Can the Roman Empire and the United States be compared through literature?

[pentazoid]

Any good book on the Roman Empire that draws comparisons between the Roman empire and the United States , since like Roman, the United States started out as a republic?

 

[Proton Soup]

dunno, but i'd be interested, as well. i think there are a lot of similarities.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd recommend Peter Heather's book
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195325419/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The book addresses both the impact of the Barbarian Invasions on the Roman empire as well as the emperors themselves. Basically many of the emperors became emperor through assassination. In some cases, I believe the Senate selected an emperor by vote.

Fortunately, the system in the US is more benign.

Only the characters of the presidential nominees get assassinated - well maybe not, but they get pretty roughed up.

I don't know if there is such a book that compared Roman Emperors and the Imperial system with the US Presidents and the US system, but

The Roman Emperors (Hardcover)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0760700915/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Maybe arildno, marcus or Evo can recommend something.

Or try this thread - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89577

 

[arildno]

Any good book on the Roman Empire that draws comparisons between the Roman empire and the United States , since like Roman, the United States started out as a republic?

I don't see the relevance of such a comparison, not the least since the Roman state started out as a kingdom.

 

[pentazoid]

I don't see the relevance of such a comparison, not the least since the Roman state started out as a kingdom.

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now. Like the united states, government grew to a gargantuan size, providing services for the Romans through taxes, much like government supported programs in the US. Rome was a superpower , much like the US is a superpower today.

 

[Evo]

There really is no comparison between the two. That's why you won't find a comparison between the two.

 

[tiny-tim]

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now …

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

who was it in debt to? ​

and is it true that new york, like rome, was built on seven hills? ​

 

[arildno]

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now.

No, the Roman state was NOT in debt, but many of its citizens were. To the Roman state.

Like the united states, government grew to a gargantuan size, providing services for the Romans through taxes, much like government supported programs in the US.

Complete nonsense. There were not really any "welfare programs" to the benefit of its ordinary citizens that heavily strained the resources of the state.

You have messed up the meaning of the "annona", the regular corn supply to metropolises like Rome and Constantinople:
Corn was requisitioned (for Rome, from North Africa, for Constantinople, from Egypt), more than it was bought. (I.e, the Roman state had few expenses with it).
It is true that the land-holders (i.e, those who were required to provide) had to sell the corn at fixed, low prices, yet as a recompense, they were given virtual monopolies to sell other commodities, like wine, oil, etc.
(It was, at least for the major players, a very lucrative business!).

Anyhow, the Roman state did not overburden its own resources by keeping these "welfare programs" running.



In general, it is not at all fruitful to make such a comparison, because the conditions regulating economic and political life are so different:
First off, the extensive grants of privileges and monopolies totally changes the economic dynamic in a society. (A free-market economist would say it f*cks it up, but that merely means it works along other, alien lines)

Secondly, in order to understand the financial crisis the Roman state went into during the fifth century, you should first single out what was just about its only major budget post: The expenses for the army.
When large tax domains fell out of Roman control due to the barbarian invasions, the Roman state lost its ability to pay its own soldiers.
This resulted in an accelerating crumbling process, where the region the Roman state was able to exert direct control over became gradually constricted, until it "vanished" altogether.

I am at a loss to see how this process of disintegration has much relevance for the study of contemporary US economics and politics.

 

[CarmenV]

"The New Rome?"
-the fall of an empire and fate of America.
by: Cullen Murphy

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

 

[tiny-tim]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

who was it in debt to? ​

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

I'm confused …

are you saying that Rome was in debt to the Han empire, and Alexander the Great?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused …

are you saying that Rome was in debt to the Han empire, and Alexander the Great?

I was referring to your phrase: "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." (which is all I quoted) and the second paragraph (which you omitted in your quote) refers to the US debt. You know this. Stop playing games.

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were. Rome traded with both, although only indirectly with the Han via India and the Silk Road. And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

 

[tiny-tim]

What did the Romans ever do for Alexander the Great?

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were.

​

And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

Rome used imperial currency, and Big Alex used metric?

All the bullion stage-coaches were pillaged by the Vikings?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

​

Rome used imperial currency, and Big Alex used metric?

All the bullion stage-coaches were pillaged by the Vikings?

Nice try. Alexander was long dead when the Roman Imperial regime was instituted in 27 BC and his heirs had lost their empires to Rome, the Parthians and local powers in Central Asia like Samarkand. The Vikings pillaged your country at a later time. Beware. They might come back.

 

[Evo]

SW, if you have a point, please state it clearly and then furnish links to the peer-reviewed research that backs up what you say. We don't allow making statements without furnishing the research that goes with it.

Thank you.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

SW, if you have a point, please state it clearly and then furnish links to the peer-reviewed research that backs up what you say. We don't allow making statements without furnishing the research that goes with it.

Thank you.

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.

 

[Evo]

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.

Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.

No, these parts i will overlook.

It's this post which needs to be clearly re-stated since we don't quite get what you meant and that needs links to the research that vaildates what you say.

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.

No, these parts i will overlook.

It's this post which needs to be clearly re-stated since we don't quite get what you meant and that needs links to the research that vaildates what you say.

I hope I don't need a citation to state that the Roman Empire never included Persia, China or India. Nor do I think a citation to say the US has written constitution and democratic institutions. As For contacts between the Han and Rome :

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/romanenvoy.shtml

other info:

http://roman-empire.net

By the way, I checked out these sites after writing the posts. I read books.

 

[Evo]

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.

That's not how it's done here. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with vaild research. Also, I can't really make sense of what you are trying to say, please make a post clearly stating your point as it seems to have fallen apart.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

First Evo, Aroldno made a number of much more detailed claims in post 8 without references and was not called on it. Everything I said, with the possible exception of the Roman-Han connection, is well within the public domain. My link for this is short but to the point. The Silk Road Society is a respected historical association. You can click on their links. The Roman Empire link is major Google project gathering information on the Roman Empire. My reworded response to the above quote is as follows:

What do you mean by the "known" world? Known by whom? Your view is quite Euro-centric. The Roman Empire never extended beyond Mesopotamia, and it held that region for a very short time. In any case, contacts between the West and India go back at least to the time of Alexander the Great. The Romans knew about lands they didn't conquer and traded with them.

http://www.roman-empire.net

http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0937

EDIT: The Wiki also has an excellent well referenced article on 'Roman Trade' but I suppose I can't cite that.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.

I fully expect the same level of scrutiny by you for all posts in this forum. When it comes to history there are many things that are in the public domain as opposed to the physical or biological sciences where statements that are not easily verified should be cited. Historical research today focuses mostly on the finer points, not on whether the Roman Empire contained the entire "known" world.

EDIT: I wasn't able to quote both you and tiny-tim in the previous post (#20), but the first paragraph is directed to you. I trust my re-written post with links meets with your approval.

 

[Evo]

I fully expect the same level of scrutiny by you for all posts in this forum. When it comes to history there are many things that are in the public domain as opposed to the physical or biological sciences where statements that are not easily verified should be cited. Historical research today focuses mostly on the finer points, not on whether the Roman Empire contained the entire "known" world.

It's pretty much a given that we consider the Roman Empire to have been most of the "known world" then. Anyone familiar with history will understand the use of this term.

Why are the events of the first century so critical in shaping our perception of the Romans?
I think that this period was important in shaping of the Roman Empire. We take the series through the dynasty developed by Augustus – how it grew, almost destroyed itself and then how it survived. It's a period of great expansion, when the known world is literally ruled by Rome.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/series/interview_lyn.html

Did you ever study history in college?

Arildno is quite an expert on ancient history and doesn't make overly speculative posts. Of course, if you aren't fasmiliar with something he says, please do ask for sources. Until you have a proven record of knowing what you are talking about, sources are definitely required.

 

[Evo]

EDIT: I wasn't able to quote both you and tiny-tim in the previous post (#20), but the first paragraph is directed to you. I trust my re-written post with links satisfies the the requirements.

I didn't see where you reposted sources citing the claims you made and a link to those sources.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Where is the source of your claims of economic problems in Rome that are similar to the US?

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

When you make a specific claim, you should then post a link to the source as well as posting the specific paragraphs that confirm your post.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's pretty much a given that we consider the Roman Empire to have been most of the "known world" then. Anyone familiar with history will understand the use of this term.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/series/interview_lyn.html

It's a given if you maintain an extreme euro-centric point of view. That's hardly the kind of citation you've asked of me. Anyone truly familiar with history will know this claim is a delusion of euro-centric historians and probably of many Romans. However, even they asked where their silk came from.

Did you ever study history in college?

Arildno is quite an expert on ancient history and doesn't make overly speculative posts. Of course, if you aren't fasmiliar with something he says, please do ask for sources. Until you have a proven record of knowing what you are talking about, sources are definitely required.

I did study history in college and for years after. I stand by what I said and a glance and the few (of many possible) sources that I linked will show I'm correct. The known world extended far beyond the limits of the Roman Empire and if adrildno knows history, he knows this. Are you saying Alexander the Great didn't reach India when Rome was just a city state? The Romans fought wars with the Parthians and traded with India. I'm not going to spend my time developing an exhaustive bibliography for people that don't know these basic facts. At least read the second link in post 20.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Where is the source of your claims of economic problems in Rome that are similar to the US?

I never made that claim.

 

[Evo]

I never made that claim.

Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

I was referring to your phrase: "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." (which is all I quoted) and the second paragraph (which you omitted in your quote) refers to the US debt. You know this. Stop playing games.

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were. Rome traded with both, although only indirectly with the Han via India and the Silk Road. And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

Also, you don't seem to get the "known world" reference. From the perspective of Rome, yes it was most of the "known world". This would be lands well known, mapped, etc... Of course doesn't include the "known world" of people living in Asia, southern Africa, and the yet to be discovered peoples of North and South America, etc... Your personal opinion is just that and is not the generally accepted meaning. We're going with the generally accepted meaning.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?

It was a separate paragraph addressing the issue posed earlier which drew an equivalence between the US and the Roman Empire. I tried the multi-quote but couldn't get it to work. The issue of debt was brought up in tiny-tim's post which made the assumption "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." and then linked that to a reference to Rome's debt.

You don't seem to get the "known world" reference. From the perspective of Rome, yes it was most of the "known world". This would be lands well known, mapped, etc... Of course doesn't include the "known world" of people living in Asia, southern Africa, and the yet to be discovered peoples of North and South America, etc... Your personal opinion is just that and is not the generally accepted meaning. We're going with the generally accepted meaning.

Known by whom? Not yet discovered by whom? Rome's knowledge of its own territories was of course greater then what lay beyond the Empire's boundaries. The Han's knowledge their territory was greater than what lay beyond their territory and so on for India, Persia, and the civilizations of Central Asia which were all linked by trade networks. The Euro-centric view where you use the term "known world" without qualification is out of date and frankly smacks of white supremacy. It's not necessarily understood the same way by non-Europeans as it is by Europeans (and Euro-Americians). Europe is not the center of the world or its history anymore. We can be proud of our Western heritage (Greece and Rome) without marginalizing other heritages. Have you examined any recent world history texts and compared them to texts of fifty years ago? Certainly China and India's heritages should not be overlooked in a multi-cultural world. Their history is not less worthy of the attention of historians. Why even say "known world"? What's the matter with the 'Mediterranean World' or simply the 'Western World' in terms of describing the Roman Empire?

 

[tiny-tim]

"known world"

Why even say "known world"? …

Because you can only be in debt to what you regard as the known world.

 

[arildno]

1. I would like to say that SW Vandecarr is most likely right that the Roman Empire knew about the Han Empire.

2. I do not know if the Silk Road was yet in existence (but it seems likely), but they did have extensive trade connections with India circumventing the areas controlled by the Sassanian Empire (i.e, the Persians) by following the sea-lanes by way of nowadays Yemen and the Red Sea.
As an aside, the Silk Road was in existence in the sixth centure, when the Byzantine Empire broke the silk monopoly and began their own production of silk, both on the Anatolian heartland, and later on, at Sicily.

3. Even if Han Empire products might possibly not reach Rome by the direct landward road through the Sassanian Empire, it could easily have reached Rome by the route sketched in 2. It would not be an unlikely scenario at all, in my view.

4. The phrase "the known world":
SW Vandecarr: I ought to have had a reference on this, but I am quite sure that the Romans prided THEMSELVES for having conquered "nearly the whole known world".

That the Romans were an arrogant, conceited lot is a truism, and far more Romano-centric than any latterday European could be said to be Eurocentric. The Romans were as Romanocentric as the Chinese were Sino-centric and so on.

The phrase "the known world" is NOT a descriptive phrase, it is a normative phrase "the world WORTH KNOWING" (barbarian countries not worth knowing at all, from the Roman point of view").
Thus, apart from the Mediterranean civilization, the various high civilizations of Persia would be grudgingly included in the phrase (because they were foes the Romans could respect).


India and China, of course, were exotic countries the Romans practically knew very little about, in particular geographic extent; it was sort of fairy-tale countries to them.


Whether they included them in their phrase "the known world" is rather beside the point; the blithely arrogant, and ignorant, Romans still went about regarding "the known world" as mainly consisting of the Rome-dominated Mediterranean (plus Presia) in the midst of sea of barbarians not worth knowing about.


Continuing to use "the known world" in a Roman normative sense (rather than descriptive, in which case YOU would be right), has become a European convention.

 

[arildno]

The following article from (ugh!) Wikipedia has much interesting stuff on Roman-Chinese relations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China

That a half-dozen formal, or for the most part, IN-formal embassies (or, more likely, merchant groupings) can be documented for a period of several centuries does NOT in any way constitute an argument that for the most part, China was for the Romans a country shrouded in legend and mystery, a fairy-tale country.