The Strong Horse and the Weak Horse: America and the Fall of the Roman Empire
Posted on June 14, 2008
John McCain
It has become fashionable to draw parallels between the supposed misadventures of our “New American Imperialism” and the “Fall of the Roman Empire” — a comparison that conveniently overlooks the fact that it took over a thousand years for the Roman Empire to ‘fall’. One of the most glaring inconsistencies of this comparison is that the Roman Empire was an unapologetically ruthless military power, which experienced no liberal pangs of guilt about its hard-won conquests. Indeed, to the typical Roman, who enthusiastically relished the daily bloody spectacles of the arena, the whole concept of having moral qualms about the manner in which they had acquired their vast Empire would be incomprehensible.
The Roman formula for conquering new provinces was fairly straight-forward. The Roman legions would simply annihilate any opposing force (no matter how long it took, or what it cost them in lives and treasure), systematically root out all remaining insurgents, and impose a locally administered Roman-style government, which would eventually build Roman-style buildings in which to conduct Roman-style business.
Once their territories were conquered, however, the Romans would govern them with a relatively light touch (despite a spate of anti-Roman, pro-Christian “biblical movies” produced in the 1950s — usually starring the late Charlton Heston — that invariably portrayed the Roman soldiers as sadistic brutes). So long as the local citizenry behaved according to the proscribed boundaries of the Roman model of civilization, adhered to the basic tenets of Roman jurisprudence, paid their taxes (which, for the most part, were considerably less than they had been paying under their previous rulers), and offered ceremonial homage to the Emperor once a year, the Roman attitude towards the local customs and religious practices was generally fair and unobtrusive.
However, Roman authorities would react swiftly and mercilessly to any perceived threat of dissent. In 146 B.C., in the city of Corinth, in the Roman protectorate of Greece, two Roman envoys were set upon by an unruly crowd of malcontents and were beaten up. The Roman response was quick and unequivocal.
The Senate dispatched the brutal Roman General Mummius who, with his four Legions, attacked the city of Corinth. He killed all of the men of military age, enslaved all of the remaining populace, burned the city to the ground and then, ceremoniously sowed salt on the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again.
Indeed, if we are looking for parallels between our present-day American society and the Roman Empire, we need look no further than this episode of the two Roman ambassadors in Corinth, and compare the Roman reaction then to our government’s ignoble non-response to the plight of our helpless 70 American citizens who were held hostage for 444 days in the infamous 1979 Tehran Embassy takeover.
What then, if anything, can we learn from the history of the Romans?
First, when discussing the moral lessons symbolized by the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ we should perhaps consider how long it actually took to ‘fall’. If one accepts the traditional date for the founding of Rome of 753 B. C., and the traditional date of the ‘fall’ of 476 A.D., then that means that the Roman civilization lasted for something like 1,200 years, while the actual process of the ‘fall’ arguably took about 300 years.
Transposing these figures onto America’s timetable, this would mean that we might start losing ground around the year 2705, and could be in serious trouble by the year 3005. It seems to me that it would be a little difficult to realistically describe this 1200 year process as a ‘fall’. I think it could better be described as a pretty big success story.
Additionally, this particular episode at Corinth occurred approximately 200 years before the Empire really reached it’s peak, and, far from hindering the development of the Roman world, this incident, and many others like it, only served to strengthen its reputation and intimidate its potential rivals.
For 444 days, while our hapless President Jimmy Carter dithered and dallied with endless and empty diplomatic negotiations, our helpless 70 American citizens suffered the painful privations and unknown perils of their captivity. Only when a new president was sworn into office, an altogether different kind of man, whom they suspected might actually resort to force, were the hostages [not] released.
These, then, are the lessons from Corinth in 146 B.C., and from Tehran in 1979 A. D. Somewhere between these two extreme reactions there is an eternal truth.
There are times when force is the only answer.
These are his warriors
This is his ambition
And this is the threat
Will we be the Strong horse?
Or the Weak Horse?
» Filed Under History, Islamicfascism, News, War On Terror, military
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “The Strong Horse and the Weak Horse: America and the Fall of the Roman Empire”
Leave a Reply
Well I agree with your Roman Empire part of the story. But then you go into how Iran is our enemy? How so? Even IF (and thats a big IF) Iran was able to build a nuclear weapon, do you really think that it would be able to hit American soil? American Soil as in the 50 States of America. Not “interest”, not “allies”, and not who ever, but SOIL.
Heres the short answer for you. No, they couldn’t.
It was their ruthlessness that made it possible for them to hold together for so long. Set the morals arguments aside entirely. We’re trying to exert influence across the entire globe and we don’t even have any plunder to show for it. That’s not a winning formula, my friend.
Even if you believe that our actions overseas are a net benefit to the world, we’re doing nothing more than subsidizing the world on the backs of the American worker. It may still be a century or two away, but it’s literally only a matter of time before the strain becomes too much to bear.
regularron,
All it takes is one ship in one of our ports with a nuke on a timer. Port cargo is only spot checked at a rate of 1%.
And the Iranian mullahs are nuts enough to do it.
1. It’s a wee bit harder than you make it sound.
2. “All it takes” to do what? Obviously a real nuke (as opposed to a dirty bomb, which is mostly harmless) would have tragic results, but it would faaaaar from the end of civilization.
If this is really such a threat, wouldn’t it be just a tad bit cheaper to defend it by checking most, if not all, cargo rather than whatever pre-emptive approach you might be advocating?
“…as opposed to a dirty bomb, which is mostly harmless)”
Honestly, there are some comments that I just don’t know how to respond to. And this is one of them.
And I agree Regularon. It is a real possibility, and they are nuts enough to do it. Thanks.
If you’re losing sleep over dirty bombs, you should do a bit more research.
As long as a decontamination team responds in a reasonable amount of time, it would not even come close to being considered a catastrophic event. Tragic for a few people of course, but a mosquito bite compared to a real nuclear attack.
OK Jeff. Whatever you say.
You didn’t notice the link in my last post? It’s not what I say.
Try the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
A dirty bomb is the equivalent of turning on an x-ray machine in a crowded room. It’s not a good thing, but any panic it causes will be worse than the actual event.
If this is really such a threat, wouldn’t it be just a tad bit cheaper to defend it by checking most, if not all, cargo rather than whatever pre-emptive approach you might be advocating?
That depends on the city. Imagine two such devices going off in New York and Los Angeles. You seem to be thinking only of the cost of the explosions, themselves, and the damage cleanup. Try thinking geometrically for a change (a challenge for you) and consider what other consequences come from, say, wiping out tens of thousands of people (at least), Wall Street, a few airports, and the compromising of what little port security there is.
Panday, in that statement I was comparing the relative costs of two methods of prevention, not the cost of failure and I’ll ask my question again: if this is such a big threat, why do inspect such a minuscule portion of incoming ships? I know it’s not cheap, but nothing about our defense budget is cheap. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year and the powers that be don’t seem concerned enough about this particular threat to divert much money towards it.
And the only statement I made about the cost of a successful attack was “Obviously a real nuke would have tragic results, but it would faaaaar from the end of civilization.” I stand by that statement.
I have seldom seen such nonsense regarding a dirty bomb. Depending upon its composition you could render downtown DC uninhabitable for decades but I suppose that’s why when the Brits used islands off the coast of Scotland to test biological agents they rendered those islands unfit for humans even after sixty years. But we are told this is the equivalent of turning on an x ray machine. Right.
Depending on the rems released you could see people dying within hours, see that in a xray exam do you?
See what 600 rems of expouse wiull do for your day after an hour folks.
The article might have used Masada as a better example. When the zealots revolted they were crushed. They retreated to an insignificant outpost where they posed no threat. The Romans devoted enormous time and effort to display and demonstrate they would spare no expense to destroy their enemies totally. The lesson was taught and the world learned.
A dirty bomb is not a biological agent. It’s simply and explosive design to spread radioactive material.
Yes, people will die. A dirty bomb is not a Good Thing ™, but it doesn’t come anywhere close to being a WMD.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
Do your own research if you don’t believe the the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is credible.