How the Roman Empire Mirrors the United States - Coursework Example

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and How It Mirrors the United s “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without His aid” Benjamin Franklin Introduction The rise and fall of the Roman empire is well noted by many historians and other observers. From 2000 onwards, many people draw on the multiple parallels between the Roman empire and the American empire. Actually, there exist many parallels between both the empires in terms of their economic, political, military and ideological capabilities and the corresponding weaknesses too. Importantly, the rise of both Roman and American empires follow almost same trajectory of consolidation of ‘pockets of power’ to large scale annexation through combined constitutional, economic and military assaults. The American quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the growing fallacies of the American empire gives a sense that its doom too would follow the Roman course. The purpose of the paper is to give a glimpse at the rise and fall of Roman empire and see the parallels with the case of the America empire, by examining some of the constitutive features of both the political formations in a brief and concise manner. The Making and the Unmaking of the Empires From the ancient period to the present time, world has seen the rise and fall of many empires. Roman, Greek, ancient Egypt, Persian, British, and American empires are a few to name. The timeline of these empires varies from each other. The chances of survival of an empire in ancient times were more than the modern ones. However, a country has more chances to survive than an empire. Decline or fall of an empire is inevitable and only depended upon on time whereas a country can survive for longer period. When a country goes for territorial expansion and succeeds in it, the country then transforms itself into an empire. After acquiring a status of an empire, the nation precipitates the unavoidable decline and fall of the empire. This is the basic but generalized story both the Roman empire and the American empire tell to us. The fall of empire reflects the decaying of the society. After the disintegration of an empire, the society experiences too much hardships and the life of the people become miserable. Experiences of fall of the Roman, ancient Egyptian empire show that the lives of the citizens later were never as good as it was during empires’ height. Now itself, we can sense that America citizens’ hardships are growing day after day and it certainly sheds light into the weakening core of the American empire. Roman Empire lasted around one thousand years whereas American empire started stumbling only after two hundred and twenty years. There are certain parallels between fall of Roman Empire and the contemporary scenario in the United States. Romans started up with a republic, later transformed it into an Empire. The twentieth century saw America metamorphosing from a nation into an empire. It is very interesting to see that how these two most sophisticated republics of their times ended up as being vicious empires! Importantly, cold war with the former Soviet Union and the subsequent triumph of an American new global order have many parallels between the Romans’ eternal tension with the Carthage. Same as in the case of American empire, the Roman empire was also fully constituted only with the complete disintegration of Carthage. America too became an empire with truly global capabilities only after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991. It is important to remember that “the Roman Republic was an unabashed plutocracy; the citizen-body was carefully graded according to stringent property qualifications. In turn, this classification regulated voting rights: all adult male citizens were enfranchised, but a system of electoral colleges guaranteed that the rich, if united, would always be able to out-vote the poor. In addition, the heavy costs of electioneering and office-holding ensured that all who were most prominent in government were themselves personally wealthy”1. The same goes for America too although everyone in America have formal voting rights, the elites have hijacked the electoral politics through money power. Also, through the repression of any political assertion by indigenous people and the Afro-Americans, the elites in the America always keep their hold on power. The Dictators took charge of Roman Empire by unleashing repression on minorities and subaltern groups. Roman law prohibited use of force within the empire but dictators used Praetorian guards as their private army and through them dictators’ maintained hold over power. It is noted that there are many cases in which Roman generals relinquish power willingly, however, “some of the generals responsible for annexing the richest parts of Mediterranean proved increasingly reluctant to retire”2. At the end of the day, “the restrictions on the exercise of power imposed by the constitution of a republican city-state proved too weak to withstand the extensive ambitions of empire”3. It has led to even age relaxation for senate elections. Consequently, civil war started shaking the foundations of Roman empire. After the defeat of Caesar, caused by inters elite rivalries, “Brutus and Cassius too were defeated by an alliance of Mark Antony”4. However, this alliance did not last much and gave birth to new civil wars at new fronts. Increasingly, there were tensions between the Eastern Roman empire and the Western Roman empire. With passing of time, these Praetorian guards became so powerful; even they started deciding who should be the Emperor and what policies he should follow. Although in the United States, the President has constitutional and legal power and rights but actual wielders of the power are the elites in the military-industrial-politico complex. They are not elected or not accountable to anyone. The case of John Edgar Hoover is suitable to the claim of modern Praetorian Guard in the American Empire. He was director of Federal Bureau of Investigation, an American investigation agency, and he used the agency for his own benefits. With the help of FBI, he suppressed political dissidents and collected files on political figures secretly. Even the President of the United States used fear his power and reach. We could find such figures in America later periods also, like Janet Reno, who was the Attorney General of the United States between 1993 and 2001. She was holding the post against the will of then President Bill Clinton. American President is an elected office bearer and possesses great powers. There are other office bearers who are appointed by him and these office bearers have real powers. We can call them modern days’ Praetorian Guards of the failing American Empire. Both the empires in their earlier period had committed and just servants. They were the real backbone of the empire. However, with time these servants started yielding so much power. They became an anatomy of power. Over concentration of power in both the empires in the hands of public servants, during the decline was identical. The elites in the Mediterranean had profound influence in the Roman policy making. It is argued that “these wealthy man- rather than some vast imperial administration- who were principally responsible for the orderly government of the provinces”5. Even today in America, public servants hold high degree of power and they have become public masters whereas people of America, in turn, do not have any control over public servants. By 250 AD, monetary system in Roman empire was on the verge of collapse. Debasement of the coinage in the Roman Empire had a toll on the empire itself. It is this coinage crisis that precipitated the fall of empire. Similar analogy could be drawn with the American Empire. The twentieth century too saw the removal of silver coins from the economy and America opted for paper money. It had disastrous impact on the economy. Inflation rate climbed high and the living standards of the citizens deteriorated. Ironically, American economic power is not derived from the domination of markets or the superiority of production. Finance is at the core of American hegemony as “the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and Wall Street trades two-thirds of the value of the world’s stocks and shares”6. Therefore, it had become the duty of other countries that have their foreign reserves in dollar to keep the value of dollar intact. Currency is very important in understanding the demise of both Roman and American empires. The Roman empire is one of the political wonders of the ancient world. At its zenith, “it had a population of around 60 million people spread across 5 million square kilometers”7. From Hadrian’s Wall in northern England to the Euphrates in Syria, the might of Roman empire stand stood. Roman empire was consisted of the Rhine land, the continental Europe, the North Africa and the Mediterranean. Roman empire existed as an imperial super-state and it annexed new lands nearly at its will. It was through the brutal conquests, Roman empire colonized much of its territory. Ideologically, Romans were convinced of their imperial mission to civilize the rest of the world. The Roman emperors were so characterized for double role as both gods and humans. The Americans too are motivated by their holy mission of civilizing the world, especially the so-called unruly masses of Muslims. Although in the third Punic War, the Romans were victorious after a tortuous military campaign, their “expansion westward into Spain and North Africa was matched by war in the east. By 146 BC – the year in which both Carthage and Corinth were sacked – all the major cites in the Balkan peninsula were subject to Rome”8. The next century some great victorious campaign by the Roman empire which included the colonization of Syria, Asia Minor, Gaul, and most importantly, the defeat of Cleopatra VII and the whole of Egypt along with it. Importantly, “the rapid growth of the Roman empire from the mid 2nd century BC was itself the cause of eh establishment of a dynastic monarchy just over a century later”9. The Christians were the subalterns of the Roman empire and they lived at the margins of the Roman empire. The Christians’ coming into prominence was one of the major reasons for the demise of the Roman empire. The Roman imperial empire was not prepared to face the genuine social churning brought up by the Christian communities. Most importantly, “three long conflicts-known as the Punic Wars – stretched the Romans to their limits”10. General Hannibal, in the second Punic War inflicted severe failures on the Roman army in many battles. In a tragic battle, “the Romans lost 50,000 men: the highest death-toll for an army in a single day’s fighting in the history of European warfare”11. It led to the occupation of Italy for fifteen years by Hannibal. The United States as an empire has come to be characterized by its contradictions and weaknesses which are surely a sign of the beginning of the end. As the proverbial story goes, “the US is a military giant, an economic back-seat driver, a political schizophrenic and an ideological phantom. The result is a mess of contradictions, at first an incoherent empire- then a failed one”12. America’s Iraq adventure itself was misguided by the “exaggerated American powers, made facile historical comparisons with previous Empires, mis-identified the century we live in”13. For the Iraq war, Americans “relied overwhelmingly on military power – and indeed on only one part of military power, offensive fire-power”14 while losing on all other fronts such as ideological, economic, and political. It is not ironical that the neo-conservatives, who vigorously propagated the idea of New American Empire, often compared the present day America with the Roman empire in terms of cultural, technological, military and economic capabilities. To be specific, pax americana was often compared to the Roman empire after the Second Punic War. As like the Romans, complete disregard for the sovereignty of other nations is one of the key features of the American empire. And, the American empire considers itself as carrying out the duties of a benevolent empire by civilizing other peoples and nations. It is possible to argue that both the Roman empire and the American empire are constitutionally Hobbesian and both are peculiar in their attempts to become the global Leviathan. In both the cases, the great consolidation of military hard power led to the systemic undermining of soft powers and thereby, hegemony. Some theorists are of the view that “American power has been in decline since the 1950s, and that its current attempt at empire is a sign of its imminent demise as a global power”15. The American empire is certainly all powerful in the present world order as there is no power that could effectively challenge it. However, an empire has to have full dominance over the natives, which America has never been able to do so, be it in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Mann eloquently asserts that “domination over the ‘natives’ is much more important than domination over rival Powers”16 for any empire. Therefore, the powers of an empire could only be judged vis-à-vis the powers of the natives. Conclusion The confrontation with the growing Christian community was one of the major reasons for the hollowing out of the Roman empire. The United States too is weakening itself when it unwittingly confronts the natives of Islamic nations. As like the Roman empire, the United States too is not facing a powerful rival which could match its capabilities. However, the biggest threat to the Roman empire was from within, from the natives of the annexed countries. The American empire too is facing grave challenges from within its own spheres of influence, from the Muslim natives of Iraq and Afghanistan and from the protesters in the American client states in the Middle East. End Notes 1. Christopher Kelly, The Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p.7. 2. Kelly, op. cit. p. 8. 3. ibid 4. Kelly, op. cit. p. 9. 5. Kelly, op. cit. p. 2. 6. Michael Mann, “The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century”, Review of International Studies, 30, (2004), p. 635. 7. Kelly, op. cit. p. 1. 8. Kelly, op. cit. p. 6. 9. Kelly, op. cit. p. 9. 10. Kelly, op. cit. p. 5. 11. ibid 12. Mann, op. cit. p. 650. 13. Mann, op. cit. p. 631. 14. ibid 15. Many French theorists, especially Emmanuel Todd share this point of view. Mann, op. cit. p.633. 16. Mann, op. cit. p.634. Read More