I’ve seen enough death up close, thanks. The people who would watch an execution are fools.
i should hope that people would watch one, not really knowing what to expect, and then never want to watch another one.
and i expect the question about bin laden was more vitriole than an actual opinion. “why, i’d like to see that fucker’s brains blown out on national television!”
I wouldn’t be so sure; executions were public spectacles back in the 18th century. Everyone would show up in their Sunday best.
I’d only watch if it were a Running Man competition. And he fought with Jesse Ventura.
Why is it that I always see America parallel ancient Rome?
Because its true. Whether you’re a secularist or a religious zealot… its plain as day, in 2004, we don’t have our shit together. Not just America, but the world in general. We are the Roman Empire on speed… and we’ll fall faster and harder… sorry!
etc
I think the comparisons to the United States of 2004 and a Roman Empire in decline are easy to draw, which is why the parallel is fairly common.
Roman Empire: Bread and circuses to keep the plebians quiet and satisfied.
American Empire: Mass Media (Television, Movies, etc…) and lotteries to keep the plebians quiet and satisfied.
Roman Empire: Gladatorial arenas where men fought to the death to entertain.
American Empire: National sports leagues (NFL, NBA, etc…) where men fight for tropies and to entertain.
Roman Empire: Latin becomes the standard alternate language of communication between people of different countries with different linguistic backgrounds.
American Empire: English becomes the standard alternate language of communication between people of different countries with different linguistic backgrounds.
Roman Empire: Barbarians at the gates.: Goths, Vandals, etc… The threats to the empire were many, and from peoples long considered “savages”.
American Empire: Barbarians at the gates: fundamentalist Muslim extremist terrorists, the Chinese and Indian economic threats. Third world countries all vying to take the Empire down a peg, either through terrorist threat or economic action.
Roman Empire: Dominating military power of its time, using advanced technologies to maintain its far flung holdings.
American Empire: Dominating military power of its time, using advanced technologies to maintain… well, you know what I mean.
Roman Empire: A key, ruling elite controlled all the major decisions of the Empire.
American Empire: Pretty much the same thing, though the size of the ‘elite’ has certainly increased.
We can play this game all day :) I love doing the Roman Empire = American Empire thing. History really does repeat, I guess. :)
Don’t worry. If we go down, we’ll make sure to take our ungrateful neighbors to the North down with us. ;)
(And this is a liberal talking!)
Was Rome really that advanced in terms of military technology?
[quote=“Mike Jamieson”]
Was Rome really that advanced in terms of military technology?[/quote]
Compared to the barbarian hordes they faced yes.
They failed to innovate technology though - they prefered tried and tested mechanisms.
But if you fill out that little mini poll on the right, the numbers currently show 54% of respondents would not watch a televised execution.
Oh definitely. During the late Republic and early Empire, Roman legions weren’t just tactically and strategically superior, they were also better equipped than most of their adversaries.
As time passed on though, only the Roman organizational advantage remained. They didn’t adopt stirrups which permitted heavy cavalry. They never worked on better weapons or armor, and they failed to develop new tactics to deal with newer threats (like heavy cavalry or invading large forces of poorly armed and armored tribes.)
Wait, so two-thirds of Americans support televised executions, and yet a good number of those same people are out complaining about violence in videogames?
Aspirin, please.
It would be nice if an execution was required watching for those that are pro-death penalty. Maybe if they realized that real death isn’t as clean as t.v. death they might change their minds.
Oh definitely. During the late Republic and early Empire, Roman legions weren’t just tactically and strategically superior, they were also better equipped than most of their adversaries.
As time passed on though, only the Roman organizational advantage remained. <snip>[/quote]
I guess I was thinking about the late Empire. I mean, if we are going to use the analogy to paint America as an empire on the threshold of collapse, the late Empire seems more appropriate. The overall tech stagnation, especially their failure to employ the stirrup was one I remember from high school.
Well, the late empire did adopt those heavily armored horses from the Persians. That’s about it, though.
I’m not saying I’m all gung-ho about capital punishment, but that statement is a little obtuse. Should everyone who is pro-choice be forced to watch an abortion being performed?
The technological stagnation was more a symptom than a cause of Roman decline. Much like the debasement of Roman currency or the increasing use of mercenaries and a rotisserie of Emperors are symptoms.
I think the key fact is that the Roman Empire ceased to be economically viable. Italians couldn’t compete with Egypt in farming, which displaced a lot of people and concentrated land in the hands of the wealthy. They’d continue to produce, using slave labor, while the displaced would move to the cities, to different provinces, or if they stuck by their land, they’d make do with subsistence farming.
The concentration of economic and political power in very few hands produced competitions for the ear or even the position of the Emperor which became ever more vicious. Ordinary Romans were pretty much left to fend for themselves as Rome became a battleground for the wealthy. Internal concerns preoccupied the state.
Everyday Romans had little vested interest in Rome. The pool for legionnairies was shrinking since they had to be land owners, but who would want to fight for a state that didn’t care for them?
The tenacity of Republican Rome was gone. How many fleets did Rome send against the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War. Fleets smashed by enemy action, by storms, by shoals - and every time this happened, Rome came back with a stronger fleet. How many legions did Hannibal smash? The Romans always came back - they stopped fighting him directly after the fourth or fifth battle, but they kept harassing him while marching towards Carthage.
For all we know, some important Senators made SURE that Roman armor would be outdated, because they owned companies that made the traditional armor and didn’t want to give up a competitive advantage.
You could argue that modern day lobbyists are like the Praetorians of yesteryear. Not as vicious, but if a President doesn’t do as he’s told, he loses their support and doesn’t come back. You could also argue that today’s big companies, who own the lobbies, are like the powerful families of Rome who bought the Praetorians.
Look at the “service economy” and “supply-side economics”. How similar is that to Roman citizens moving to the cities from the farms, with big families providing the “supply” while Romans produced little and simply “serviced” each other.
Is the national debt like the debased currency?
I don’t know. All theory and speculation.
Not after the reforms of Marius in the late 2nd c. BC. His reforms were controversial precisely because he did away with the land ownership requirement so he could get the armies he needed to fight Jugurtha in Africa and then the Germans. And the Republic lived on for another 80 years and the Western empire for another 500.
And considering that Egypt was made a province at the beginning of the Imperial period, I fail to see how its competitive agricultural advantage eroded the Empire in any sizeable away. Yes, the larger estates in Italy pushed the Italian economy away from grain and into olives and grapes, but Sicliy remained a grain storehouse and the annexation of Egypt ended any problems with grain imports or grain prices (though the eradication of piracy also had a lot to do with it.)
Egypt gets attached to the Eastern Empire, but by then you also have signifcant agriculture in parts of Africa, too, so the Western Empire would have been fine grainwise most of the time.
It’s easy to overblow the comparisons between Rome and America. Not so long ago there was a celebrated article in some academic journal that tried to analyze American foreign relations through the Roman Republican prism (satellites, clients, allies, vassals, etc.)
The question, which seems to be debated here, is “Which Rome is America?” (It’s not the Late Empire, because there is still a very solid central government with legitimacy in the US. Plus a citizen army. And a strong currency.)
Troy