• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Why America will eventually fall like Ancient Rome.

cutter

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,316
Location
Getting drilled by AWPers
Link to original post: [drupal=2942]Why America will eventually fall like Ancient Rome.[/drupal]



Aside from math and science, I love history and I love to read about it. I actually might possibly minor in it (currently a Biology major), but that's just a random possibility.

Rome was one of the most fascinating ancient civilizations out there IMO. One the topics which of course covers the gradual decline and fall of the Roman Empire. When I look at some of the main reasons for Rome falling, I can't help but see some sort of a correlation between the then Rome and America today.

Does it sound crazy enough? Let's look at some of the causes that accelerated Rome's demise -- I'll just look at a couple of them:

Overextension

At its height, Rome surrounded the entire Mediterranean region as well as parts of North Africa, modern day Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. I think we can all agree that when Rome was at its peak, it was ****ing HUGE.

While America isn't an empire and physically controlling the amount of territory Rome did, we have an extremely notable sphere of influence on the entire world. We have military garrisons and troops stationed on almost every corner of the planet. We have, multiple times, attempted to be the "world police" in intervening in various areas of the world. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for defending ourselves when there are direct reasons for doing so that affects us as a country (i.e. war on terror), but at some point America should understand that the entire world is practically impossible to quote unquote "control". Rome tried it, and they had to divide their empire into two halves to actually maintain everything.

Inflation

After Marcus Aurelius, the Roman economy started showing signs of decline. As the Roman empire was conquering new territory, the amount of gold started to plummet. Nevertheless, the Romans were luxurious people and continued to indulge to their heart's content (sound familiar?). In turn, their gold coins began containing less gold, which made them less valuable. To make up for the loss in value, Roman merchants raised prices on goods. Because of this, many people stopped using coins and began to barter to get their necessities. It got to the point when salaries had to be paid through such mediums of bartering -- such as food and clothes, With fiat currency becoming more and more worthless, taxes were collected as food. Obviously, inflation is also a problem in America today. The value of the dollar continues to tank. When the Federal Reserve prints more money, they do not have enough gold to back it up. For every dollar that is printed, the overall value of the dollar decreases. With no actual gold to back up fiat currency, the dollar might as well just be a worthless piece of paper (if it ever gets to that extreme). Nevertheless, more money is being printed every day, which has caused the United States to fall into a recession. This may not have been the leading cause for the fall of Rome, but definitely had an impact on it.

Financial Spending and Mercenaries

Like the United States, one of the major expenses of Rome was military spending.

The Roman Empire was under constant pressure from maintaining an army to defend the border from barbarian attacks (see Hadrian's Wall). Since vast amounts of money were spent on the army, other services had to be weakened or cut. These services included essential infrastructural elements, such as public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Eventually, this led to frustrated Romans who lost the determination to fight for their empire. This forced the government to begin hiring soldiers from foreign countries or the unemployed city mobs. You can already start to see how one event cascades right into the next.

During the Great Roman Civil War in 49 B.C., both Caesar and Pompey recruited from non-Romans and non-citizens. The pay skyrocketed from the norm; no doubt to ensure the loyalty of the people they were recruiting. This particular army was not only undependable, but very expensive as well.

Post-Civil War and into the Roman Empire, there were simply not enough actual Romans to recruit to the ever-so-increasing military might. Either that, or people cared more about the money for fighting over the actual will to defend their country. Foreign people were hired as mercenaries -- they were much more expensive and not as reliable as normal soldiers.

Private military companies such as Blackwater are the de facto modern-day version of this. It hasn't become as extreme as it did when Rome hired foreign mercenaries from its overextended empire, but I can see the future in the military where money becomes the driving force to fight instead of defending one's own country. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this begins to truly surface in the future.

In any case, due to the hiring of mercenaries, the emperors were forced to raise taxes which as a result, created yet more inflation. Again, this same issue can be found in the present America. Billions of dollars are spent every year fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the troops are away from home, the borders are susceptible to illegal immigrants and potential terrorist attacks. The United States’ foreign policy is forcing the country to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Because of America's huge committment to investing in its military, we have seen our infrastructure begin to decline -- the bridge collapse in Minneapolis is a prime example.

Despite all the doom and gloom this blog entry might portray, keep in mind that Rome lasted for over 800 years (both the Republic and Empire). That's nearly an entire millenium. America is still here after two centuries. All civilizations and empires rise and fall eventually. Some of the comparisons might be a little crazy, but that more than likely comes from me connecting the dots in all sorts of silly ways. At least, that's just me.

But as they say, history repeats itself. Or... idiots repeat history.
 

Chronodiver Lokii

Chaotic Stupid
BRoomer
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
5,846
Location
NEOH
Every 'empire' has its rise and falls.
America hit it's peak decades ago. There's really no turning back from there.
Sure, we'll still be a world power, but someday we wont be the TOP world power.

Wonder who's next?
 

DanGR

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
6,860
Military spending isn't what will drive this country to bankruptcy...

online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html ;o

Also, the following statement was QFT.
This thread needs more decadence.
 

mountain_tiger

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,444
Location
Dorset, UK
3DS FC
4441-8987-6303
I find it strange that you make a thread like this, yet don't make a single mention of oil depletion, by far the biggest factor.
 

Mardyke

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
289
Location
Ireland
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the parallels with America and Rome. With such focus and concern about getting to the top, most people forget or ignore the task it takes to continue from there. There's a lot of food for thought here, and history is the finest of teachers. But there's one note that should be taken into account - the political system of each.

Focusing on Rome for a moment since I'm no expert on the US government one important feature that I would like to note is the instability of the Roman political system. The Republic was strong and united, at least until Marius and Sulla came into the picture. But the nature of the Empire was even inferior , failing due to several factors (from my research):

#1: Augustus had hoped for a system of co-operation between the Emperor and the Senate, and this usually yielded very positive results when they did (see The Five Good Emperors). But many emperors [a.k.a princeps] ignored this, took more power from it for themselves, and even killed some senators. By the time the Barbarian invasion/migration occurred, the Senate was little more than a city council for Rome, which was not even the real capital any more.

#2: It was too easy to become an emperor. Sulla demonstrated that it was possible to march on Rome as long as you had something with which to beat up the garrison. While the position of Emperor was meant to be appointed by the Senate, in practice the system allowed for just about anyone to make someone princeps . Rebellious generals battled their way to power, the Praetorian Guard often betrayed the man they were pledged to protect and appointed the princeps themselves, and many emperors tried to forge dynasties by appointing a heir themselves (which is what the first princeps, Augustus, did, though his case might be justifiable given the state in which the senate was in, and his own godly reputation). There was no control over the running of the country - only capitalisation.

#3: The Emperor's absolute dominance. This is the up and downside of a monarchy or dictatorship - if you have a great leader, then real good is very easy to accomplish. Constantine The Great was able to single-handedly turn about a decaying empire and unite it in an era of prosperity. However, given factor #2, it's safe to say that the Romans very often got bad emperors. Really, really bad ones. With the senate too underpowered or divided to do anything to oppose him, and with many usurpers potentially being worse than the emperor they had sought to replace (a trait sometimes defied, to be fair), and the lethargic apathy which some emperors like Honorius adopted alongside their citizens, things could spiral out of hand quite uncomfortably.


While America is attempting to recover from the Bush Administration and international factors, its political system is for the most part still in tact. America will likely not remain the dominant superpower in a number of generations from now, but I don't see its decline being anything as dramatic as that of the Romans.
 

Beren Zaiga

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
803
Location
Kansas
Currently its the multi-trillion dollar "bailout" that is causing the dollar to decline even more. Obama is going to have to print more money that he cannot back up with the gold we supposedly have at Fort Knox, which is part of (or is, I am not sure anymore really) America's treasury.

The amount of gold we have there is what we back up the money printed with, and since we will likely end up printing more than can be backed up, the value of the dollar will plummet.

Pure gold is scarcest form of the element on the planet. Which is why it's value was so high during the Gold Rush, and is so now. Pure gold is almost never found in nature, because alot of it is in Electrum, elemental gold. Electrum has an amount of silver in it along with gold, so it could be said that it is gold ore.

The only way we could back up all that money is finding Electrum, mine it, then separate the two metals in it, the gold in Electrum is in a higher ratio than the silver, thus there would also be alot of silver as a byproduct. However, this would also subsequently lower the price of gold, because mining Electrum and separating the two would generate more pure gold (well, as pure as it could be), thus lowering it's value due to reduced scarcity.

Quite a dilemma , huh?
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
I agree with the OP to a good extent. Our nation has been in steady decline and not much else. First we had Bush to mess things up. Now we have Obama messing things up WORSE.

Aside from the economy messing up, we've made enemies all over the world, even racking up debts with some of them. We owe more money than any (or almost any?) nation in the world, and could easily be called on it by any one of our debtors.

I'ld have to say... we're on a downhill course without a stop in sight. Who knows... maybe we'll get another President like Bill Clinton to help us out a bit... but that's not likely.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
Who knows... maybe we'll get another President like Bill Clinton to help us out a bit... but that's not likely.
You're joking right? Bill Clinton was an average president that just happened to be in office during the largest peacetime economic boom in history (a boom which paved the way for this terrible decade, btw).
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
Gaius that's some absurd reasoning.

It was Reagan's terrible economic policy that plunged America into the depth that we eventually arose from through a policy that didn't involve fabricating government funds. So at Clinton's time, I'd say we were at neutral, if not positive, position compared to Reagan. Bush however, pushed us back down into more deficit than ever.

And you make it seem as if economic ups and downs happen coincidentally.
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
You're joking right? Bill Clinton was an average president that just happened to be in office during the largest peacetime economic boom in history (a boom which paved the way for this terrible decade, btw).
First president to balance the budget? I'm pretty sure that was Clinton. Any president who can do that is worthy of serious respect... say what you want about his morals, but he did well.
 

n88

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
1,548
@Gaius

Do you have anything to back up what you say about the oil crisis? Just curious, not attacking your argument. The only thing I can remember reading on the subject was The Long Emergency, and the author seemed pretty freaked out about the oil supply.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
@Gaius

Do you have anything to back up what you say about the oil crisis? Just curious, not attacking your argument. The only thing I can remember reading on the subject was The Long Emergency, and the author seemed pretty freaked out about the oil supply.
Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/
 

cutter

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,316
Location
Getting drilled by AWPers
We have enough oil to last us for a very long time. By the time we run out of oil, we will have already been using other alternative sources of energy.

Gold, political corruption, financial spending, and overextension are far greater problems that brought Rome to its knees -- and the same will most likely plague America before oil even becomes a relevant factor.
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
We have enough oil to last us for a very long time. By the time we run out of oil, we will have already been using other alternative sources of energy.

Gold, political corruption, financial spending, and overextension are far greater problems that brought Rome to its knees -- and the same will most likely plague America before oil even becomes a relevant factor.
Keep in mind that oil is a factor regardless. Most of the oil we use is foreign oil, namely Middle Eastern oil, which brings up the whole issue of being indebted to our foes once more... you see where I'm going with this? They decide what oil costs.... greatly impacting our economy.
 

Amazing Ampharos

Balanced Brawl Designer
Writing Team
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
4,582
Location
Kansas City, MO
Yeah, oil is already a problem. It's not a matter of there being zero left in the world. It's a matter of global demand going up while we are at or near peak oil (once we hit peak oil, that means supply goes down). When demand goes up and supply goes down, cost goes way up. It already costs way too much and is stretching our ability to economically support ourselves. A lot of the people profiting are not exactly working for our interests as well. What does this mean? I think it's clear.

In either case, I find America collapsing unlikely. Just look at the absolute worst case scenario. The government really and truly runs out of money and has to declare "bankruptcy". This means the government tells its creditors "sorry, but we're not paying... ever". We pull our military out of all foreign countries, and we likely suffer a serious economic hit as countries like China just stop trading with us. Where in this do we collapse? No one would dare attack us to take their money; we have nukes, and if collapse is in the picture, we won't hesitate to use them (and will make it very clear that's the case). We'd have some poverty, but America is a coherent cultural unit. I don't see any serious groups waiting to capitalize on a weakened central government to form their own country within the US. With the Roman empire, there were nearby credible invaders, and further most of their territory wasn't really "Roman" so much as it was stuff they invaded. Once they fell, the original cultures just resumed control of the territory. The original culture on our territory belongs to the natives, and there aren't exactly very many of them left these days nor do they have any credible hope of ever re-asserting control of anything.

So my worst case scenario is that the US federal government goes broke and our country has to be self sufficient again. We suffer a really nasty depression. That's it. There's just nothing that could cause the US to collapse; our neighbors would never invade us... nor would anyone. We could bring the apocalypse at any time we want with nukes; the idea of invading the US is almost literally laughable. There isn't any credible internal dissent either on the level of ever rising to military action. Really, what are the forces that lead to the country collapsing?
 

DanGR

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
6,860
Reading back through sections of this blog after doing some research, it's pretty clear to me that you really don't have any idea how small a percent of GDP has been dedicated to military spending compared to past budgets. There's really no argument to compare the U.S. to ancient Rome in that regard unless you're actually predicting a VERY DRASTIC increase in the future.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartbook/Images/federal-spending_12-580.jpg
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
Lol at anyone who thinks they can see that far into the future.

Especially in this day and age.

Trying to compare a nation from early AD to our current society is absolutely pointless. They are way too different.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
Comparing the US and ancient rome doesn't work because a lot of the vocabulary you use to compare them has changed its meaning. In the end Rome "fell" to germanic invaders but whom are the USA suppsed to "fall" against? The US will not "fall" like the ancient rome because there's nobody to fall against anymore. Economic crises or overextensions might force a change of the system but that doesn't mean that borderlines or the nation will vastly change. Russia would be a good example of a nation that has "fallen" in a way you seem to think the US will fall as well but the comparision with Rome doesn't fit.

:059:
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
Comparing the US and ancient rome doesn't work because a lot of the vocabulary you use to compare them has changed its meaning. In the end Rome "fell" to germanic invaders but whom are the USA suppsed to "fall" against? The US will not "fall" like the ancient rome because there's nobody to fall against anymore. Economic crises or overextensions might force a change of the system but that doesn't mean that borderlines or the nation will vastly change. Russia would be a good example of a nation that has "fallen" in a way you seem to think the US will fall as well but the comparision with Rome doesn't fit.

:059:
Are you kidding? The US has enemies all over the world... if we become weak, we could easily find ourselves falling.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
Obviously, you didn't understand in the slightest what I was talking about. Not to mention that you are completely wrong in the first place.

:059:
 

CRASHiC

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
7,267
Location
Haiti Gonna Hait
Gold? **** gold. No one is own the gold standard anymore because it limits the size your economy can grow by the amount of gold you have, not smart economics. Also, gold is just one thing that gives our money capitol.
 
Top Bottom