Are We A Modern Day Rome?

(This is actually my second attempt at writing this as my computer turned itself off right as I got ready to post the original. I'm not as happy with this version as I was with the first but I can't find any temp file of it on the computer. If I ever happen to find the original, I'll be sure to post it.)

I know that this is going to old news for most of you, but I thought that I wanted to comment on it anyway.

Charles Krauthammer recently gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in which he asserted that the Roman Empire is not an accurate model for modern America.

Now I've commented on some of the parallels between America and Rome here and here.

In the past I have looked at some of the parallels between ancient Rome and modern America, specifically where the issue of the welfare state is involved. But I have never explicitly expressed the belief that the parallels of empire are weak at best.

Ever since the time that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon on his way back to Rome, the Roman Empire was a dictatorship. The Caesars did pay homage to the Republican origins of Rome, accepting such Senatorial platitudes as Imperator, Consul, Augustus, and countless others.

But how did power in the Roman Empire actually work? It was really pretty simple. The man wearing the purple robes was it. He held dominion over life and death for anyone within the Empire. He could execute, pardon, enslave, emancipate, pillage or plunder without having to worry about Amnesty International or the ACLU complaining about every perceived violation of the rules of civilized warfare. His word was absolute law.

His power wasn't maintained by pleasing the people. It was gathered and maintained by brute force, Machiavellian action, and bribes of the Praetorian Guard.

The Roman Empire at its peak stretched from the Isle of Britain to the Caspian Sea. Towards the end of his reign, the emperor Trajan conquered and annexed Mesopotamia.

Now why did Trajan do this? Was it out of self-defense? Was it to gain additional food for the restless rabble of Rome? For the additional taxes and donatives of the residents of the region? Pride?

Did Trajan hinge his decision on the consent of the Senate? Did he wait for approval from the ancient UN? Did he try to gain the approval of the Gauls' for the invasion of Mesopotamia? Or did he simply go and add the ancient, even at that time, city of Babylon to the Empire - because he wanted to?

Trajan wanted Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, as part of the Roman Empire. It was his wish, and it was so.

Trajan's successor, Hadrian, did not want the province of Mesopotamia. So he pulled out and abandoned it.

The sacrifices made in acquiring the province? Not important.

Was there a local government in place when the Romans left? Not his concern.

Did the people of Babylon have enough food to eat? They'd figure it out - or starve.

Hadrian's wish was to pull out of Mesopotamia, and it was so. There was no public debate. There was no nation building or reconstruction. They Romans wanted to leave, so they left.

That was the way that it was in the Roman Empire. What Caesar wanted, Caesar got. The Senate was a rubber stamp, a facade hearkening back to a government that by the time of Hadrian hadn't existed for almost 200 years. So long as the citizens of Rome, the city, were kept with bread and circus, the people wouldn't revolt. The legions were controlled by fear of the Praetorians, and the Praetorians were controlled by donatives from the emperor. The only person capable of controlling the emperor was the emperor. He was a man with absolute power.

Now in a parallel with ancient Rome, modern America did invade and conquer part of ancient Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq.

But did George W. Bush act without Congressional approval? Did he not send Colin Powell to the UN to present the case for the invasion to try to gain international support? Were there not 12 years worth of previous UN resolutions that provided legitimacy that we made an effort to negotiate?

Did we simply depose Saddam and leave Iraq to suffer anarchy? Did we conquer Iraq and send their food supply back to Washington D.C. to feed the masses on welfare? Did we conquer Iraq to expand our tax base to pay for more spending in the United States?

Did Trajan have to concern himself with Senator Kerryus declaring that his vote for war was based on a different intention for the prosecution of the war? Did he have to worry of Proconsul Deanus declaring that the war against the Mesopotamians was ill advised and wrong?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no.

Both ancient Rome and modern America invaded and conquered the lands of ancient Mesopotamia. And about the only consistent parallel is that the French probably didn't approve of either invasion.

Krauthammer is right: we are an accidental empire. We don't go out with the intention of claiming new land for God and country. Rome did.

Ancient Rome was an empire based around the superiority of one people over everyone else. Modern America is based on the idea of equality of man.

Rome demanded tribute and food from the conquered. America helps to feed and rebuild.

Rome would oppress and enslave the people. America frees them from oppression and slavery.

Rome was a military power first, commercial power second. America is a commercial power first, military power second.

Rome was founded on the strength of its legions. America was founded on the strength of its ideals.

This isn't to deny that there aren't some lessons that we can't take away from ancient Rome. The lessons from the repetition of history can be very powerful lessons, indeed.

I believe that there are some very valuable lessons of ancient Rome in the bread and circus welfare state.

I also believe that politically there are no really valuable parallels as our two governments are completely different, as are the goals of the government.

There are many parallels between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy also, but that does not necessarily mean the two events are somehow linked, or that the second could have been predicted. Similarities and coincidences are not proof of a linkage. The lesson of each parallel needs to be examined on a case by case basis to see if it has any validity in a different set of circumstances. Comparing the militaristic, expansionist Roman Empire to the accidental and unwilling American one means that many of the lessons simply have no carryover validity.

As America moves forward in the new world in which we are the only superpower, we need to keep in mind the fact that we are actually charting a new course in uncharted waters. History is important, but we need to remember that for many things we will encounter there will be no parallel.

There is no parallel between the power of the Roman sword and the power of the American idea.

America is not the Roman Empire redux.