Societal decay. Usually two words you associate with opulent societies before their downfall. The loss of societal rigor, along with proper gender roles, has undone societies before, and it will in the future.
Surely there has been a thread about this, but ever since my return to America I have noticed many a disturbing trend within the subculture of this country. I know this has been attempted and failed many times before, but my knowledge of the Roman Empire is vast and I see many parallels.
I realize I'll have many detractors, saying that Roman imperial history has no parallel whatsoever to American history, and that's fine. Everyone's entitled, but how many times has history repeated itself in the past? How many times have empires fallen due to internal corruption rather than outside influence? Many. Humans never change. Technology may, but in truth, there are no evolutionary differences between us and Romans.
Here are a couple parallels where they apply:
1. Lack of Expansion in both Empires
In the latter half of the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire ceased to expand. Trajan had just conquered Dacia and Mesopotamia (albeit for a short time), and all was well within the empire. Opulence and wealth was pouring in from the east, and the patricians within Roman society were the first ones to see it. However, in the mid-2nd century, some territorial protectionism was to be done. Hadrian built his wall in the north of Britain, the limes was set on the Rhine, and fortifications were dug in. This may have signaled the onset of prosperous times within the empire (peace, mostly), but it also signaled stagnation.
For the next 2 centuries, the Roman empire was beset by issues such as economic stagnation, internal strife (especially in the third century) and wealth conglomeration in the hands of few began. The owners of the latifundia became extremely wealthy, profiting off the multitude of slaves even in the 5th century when all was spiraling downward. Where do we see parallels to this in the current era in America?
In 1802, as you all were taught in history class, Thomas Jefferson coined a phrase which you all know very well and was deeply ingrained in American society. A society based off the idealism of Manifest Destiny. This was truly utilized as a way to make the overpopulated East Coast less overpopulated, and send the poor who had nothing out west in droves to keep the economy relatively stable in the east. This also brought upon the era of Robber Barons such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, who used this cheap labor in the midwest (Ohio, Eastern Penn) for their own wealth amassing. Comparisons to the owners of the latifundia are rife with similarities, especially the fact that cheap labor is never sustainable and eventually the government will catch up to your power amassing and attempt to stop you (see restrictions on lasseiz-faire capitalism in the 1910s and see Tiberius' failed attempt to limit the power). In the future, these Robber Barons would adapt and become CEO's of Fortune 500's and the latifundia owners would become feudal lords.
So my point is with Comparison 1 is this:
What happens when an expansionist government and society ceases to expand? What happens within the society when wealth just stops flowing in from all angles? How does policy change when there are natural borders to block expansionism? And most of all, how does a society built on that premise change itself in order to survive?
We shall see.
Comparisons 2 and 3 will be drawn up soon, and those are much more controversial.
Surely there has been a thread about this, but ever since my return to America I have noticed many a disturbing trend within the subculture of this country. I know this has been attempted and failed many times before, but my knowledge of the Roman Empire is vast and I see many parallels.
I realize I'll have many detractors, saying that Roman imperial history has no parallel whatsoever to American history, and that's fine. Everyone's entitled, but how many times has history repeated itself in the past? How many times have empires fallen due to internal corruption rather than outside influence? Many. Humans never change. Technology may, but in truth, there are no evolutionary differences between us and Romans.
Here are a couple parallels where they apply:
1. Lack of Expansion in both Empires
In the latter half of the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire ceased to expand. Trajan had just conquered Dacia and Mesopotamia (albeit for a short time), and all was well within the empire. Opulence and wealth was pouring in from the east, and the patricians within Roman society were the first ones to see it. However, in the mid-2nd century, some territorial protectionism was to be done. Hadrian built his wall in the north of Britain, the limes was set on the Rhine, and fortifications were dug in. This may have signaled the onset of prosperous times within the empire (peace, mostly), but it also signaled stagnation.
For the next 2 centuries, the Roman empire was beset by issues such as economic stagnation, internal strife (especially in the third century) and wealth conglomeration in the hands of few began. The owners of the latifundia became extremely wealthy, profiting off the multitude of slaves even in the 5th century when all was spiraling downward. Where do we see parallels to this in the current era in America?
In 1802, as you all were taught in history class, Thomas Jefferson coined a phrase which you all know very well and was deeply ingrained in American society. A society based off the idealism of Manifest Destiny. This was truly utilized as a way to make the overpopulated East Coast less overpopulated, and send the poor who had nothing out west in droves to keep the economy relatively stable in the east. This also brought upon the era of Robber Barons such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, who used this cheap labor in the midwest (Ohio, Eastern Penn) for their own wealth amassing. Comparisons to the owners of the latifundia are rife with similarities, especially the fact that cheap labor is never sustainable and eventually the government will catch up to your power amassing and attempt to stop you (see restrictions on lasseiz-faire capitalism in the 1910s and see Tiberius' failed attempt to limit the power). In the future, these Robber Barons would adapt and become CEO's of Fortune 500's and the latifundia owners would become feudal lords.
So my point is with Comparison 1 is this:
What happens when an expansionist government and society ceases to expand? What happens within the society when wealth just stops flowing in from all angles? How does policy change when there are natural borders to block expansionism? And most of all, how does a society built on that premise change itself in order to survive?
We shall see.
Comparisons 2 and 3 will be drawn up soon, and those are much more controversial.