_JPG.jpg)
An imperial heir:
Recently, I have begun to love spending hours learning about the history of Rome. Within this past year, I have probably read half a dozen books about the Roman Empire, I have spent nights watching long documentaries and YouTube videos about the historical empire, and I have taken a couple university history courses that pertained to Rome. I am, now, so infatuated with Rome that my phone’s screensaver is a photo of a Marcus Aurelius statue.
The reason behind my recent fascination towards Rome is the parallels that can be drawn between the late historic empire and my homeland, The United States of America. Both nations, Rome and America, were and are so preeminent and revered for their receptive time-periods. During antiquity, Rome was the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist; their might was immense and unmatched. At their peak, the Roman empire stretched into three different continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa). Almost every dominant empire since has aspired to emulate the Romans—with some even appropriating their name (i.e. Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire).
America, just like the British Empire that they eventually extricated themselves from, views themselves as the heir-apparent to the Romans. This sentiment becomes obvious after taking just an hour walk through Washington, D.C. The architecture within our capital city is clearly influenced by classical Rome and Greece; for example, even the name ‘Capitol Hill’ is inspired by Rome’s ‘Capitoline Hill’(a temple to the god Jupiter). American presidents have long been compared to Roman emperors: e.g. Andrew Jackson was labeled “the American Caesar’ and George W. Bush was called “the boy emperor”. America, now, has become a global hyper-power with no true rivals—an experience which the Roman Empire shared. When measuring America to Rome, it is easy to draw parallels between the two immense nations.
The Parallels:
Government structures:
One parallel that the American-Roman comparison evokes is the structures of their governments, albeit this parallel is more pertinent when examining Rome when it was a republic before it was an empire—even though America is a quasi-empire, now. This parallel could perhaps be the most essential when trying to prevent American from sharing Rome’s fate. I say this because by understand this likeness, evading a similar autocratic transition--from republic to empire--is made much easier, and the founding fathers knew this. The features of the Roman political system that appealed most to the Founding Fathers was the structure of Roman’s government. In Polybius’ Histories, he describes the institutions that made up the Roman governing system: the counsels, the Senate, and the people. Rome operated under a mixed government, with aspects of despotism, democracy, and aristocracy all at work.
The republic consuls were the executive rulers of the republic. They managed all administrative duties and possessed the most power of the three institutions. The consuls received all foreign ambassadors and diplomats. The consuls could and would bring certain issues up in the Senate. The consuls also had the executive power to execute and enforce laws. They also had the prerogative of running the military. I can easily equate the Roman consulship to the American executive branch (i.e. President, cabinet members); both acting as the sword for their governments. The consuls were clothed in immense power, and that is why the republic could easily be seen as despotic.
The Senate had the responsibility of appropriating funds within the republic. They would, also, oversee legislation—similar in both name and responsibility to America’s Senate (legislative branch). Both acting as the purse for their governments. Even though senators had to run for election, most of the senators came from the aristocratic families of Rome. It was rare for an average Roman to reach the Senate in one lifetime. Therefore, the Republic also could be viewed as an aristocracy, where the elite rule.
The Roman citizens were not just bystanders in the Roman government; the people had a role to play. First, the Roman citizen had to elect the senators and consuls into office. The Roman people would act as a jury during important, life and death, cases. The people also had the task of declaring war and ratifying treaties. I would equate this institution to a mixture of both the judicial and legislative branches of the United States. Since the Roman people were extremely active in governing—and as a collective had tremendous power--on the surface, the Roman republic could have resembled a democracy.
Military:
Both America and Rome controlled awesome military apparatuses. Both military forces possessed tremendous might that was unmatched by their contemporaries. America is known throughout the globe for having the unquestionably most powerful military, as the Romans were, too. The Romans would steamroll and conquer the surrounding tribes—with some exceptions. Their legions were so advanced and dominant when compared to their barbaric opponents, that defeating Rome with sheer might would have been a near insurmountable task.
In term of funding, America spends more money on ‘defense’ than the next ten nations combined. Rome’s military was, too, extremely exorbitant and that created problems. Since Rome was the world’s sole superpower, they took on the responsibility of policing their region to maintain peace, stability, and dominance. Though, Rome’s ambitions and task outgrew their military capability and funding.
One issue that arose through Rome’s military’s inability to match its regional ambitions was its increasing lack of military manpower. Rome, just like America now, was constantly recruiting soldiers. Rome, as America does now, had a professional military; professional militaries were not commonplace during that time. Rome did not have to access to modern military equipment (e.g. drones, tanks, planes, etc.) to supplement their foot-solider army, so they relied on a constant, heavy, influx of new men. Overtime, after fighting with an undermanned army, Rome began to use private militias and utilized slaves and barbarians. America is beginning to go down that same route. America, unbeknownst to most, depends on private mercenaries. For example, currently, many of the soldiers fighting in the middle-east are contracted mercenaries—a ratio of 3-1 to American troops. In addition, many important government official’s security details are rented from private security contractors. The use of mercenaries is pernicious. For one, it allows the government to wage war behind closed doors. Another reason is that the mercenary’s loyalty is fickle; their motivation to fight is money and their loyalty is to their boss, not their country.
Since Rome was such a prodigious power, they were burdened with the responsibilities of orchestrating international peace. Although Rome would never—through a lack of funding, manpower, or else—rise up to meet their international obligations. Even though Rome was big, they were still too small to handle the world.
America too seems to be burdened with similar international duties. America’s international presence is ubiquitous. America has nearly 800 military bases(by far the most) in over 70 countries, they have diplomats in ever corner of the globe, and dip their toes in many international conflicts, all with the aim of either peace or dominance(probably both). Rome could not afford to fail because they had built a house of cards that determined not only only their rate, but the world’s; America is in a very similar position. So, a mighty army, more Rome than America but still applies to both, was an instrument to curtail collapse.
Outsiders:
Another parallel between America and Rome is the way both nation’s citizens viewed the world outside their borders. The majority of Americans hold negative views on foreigners, immigrants, and, in general, the world outside the states. Rome’s citizens held the same sentiment towards barbarians and surrounding tribes. Romans viewed themselves as more superior than non-Romans; immigration brought great consternation to most Roman citizens, just like some Americans. Romans knew that other societies were more impressive in certain areas (e.g. Greeks in art, Gauls in physical ability, etc.) but they believed that, as a society, they were clearly superior to any and that they were destined to rule: America has been known to share this messianic propensity—e.g. America’s manifest destiny.
This disparaging sentiment has been proven to be dangerous and both Rome and America have suffered. For example, Crassus, the Roman Politician/general (also a member of the first Roman triumvirate), was defeated when he attempted to invade and conquer Parthia. Even though he lead a superior army, he lost because he underestimated the Parthians (The Parthians killed Crassus by pouring molten gold down his throat because they knew he was the wealthiest man in Rome). America, too, suffered a similar defeat. They also lost to a far inferior army. In the early 1970s, America lost a war against Vietnam because they underestimated the opponent’s tenacity and strategic ability. Albeit, this is not just the case with America; the equally powerful U.S.S.R (the Soviet Union) lost its war against an inferior Afghanistan, in the 1980s.
Conclusion:
I love Roman history because I can draw so many similarities to modern-day America. Unlike many empires since Rome, many individuals view America as the only true reincarnation of Rome. Though, just because America shares ample similarities with a nation held in such high-esteem, our nation does not have to share a similar end. Even though America and Rome seem to mirror one another, they also have dozens differences. A reason Rome fell was that its society refused to change, even if the intentions were for improvement. Americans, on the other hand, embrace change—they expect it. Americans champion innovation and they seek improvement. Romans did not. Any innovation within Rome was inevitable partly due to their long time-span.
Roman’s economic system was the same, beginning to end, while America has undergone many transformations; we went from an agricultural preindustrial economy to a financial and technological economy. Throughout Roman history, Romans had always known slavery as an ordinary practice within their society, while America fought a civil war to abolish it.
By understanding the history of Rome, we are more equipped to face present and future hurdles: “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes” (Mark Twain). Americans still have time to not completely follow in our ancestor’s footsteps.
Bibliography
Murphy, Cullen. Are We Rome?. Mariner Book Company. 2008
Kelly, Christopher. The Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. 2006
Gwynn, David M. The Roman Republic. Oxford University Press. 2012
Eckstien, Art. The Ancient Mediterranean World. The University of Maryland. 2017