this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
36 points (92.9% liked)
US News
2048 readers
47 users here now
News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm referring to the later days of the empire where the currency got devaluated to the point where they started having trouble paying their professional army. The empire started increasingly taking tribes from Gaul and other places and effectively using them as a mercenary army with promises of land and pay. Eventually these armies turned on Rome because they weren't getting what they were promised.
This is a similar situation we're currently seeing develop with US empire where it's finding itself overstretched globally, while it's economy is now shrinking due to factors such as dedollarization and the rise of BRICS. The premise of grooming a new loyal army sourced from people that come from the countries that US has been brutalizing for the past century seems like a risky proposition in this context.
Meanwhile, it's also worth remembering that rate of communication back in Roman days was orders of magnitude slower than it is today. Even simple things like sending messages from one end of the empire to another could take weeks or months time. Today we have instant communication, and all forms of physical transport happen at a much faster rate as well. So, it's silly to compare timelines of the fall directly.
And sure, if US ends up dissolving, then we'll see enclaves of former states that band together much like parts of the Roman empire did after the initial collapse.
Makes sense. I didn't quite understand what you were referring to, so the reply was a bit kneejerk. I wonder if there'll ever be a "low pay" situation for the MIC, though. It seems to be the only thing the US ever bothers to fund.
Your point regarding BRICS makes a lot of sense too. I don't think Rome ever had any equal competitor after Carthage like China is to the USA. Most comparable empires were too far away to "steal" Roman support. Best I can think is Axum or the Sassanid Empire, but they're too far from the Mediterranean. Imagine the impact of something like BRI but for western Latin America.
I still think it's risky to compress the Roman timeline when it comes for ideological and policy decisions, moreso due to how it simplifies a lot of the nuance and ebb and flow of history. It's so much time, with so much happening and so much surviving history, that it's easy to cherrypick specific events to create one specific narrative.
So for example, much as I agree that not being able to maintain their professional non-citizen army created the conditions for (at least) regime at multiple points in Roman history, I also think that promising citizenship for alliances during the Social War was critical for Roman victory against the rebelling tribes, and drove a wedge between them.
And it may be my Byzantophile heart speaking for me, but given the East remained fairly strong up until the 7th century (and almost retook Italy under Justinian I in the 6th), I'd say that was actually just the new core for the Empire rather than "parts of" Rome.
I remember reading something about how the Roman economy was already being redirected from Italy and Iberia to North Africa and Anatolia, but I can't confirm it with a source right now. But a good proxy is how many post-Hadrian senators and Emperors wrote in Greek rather than Latin.
Overall though, I agree with your points and am just being pedantic.
You'd consider Axum a competitor to the Roman empire but not the Parthians? That's a perspective I haven't really heard before, do you mind elaborating on that? (EDIT, this is meant to be curious and earnest, not an accusation or anything, I'm interested in hearing your opinion)
I think Parthia counts as one of the biggest competitors during the rise period, but during the decline period they were already the replaced by the Sassanids (I'm not acquainted the internal details of how that happened).
But like Axum, neither were ever in a position where they could capitalise on the failing Roman grasp in the Northwestern Mediterranean (nowadays called "Europe"). So the pressure they applied was in the frontiers rather than the direct blows to the core of the Western Half by the Visigoths and Vandals and such.
Geography severely restricted them in a way that can't restrict China from forming economic alliance with the USA's plundering grounds, so that was the gist of what I was referring to.
But after the fall of the West, the Sassanid empire became the biggest imperial rival for Rome until the Muslim expansion made them look like rump states. So in a very contrived way, one could say Iran was always (Imperial) Rome's biggest opponent, but sadly there was no Iran in Britain.
Very succinct, thank you. I mentioned Parthia because Axum was a contemporary of theirs, but they lasted for an insanely long time, so they were a contemporary of the Sassanids too.
And if I remember correctly, the Sassanids were a Satrap of Parthia who revolted and ended up taking most of their territory from them. And both the Sassanids and Eastern Romans spent so many resources fighting each other that the Muslims were able to devastate both empires. (though there's more too it than just that obviously)