- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which ancient civilization is the most similar to America?
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:17 pm to The Boat
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:17 pm to The Boat
quote:
I always like to think about how the US will be looked at 2,000 years from now if mankind makes it that far. If the US falls soon they would just be a powerful blip on the radar. If the US lasts a few more hundred years it might do down as the second rise of Rome since almost everything is based off of them.
If they could see into the future, People during the time of the roman empire would think the human race in 2015 has transcended to veritable gods and transformed earth into something like Asgard from the Thor movies.
We've grown taller, bigger and are giants to them, life expectancy is astronomically high compared to ancient Rome, we can be anywhere on the planet in less than 12 hours thanks to huge jumbo jets when it would take them several months to a year just walking or by horse, we can transplant body organs and defeat the most serious ilneses and injuries when there was no medical care but fricking herbs and wine, we can build college stadiums that are a couple hundred times bigger than the roman coliseum and to say nothing of pro stadiums, with nukes and smaller conventional bombs, we can vaporize an entire city off the map without deploying troops when they had to deploy legions upon legions with just swords and arrows, we have giant ships that launch fighters jets that can destroy a city in less than an hour and can hold over 5,000 people compared to their largest ship holding maybe 40 people, we have incredible sources of power like fossil fuels, green and solar energy, nuclear energy and electricity and they had nothing but fire to light places and give them warmth.
The USA would be seen as something like Thor, his people and Asgard to ancient Rome, we would be gods to them. Or maybe Star Wars and Coruscant, or maybe Star Trek and 23rd century earth.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 4:18 pm
0
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:19 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
Yes, Biggus Dickus
He has a wife, you know...
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:19 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
OMLandshark
You make well reasoned arguments and I respect your opinion. But I think a lot of the people making comparisons of the US to Rome are coming from a kind of strange combination of ego in comparing us to one of the longest lived and geographically sprawling empires the world has ever seen and a political ideology trying to tie the very end of (at least one part) of that empire to political issues of the present day.
But Rome lasted - between Kingdom, Republic and Empire- from something like 509 BC to 1453 AD (if you include the Eastern Roman Empire - 476 AD if you limit it to the Western). So I think we should be pretty damned happy if we last for 2000 years like them (or even 1000 if you're talking Western only) .
quote:
Rome also didn't have the convenience of all the lands they conquered to have 97% of the population being wiped out by Smallpox about 200 years before they were even formed.
Exactly. But that fact cuts both ways. To me it kind of refutes the idea of "conquering and genocide". The modern theory is that most of the Indians (or Native Americans if you prefer that term) died not from any any intentional acts on our part but from diseases we carried that they just were not immune to.
And, of course, the migrations of people and one people taking over the lands of another are not limited to the US and ancient Rome. I remember reading an article on Migrations in the Encyclopedia Britannica many years ago that said something like "in the year 1 there were no Rus in what is now Russia, no Angles in what is now England, no Franks in what is now France, etc. (I've tried to find that article a couple of times but could never find it using search engines). I think that throughout history and prehistory this is a pretty commonplace occurrence.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:21 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
How are we Rome? We have not conquered most of the civilized world, we don't base our success on the overtaking and acquisition of new territories
Except we've taken / acquired new territories from the UK, France, Spain, and Mexico. We possess territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. We have massive forces in Japan and Germany. The Marines used to practically live in Latin America to make sure they were doing what we wanted. We can project our military forces anywhere in the world and there are a limited number of countries that could do anything about it.
quote:
But I think a lot of the people making comparisons of the US to Rome are coming from a kind of strange combination of ego in comparing us to one of the longest lived and geographically sprawling empires the world has ever see
I think people bring up Rome and US comparisons for one of two reasons
1) Some kind of romantic opinion of the mighty Roman empire and ownership over its dominion is to be admired.
2) Shaming. That the US is imperial and domineering over others is not to be admired and they aren't ashamed to admit that the U.S. has acted badly.. a lot. At least by today's standards.
I think the US is somewhere in between.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:30 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
Except we've taken / acquired new territories from the UK, France, Spain, and Mexico. We possess territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. We have massive forces in Japan and Germany. The Marines used to practically live in Latin America to make sure they were doing what we wanted. We can project our military forces anywhere in the world and there are a limited number of countries that could do anything about it.
This isn't the same, you are stretching to make them the same as Rome.
I'm not claiming we have no similarities, but as another poster said I feel like this is the go to answer because we are the most powerful country right now, and some similarities between the end of that empire and our current society.
I think a lot of people have this idea that Rome when Caesar and Octavian ruled it is what Rome was always like. Rome was around for 1000+ years before those guys, and when on for almost 500 years after (1000 if you count the ERE and all of that)
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:31 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
How are we Rome? We have not conquered most of the civilized world, we don't base our success on the overtaking and acquisition of new territories. We certainly don't take the same approach as Rome in defeating our enemies, we don't wipe them out completely.
Our rulers are not military minded and we have not followed the conquer all path that Rome followed.
People say Rome because we are the most powerful country today, and because there are similarities in our lifestyle (as there are with Athens and many other civilized ancient countries), but we are not Rome.
I would say the British Empire was the most like Rome, and has followed a similar path of decline
Tiger 1242, I don't even know what to say to this.
The answer is CLEARLY Rome.
But you since you seem dead-set to deny it, state your case. Tell us in greater detail how a direct-democracy city-state more resembles our representative republic - a continent-spanning nation - mind you, than the Roman Republic does.
There have been many posters in this thread who have made Rome's case. I myself have pointed out more than twenty major similarities.
This is what you have presented about America's similarity to Athens so far:
quote:
I say we are most similar to Athens. They also relied on a strong navy and trade dominance to control the Mediteranean. Their citizens had strong national pride and they used political ideas like freedom and democracy to defend their actions. Luckily America does not have an equally powerful militant nation so close to it like Athens had with Sparta, at least we don't right now
quote:
They were set on spreading their ideas and influence throughout the world, but weren't into officially "conquering" as much
Literally everything else you have posted has been responding to others who have made the case for Rome with "no, it's not Rome."
Here's what you have so far:
1. Strong navy (as if Rome didn't have a navy just as powerful)
2. Trade dominance (as if Rome was not also the trading power of its time)
3. National pride (as if all those arches and monuments Rome built were for nothing)
4. Eager to spread the Athenian ideal, As America does trying to win "hearts and minds" of other countries. (I'm open to this one, but I would like for you to show how Athens committed to this as foreign relations strategy)
Okay. Now fill us in on the rest. You have a lot of ground to gain if you want to topple Rome as the answer. Remember... make the case for why ATHENS is the answer, not why Rome is NOT.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:35 pm to Tiger1242
I understand the longevity argument. Even the most generous of estimates only has the US as a global power at the end of the Spanish-American War at the end of the 1800s so even then our dominance for less than 130 years. Hell, I think you could argue the only time the U.S. has been a truly unipolar power was from the '90s to now, and its shifting back to multipolarity pretty quickly.
With that said, the U.S. has very much conquered territory in the traditional sense of the word and I would argue that most of the U.S. was acquired that way.
With that said, the U.S. has very much conquered territory in the traditional sense of the word and I would argue that most of the U.S. was acquired that way.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:43 pm to SpqrTiger
I'm on my phone and will be running errands for awhile, I will come back and add some to my argument later.
I'm not denying the similarities between Rome and the U.S., I'm just not sure they are as similar to us as many claim (pretty much every powerful nation since Rome makes the same claim that they are the "new Rome")
I'm not denying the similarities between Rome and the U.S., I'm just not sure they are as similar to us as many claim (pretty much every powerful nation since Rome makes the same claim that they are the "new Rome")
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:43 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
2. Trade dominance (as if Rome was not also the trading power of its time)
Really, Rome took it to a new level than any other civilization had ever attempted to. There's a reason Christianity took off as quickly as it did, and it's because Rome really cared about having a sufficient road system to connect the world at large.
That was a huge reason for them conquering these regions. They weren't getting the most out of these nations and tribes because they were disorganized. So they conquered them by force, built roadways and organized infrastructure, and kept soldiers there to make sure no one fricked with it. By the time the US had completed doing something similar in their own country, it was the 50s, and way too late to start conquering people. The British and the Spanish had seen to it that all of their colonies had organized structure, roadways, and shipping to where they actually saved money by not having soldiers there to force them to be their colonies.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:46 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
I'm not denying the similarities between Rome and the U.S., I'm just not sure they are as similar to us as many claim (pretty much every powerful nation since Rome makes the same claim that they are the "new Rome")
Because they take their same mindset as the Romans did. The structure of all colonies post-1500 were largely modeled on the Roman Empire. The British and the Spanish Empire were all descended from Romans. Look at any major old European city, and you'll see that the oldest parts of them are designed very similarly to each other. The civilization lasted for 1,200 years, so it was a pretty smart move to design a successor empire under Roman principles. Britain came the closest to reenacting the Romans, but the US just arrived late to the party to where it was too late to do things as the Romans did. You're just saying because the Americans had better circumstances than the Romans did that they are not similar. It's still America's mission to spread it's ideology throughout the world, while Britain and many others have long given up on that.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:47 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
I'm not claiming we have no similarities
Glad we can at least agree on that.
That is the only, true comparison. Rome had a multiple continent spanning empire, with military and trading contacts with, essentially the entire known world. They fought with and alongside soldiers who spoke every language of the ancient world. They minted the default currency. Latin became the global language of diplomacy and trade. Rome spoke and the world shuddered. They were an extrinsic threat to virtually any nation.
Flash forward to the U.S. - by default, we rose to the most powerful position on Earth in the 20th century. But it was not ceded - we outlasted opponents on the battlefield and ushered in this industrial warfare that the world still gapes at. Such a technological superiority in warfare, that our opponents refuse to fight - they go back to the tried and true methods of the guerilla, as that gives them the highest probability of a political victory they can never hope to achieve with military means.
So, unless you want to consider that brief period when Spain eclipsed France and England (and they were still credible opponents during the period), when the three were the "top dogs" on the backs of their Renaissance global colonial empires or the Pax Britannica, generally - as another, potentially valid comparison - there really is no comparison with Rome, except the post-WWII USA and vice versa. And that's not "forcing" or "stretching" - that's just a fact.
The 2 most dominant, far-reaching, influential "powers" that have ever existed on this planet in recorded history, period.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 4:49 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Al Gore is one.... who is the other
The 2 most dominant, far-reaching, influential "powers" that have ever existed on this planet in recorded history, period.
frick Al Gore
Posted on 3/11/15 at 5:06 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
So, unless you want to consider that brief period when Spain eclipsed France and England (and they were still credible opponents during the period), when the three were the "top dogs" on the backs of their Renaissance global colonial empires or the Pax Britannica, generally - as another, potentially valid comparison - there really is no comparison with Rome, except the post-WWII USA and vice versa. And that's not "forcing" or "stretching" - that's just a fact.
The 2 most dominant, far-reaching, influential "powers" that have ever existed on this planet in recorded history, period.
Well, if you're going to use France and Spain as preventing Britain from being an unrivaled power, or France and England preventing Spain from being one, then I don't think we can lay claim to being unrivaled until the end of the cold war. Heck, growing up in the 60's and '70's we were always told how big and bad the Russians were. Of course some of that was propaganda but I think they were enough of a rival to prevent us from being THE unilateral power. And before that of course there was run ins with China and their Southeast Asia proxies and before that Japan and Germany
So while we presently hold the preeminent position, it has not been for that long. And if you believe half of the people on this board (I really don't) it won't be for long because we're going to hell in a hand basket - just like the Romans.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 5:14 pm to Methuselah
quote:
Well, if you're going to use France and Spain as preventing Britain from being an unrivaled power, or France and England preventing Spain from being one, then I don't think we can lay claim to being unrivaled until the end of the cold war.
I was using that as a second-tier example. Another such example would be the Soviet Union - but even at their peak, they did not wield the global influence that we did/do. Heck, you could negotiate for goods and services, with dollars, in Moscow in the 1970s and 1980s, easier than you could the worthless Rubles.
And America, like Rome, was invited in in many places, co-opting instead of conquering - although Rome did a lot of conquering.
But, we're comparing about 1 century on the button right now (WWI to present), to several centuries of evolution from the old Roman Republic to the fall of the western empire in the 5th Century AD - you can stretch the analogy with the Byzantines, but I think it was clear by 476 that Roman hegemony was no more.
But, that's still a couple of centuries of ascendence, and 4 solid centuries of rule as a continental superpower (comparable to a global superpower today) - compared to our relatively short period of 100 years of our being a true, global superpower.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 5:31 pm to JudgeHolden
Would have to be Rome
Posted on 3/11/15 at 6:16 pm to yurintroubl
quote:
He has a wife, you know...
Incontinentia Buttocks
Posted on 3/11/15 at 6:30 pm to Ace Midnight
There have been some excellent discussion in this thread. I like the silly stuff on the OT but it's nice to get some substantive topics from time to time.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News