It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the roman and american empires

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
is it just me or is the relationship just to close? one the empires started with an idea of freedom ( democracy) then theu grew and grew and grew until eventually they become so powerful and feared that no one wants to mess with them. an then they become corrupted by a love scandal ( bill clinton) and then an idiot dictator( bush) and eventually fall out from under themselves. they are etertained by ruthless humiliation and violence in mass veiwing ( gladiators and tv)their symbol of their country and patriotism is the eagle . it all happens in about, oh 300 years....discuss




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
You are not alone in this comparison of Rome and USA.

We are watching history repeat itself, it is both horrifying and fascinating.

Not sure of your comment about happening in 300 years though, I feel it will be more like 3. No links, just a gut feeling.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
It is not the U.S. but the EU that is the resurrection of the Roman Empire. The EU contains much of the land area of the original Roman empire and is well on its way with the new EU constitution to the destruction of European democracies by the stripping of their soverignty to unelected commissions. The only other shoe to drop is the rise of the antichrist who will take over as an EU dictator.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Please give details.

It is the USA that is invading. I may not be up on all the news, but what is the EU invading?



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leespitfire
Please give details.

It is the USA that is invading. I may not be up on all the news, but what is the EU invading?


Well France is or at least recently was using military action against Cote d'Ivoire. But that is besides the point, the question said nothing about current invasions.

The EU is not ready to take its place quite yet as the new Roman Empire, it is growing and quietly stripping democratic soverignty from its member states and citizens to small unelected groups. When this is complete, it will await the revelation of the antichrist to head it into war against all democratic nations and especially Israel.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
ok, look, there is a difference between the romans and america.

Here's why.

If we wanted your land we would have taken it already.

The last people to fall under the massive american land mongers were the american indians.

And if I wasn't there, so no input on that one.

After world war II....we had the whole planet if we wanted it.

We don't....get over it.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Derek Trance
If we wanted your land we would have taken it already.



You did not hear the Bush inaugural address swearing to spread "democracy" to the world?

yes "democracy" is quoted for a reason, as how is it a democratic move to FORCE a certain type of government to a region?



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by brownigan59
it all happens in about, oh 300 years....discuss


The Roman Empire lasted well over a thousand years not 300. The Romans might have started with a idea of Freedom but for only Romans they took over any land they could right from the start.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
but im not saying its exactly the same im just saying with bush in office ....



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Keep in mind that Rome had also gone from a republic to an empire. In my opinion we've already been through our 'Pax Americana'. I think we're just going downhill slowly. It'll take quite a while, i'm sure, but eventually more superpowers will arise and we won't be on top anymore.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Narain
Keep in mind that Rome had also gone from a republic to an empire. In my opinion we've already been through our 'Pax Americana'. I think we're just going downhill slowly. It'll take quite a while, i'm sure, but eventually more superpowers will arise and we won't be on top anymore.


You know, you can still exist without having to be "on top". Just because the EU, Russia, China, and India will one day catch up to the U.S. in economic and political power, doesn't mean that the U.S. will suddenly cease to exist simply because it's not #1 in everything anymore.

Frankly, I don't care what our rankings are in any economic or political category -- as long as the U.S. surivives as a Union of the 50 States & D.C., as a successful regulated free market democratic republic, then all the statistics in the world are just that -- statistics.

As for the idea of the U.S. being an 'empire' -- the U.S.'s only experiment with imperialism came when the Phillipines and Cuba were briefly held as American territories against their will. The U.S. has always been a republic -- the 50 States & D.C. are permanant members of the Union, and the territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa -- are U.S. territories by choice, with the option of becoming full States or independent nations whenever they so desire.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I hope not, but you do make a good point. So are we all dommed or what? B/c like it says at the top of the post, Nick's solo CD "Now or Never" has a track on it called "Is it Saturday, yet?". In it he implies that citzens of the USA, are dommed when he sings at the end of the second verse "I was raised by the television,...I'm a product of a nation, na na na na na, and of the last generation."
I'm just wondering, hoping, and praying your wrong. Now if you excuse me, I got "Doomsday" stuff to pack.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
brownigan59: You may wish to read George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Tarpley and Chaitkin. It will tell you all you need to know.

The larger question, I would say, is what are the chances of this strange new Roman empire surviving. The colloseum is in our living rooms this time.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The day we start listening to predictions from Nick Carter or any Boy band thats when it really is over.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   


The Roman Empire lasted well over a thousand years not 300. The Romans might have started with a idea of Freedom but for only Romans they took over any land they could right from the start.


Although the comparisons are interesting, I thought I would try and clear up some things.

Rome itself was founded in about 750BC (if memory serves me right), but didn't become anywhere near the imperial power it was until around 250BC when they started getting edgy and claiming lands for itself. They actually started out with a King as well, so didn't originally have the idea of spreading civilisation etc to everyone, but got the idea for a republic of the Greeks, who where far more advanced before them.

Then around 50BC (again, I hope my memory serves me), Gaius Julius proclaimed himself Caesar (Emperor/king), and became Julius Caesar. So the actual roman republic ended then, so about 300 years after it came into being.

The Roman Empire itself continued for several centuries after, ending (at least for the Western half) in around 600 AD, when the nasty barbarian types ran amok and buggered things up.

The Byzantine Empire, which was the eastern half of the Empire, (capital in Byzantium, now Contstantinople) flourished for another 1000 years after, ending when the Muslims invaded and sacked Byzantium, and turned the Great Basilica into the Hagia Sophia.

So the comparisons are there, but you could find them amongst many other world Empires throughout history.

An interesting thing to note, however, is that towards the end of the Roman Empire, the Dinarri (their currency) ending up getting less and less in value, as the Empire was over spending on its military, and had run out of gold, so began watering down the gold content in the coins.

Bankruptcy was what ruined the Romans, not anything else, as that was all a consequence of the diminished financial power of the Empire and its ability to maintain the military.

There is your comparison to modern day USA.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I have stated this before here. Nothing stays on top forever...everything has it time. Everything has it's up and it's down.....even silly things like cereal and tennis shoes...LOL When I was a small child, if your mother fed you cereal for breakfast it was awful and cheap....same with tennis shoes...now cereal is $3 to $4 a damn box and tennis shoes are waaaaaaay too expensive and the things to wear! LOL I fear American is on way down, to take it's turn on near the bottom.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by brownigan59
one the empires started with an idea of freedom ( democracy)

Rome wasn't about freedom, it was about balancing the conflicting interests of the tribes, city-livers, country folk and nobility.


then theu grew and grew and grew until eventually they become so powerful and feared that no one wants to mess with them.

The expansion of Rome and its acquistition of empire is entirely different from the expansion of the US. When one seriously talks about Empire in the US one talks about the philipines and carribean holdings, but even those holdings were nothing like the way the roman empire exploited and drained its provinces.


This is not the case with Rome.


an then they become corrupted by a love scandal ( bill clinton) and then an idiot dictator( bush)

Rome became an empire because of Caesar and Augustus, and you could say that Marius and Sulla had a lot to do with it. They were shrewd military and political people, not idiot dictators'.

and eventually fall out from under themselves. they are etertained by ruthless humiliation and violence in mass veiwing ( gladiators and tv)their symbol of their country and patriotism is the eagle .
The eagle however is a common national symbol. ANd the romans were as much represented by the eagle as by the wolf and bull.


it all happens in about, oh 300 years....discuss

Rome went from republic to empire in a little less than a hundred years, but of course that is open to debate.


THe similiarities between Rome and the US are often made more than they actually are. Most importantly, the US doesn't use its occupied territories anything like what Rome used them for. The US economy doesn't, for example, increase when there is war, certainly not in the long run, as the Iraq War demonstrates. Also, if the US was anything like Rome, then the US would own the iraqi oilfields, at a minimum.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It is not the U.S. but the EU that is the resurrection of the Roman Empire.

How? it has none of the political mechanisms that the Roman republic or empire had, maintains no overseas empire, and has a completely different sort of economy?


The EU contains much of the land area of the original Roman empire

Just the european holdings tho, not the north african or asian holdings. And it also has lots of territory that wasn't part of the empire.


and is well on its way with the new EU constitution to the destruction of European democracies by the stripping of their soverignty to unelected commissions.

Such a process did not occur in Rome.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I didn't say it was an exact match, but if you want to find a government on the Earth that could be the rebirth of the Roman Empire, I believe the EU matches better than the U.S.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Tacitus:

"I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors.

Four emperors perished by the sword.

There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West. There were disturbances in Illyricum; Gaul wavered in its allegiance; Britain was thoroughly subdued and immediately abandoned; the tribes of the Suevi and the Sarmatae rose in concert against us; the Dacians had the glory of inflicting as well as suffering defeat; the armies of Parthia were all but set in motion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero.


Now too Italy was prostrated by disasters either entirely novel, or that recurred only after a long succession of ages; cities in Campania's richest plains were swallowed up and overwhelmed; Rome was wasted by conflagrations, its oldest temples consumed, and the Capitol itself fired by the hands of citizens. Sacred rites were profaned; there was profligacy in the highest ranks; the sea was crowded with exiles, and its rocks polluted with bloody deeds. In the capital there were yet worse horrors. Nobility, wealth, the refusal or the acceptance of office, were grounds for accusation, and virtue ensured destruction.


The rewards of the informers were no less odious than their crimes; for while some seized on consulships and priestly offices, as their share of the spoil, others on procuratorships, and posts of more confidential authority, they robbed and ruined in every direction amid universal hatred and terror.

Slaves were bribed to turn against their masters, and freedmen to betray their patrons; and those who had not an enemy were destroyed by friends. "

source:
classics.mit.edu...

Is there a writer of this caliber in the American Empire?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join