THE FALL OF ROME???

I've always been told that the significant non-Roman presence in the Roman armies was actually a huge problem. Considering that Rome had long set a precedent when soldiers assassinated Claudius, and then basically had control over the succession during the entire 3rd Century (picking consistently shitty emperors), it's not surprising that the make-up of the military had an important role.

I believe it may have had more to do with administration and better use of discharged veterans by establishing colonia in a more strategic manner; fortified cities specializing in military supply and communication is an example.
 
I'm sorry Ken but who ever wrote this is not a serious student of Roman History. Virtually none of what is written applies to the era of the Imperium and about half of what he wrote could be applied to the era of the Republic if you don't mind that these comments are really anachronisms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/steven-strauss



Steven Strauss
John L. Weinberg/Goldman Sachs & Co. Visiting Professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School
Steven Strauss is the John L. Weinberg/Goldman Sachs & Co. Visiting Professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is a leading expert on strategy in the public and private sectors, having worked on projects in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia on topics such as: Economic Development, Financial Services Reform, Health Systems Reform, Higher Education Reform, and Investment and Risk Management (including work for one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds). Strauss is a frequent contributor at: BusinessInsider, EconoMonitor, The Huffington Post, and Project-Syndicate. For 2012, he was an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University. In 2010, along with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other prominent New Yorkers, Strauss was selected by BusinessInsider for the Silicon Alley 100.


Immediately prior to Harvard, Strauss was the Managing Director in charge of the Center for Economic Transformation for the Bloomberg administration in NYC, and was responsible for NYC's strategic reviews of its major private sector industries (e.g., Financial Services.NYC.2020, Media.NYC.2020, Fashion.NYC.2020, EducationTechnology.NYC.2020, NYCEDC Innovation Index). Culminating in the NYC Game Changers initiative, this work identified major strategic moves for NYC's economic development, including a recommendation that NYC focus on higher-growth knowledge-based industries. Strauss' work resulted in numerous initiatives, including: Applied Sciences NYC (Mayor Bloombergs new engineering campus in NYC), General Assembly (an innovation campus in Manhattan's Flatiron District), the 160 Varick Street Incubator (in partnership with Trinity Realty and NYU-Poly), the NYC NextIdea Business Plan Competition, NYC BigApps, Hive@55, NYC Media Lab, and the NYC Entrepreneurial Fund.


Immediately prior to his role with NYC, Strauss was with the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company. Strauss was responsible for the Forums inaugural Financial Development Index, a comprehensive look at global financial systems, and co-authored the Forums report on the Convergence of Insurance with Capital Markets. From 1980 to 1996, Strauss held progressively more senior positions in the financial services industry at various firms.


Strauss graduated from NYU with a BA in 1980 and earned a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University in 2002.
 
When read together, striking parallels emerge — between our failings and the failings that destroyed the Roman Republic. As with Rome just before the Republic’s fall, America has seen:

1 — Staggering Increase in the Cost of Elections, with Dubious Campaign Funding Sources: Our 2012 election reportedly cost $3 billion. All of it was raised from private sources – often creating the appearance, or the reality, that our leaders are beholden to special interest groups. During the late Roman Republic, elections became staggeringly expensive, with equally deplorable results. Caesar reportedly borrowed so heavily for one political campaign, he feared he would be ruined, if not elected.

2 — Politics as the Road to Personal Wealth: During the late Roman Republic period, one of the main roads to wealth was holding public office, and exploiting such positions to accumulate personal wealth. As Lessig notes: Congressman, Senators and their staffs leverage their government service to move to private sector positions – that pay three to ten times their government compensation. Given this financial arrangement, “Their focus is therefore not so much on the people who sent them to Washington. Their focus is instead on those who will make them rich.” (Republic Lost)

3 — Continuous War: A national state of security arises, distracting attention from domestic challenges with foreign wars. Similar to the late Roman Republic, the US – for the past 100 years — has either been fighting a war, recovering from a war, or preparing for a new war: WW I (1917-18), WW II (1941-1945), Cold War (1947-1991), Korean War (1950-1953), Vietnam (1953-1975), Gulf War (1990-1991), Afghanistan (2001-ongoing), and Iraq (2003-2011). And, this list is far from complete.

4 — Foreign Powers Lavish Money/Attention on the Republic’s Leaders: Foreign wars lead to growing influence, by foreign powers and interests, on the Republic’s political leaders — true for Rome and true for us. In the past century, foreign embassies, agents and lobbyists have proliferated in our nation’s capital. As one specific example: A foreign businessman donated $100 million to Bill Clinton‘s various activities. Clinton “opened doors” for him, and sometimes acted in ways contrary to stated American interests and foreign policy.

5 — Profits Made Overseas Shape the Republic’s Internal Policies: As the fortunes of Rome’s aristocracy increasingly derived from foreign lands, Roman policy was shaped to facilitate these fortunes. American billionaires and corporations increasingly influence our elections. In many cases, they are only nominally American – with interests not aligned with those of the American public. For example, Fox News is part of international media group News Corp., with over $30 billion in revenues worldwide. Is Fox News’ jingoism a product of News Corp.’s non-U.S. interests?

6 — Collapse of the Middle Class: In the period just before the Roman Republic’s fall, the Roman middle class was crushed — destroyed by cheap overseas slave labor. In our own day, we’ve witnessed rising income inequality, a stagnating middle class, and the loss of American jobs to overseas workers who are paid less and have fewer rights.

7 — Gerrymandering: Rome’s late Republic used various methods to reduce the power of common citizens. The GOP has so effectively gerrymandered Congressional districts that, even though House Republican candidates received only about 48 percent of the popular vote in the 2012 election — they ended up with the majority (53 percent) of the seats.

8 — Loss of the Spirit of Compromise: The Roman Republic, like ours, relied on a system of checks and balances. Compromise is needed for this type of system to function. In the end, the Roman Republic lost that spirit of compromise, with politics increasingly polarized between Optimates (the rich, entrenched elites) and Populares (the common people). Sound familiar? Compromise is in noticeably short supply in our own time also. For example, “There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s combined.”

By Steven Strauss
how_america_will_collapse_by_2025.jpg



he must be wrong


the internets posters here don't agree with him




Steven Strauss
John L. Weinberg/Goldman Sachs & Co. Visiting Professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School
Steven Strauss is the John L. Weinberg/Goldman Sachs & Co. Visiting Professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is a leading expert on strategy in the public and private sectors, having worked on projects in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia on topics such as: Economic Development, Financial Services Reform, Health Systems Reform, Higher Education Reform, and Investment and Risk Management (including work for one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds). Strauss is a frequent contributor at: BusinessInsider, EconoMonitor, The Huffington Post, and Project-Syndicate. For 2012, he was an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University. In 2010, along with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other prominent New Yorkers, Strauss was selected by BusinessInsider for the Silicon Alley 100.


Immediately prior to Harvard, Strauss was the Managing Director in charge of the Center for Economic Transformation for the Bloomberg administration in NYC, and was responsible for NYC's strategic reviews of its major private sector industries (e.g., Financial Services.NYC.2020, Media.NYC.2020, Fashion.NYC.2020, EducationTechnology.NYC.2020, NYCEDC Innovation Index). Culminating in the NYC Game Changers initiative, this work identified major strategic moves for NYC's economic development, including a recommendation that NYC focus on higher-growth knowledge-based industries. Strauss' work resulted in numerous initiatives, including: Applied Sciences NYC (Mayor Bloombergs new engineering campus in NYC), General Assembly (an innovation campus in Manhattan's Flatiron District), the 160 Varick Street Incubator (in partnership with Trinity Realty and NYU-Poly), the NYC NextIdea Business Plan Competition, NYC BigApps, Hive@55, NYC Media Lab, and the NYC Entrepreneurial Fund.


Immediately prior to his role with NYC, Strauss was with the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company. Strauss was responsible for the Forums inaugural Financial Development Index, a comprehensive look at global financial systems, and co-authored the Forums report on the Convergence of Insurance with Capital Markets. From 1980 to 1996, Strauss held progressively more senior positions in the financial services industry at various firms.


Strauss graduated from NYU with a BA in 1980 and earned a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University in 2002.
 
Kingdom to Republic was a better solution, but not Republic to Empire. Even if you believe the Empire was a better solution, clearly the shift from Principate to Dominate was a problem.
Not really. The only major issue with the principate that Octavian didn't iron out was the one of succession. It's not rational to assume that a Republic would have been superior just because it was a Republic. It depend on the for the Republic takes and Rome's antiquated form of oligarchic rule was simply not able to govern a world wide empire.
 
When read together, striking parallels emerge — between our failings and the failings that destroyed the Roman Republic. As with Rome just before the Republic’s fall, America has seen:

1 — Staggering Increase in the Cost of Elections, with Dubious Campaign Funding Sources: Our 2012 election reportedly cost $3 billion. All of it was raised from private sources – often creating the appearance, or the reality, that our leaders are beholden to special interest groups. During the late Roman Republic, elections became staggeringly expensive, with equally deplorable results. Caesar reportedly borrowed so heavily for one political campaign, he feared he would be ruined, if not elected.

2 — Politics as the Road to Personal Wealth: During the late Roman Republic period, one of the main roads to wealth was holding public office, and exploiting such positions to accumulate personal wealth. As Lessig notes: Congressman, Senators and their staffs leverage their government service to move to private sector positions – that pay three to ten times their government compensation. Given this financial arrangement, “Their focus is therefore not so much on the people who sent them to Washington. Their focus is instead on those who will make them rich.” (Republic Lost)

3 — Continuous War: A national state of security arises, distracting attention from domestic challenges with foreign wars. Similar to the late Roman Republic, the US – for the past 100 years — has either been fighting a war, recovering from a war, or preparing for a new war: WW I (1917-18), WW II (1941-1945), Cold War (1947-1991), Korean War (1950-1953), Vietnam (1953-1975), Gulf War (1990-1991), Afghanistan (2001-ongoing), and Iraq (2003-2011). And, this list is far from complete.

4 — Foreign Powers Lavish Money/Attention on the Republic’s Leaders: Foreign wars lead to growing influence, by foreign powers and interests, on the Republic’s political leaders — true for Rome and true for us. In the past century, foreign embassies, agents and lobbyists have proliferated in our nation’s capital. As one specific example: A foreign businessman donated $100 million to Bill Clinton‘s various activities. Clinton “opened doors” for him, and sometimes acted in ways contrary to stated American interests and foreign policy.

5 — Profits Made Overseas Shape the Republic’s Internal Policies: As the fortunes of Rome’s aristocracy increasingly derived from foreign lands, Roman policy was shaped to facilitate these fortunes. American billionaires and corporations increasingly influence our elections. In many cases, they are only nominally American – with interests not aligned with those of the American public. For example, Fox News is part of international media group News Corp., with over $30 billion in revenues worldwide. Is Fox News’ jingoism a product of News Corp.’s non-U.S. interests?

6 — Collapse of the Middle Class: In the period just before the Roman Republic’s fall, the Roman middle class was crushed — destroyed by cheap overseas slave labor. In our own day, we’ve witnessed rising income inequality, a stagnating middle class, and the loss of American jobs to overseas workers who are paid less and have fewer rights.

7 — Gerrymandering: Rome’s late Republic used various methods to reduce the power of common citizens. The GOP has so effectively gerrymandered Congressional districts that, even though House Republican candidates received only about 48 percent of the popular vote in the 2012 election — they ended up with the majority (53 percent) of the seats.

8 — Loss of the Spirit of Compromise: The Roman Republic, like ours, relied on a system of checks and balances. Compromise is needed for this type of system to function. In the end, the Roman Republic lost that spirit of compromise, with politics increasingly polarized between Optimates (the rich, entrenched elites) and Populares (the common people). Sound familiar? Compromise is in noticeably short supply in our own time also. For example, “There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s combined.”

By Steven Strauss
how_america_will_collapse_by_2025.jpg



this guy is a much better source of knowledge than any of you clowns
 
I'm sorry Ken but who ever wrote this is not a serious student of Roman History. Virtually none of what is written applies to the era of the Imperium and about half of what he wrote could be applied to the era of the Republic if you don't mind that these comments are really anachronisms.

How are they anachronisms?
 
Not really. The only major issue with the principate that Octavian didn't iron out was the one of succession. It's not rational to assume that a Republic would have been superior just because it was a Republic. It depend on the for the Republic takes and Rome's antiquated form of oligarchic rule was simply not able to govern a world wide empire.

Empire's are, by their nature, going to have a problem with succession. Rome was lucky to have the Antonines at all. The Barracks Emperors are precisely what you would expect to find, more often than not. At least in the Republic, your consuls were pretty easy to figure out. It's not as if the Empire was any less oligarchic, except whenever the military was running the show.
 
How are they anachronisms?
Because things like gerrymandering, political parties, "cost of elections", etc, are modern constructs. The did not exist in Ancient Rome.

Some of his comments are simply factually wrong. Electioneering in the Roman Empire did not exist. It was an autocracy. The emperor determined who the major magistrates, Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Aediles, etc would be. Even in the time of the Republic elections, which were not democratic. Consuls and other magistrates were elected in the Centuriate assembly in which votes were given as a block representing the five economic classes and which heavily favored the first class or the senatorial and equestrian class. If an election had a great cost it was because a candidate bribed heavily to win. There was no public cost.

The example used for Caesar was wrong. Caesar did not bribe or borrow money to get elected Consul. He borrowed heavily and was deeply in debt because he came from a relatively impoverished patrician family and used the money to maintain a high public image. Caesar was famous for the lack of corruption and bribing in his campaigns as he knew his political enemies would use that to prosecute him. That and Caesar, having been raised in the Subura district of Rome was hugely popular with both the assemblies and the proletariat.
 
Empire's are, by their nature, going to have a problem with succession. Rome was lucky to have the Antonines at all. The Barracks Emperors are precisely what you would expect to find, more often than not. At least in the Republic, your consuls were pretty easy to figure out. It's not as if the Empire was any less oligarchic, except whenever the military was running the show.
I think a major problem the Republic had was that it didn't invest enough power in executive government. Two consuls elected for a year and governed every other month was unwieldy and often counterproductive when the electe consuls were inimical to each other. That contributed significantly to the collapse of the Republic.
 
Because things like gerrymandering, political parties, "cost of elections", etc, are modern constructs. The did not exist in Ancient Rome.

Some of his comments are simply factually wrong. Electioneering in the Roman Empire did not exist. It was an autocracy. The emperor determined who the major magistrates, Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Aediles, etc would be. Even in the time of the Republic elections, which were not democratic. Consuls and other magistrates were elected in the Centuriate assembly in which votes were given as a block representing the five economic classes and which heavily favored the first class or the senatorial and equestrian class. If an election had a great cost it was because a candidate bribed heavily to win. There was no public cost.

The example used for Caesar was wrong. Caesar did not bribe or borrow money to get elected Consul. He borrowed heavily and was deeply in debt because he came from a relatively impoverished patrician family and used the money to maintain a high public image. Caesar was famous for the lack of corruption and bribing in his campaigns as he knew his political enemies would use that to prosecute him. That and Caesar, having been raised in the Subura district of Rome was hugely popular with both the assemblies and the proletariat.

Ok I see you are using an uncommon form but it does work.
 
I think a major problem the Republic had was that it didn't invest enough power in executive government. Two consuls elected for a year and governed every other month was unwieldy and often counterproductive when the electe consuls were inimical to each other. That contributed significantly to the collapse of the Republic.

Certainly, it would have made more sense to eliminate one consul, and establish a single executive. I don't think the annual principle ever really became a problem. Especially if you kept the consul in Rome and merely had his subordinates travel throughout the land and with the armies. Consider how many emperors lasted less than a year after Commodus.
 
Certainly, it would have made more sense to eliminate one consul, and establish a single executive. I don't think the annual principle ever really became a problem. Especially if you kept the consul in Rome and merely had his subordinates travel throughout the land and with the armies. Consider how many emperors lasted less than a year after Commodus.
Workable but certainly not ideal for stable governing. Particularly where the provinces were concerned as they were not independent sovereign entities like our States are.
 
I go to a class to keep up my Latin. I cannot stand the Romans personally, but our teacher points out that they are the only ancient people who have left us anything personal about relatively ordinary people, and just as few of their writers are worth reading. On the whole, though, I don't think we can learn much from them, positive or negative: they start from a very different place - pagan superstition and an imperial mission, and were never very democratic (though they had their moments). They used a professional army to conquer people, but when they stopped having people to sell, the inadequacies of a slave society showed up fast. I don't think they are enough like us to be much worth bothering with, under either the Republic or the Empire
 
I go to a class to keep up my Latin. I cannot stand the Romans personally, but our teacher points out that they are the only ancient people who have left us anything personal about relatively ordinary people, and just as few of their writers are worth reading. On the whole, though, I don't think we can learn much from them, positive or negative: they start from a very different place - pagan superstition and an imperial mission, and were never very democratic (though they had their moments). They used a professional army to conquer people, but when they stopped having people to sell, the inadequacies of a slave society showed up fast. I don't think they are enough like us to be much worth bothering with, under either the Republic or the Empire

They have much more worth than your beloved USSR.
 
Back
Top