NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's discuss.

Similarities:

-Both are empires.
-Both are economic empires.
-Both supported their economic empire with an enourmous army.

-Both thought they were chosen...?
-Both thought they were the best...?
-Both thought that everything would be better under their control...?

-Both protagonized a Golden Era.
-Both were very hated throughout the world.

-Both were based on republics.

-The final objective of their citizens was the social success seen as power and money.

A similarity
-Both use a senate.

Differences:

-The American control reaches the four corners of the world; Rome only reached the Mediterranean Sea.

-The countries attacked by Rome were enslaved, the ones by the americans... freed?

-The romans were an independent village; the americans became independent of the British Empire.

Curious similarity:

-Both hated the Gauls.

Curious similarity:

-Both hated the Gauls.

http://person.com/static/forum/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

-Both were/are very religious.
-Both have confidence on famous people to rule their countries. (Crasus, Pompeius Magnus/Reagan, Schwarzenegger)

-Both were very traditionalistic.

-Both had confidence on confirmated families (Julii/Bush) ...?

The US is an empire, but not one of a type seen before. It is one which expands and maintains its influence through purely economic and cultural means.

Rome acquired territory through direct conquest, then ruled through economic influence. Thus it is not a perfect match, because the US has rarely sought to acquire territory through conquest. Usually instead of threat of force, it employs threat of bankruptcy, which is equally destructive to a government.

The British Empire is a better analogy, there the Empire was more usually run by private enterprise. However, US corporations do not maintain private armies with which to subjugate its overseas employees and those of their subcontrators, so this isn't a perfect match either.

The formation and remarkable internal stability of Russia from numerous tribes and kingdoms was achieved through largely peaceful means, by giving the heads of each member region a place in the monarchy. To an extent, this is rather like America's usual offer to non-aligned nations, work with us and you will receive wealth, remain neutral and we will seek to hinder your acquisition of wealth, with the notable difference that this offer does not extend to political influence - the US may throw its allies the occasional financial incentive, but does not allow them a consultative role in policy.

It does however share the typical imperial quality of a belief in its natural superiority, a sense of special destiny, a desire to destroy any potential competitor before one has emerged, and an intense distrust of any nation which achieves something approaching an equivalent level of technology, wealth or political influence - the insecurity that always comes from being at the top.

Lastly, like all Empires, its mere existence is an invitation to attack, and a decline and fall an inevitability.

Similarities:

-Both are empires.
-Both are economic empires.
-Both supported their economic empire with an enourmous army.

-Both thought they were chosen...?
-Both thought they were the best...?
-Both thought that everything would be better under their control...?

-Both protagonized a Golden Era.
-Both were very hated throughout the world.

-Both were based on republics.

-The final objective of their citizens was the social success seen as power and money.

What golden era has America protagonised? It was the Europeans, not the Americans that spread Western ideas throughout the world. Britain, not America, made English the language of the world.

What golden era has America protagonised? It was the Europeans, not the Americans that spread Western ideas throughout the world. Britain, not America, made English the language of the world.

I recognize that all Europe shared for a time the American Dream, while our land was at war many of us were there to find a better life... something to eat...

Now, ask yourself why our parents traveled there, and not North Africa or India where the "western ideas" existed too. (Western ideal, whatever they are, even when I'd say they don't exist or they're limited by you to the British Empire)...

BTW, I think that now the USA have passed their Golden Era.

-The countries attacked by Rome were enslaved, the ones by the americans... freed?
It depends what you mean by 'freed'. Rome is simply too archaic an empire for meaningful comparison. Although I suppose the US did make extensive use of imported slaves to maintain its economic base, in the Roman style, with the exception that the slaves in question came from lands conquered by Europe rather than America. But this is an economic detail, really. Rome would have gladly imported slaves from a neighbouring Empire, had there been a cooperative one nearby.

I still believe the British Empire, being a more recent and hence modern entity, is a more valid comparison. The British East India Company never enslaved the Indian Subcontinent and China, but through its control of commerce, arranged matters so that both regions worked in their service, under threat of economic destruction, should they cease to cooperate.

HEIC also allowed internal self-rule in both areas, and made extensive use of local forces by proxy. So an Indian king could remain on his throne, and could keep men under arms, so long as those men were ultimately loyal to Britain, and would put down internal unrest in Britain's service, should it become necessary. Through unofficial funding, the local leaders were essentially shareholders in the whole enterprise, much like the corrupt elites of many of the world's developing countries are today.

The number of British men under arms were vanishingly small, a few regiments for all of India, compared to half a million locals under arms. This arrangement is similar to all the American bases scattered all over the world, maintained with the consent of the governments of host countries. The only times those bases were used, was for staging an incursion into neighbouring territory, or for putting down a local uprising, or changing the local regime.This is of course all familiar stuff to us today. :)

We uh...based a lot of our democratic ideals from the Romans. ;) (Which is why Capitol Hill looks kinda sorta Roman, as well as the White House)

Rome wasn't a democracy or even a democratic republic. The democracy part was borrowed from the Greeks, as were some of the architectual designs seen in the capitol.

Rome acquired territory through direct conquest, then ruled through economic influence. Thus it is not a perfect match, because the US has rarely sought to acquire territory through conquest. Usually instead of threat of force, it employs threat of bankruptcy, which is equally destructive to a government.

Not really. Rome's territory was limited for centuries to the Italic Peninsule, although they controlled Greece as a protectorate. The greeks could spend all day fighting each other like they always did, but they had to pay yearly taxes to Rome. Only when a greek king was extremely powerful, the Roman armies were sent to balance the power again. But most of the time the greeks had their own leaders and senates.

Another similarity is the "preventive war"; like the US declared Iraq war was; thus Rome declared the first war on Carthago. The africans had control on Sicilia and received most of the marketing money of the sea; from Turkey to Spain, all the stuff and money between countries step over Carthago. The Romans simply couldn't let the oportunity pass away.