Rome's toughest enemy

Aristotle · Dec 17, 2009

I love reading about the Roman empire and something that I have seen in a lot of debates is who was Rome's biggest enemy. Hannibal is usually up there, but others including Attila the Hun, Brennus, and even some barbaric groups were also pretty bad for the Romans.

I think it was really a mixture of everyone that really led to the collapse, but Attila the Hun gave them an especially tough fight considering what he had.

jfla · Dec 18, 2009

To the extent that the Romans eventually reached a point where they no longer had the means or the will to confront the internal and external forces that eventually dissolved their Empire, the Romans themselves were their own toughest enemy.

In more ways than I would want to admit the U.S. has come to mimic the late stages of the Roman Empire:

1. An unequal tax burden in that the people (the poor) who are most likely to consume public resources (bread and circuses and welfare) are the same people that are least likely to pay taxes (the top 10% of the people that pay federal income taxes now carry something like 90% of the total income tax burden).

2. A trade deficit with the Orient.

3. Insecure borders that foreigners can cross at will.

4. Crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers and waterworks).

5. A military that is dependent on mercenaries (private security companies in Iraq).

6. People in the military that are just as likely to be enemies as allies (Rome allowed some Barbarian to serve in its army hoping that Barbarians would fight other Barbarians rather than Romans; the U.S. military contains an ever increasing number of Moslems that we expect to fight other Moslems instead of fighting Americans).

7. Falling under the influence of religions and philosophies that are alien to traditional religion (Americans now reject Christianity in favor of counterfeit versions of Christianity and religions from other cultures just as the Romans rejected their traditional gods in favor of Christianity).

Aristotle · Dec 18, 2009

That is a very interesting comparison. I agree that internal roles played a part in it and when it all comes down to it, Rome and arguably the United States simply spread themselves too thin. That explains the deficits, border problems, infrastructure, and all that.

jfla · Dec 18, 2009

Aristotle said:
That is a very interesting comparison. I agree that internal roles played a part in it and when it all comes down to it, Rome and arguably the United States simply spread themselves too thin. That explains the deficits, border problems, infrastructure, and all that.

I would venture that the Roman Empire , at its greatest extent, covered more area and had a greater diversity of people (but not as many people) than the U.S. ever has so I don't think it is a matter of the U.S. being spread too thin. Americans lack the willpower to save the country, but we likely still have the resources.

The U.S. is likely going the way of Rome , but I have no explanation for why the U.S. is doing it so quickly. The U.S. may fall in decades when it took Rome centuries.

Aristotle · Dec 19, 2009

jfla said:
I would venture that the Roman Empire , at its greatest extent, covered more area and had a greater diversity of people (but not as many people) than the U.S. ever has so I don't think it is a matter of the U.S. being spread too thin.

Well, the US has a military presence all around the world from Japan to Europe to the Middle East.

jfla · Dec 19, 2009

Aristotle said:
Well, the US has a military presence all around the world from Japan to Europe to the Middle East.

The U.S. also has millions upon millions of adult men who have never seen military service- mainly because Americans lack the political will needed to have a larger military. And the U.S. hasn?t been totally mobilized for war in over 60 years. Korea was just a skirmish in comparison to WWII and the 1st Gulf War was not even that, while Vietnam and now Iraq/Afghanistan have been such long, drawn out affairs that that the nation?s entire might was never put into the effort.

David · Dec 19, 2009

True but would America's fall be such a bad thing in the larger scheme of things?

deanhills · Dec 22, 2009

jfla said:
To the extent that the Romans eventually reached a point where they no longer had the means or the will to confront the internal and external forces that eventually dissolved their Empire, the Romans themselves were their own toughest enemy.

In more ways than I would want to admit the U.S. has come to mimic the late stages of the Roman Empire:

1. An unequal tax burden in that the people (the poor) who are most likely to consume public resources (bread and circuses and welfare) are the same people that are least likely to pay taxes (the top 10% of the people that pay federal income taxes now carry something like 90% of the total income tax burden).

2. A trade deficit with the Orient.

3. Insecure borders that foreigners can cross at will.

4. Crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers and waterworks).

5. A military that is dependent on mercenaries (private security companies in Iraq).

6. People in the military that are just as likely to be enemies as allies (Rome allowed some Barbarian to serve in its army hoping that Barbarians would fight other Barbarians rather than Romans; the U.S. military contains an ever increasing number of Moslems that we expect to fight other Moslems instead of fighting Americans).

7. Falling under the influence of religions and philosophies that are alien to traditional religion (Americans now reject Christianity in favor of counterfeit versions of Christianity and religions from other cultures just as the Romans rejected their traditional gods in favor of Christianity).

An EXCELLENT posting! I have to agree. The Romans were their own greatest enemy, they were disintegrating from the inside out, and were vulnerable for attack. The leadership was lacking in Rome, the troops that were so widespread tired and lacking in morale. There was lots of corruption, back-stabbing (almost literally) and all the signs of a society going through a very down cycle to the point of disintegrating.

To a certain extent one can liken it to the United States, although the United States has enormous resources and a much stronger core, being its media that has virtually made all people in the world part of its population. The political system however has become too heavy, clumsy and ineffective, and the two-party system a complete sham at a great cost to the nation, including corruption and back-stabbing as happened in the last days of the Roman empire. So hope at some or other time that people will wake up and ask for a total overhaul of Government (starting a system from scratch), before it is too late. Not sure when "too late" will be too late, but with the debt going the way it is, and an embarassing visit of the US President to China, maybe the Huns are already knocking on the gates?

jfla · Dec 23, 2009

deanhills said:
So hope at some or other time that people will wake up and ask for a total overhaul of Government (starting a system from scratch), before it is too late.

I often think about starting something of an academic exercise on the net to have an online convention to draft a new constitution. I think the mechanics of parliamentary procedure could be adapted to the net well enough. But I don?t know the first thing about setting up or running a net forum. And then the people that use the net for political purposes are too liberal and libertarian to be representative of the U.S. population as a whole. I would not want a constitution that was written by the people most likely to talk politics on the net.

David · Dec 23, 2009

jfla said:
I often think about starting something of an academic exercise on the net to have an online convention to draft a new constitution. I think the mechanics of parliamentary procedure could be adapted to the net well enough. But I don?t know the first thing about setting up or running a net forum. And then the people that use the net for political purposes are too liberal and libertarian to be representative of the U.S. population as a whole. I would not want a constitution that was written by the people most likely to talk politics on the net.

The Constitution can be amended/repealed/replaced by popular acclaim so long as you have the support. It's actually written into it, though most don't realize.

jfla · Dec 24, 2009

David said:
The Constitution can be amended/repealed/replaced by popular acclaim so long as you have the support. It's actually written into it, though most don't realize.

Amending the Constitution to deal with the issues we need to face would render the existing document unrecognizable, so we would do just as well to completely re-write it.

deanhills · Dec 24, 2009

jfla said:
Amending the Constitution to deal with the issues we need to face would render the existing document unrecognizable, so we would do just as well to completely re-write it.

Agreed. The current legislation for healthcare reform is a good example. Instead of reforming healthcare it would be much more effective to scratch everything and start from the very beginning, at the State level and not the Federal Government level. I think the Federal Government has grown completely out of bounds of what the Founding Fathers intended its role to be. Completely taking over or even conflicting with States areas of responsibilities. Ditto the Constitution. Far better to rewrite it from scratch for current times.

jfla · Dec 24, 2009

deanhills said:
I think the Federal Government has grown completely out of bounds of what the Founding Fathers intended its role to be.

The Founding Fathers would disagree with you. They had no intention of imposing their will on future generations.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

??No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation?Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.? ?Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

??It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.? ?James Madison (responding to Jefferson?s letter from New York, February 4, 1790)

??The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.? -George Washington (in a letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1797)

??That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety?; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.? ?George Mason (in Article One of Virginia ?s original Constitution, 1776)?

Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention and while George Mason did attend the Convention, he did not sign the document and didn?t support its ratification.

Upon reaching the point where the government allowed under the Constitution could no longer meet the needs of the governed, the Founding Fathers would have scrapped the document. They did not attach the importance to the document that libertarians now do.

David · Dec 25, 2009

jfla said:
The Founding Fathers would disagree with you. They had no intention of imposing their will on future generations.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

??No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation?Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.? ?Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

??It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.? ?James Madison (responding to Jefferson?s letter from New York, February 4, 1790)

??The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.? -George Washington (in a letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1797)

??That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety?; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.? ?George Mason (in Article One of Virginia ?s original Constitution, 1776)?

Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention and while George Mason did attend the Convention, he did not sign the document and didn?t support its ratification.

Upon reaching the point where the government allowed under the Constitution could no longer meet the needs of the governed, the Founding Fathers would have scrapped the document. They did not attach the importance to the document that libertarians now do.

I think the fact they went true 2 consitutions in only a decade supports this position.

alexmike · May 23, 2010

I would have to say that the toughest enemy of Rome would have to be the Huns. they caused great destruction in the Roman empire.

David · May 23, 2010

alexmike said:
I would have to say that the toughest enemy of Rome would have to be the Huns. they caused great destruction in the Roman empire.

To be fair, that was Rome's fault. They told the guy that if they saved and married the Roman princess (who wanted to marry him) he could claim Gaul as his dowery. He saved her only to have the Emperor kidnap her and reneged on the deal. The whole invasion was about laying claim to his legal property. Just because it happened to be an entire nation is irrelevant, Rome shouldn't of offered it if they didn't want to lose it.

Rome's toughest enemy

Similar threads