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:
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...
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment