- This topic has 4 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
What do you folks think of this article (it's kind of long)? This guy talks about the fall of Rome and how some historians look at it incorrectly. I don't really know all that much about the subject, but he seemed to make sense.Interesting essay, none the less.http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-12-03-1.html
I didn't read the whole article, but I think the writer is stretching things a bit to craft an over arching thesis or template for history and that just doesn't work. Each civilization is governed by different stimuli and push/pull factors. What happened to Rome in the Fifth Century is not going to happen to America in the future. Rome was a bellicose society bent on order and hegemony. America is a capitalist society bent on open commerce and freedom. Rome was a closed society governed by elites and dominated by a rigid social strata….even a caste system separating the plebes from the aristocrats. The disparity in wealth was equally different than what we see in our society. In many ways America is more vulnerable to outward assault than was Rome, but in other ways America is more resilient because of its complex economy and egalitarian political system that keeps social stresses and resentments to a minimum. In other words, America is even more socially stable than Rome ever dreamed of being. Finally, geographically, America is far less vulnerable than Rome who had competing empires surrounding it and discontented populations (the Jews are a great example) within.
That's a good article. I must first say that it was written by Orson Scott Card, the author of Ender's Game (a great sci fi book written many years ago). I think that the AI Jane forum was created by people who originally posted on the OSC forum.Anyway, the author gives a doomsday scenario of what could happen. I thought his take on the American military was really interesting and worth the read. I also liked how he made the distinction between past "conquests" and American foreign policy - the former taxed the conquered nation but the latter taxes itself to pay for the repair of the conquered nation. Donnie, as to some of your points - OSC would argue that the American economy has become specialized and so in this it becomes more vulnerable. This would be fundamental in the shattering of an entire economy if it couldn't recover.
Point well taken Phid. Our increasingly globally dependent economy resembles how Rome depended on Egypt for grain very much like we depend on oil from the Middle East. However, I do not foresee America “collapsing” in any manner similar to how the Western Roman Empire did. What I see is America reaching a stage of over extension and will have to recede its global ambitions and forsake its superpower status and settle into a more integrated global community. It is very difficult for one nation to remain on top for long before the efforts of other nations counterbalance it and returns the world's geopolitical balance of power to an equilibrium. America has enjoyed its sole superpower status now for 15 years, and already we are seeing China, the EU, and Russia working against us to bring us back down to their level. The War on Terror, increased competition from Europe, globalism, competition from China and Japan, and a politically polarized society as we now have, will inevitably wear America down. The trouble is when America does recede from its present position of power and influence, is when the world will experience another power vacuum very similar to when England lost its status to Germany.
Donnies scenario reminds me of the British empire of the past. They too had too settle down and for go there status as a super power, but they did so with out collapsing. But strange things happen and they can happen very quickly as we all are very well aware history is hard to predict.
Stumpfoot, I think that as the British Empire lost its status there was another friendly power to assume its place in the world – the United States. If the U.S. had been at the level of Italy or some other nation, other countries would have had an easier time of regional domination. If the U.S. falls out as a superpower, where will the power shift? This should be an area of great concern. There are nations which were founded on enlightened ideals and which still follow them. Then there are nations which were founded on ideals open to totalitarianism. It's the latter that I'm weary of.Donnie, I agree that prolonged economic costs can help wear America down. This is one of the reasons why the War on Terror cannot continue ad infinitum with a constant large presence in Iraq. You mentioned "over extension" which is a good word for it. In the past America has influenced world politics through military force but even moreso by the holding its power out; how many billions do we give to foreign nations? This foreign aid comes in handy as a bargaining tool in helping to shape policies of other nations.In my opinion, economic powers tend to thrive and eventually become the most powerful long term; military powers can momentarily thrive but must turn to economics if they want prolonged power (look at the USSR); and military power is what protects economic powers from falling to attacks by other powers. Totalitarian regimes can not be successful in the long run because they don't really make for good economies (look to Chavez and his potentially ill-fated nationization of industries in Venezuela). However, they can rise to enough power to cause havoc to free nations (e.g. Germany in the 1930s).
