Discussion--the evolution of hostility and warfare

Well, that's somewhat true.

However, it would be more accurate to say the Roman Economy was based on slaves, which were gained in conquests, and when conquests ended and there were fewer slaves, the agriculture went down, forcing soldiers to return to the fields to work, therefore causing fewer slaves to be gained...etc...

Then there was the fact that after the Five Good Emperors, Rome had a string of incompetant emperors who had no idea what the Hell they were doing.

Tied into the first point, Rome basically hit a wall...they couldn't take the German tribes in the North or the Persians in the East. Therefore, conquests ended, and slave population begain to diminish (like Executor stated). But again, it's important to add that the diminishing slave population caused the Roman military to weaken (less soldiers available since more were put on cultivation), which allows Rome to be overrun.

Marcus Aurelis also helped to accelerate Rome's downfall because he eliminated a passive-German tribe that bordered a more violent one and he broke the tradition of handing down emperorship to the most able successor, not just keeping it in your immediate family (other than that Aurelis was a good emperor and deserves being known as the Last of the Good Emperors).

Now, America may not fall like Rome did (conquest), but that doesn't mean it can't decline and fall like all "empires" eventually do. America is not invincible.

We have been relatively lucky in the respect that almost every time we've hit a major bump in the road, we've had good leaders to get us through, which can't be said of any other "empire" in history. All we need is an incompetant ruler during a dire time (be it economic or social) and we'd be...

Sure, people may bash Bush, but imagine if we had a president like Grant when September 11th took place.

We'd do really well against the terrorists when the administrative branch is led by drunkards, wouldn't we?

By the way, I also agree that America is a benevolent Superpower...I think that was an excellent way of putting it.

The Romans werent based soley on War...

That was the Spartans, the Romans lost because thier forces were spread to thinly...

And I disagree greatly on that NYC thing, I garuntee that a team of 10 could take the White House itself!

Another part of Rome's decline was it's transition of traditional Republican government to an imperialist form, and that coupled with an incompetant ruler

....I can't say that I have a real opinion about your Roman debate either way, except that most of you are forgetting both the shift of power towards the east in Byzantine and (closely related to that) the institutionalizeing of an imperial religion that further divided boundries; but otherwise, you pretty much hit the nail (or, nails) on the head. Many complex factors influenced Rome's fall--many of which have little--if any--relevance to most of today's political divisions.

In regards--yet again--to America, yes, it is the most benevolent superpower in history; that goes without saying. And, for anyone who knows some political science and history, it would be unfair and inaccurate to call America an "empire" in any traditional sense of the word;an empire is the radiation of a central core socio-ethnic group into the neighboring polities and incorporates them into tribute-paying "buffer zones"; that does not fit the definition of most modern polities. The closest thing America ever had to stereotypical "imperial" phase was the fore-mentioned Manifest Destiny rush of the 19th century in which America--which was, at the start, barely a narrow strip of land along the east coast--expanded into Native American territory--people who were, essentially, independent polities--and either conquered, assimilated, or exterminated the peoples that it found. Even until the 1920s, Native Americans were not granted a right to vote because they were still regarded, on the record, as "conquered people", and this right wasn't fully protected untill the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But I digress....

My primary concern is not the fall of America; althoguh superpowers do decline, any fall in a traditional sense like (since you all seem to like this ) the Romans would be difficult due to the difference in political climate (so far) as well as--as Executor pointed out--the difference in political structure and philosophy (in not thought). My concern lies in how quickly the world's technological drive is out-pacing our political thought.

Man....great opinions.

We're not about to be conquered, and we have no massive overseas empire to lose like the British did. About the worst that's likely to happen to us is that the world quits paying us so much attention.

And Manji, quit exposing your ignorance of all things military.

quote:

Originally posted by Executor We're not about to be conquered, and we have no massive overseas empire to lose like the British did. About the worst that's likely to happen to us is that the world quits paying us so much attention. And Manji, quit exposing your ignorance of all things military.

I may not always be right, but I will apply my knowledge to better the situation, I know alot more than you may think, though I guess you'll just have to take my word for it....

I may be ignorant... I guess thats not my place to state though..

first i do not appreciate you calling my opinion bull sh**

if you want to disagree just say "i dissagree" or "that is incorrect i belive"

also, if the roman empire was based on conquest, what are we doing? weve been running around in afgan and iraq policing everyone their, and are even tried to go to lybia and were also going to korea around december. whats that? conquest and conqure to me......

quote:

Originally posted by re-animate i completly agree the human psychiosis is a confusing myrid with no end to the emotional output say that 3 times fast!

the human psychiosis is a confusing myrid with no end to the emotional output-the human psychiosis is a confusing mrid with no end to the emotional output-the humn psychis is a confusing mrid with no end to the emotial output

Ahh! Screw it! I can't even write it three times fast!

Roan, no need to get angry, if you lose your cool, you lose the interest of others... just watch what you guys say... and Roan's got a valid point, no opinion is 'BS'...

I don't believe the Romans had based thier economy on war, they based it on gorvernment, and assimilation of other cultures. The Romans did have an interesting military, but that doesnt mean that was the main focus of the Romans. I know that origionally Romans were a violent and perphaps thier economy was based on ecomony early on, but once they began to conquer, thier economy slowly changed to another interest.

Thank you, Manji; There is no need for anyone to get upset. The only invalid opinion is the one not brought up . And if it makes you feel better, I can't even think that three times fast .

Since everyone else is on this Roman thing, I'll guess I'll throw my 2 cents (don't worry-I'll skip all the confusing crap .).

1. Germanic tribes-the German tribes to the north and west (Visgoths, Vandals, ect.) became more organized and aggressive, due partly to Roman conquest and pressure.
2. Communication-Rome was a BIG polity, even by today's standards. Although the Roman road system was good for it's time, it couldn't maintain connection to every part of it's empire forever.
3.Imperialistic regime-As 088nd mentioned, Rome traded in its Republic for an empire at the turn of the Common Era and over the course of several centuries, many isolated pockets of people gave small stage revolts.
4.Christianity-See #3; the adoption of an imperial religion-particulary one as exclusive as Christianity-only fueled the fires of some revolts.
5. Division of power-Split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sects lead to an empire of two capitals-Rome and Byzantine, which is never a good thing...
6. Gradual urban decay-We all know the story; vigorous, conquering group enters, founds empire, grows soft, gets corrupt, experiences bad leaders, and is itself eventually conquered by a group similar to how it was at the start. I've studied European, African, and Middle Eastern history, as well as Native American anthropology--trust me, it's da same story...
There are more reasons, but they are mostly economic and loooong.

Whew! Now that I look at it, that's a bit more than two cents, heh.

Actually...number 5 isn't completely accurate.

Divisions between the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches happened long after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The divison of power was mostly a result of #2, as well as the fact that the Western Empire was agricultural based whereas the Eastern Empire was economic based. In addition, you had two completely different ways of life...Roman in the West versus Oriental in the East. (No, I don't mean Oriental as in Far East Asian, it was the term used for the Eastern fringes of the Empire for that time period).

General urban decay for Rome can be summed up like so:

Less conquests=less slaves, less slaves=less farmers, less farmers=less soldiers, less soldiers=less conquests, less conequests=less slaves...

That's an extremely dumbed down explanation of the major factor in Roman urban decay, although there were other factors as well.

quote:

Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix Actually...number 5 isn't completely accurate. Divisions between the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches happened long after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The divison of power was mostly a result of #2, as well as the fact that the Western Empire was agricultural based whereas the Eastern Empire was economic based. In addition, you had two completely different ways of life...Roman in the West versus Oriental in the East. (No, I don't mean Oriental as in Far East Asian, it was the term used for the Eastern fringes of the Empire for that time period). General urban decay for Rome can be summed up like so: Less conquests=less slaves, less slaves=less farmers, less farmers=less soldiers, less soldiers=less conquests, less conequests=less slaves... That's an extremely dumbed down explanation of the major factor in Roman urban decay, although there were other factors as well.

Ooops!! I just thought about that! Heh, thanks Phoenix for the FYI . The religious split didn't occur until a bit later. I'd also like to point out that the greater demand for benevolence on the part of Christianity in the later years also put a squeeze on the slave industry. There are far to many factors contributing to Rome's fall than I'd want to list here (I'd rather just stick to physics ).

quote:

Originally posted by re-animate first i do not appreciate you calling my opinion bull sh**

I care deeply about your feelings. Truly.

quote:

also, if the roman empire was based on conquest, what are we doing? weve been running around in afgan and iraq policing everyone their, and are even tried to go to lybia and were also going to korea around december. whats that? conquest and conqure to me......

As soon as we start hauling home loot and slaves from Afghanistan, get back to me.

Until then, quit talking out your rear end.

ummmm

i wasnt angry

its just a pet peev of mine when people dont respect other peopls opinions

im not mad

i was just say i dont appreciate my opinion not being respected
and i was just proving a point about the relation of the us and the roman empires.


sorry if my post was taken harshly

edit: i know were not bring slaves etc. we are more civilized than that

i was just stating the similarity between the roman and the american empires.

but you must agree with me that every empire is doomed to fall some time in the futer

wether it be tommarow or in the next 100 years

P.S.- i am speaking out of my mouth, not my rear

All nations fall in the end. That's life. However, America's wars in the Middle East COST money. They do not make money, much less support an "empire."