resultant greater speed) made a stirruped cavalryman 5 times more powerful than his unstirruped counterpart.

There is a great scene in an alternate-history science fiction novel called "An Oblique Approach". The book was written by David Drake and Eric Flint, and in it the great Roman General Belisarius is given the secret of the stirrup. He uses it in a friendly jousting competition against a friend... a master jouster whom he has never beat. The result is... comical, to say the least. Go to this link for a free (and completely legal) copy of the book. Check out Chapter 11.

An Oblique Approach by David Drake & Eric Flint - Baen Books (http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0671878654/0671878654.htm)





His theory makes sense to a degree, the efficiency of tools and transportation as well as communication is a part of the inherent drive of man. To seek improvement in life and comfort ability.

The fear with regard to the USA today is that if too much of the economy is nationalized in the name of saving it, there will no longer be an incentive for creativity, ingenuity and hard work. We will then fall behind as other nations continue to advance technologically while we remain where we are right now. That would be a Very Bad Thing from a societal point of view.

I think the issue isn't this in our nation so much as we spend too much time bickering over HOW to maintain both at a level that is acceptable for the people in the nation. Kind of like the military getting a raise when Bush went into office, each party has different agendas. Unfortunately we spend so much time trying to figure out a way to do things like, give our nations people better health care. We ignore answers like, creating limits for those corporations. But that's for a different thread.

Unfortunately, Chey, when I see a President who has nationalized 10 of the 12 largest banks, 2 of the top 3 auto makers, the largest insurance company, and is attempting to nationalize health care, not to mention the fact that his cap & trade will essentially take control of industry in general by controlling HOW they make what they make, I see this as a very definite possibility. This is a HUGE problem. Nationalization, by its very nature takes creativity, talent, ingenuity, and hard work out of the equation and puts the government and its agenda ahead of these factors. It's exactly what happened in Rome, and it COULD happen again. And once that sort of nationalization has begun, it is very hard to reverse course. And it clearly HAS begun.

Elliot