The Decline And Fall Of The American Empire

[Typo Fu Master]

This question has popped up in my mind a time or two before. Regrettably, I hated history, so I didn't pay much attention or retain much information from history class.

Anyway, I found this article over on Wikipedia about the fall of the Roman Empire. I noticed some similarities in some of the theories for its fall to America's current situation.

Specifically:

The historian Vegetius theorized and has recently been supported by the historian Arthur Ferrill that the Roman Empire declined and fell due to a combination of increasing contact with barbarians and the subsequent "barbarization", as well as a surge in decadence and the following lethargy. This resulted in complacency and ill-discipline among the legions, making it primarily a military issue.

We have had (and are having) contact with two types of "barbarians", namely terrorists and illegal immigrants. Many Americans, in my opinion, are also complacent and lethargic in the sense that they are willing to let the government make decisions for them.

Ludwig von Mises argued that the inflation and the price controls promoted by the later emperors destroyed the economic system of the ancient world, this leading into hyperinflation, deterioration of the imperial economical basis and transfer to barter economy instead of a more advanced monetary economy. The theory assumes the hyperinflation combined with price controls undermined the economic system of the empire, and it simply went into bankruptcy, unable to pay its legions. The theory further argues that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine empire) survived for over a millennium after the fall of the Western empire because of its smaller economic decline.

We don't have barter, but I think we are seeing a lot of inflation. We also have a very large deficit which shows little sign of being reduced in any significant way.

The source I quoted from maintains these are only theories, and I'm only offering them as parallels to similar situations that are happening now. This is not an attempt to brand America as an "empire" nor is it a direct comparison of America to the Roman Empire.

After I created this thread on the General Board I discovered this article. It supports my belief that rough times are ahead, possibly worse than people may think. The responses from the GB didn't seem to address this situation so I'm trying it over here to see what kind of feedback I get.

Do you think we'll see the collapse of America?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This question has popped up in my mind a time or two before. Regrettably, I hated history, so I didn't pay much attention or retain much information from history class.

Anyway, I found this article over on Wikipedia about the fall of the Roman Empire. I noticed some similarities in some of the theories for its fall to America's current situation.

Specifically:



We have had (and are having) contact with two types of "barbarians", namely terrorists and illegal immigrants. Many Americans, in my opinion, are also complacent and lethargic in the sense that they are willing to let the government make decisions for them.



We don't have barter, but I think we are seeing a lot of inflation. We also have a very large deficit which shows little sign of being reduced in any significant way.

The source I quoted from maintains these are only theories, and I'm only offering them as parallels to similar situations that are happening now. This is not an attempt to brand America as an "empire" nor is it a direct comparison of America to the Roman Empire.

After I created this thread on the General Board I discovered this article. It supports my belief that rough times are ahead, possibly worse than people may think. The responses from the GB didn't seem to address this situation so I'm trying it over here to see what kind of feedback I get.

Do you think we'll see the collapse of America?

All empires fall eventually, but America is not an Empire, in the traditional sense of the word. Empire, in the traditional sense of the word, is nearly impossible to maintain in the modern world. Frankly, the best ever at empire were the British and they realized at some point, the system just wasn't working as it used to. A lot of that is due to the fact that nationalist uprisings made colonies more expensive to maintain, than the economice good they were returning. Malaya, is a good example. It provided a scarece and neccessary raw material, in rubber. And it provided a decent concumer for Britian's goods. But it ceses to be profitable if you have to keep a standing army in country.

If America is an empire, then it is one that is operating in a way not seen before, as far as empires go. There are no provinces, no one to bleed white, and no one to force you to keep spending on your military to keep them in line. The country isn't locked into a cycle of expanding or dying either.

History says that the US will cease to be top dawg at some point. The exact mechanism, however, will probably be something new as the methodology of getting to the top has changed radically.

 

[neonlyte]

This question has popped up in my mind a time or two before. Regrettably, I hated history, so I didn't pay much attention or retain much information from history class.

Do you think we'll see the collapse of America?

Can you specify what you mean by 'collapse'. Economic, militarily, social structure?

The answer is no and yes - almost regardless of which specific criteria is used.

Africa is far closer to total collapse across all fronts than America. Japan underwent economic meltdown in the late 80's early 90's - still there. I could forecast a major shift in American alignment from an East West axis to a North South axis for reasons that would take the rest of the day to explain - but not in the near future (30 - 50 years).

It is possible to self inflict collapse, even that would probably be global on scale rather than confined to a single continent.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Jeez, Typo, what a question!

First of all, we could spend months debating what we mean by "empire" and whether the US even qualifies as one, and then more months trying to define what we mean by that empire's "fall".

Are you talking about empire in terms of military power? Economic power? Culutural influence? Material Wealth? Citizen welfare? Would it be a sign of "falling" if the US left the middle east militarily, say, and instead put its resources into outperforming China economically? Are we falling if we stop producing goods and start producing essential technology instead? Would it be a sign of collapse if the dominant WASP culture were replaced it by somerthing more liberal and cosmopolitan? Is it a sign of decay that we've begun to treat homosexuals as people and not as disease carriers? You could find people to argue pro or con on both sides of any of these questions.

Militarily, I don't think the US has anything to worry about for some time to come. The problem is, I think military force, while still necessary, isn't the key to power it used to be, and we put too much faith in it.

Economically, things aren't so rosy, and I personally think we're neglecting things now that we'll pay for later, big time. I doubt we'll be the economic juggernaut in the world in 20 years we are right now.

Culturally, things are changing, and whether that's a bad thing or good thing depends on what side of the cultural war you're on. White Anglo Saxon Protestants will be a minority in this country in 50 years or so. Is that what you mean by "fall"?

Empires, like trees, fall when they become so rigid that they lose the flexibility to adapt to a changing world. I don't expect the USA to be the same place in 20 years that it was 20 years ago, but I really don't expect that we'll be liviing in walled cities fighting off hordes of Islamic terrorists and greedy Mexicans and plowing our fields at night with horses and burning dung for fuel. There will always be those who say that we're going to hell in a handbasket, and they've been around since we were first conscious that we were doing pretty well as a country.

In my view, nations themselves are becoming obsolete, just like kingdoms and tribes have become obsolete. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on one's personal opinons.

Edited To Add: Personally, I think it's kind of quaint that we still measure power and national success in terms of material wealth. By that measure, of course, the USA always comes out on top. But material wealth is not the same as quality of life, something that much of the rest of the world has woken up to way before we have.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Can you specify what you mean by 'collapse'. Economic, militarily, social structure?

I don't have anything specific in mind. I think a combination of rising prices, illegal immigration, and dissatisfaction with the way the country is being run will have a big negative impact in just a few decades. I suppose the area hardest hit would be our economy.

I'm woefully ignorant on political matters and most of this is pure speculation on my part.

Colleen, I wasn't trying to label America as an empire, it just made a catchy title.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Yes, but material wealth sure increases the odds of "quality of life", Doc, depending of course on how you define it.

Though I agree with you about the WASP thing not being a threat. But of course I would. I'm white, but neither Anglo-Saxon (at least not mostly, I'm more German/Irish) nor Protestant (yep, I'm a pagan). The main concern that I have about illegals, besides their defiance of the law and enslavement is that they might not have a proper respect for the institutions of a free society and government, such as the Constitution, states' rights, etc. Think of it as the American equivalent of concern for the mos maiorum.

Do we have a lot of territory with people of various groups, plus troops occupying countries? Yes. But we're still more like the Republic than the Empire of Rome. We're still reluctant to take on more territory, just like they used to be. God help us when we become more eager.

 

[rgraham666]

America never was an empire in the classical sense. It never imposed its will on other cultures by force.

It imposed it in other ways, but not by force.

I'm reading a book right now, Blood, Tears And Folly by Len Deighton.

Although about WWII, he often goes back further in history to when Britain first became the world power.

It became so because of its manufacturing. The Brits were pretty much where the Industrial Revolution began. And they took advantage of it. So by the beginning of the 19th Century, they made the best and most manufactured goods.

But about the middle of the 19th, the people in charge decided that manufacturing wasn't nearly as profitable as finance, so they became the world's financiers and their manufacturing fell by the wayside.

It worked for a while. They financed the industrial infrastructure of other nations. Most noticeably, America and Germany.

But Britain bankrupted itself in WWI. And America and Germany no longer needed their support. By WWII, British ships were built with Czech steel and armed with Swiss and Swedish AA guns. Their tanks blew chunks and they needed American aircraft instruments as they couldn't make their own.

Now Britain's just one nation among many.

Does this story sound familiar?

 

[neonlyte]

I don't have anything specific in mind. I think a combination of rising prices, illegal immigration, and dissatisfaction with the way the country is being run will have a big negative impact in just a few decades. I suppose the area hardest hit would be our economy.

I'm woefully ignorant on political matters and most of this is pure speculation on my part.

Colleen, I wasn't trying to label America as an empire, it just made a catchy title.

Then I think we are done here unless anyone wants to play the Speculation game

As Doc says, the American military might is unchallengeable, as long as they remain judicious in its application. Economically, any country west of the Indian sub continent is going to undergo tough times; we are only just catching on and may have left it too late, in some cases, to avoid a period of economic decline. The great thing about economics is the supply side, as the East gets richer so the West becomes more competitive. Socially - it's changing all the time, we only truely recognise it in history books.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Jeez, Typo, what a question!

First of all, we could spend months debating what we mean by "empire" and whether the US even qualifies as one, and then more months trying to define what we mean by that empire's "fall".

Are you talking about empire in terms of military power? Economic power? Culutural influence? Material Wealth? Citizen welfare? Would it be a sign of "falling" if the US left the middle east militarily, say, and instead put its resources into outperforming China economically? Are we falling if we stop producing goods and start producing essential technology instead? Would it be a sign of collapse if the dominant WASP culture were replaced it by somerthing more liberal and cosmopolitan? Is it a sign of decay that we've begun to treat homosexuals as people and not as disease carriers? You could find people to argue pro or con on both sides of any of these questions.

Militarily, I don't think the US has anything to worry about for some time to come. The problem is, I think military force, while still necessary, isn't the key to power it used to be, and we put too much faith in it.

Economically, things aren't so rosy, and I personally think we're neglecting things now that we'll pay for later, big time. I doubt we'll be the economic juggernaut in the world in 20 years we are right now.

Culturally, things are changing, and whether that's a bad thing or good thing depends on what side of the cultural war you're on. White Anglo Saxon Protestants will be a minority in this country in 50 years or so. Is that what you mean by "fall"?

Empires, like trees, fall when they become so rigid that they lose the flexibility to adapt to a changing world. I don't expect the USA to be the same place in 20 years that it was 20 years ago, but I really don't expect that we'll be liviing in walled cities fighting off hordes of Islamic terrorists and greedy Mexicans and plowing our fields at night with horses and burning dung for fuel. There will always be those who say that we're going to hell in a handbasket, and they've been around since we were first conscious that we were doing pretty well as a country.

In my view, nations themselves are becoming obsolete, just like kingdoms and tribes have become obsolete. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on one's personal opinons.

Edited To Add: Personally, I think it's kind of quaint that we still measure power and national success in terms of material wealth. By that measure, of course, the USA always comes out on top. But material wealth is not the same as quality of life, something that much of the rest of the world has woken up to way before we have.

Ok, I see using the word "empire" was a bad choice. People are focusing too much on it. I don't consider America to be an empire.

What I'm trying to accomplish here is to gather opinions on whether you think America, as it exists now, in all its 50 state glory, with all the freedoms we currently enjoy, will continue on as a nation, or be torn apart, either from within, or by outside agency. I honestly think that's a real possibility. I think it ties in to our reliance on fossil fuels. As they grow scarcer, they will cause an increase in the price of consumer goods. I don't know if anyone went to read the article I linked to, but here's a quote from Part 1:

First, the agricultural revolution is not simply a prehistoric event associated with the Neolithic. It has spanned the entire course of human endeavor from 10000 BC until the present time. Consider that as recently as 1800, 80% of the workforce in the USA, 85% worldwide, was engaged in agriculture. By 1900 these figures were 38% and 70% respectively. By 1950 the figures were 13% for the USA, 60% worldwide. Presently, according to the UN FAO website, the percent of workforce employed in agriculture is about 2% in the USA and about 22% worldwide. The agricultural revolution accelerated in modern times, and is reaching an ultimate limit where only a tiny fraction of the population produces food. Since the risks associated with an advancing wave reach their maximum threat at the height of the wave, it stands to reason that the risks associated with the agricultural revolution are at a maximum threat level right now

This article was written in 2001 and those figures may be different now, but are unlikely to be far off.

I guess I'm trying to get people to notice that things won't go on the way they are forever, and we need to be aware of that, and either take personal steps to provide for ourselves in the event that it happens, or actively try to prevent it from happening at all.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't have anything specific in mind. I think a combination of rising prices, illegal immigration, and dissatisfaction with the way the country is being run will have a big negative impact in just a few decades. I suppose the area hardest hit would be our economy.

I'm woefully ignorant on political matters and most of this is pure speculation on my part.

Colleen, I wasn't trying to label America as an empire, it just made a catchy title.

Hey Typo--

I don't know how old you are, but I'm up there now, and I can tell you that they've been predicting the collapse of America and the End of The World for as long as I can remember. If it wasn't communism and the bomb, it was environmental disaster and DDT. If it wasn't Greedy Runaway Capitalism, then it was Lazy Welfare Cheats sucking the money from out pockets.

Two things have changed though: (1) The country has become far more bitterly polarized into Reds and Blues in a way that truly is alarming and I think is seriously threatening our way of government. We seem to have forgotten that democracy is designed to run on compromise and dynamic tension.

(2) The news media has lost all credibility and now functions almost solely as political entertainment. It's in their interest to whip up hysteria and blow each and every problem into a civilization-threatening crisis. Even the weatherman now treats every little snow fall like it's the end of the fucking world.

As for rising prices, you probably don't recall the 12% inflation under Ford and Carter. We managed. It gets serious when it starts getting into the hundred per cents, or like --where was it?--Argentina or something where it was running at something like 1200%.

On the other hand, it's true. I don't have the kind of life my parents had, and my kids won't have it as good as I have it. The days when the USA was the world's 900-lb economic gorilla are probably gone forever.

 

[3113]

Can we get another comparison?

I don't know how old you are, but I'm up there now, and I can tell you that they've been predicting the collapse of America and the End of The World for as long as I can remember.

Too, true. And the big comparison is always to the Roman Empire.

Which is not a good comparison, even if people think we're watching tv like Romans watched gladiators and that we're as decadent as Nero and persecuting good Christians...

It's made worse by the way the Roman Empire's collapse has been protrayed: one day they were living it up with grapes and orgies and throwing people to the lions, the next, the barbarian hordes arrived and everyone died of lead poisoning. But modern historians actually see Rome's "collapse" as a tapering off--from one kind of power into another. This is because Rome continued to have influence and control over Europe for a loooong time. Can you say "Pope"? Can you say "Latin" as the common tongue? Really, the power of Rome didn't collapse all that badly or all that much.

If there's going to be a collapse of America, one day it just falls apart, it's going to take more than illegal immigrants and terrorist threats. That Avian Flu we're all worried about, THAT could really destroy us. Plagues can really undermine a civilization--rememer the Black Death? Or if global warming changes things enough to send us into a serious cold spell. Drop temperatures enough and that could undermine civilization as well. Make it hard to grow food and such. Our reliance on oil is our biggest problem when it comes to maintaining American civilization. And that, certainly, is going to create a downward turn. But we've had downward turns before as with the Great Depression.

Of course, if you really want to compare us to other civilizations--and see how we're doing, what dangers of collapse we might be facing, read:

Collapse

Fascinating book that examines many ancient empires and civilizations, how they rose and fell and disappeared, including common elements that helped them develop and succeed or not. This will give you much better comparisons to the U.S. and it's problems and future than that tired old chestnut, The Roman Empire.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I didn't realize America had been compared to the Roman Empire so frequently. It's just something that's been at the back of my mind for a while now.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We're more like the Republic, like I said. As for tapering off, well, I think it was a case of transformation from the Augustan Principate to a more despotic Empire that simply couldn't hold things together, despite Diocletian's, Constantine's, and Julian's efforts to hold it together in different ways. The despotic system was too expensive, oppressive, and unwieldy to last, so in time the overextended and exhausted Empire lost more and more land and power to the Germanic tribes and the Sassanid Empire.

3113 speaks of plagues. Actually, a plague that occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius was a major factor in the decline of the Empire. It decimated the native Roman population, thus forcing them to rely more on provincials and auxiliaries. By the time that the plague was over, people were used to others do their fighting for them. And that was a large factor in their downfall. It's one thing to recognize everyone as equal. It's quite another to rule people who do all of your fighting for you. That situation won't last, since they have a means of seizing power from you. You're at their mercy.

 

[oggbashan]

The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to fall and even after the whole Empire was split, the Eastern Empire continued for hundreds more years.

The US 'Empire' really dates from WWII. It has some time to go yet if the comparison is with Rome.

The British Empire grew over a couple of hundred years and its fall was started by the economic consequences of WWI and completed by WWII and its aftermath. It wasn't an Empire in the Roman sense, except perhaps in India.

The 'Empire' that really exists is the empire of the Western democracies acting as trading partners. That empire is challenged by the growth of China but possibly supported by India's aspirations as the world's most populous democracy. The economic benefits of world trade support that empire and change countries as their citizens seek improvement and self determination as individuals.

The US can be seen as a model or as a warning to other countries as they develop their own versions of an entreprenurial culture. Economic success is hard to give up once attained. With personal wealth comes personal freedoms to make choices denied to those just struggling to survive. That sort of aspiration drives peoples to emulate the US and therefore join the 'empire'.

Og

 

[Pure]

One possibility that might be mentioned is this --whether it's a prelude to a fall, or to a 1000 year Reich might be argued-- increasing authoritarianism, even to the point of tyranny, possibly in theocratic form, likely keeping up semblances of democracy, such as sham elections, a bit like Kazakhstan.

The increasing arbirtrary power of the Executive branch is the evidence, and its attempts to say 'we have the powers we say we have, fuck you Congress, and fuck you Supreme Ct.' There are now people detained whose names are not released and who are forbidden contact with lawyers. Which of such people 'disappear',then is impossible to determine. Some of course are merely given 'extraordinary rendition' [relocation] to a country that will even more easily dispose of them.

 

[3113]

I didn't realize America had been compared to the Roman Empire so frequently.

Oh, goodness, yes. There was a very popular book that created a lot of assumptions that Historians relied on regarding the rise and fall of the Roman Empire:

The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a major literary achievement of the Eighteenth Century, was written by the English historian, Edward Gibbon. Volume I was published in 1776, and went through five printings (a remarkable feat for its time). Volume II was printed in 1781, and the final one in 1788. The original volumes were not published together, but as quartos, a common publishing practice.

The books cover the period of the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius from just before 180 to 1453 and beyond, concluding in 1590. They take as their material the behavior and decisions that led to the decay and eventual fall of the Roman Empire in the East and West, offering an explanation on why the Roman Empire fell.

Often referred to as "the first modern historian", Gibbon was a precursor for the more advanced methodologies of 19th and 20th century historians regarding his objectivity and accuracy in the use of reference material. His pessimism and detached use of irony was common to the historical genre of that era.

This was THE book on the subject for a good 200 years, the one that everyone had and referred to when it came to examining the rise and fall of Rome. And you can see that, being published almost ominiously in 1776, it might well be used again and again in comparison to the U.S. and it's development as a nation/empire--as well as Britain, come to that.

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite authour says that the one driving force behind Western Civilization is its inferiority complex. We are so ashamed that we're not the Romans.

And so we've been seizing on facets of Roman culture to give ourselves legitimacy. 'The Holy Roman Empire', calling our leaders Kaiser or Czar, our public architecture.

It's also why we're such busybodies, always proclaiming our way is the best way, and even arguing viciously amongst ourselves about how right we are to believe what we do.

Oddly, the Romans felt the same way about not being the Greeks.

 

[gauchecritic]

Couple of things:

Barter.

Oil for food?

Empire.

After Britain I very much doubt whether any other 'empire' has had so great and instant a cultural influence throughout the world, one of the larger elements which can define empire.

When I think of the Roman empire and its decline I think of decadence, economic underclass and decrepit morals.

Fortunately I do actually realise that the perception of a country doesn't necessarily represent its population. But the above is often how the Yanqui is portrayed.

 

[Pure]

i find the best morals are the decrepit ones.

 

[R. Richard]

One of the problems that causes empires to fall is central control. The people at the center lose contact with reality. Policies are promulgated that do not work and those at the center prevent the truth from being said. After a time, the empire collapses.

As has been stated, the United States is not an empire. However. the people at the center have, to at least a large extent, lost contact with reality. However, the US system does permit criticism and change.

As an example, one of the most stupid, racist policies ever enacted was the welfare state that Franklin Delano Roosevelt set up. The entire structure was a ponzi scheme that would eventually collapse. However, the scheme seemed to work if the observer ignored the signs that the scheme was destroying people. [e.g. The Negoes were an economically downtrodden class at the start of FDR's empire, mainly due to racial predudice. FDR put in place an economic scheme that allowed the poor to barely subsist without working. As with the Roman Empire, many of the poor did exactly that. The result was the creation, in many large cities, of five or more generational welfare families. The Republicans finally rammed a sort of welfare reform down Clinton's throat and the problem is very slowly being solved, with a lot of pain. As is usual in these types of cases, the person, FDR, who caused the problem is almost worshipped by his victims. The people who are solving the problem are hated.]

Another, perhaps more current, example of policies are promulgated that do not work while those at the center prevent the truth from being said is FEMA. People died while local politicians and FEMA people fought turf wars. [By the way, the turf wars are still ongoing.] However, some news of the incompetence does manage to leak through the media.

As the "regular" media becomes a self-serving politically centered organization with and agenda other than the factual reporting of news, we begin to segue into things like blogs. Many of the blogs are as biased at the regular media. However, at least the blogs are not all biased in the same direction. There are many viewpoints being promulgated.

The US will survive for quite some time, because, despite the efforts of the politicians, the US remains a collection of individuals who can and will manage their own affairs despite government interference.

JMNTHO.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The Roman Empire began it's fall when the engine that drove it failed. When hadrian put up hi wall, when borders were established along the Danube, When the eastern expansion ended.

Conquest drove the engine that powered rome, and when the sum of the conquerored territories became too much for the infrastructure to effectively govern, expansion was halted. At that point, Rome moved over to the defensive, huge sums of money and other resources ceased to come into the system via the system of tribute. In a blink of the historical eye, the huge army, ceased ot be the juggernaught of economic boom and became a huge expense.

The military inititive passed to those living outside the gates and they stayed strong and developed, but the roman army became a static force. As veterans retired, the men who replaced them had less and less experience of war, more and more, their experience was garrison duty. The Roman army that eventually faced the barbarians was a pale shadow of the killing machine that whipped Vercongettorix, Phillip VI, and Hannibal.

Complacency among the population lead to a falling off of the kinds of first rate minds the empire had depended upon. The wide spread use of slaves for bookeeping and turoting lead to a falling off of intellectual accomplishment. In a thousand different ways, the empire became less formidible, when the empire ceased to expand.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Couple of things:

Barter.

Oil for food?

Empire.

After Britain I very much doubt whether any other 'empire' has had so great and instant a cultural influence throughout the world, one of the larger elements which can define empire.

When I think of the Roman empire and its decline I think of decadence, economic underclass and decrepit morals.

Fortunately I do actually realise that the perception of a country doesn't necessarily represent its population. But the above is often how the Yanqui is portrayed.

Since Rome preceded Christian morality, I fail to see how the lack of values that it hadn't adopted or which hadn't even been invented yet could be the cause of its fall. Though gluttony and alcoholism contributed, but primarily because of lead in the additives.

 

[oggbashan]

Since Rome preceded Christian morality, I fail to see how the lack of values that it hadn't adopted or which hadn't even been invented yet could be the cause of its fall. Though gluttony and alcoholism contributed, but primarily because of lead in the additives.

Rome, and Greece before them, had moral standards either through religions or as a set of ethics. Roman authors were complaining about the drop in standards since the Republic. However, almost all ancient authors, like authors today, referred back to a Golden Age when youngsters respected their elders.

Mithraism had a set of values that were comparable to Christianity and the worship of Mithra was common among Roman troops.

It is a mistake to assume that Christian morality was (and is) the only standard and that other people did not (do not) have moral values of their own that were (are) equally rigorous.

The excesses of some of the Roman Emperors were deplored by their contemporaries and had little effect on general public morality beyond the court and the city of Rome itself.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Rome, and Greece before them, had moral standards either through religions or as a set of ethics. Roman authors were complaining about the drop in standards since the Republic. However, almost all ancient authors, like authors today, referred back to a Golden Age when youngsters respected their elders.

Mithraism had a set of values that were comparable to Christianity and the worship of Mithra was common among Roman troops.

It is a mistake to assume that Christian morality was (and is) the only standard and that other people did not (do not) have moral values of their own that were (are) equally rigorous.

The excesses of some of the Roman Emperors were deplored by their contemporaries and had little effect on general public morality beyond the court and the city of Rome itself.

Og

Agreed. As a pagan, I know that we have different values. I certainly do not consider Christian morality to be the only standard, given that I am not a Christian. My point was that many modern people seem to judge ancients by Victorian sexual mores. Roman morality was somewhat less restrictive.

Originally, homosexuality was condemned, along with the seduction of other men's wives. However, the Roman moral code didn't generally condemn men for sleeping with other women, provided that they didn't go to excess. Most of the complaints were really about seduction of married women and homosexuality. Even those were winked at. And then there was incest, also deplored by Roman citizens and far less common among the populace than among the ruling classes and probably the main target of criticism. Well, that and homosexuality on the part of Hadrian and the adultery of Faustina, the wife of Marcus Aurelius.

But I seriously doubt that homosexuality, which was mostly limited to Greeks and horsemen, as well as a handful of Emperors, or incest, mostly an Imperial family practice, or adultery, which was far more common among the aristocracy and lower classes really had much to do with the downfall of Rome. These are practices as old as mankind. Their frequency doesn't vary much throughout history, just their blatancy. And blatancy is not going to bring down an Empire.

But you're right that Mithras was more restrictive in some ways; while recognizing the necessity of sex, it viewed it as a necessary evil that would be discarded at death. It also anticipated that.

In any case, it was really a flawed attempt, even then, to blame the Empire's troubles on anything but the unwieldy nature of the Empire itself, and the dual threats of barbarians and the later and equal threat of Sassanid Persia. Far too much is made of the barbarians, when the Sassanids had as much or more to do with the Roman troubles as any barbarian tribes. The Sassanid Kingdom was a dynamic rising superpower that applied nearly constant pressure to the more stagnant Roman Empire.

 

[gauchecritic]

putting words in my mouth

Since Rome preceded Christian morality, I fail to see how the lack of values that it hadn't adopted or which hadn't even been invented yet could be the cause of its fall. Though gluttony and alcoholism contributed, but primarily because of lead in the additives.

Did you not read what I actually wrote? 'decrepit morals' was the phrase without frame or reference except for the Roman Empire. Now why would I accuse an ancient people of not behaving as my own thrust upon Christian morals would wish them to behave?

And how that led to homosexuality I have no idea.

(More importantly why do you imply that I think homosexuality is immoral?)

An elite force of Greek soldiery: the Sacred Band of Thebes consisted entirely of 150 pairs of pederastic lovers. Same sex marriage wasn't exactly a handful of emporers and turning a blind eye in the Roman empire even to gay marriage, which was common , would leave you gazing at a multitude of bisexual adventurers.

In a culture heavily influenced by the Greeks I would assume that same sex relationships, be they pederast or egaliitarian were an everyday matter for the general populace and not shocking in the least.

So a decrepit morality, applied to the populace, would be cannibals who had gone off human meat, feminists who deny rape as a crime or elected leaders acting unilaterally.

Personally I have no qualms about gay relationshps, not that there's anything wrong with that.