Comparing the decline of the Roman Empire with contemporary America

Greek and Roman

It is, at least on the surface, an easy comparison to make between the fall of the Roman Empire and the current state of the United States. Indeed the arguments for a direct comparison are manifest. but, are they accurate? Can an empire that reigned over the known world for centuries be compared to a current collapse of the United States's popular opinion and economy throughout the world? Perhaps. The truth is that in the timeline, the United States has held preeminence among the other nations of the world only since the collapse of the Soviet Union just a little over ten years ago - and that does not an empire make. What then, when we make these comparisons to are we discussing? Perhaps it is found in the self-satisfying, self-destructive nature of not only the populace but particularly of the leadership of the U.S. or, perhaps, it is most easy to show the decay in the uniting fabric that is what characterized the United States' rise to power in the post-World War II era in which the people were of a singular mind. Now, clearly, the nation is as split and seemingly incapable of unity as if it were in an active civil war - we are, in short, tearing ourselves apart from the inside.

In order to fully understand the nature of the potential for absolute decline of the United States, we have to understand a variety of factors: the economic standing of the U.S., the military strength and capability, the support that the U.S. has throughout the world, the strength of the internal social structures, the philosophical and moral place held by the U.S., the role the U.S. plays on the world stage in terms of promotion of and securing Democracy, the importance of the U.S. To the United Nations, and finally, the relative ability of the United States to continue to act as the "World's Cop."

It cannot be understated how stretched the resources of the United States are throughout the world - and with two simultaneous wars, with the possibilities of conflicts with Iran, Syria, and/or North Korea, the position of the United States is made even more tenuous.

The problem, then, is that like ancient Rome, the leadership of the United States is comprised of people who, like Nero, would seemingly prefer to see our world burn as long as their pockets are still lined.

The problem that this question poses, is the United States in a similar place as Rome was just prior to its fall, is that it requires not only a complete understanding of all of the myriad factors that are involved in the current down-turn in U.S. influence and significance to the world, but also an understanding of what it was that brought about the fall of Rome.

To that tend, it is necessary to delve into and compare the structures of both the modern United States and Rome. Politics, social welfare, philosophy, military strength and capability, the ability to change and adapt, all of these are structural factors at play within both civilizations. but, where Rome had centuries to create itself and then implode, the United States has had but a few decades.

Some of the core questions that this form of research must seek to answer are: Has the U.S. truly been in a leadership / dominant role comparable to Rome? Does a democratic system ultimately result in corruption on a mass scale such that the political structure inevitably rots? What were the common factors that led to the rise of Rome and the United States to their positions of power? What are the common factors that mark the end of the Roman empire and today's United States? Is it possible to discern the future of the United States from the example of Rome?

Initial research points at a variety of accurate comparative points between the United States and Rome.

Both were established as the preeminent nation during their respective heyday, both used their internal structure of semi-democratic rule to establish their "right" to impress other nations to their way of life, both made exceptional use of false rhetoric to convince others of their preeminence, and both stretched their militaries to the point of breaking - more than once. Additionally, research demonstrates that the decline in American popularity coincides with the decline of democratic rule in the U.S. While under Democratic control, the United States enjoyed a significant period of favor within the world. but, the "war President" Bush has squandered all of that good will both at home and abroad - to the point where there are virtually no true friends left to come to her side in times of crisis, just as was the case with Rome before the Barbarians from the North finally broke the myth of the indestructible empire.

What is most shocking in all of this, perhaps, is the speed with which this shift from admired world-power to most-hated-nation occurred. The truth is that both the United States and Rome could have made their position as a benevolent power much more effective had either been truly benevolent.

Rome conquered its neighbors to increase commerce and power. The United States has attempted to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "secure" the United States - but it can be argued that, particularly in the case of Iraq - that the true motivation is the securing of oil and the generation of commerce for political cronies.

What, then, is the difference between Caesar granting Mark Antony domain over Egypt and George Bush granting Halliburton and Becthel similar domain over an entire nation's economy?

Similarly, when Rome attempted to subdue and then destroy neighbors with a near-insatiable appetite, how does that differ from the United States trying to subdue and control neighbors through treaties, intimidation, and force?