Twilight of American Culture? Orwells Babylon

...

This is an ever popular literary form - the comparison of the perceived decline of Rome with American politics and culture, usually to show that the parallels are striking (and thus to imply that a similar decline and fall of America is at hand).

However a great deal about Roman society had little or nothing to do with forces at work today.

The Roman Empire was an agricultural economy, in which production for agriculture and practical crafts took place strictly on the local scale, and literacy was a rare thing.

The historical process that led to the Western Empire dissolving was the development of great estates (latifundia) into independent economic and political units. Even at the height of the empire, Rome placed responsibility for local matters in the hands of the greatest local landholder. As time passed the size of these estates tended to grow as smaller holders were forced to sell out, or else joined for protection. These estates became completely self-sufficient economic units, when this stage was reached trade died out and cities that depended on trade for their life's blood declined with it. People living on these estates did not depend on the state and lost any sense of identity ('citizenship' in it.

Similar processes are observed in other classical agricultural empires. Most notably it largely accounts for the roughly four century long dynastic cycle seen repeatedly in China, restarted each time by redistribution of land when a new power elite look control.

Its a fascinating subject, but has little or nothing to do with modern literate industrial global economies.

Carey Sublette

Such a gap often occurs at the expansion period of an empire!

Does not sound like the current US position.

Please specify.

Rome never spent much on this.

The US are more educated then ever.

Please specify.

The immediate problem Western half of the Roman Empire had in 450 CE was the lack of troops on the border. It lacked a strong enough army to hold back the barbarian forces. Part of this problem was due to the Rome financial problems in 400 CE, the exact mechanism that caused this, are in disputed although part maybe the above.

Sufficient to say that when Rome fell it was a small city in the empire. It was only symbolic significant. The Eastern part which was the main part of the Empire then, kept going for a 1000 years.

Exactly. Although it does suggest that a strong economy is required to keep a strong military on the field.

...

Well certainly there are a host of factors that took part on different time scales. I emphasized the macro-economic/historical factors though, because it sets the stage for the collapse, which played out according to the particulars of that historical moment.

It is impossible to imagine the early or high empire not being to rally from the type of threats and setbacks that brought it down in the 5th century. The entire system had weakened and lost its ability to cope.

Indeed, part of my main argument!

Yes.

Interestingly, during the high empire the cost of the military was not a major drain on the Imperial treasury. The proportion of the populace under arms was something like 0.4% of the Empire's population.

Carey Sublette

weak arguments based on random, anecdotal, comparisons. time for the author to read a history book, study some economics and rethink his thesis.

yentil....

are you impressed by this stuff?

The gist you seem to be missing is all empires die, the American empire ( because that is what is surely is, as a hyper power ) will die, just a case of how & when.

By knowing our history we can better foretell our future, humans will make human mistakes, just as they have since time began. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By comparing it to past empires we have a better idea of what CAN happen, rather than make uneducated guess's as to our own future, not saying that's what you're doing though. That there are differences is obvious ( electricty, nuclear power, modern comms, oil corporations, etc ) but the similarities are striking.

You, Sir, are the very much the cause for the subtitle - 'Orwell's Babylon'. For you have the Truth, the Whole Truth, the One and Only Truth, so help you God.

I have inspected the philosophy of pax-Americana (and certainly others are worse), but its days are clearly numbered. I think that even 'America' in the sense of a country containing CITIZENS with a Constitution is long gone. The 'Consumer' has replaced the Citizen, and I'll be more than happy to fly out and video tape you walking the streets of, say, NYC, while exercising your 2nd Ammendment Rights. Surely you'll get at least 20 feet before the cops (henchmen if they were Iraqis) show up.

The day of the luxury society and Pettifogging Philosopher is here, to blur the clear thought with ad-man's endless bombardment. Perhaps I'm wrong... the Empire might just last another 1000 years...?

True, but that 0.4% consumed an inordinate proportion of the resources available to roman society as a whole. Metal arms and uniforms must have cost plenty, and the army was the only large group to eat regularily. Given that roads and bridges had both civilian and military uses I'm not sure how I'd allocate their costs, but the total military bill was substantial as a percentage of GNP.

Beg pardon? The only large group to eat regularly was the army?

No, by far the largest group to eat regularly were the citizens of Rome, the population of which was several times the size of the entire Roman army, and which was fed almost completely by grain imports paid for from the Imperial treasury. The cost of the famed 'bread and circuses' of Rome exceeded that of the army's upkeep.

Incidentally the primary function of the army (in terms of what it actually did on a day to day basis) was actually as construction crews for the roads and bridges (and aqueducts), so to a large extent the cost of the famous Roman road system and the army was one and the same (local magnates were tasked with routine maintenance however, as they were with other local governmental costs).

Certainly the cost of the army was a non-trivial expense and burden, but it didn't strain the Roman economic system for centuries.

a simple 'yes' would've sufficed.

truth? what truth? you post an article which can only possibly appeal to the person that is ignorant of history and economics.

offer some evidence. would this be because some kooks killed a bunch of americans in our, no, the world's financial center? people die every day.

?

brandishing a weapon? in downtown NYC? that's hardly being part of 'the well-regulated militia!' i'm not a cop/henchmen, but i'd be inclined to jump on you also.

i suspect so

who said anything about a third or fourth reich?

are you mixing your 'empirical' metaphors?

tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly. 2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

But in your mind 'right to bear arms' and 'brandish' are the same thing. And we all wonder why you can't follow very simple arguments.

Even so, I'm laughing hysterically and indeed the reason I appended 'Orwell's Babylon' to the post's title. For you, Sir, have grasped the very essence of Orwell's 'Crime Stop', or literally the failure to grasp analogies, being bored or repelled logical arguments inimical to [pax-Americana], etc... You really should read 1984.