At the height of the Roman Empire, sometime early in the 2nd century, Juvenal wrote
Satire X, which in part criticized the Romans' obsession with entertainment. It
was from this work that the term "bread and circuses" arose. Juvenal essentially
complained about the citizenry in his time who sought naught but entertainment and
food. Furthermore, he decried the rulers for placating to the masses.
Obviously, there is are parallels in today's world. Humans, on the whole,
tend to feed upon the things that make them happy, and we apparently have not changed
in that aspect during the past 2000 years or so. We like to eat, and so we
become gluttonous and obese. We like to be entertained, and so we fawn upon
our entertainers and live vicariously through their performances. This is
in our nature and not easily conquered.
The question I had recently was this: Because we are essentially the same in nature
as we were 2000 years ago, could we, the United States of America and the world's
current preeminent power (both militarily and economically), be following in the
footsteps of the greatest ancient empire of Rome?
I read a bit of summary data from various theories in an attempt to answer this
question. Apparently, there are literally hundreds of theories that try to
explain the fall, and they fall into four general classifications:
- General all-encompassing
decay
- Monocausal
decay
- Catastrophic
collapse
- Transformation
So far, my money is on the economic/military theories in the all-encompassing decay
group. I highly doubt a singular cause would collapse a huge empire, unless
of course that catastrophe just happened to take the form of a falling asteroid.
Those theories base themselves on the devastating effects of disease, environmental
collapse, or lead poisoning--to name a few. They form some valid arguments,
but the critics often make more sense.
I also lean a bit toward the transformation theories, mainly because they mesh so
very well with a decaying-society approach and see history as an analogous conglomeration,
instead of a sharp delineation of static periods in time. In this viewpoint, Rome
didn't actually fall; it merely proceeded along an inevitable course, which continues
to this day.
Some may feel that the USA is currently headed toward a destiny similar to the ancient
Romans, either perched upon a great precipice or rotted thoroughly from the inside.
Perhaps a few also believe that an outbreak of a devastating disease, a la
World War Z or Contagion, may collapse our house-of-cards financial institutions.
One or two people I know think a citizen uprising will oust the old system
and herald in the new.
It all sounds like to much noise, these doomsday theories and ill-thought threats.
Are we really headed for a calamitous disaster, or are we just riding the
same old rails of inevitability?
Like ours, ancient Rome had a complex economy. Their wealth relied on conquered
territories and tax laws. Our economy is likewise very complex, and, although
we don't necessarily pillage all the lands we now conquer, some of the great drivers
of our world economy
derive their wealth from resources abroad. The USA
also taxes its citizenry, but one can hardly believe that today's financial realities
could ever be compared to ancient Rome's.
Or, can it?
Historians Michael Rostovtzeff and Ludwig von Mises postulate an interesting
cause and effect scenario in ancient Rome, eerily similar to our own. They
felt that their market led to artificially low prices of food, which affected trade
in such a way that cities suffered from food shortages. Details of Rostovtzeff's
theories can be found in volumes 1 and 2 of
The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Overproduction
of wine and olive oil led to a large surplus with little demand, as these products
were inferior to those in Greece and Spain. Again, exports fell, causing a
huge trade imbalance.
In today's world, the
USA also suffers from a trade imbalance. Because
so much production has moved to other nations, we cannot provide enough for ourselves
and must import to satisfy demand.
Rome's emperors increasingly depended upon their armies as the sole source
of power, especially when she campaigned to acquire lands and resources far away
from Italy. Armies needed vast amounts of resources (food, weapons, vehicles)
for their continued operation. Larger armies meant the need for more money,
military supplies, and food. The emperors had no choice but to raise taxes.
The United States currently employs the largest military force in the world. The
logistics of maintenance now are different from 100 A.D., but the essentials are
the same. The US needs money, production, and supplies if it wants to keep
an active military force. Because our exports are so low, the government has
no choice but to raise taxes.
Current efforts in the legislative branches, in retrospect, call for adjustments
to distribution of current tax revenues, but even one-celled organisms can see that
any redistribution will only delay the inevitable: higher taxes. Furthermore,
if taxes will continue to lower for our aristocracy, then the increased burden will
surely fall upon the middle and lower classes.
Ancient Rome proceeded along a similar path. Their aristocracy suffered little
from taxes, and their laws gave them many avenues to increase their wealth without
doing anything illegal. Their middle class citizenry suffered the worst from
taxes, and they too gravitated toward our current
99-1 income ratio.
One happy note can be gleaned, however, from history. The Roman emperor Hadrian
reformed much of Rome's economy and set it on a better footing. We may yet
see our own Hadrian take office in the future.
The fact that several similarities exist only points to our desire to predict the
future. For example, Nostradamus quatrains, while at times seeming to describe
future events, could only have done so after the fact. Any parallels between
his writings and historical events were based solely on huge leaps in subjective
reasoning.
So it is with ancient Rome and the United States of America. We have taken
instances from centuries of history and applied it to generalizations in current
times. Rome's changes were glacial in progress.
The more reasoned examination of today's situation would lead to a rather boring
conclusion. Change will come gradually, yet on a logical course determined
by the constant flow of actions from us all.
The Roman Empire had approximately 147 emperors rule the lands, from 27 B.C. until
A.D. 1432--1459 years. That works out to an average of 10 years per emperor.
Barack Obama is our 44th president, and each of those 44 ruled for an average
of 5 years (224 years as a nation divided by 44 presidents). Clearly, our
time spent as a nation--and not always the preeminent nation--pales to the amount
of time ancient Rome existed.
But, if you really have to draw parallels, then we can expect taxes to rise, exports
to fall, monetary value to plummet, military power to wane, emancipation of conquered
lands, and one or two really outrageous presidents. Think: Caligula and Nero...
