Which Ancient Empire is most similar to America - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14374055
The Americans today rule an empire based on mercantilism and naval supremacy. They are vindictive toward their foes and persistent in the pursuit of their goals. GThey use trade agreements and other forms of access to foreign markets, to expediate the uninterupted expatriatation of profits. They use indirect means, such as neo-liberal ideology and the opinion of the 'international community', to control their allies, and in so doing, turning those allies into subjects.

Which ancient empire is closest to them in character and structure?


My answer to this question is the Americans are most similar to the Athenians, who were also a mercantile society whose strength was based on their navy. They were also democratic and used rhetoric about freedom to legitmate their actions and interests. Like the Americans, they controlled hegomony through indirect means and extracted wealth from their allies/subjects to maintain their empire.


But there are other possibilities. The Americans share the vidictiveness and persistence of the Romans. They like to parade the Imperial eagle and copy Roman architecture. Yet, the Romans treated they allies and subjects very differently.


Another possibility in the Carthaginians, also a navy and mercantile power.
#14374066
Cool you opened up a thread for it.

I think looking at it now, you probably right. Athens from what I have read is much more similar to today's USA then Carthage is. Carthage is more similar in regard that it was a Phoenician colony at first that outgrew its mother country. Much like USA had outgrown England.

But in term of politics and structure of society, Athens comes to be much closer to USA today then Carthage is.

I never got around to reading about the Peloponesian War, even though I had the book. I should finally get to reading it. You inspired me now with all this ancient history talk.

Also with Romans, perhaps modern American military might be somewhat close to Roman one. Yet Romans are interesting, they had really good military leadership always. They had many good generals generation after generation, which you do not see in many countries. Perhaps England comes close to it, especially in The One Hundred Years of War with France. Where I can remember English kings performed very well in battle and their generals, usually defeating their French rivals tactically and strategically. Even though the French for most part had a superior force and fought on their homeland with better supply line available.

Also Rome at first was an aristocratic republic where most people who sat in senate were part of prominent landholding families, only later in years did inclusion of plebs (regular folk/commoners) along with patricians (aristocrats) came to be. This is also similar to what happened in England with their parliament. Although the English never deposed their monarchy like the Romans did.

At the same time, Romans defeated Hanibal (who was simply awesome), someone who was like Alexander the Great in his ability to wage war and battle. Basically they defeated a military genius by having their usual very good generals and good army. Not only did they defended Rome against Hanibal's malice, but also turned the tied around and defeated Carthage. Not so many nations in the world have been able to pull of such a task.

So it is hard to say with USA, it had never had a chance to prove itself like Rome had. And with nuclear weapons these days, which make conventional war somewhat impossible. I do not think it might ever have a chance. But over all I think it has potential to show that they are a much for ancient Rome's military achievements and gallantry.
#14374166
None.

sorry but I always find this kind of juxtaposition silly.

And

Hannibal was himself to blame for defeat of carthage for his failure to sack rome when it was basically defenceless. Then, Carthage was always at disadvantage as it didn't possessed the resources to match rome and her army was mostly consisted of mercenaries unlike the Romans. Its surprising in itself that Carthage managed to stand for so long.

But what sealed the Roman supremacy was not the punic war but the syrian war where Antiochus the idiot was defeated decisively to pave way for total roman supremacy in the med including the bread basket Egypt facilitating further imperial growth.
#14374656
fuser wrote:None.

sorry but I always find this kind of juxtaposition silly.



Party pooper




fuser wrote:And

Hannibal was himself to blame for defeat of carthage for his failure to sack rome when it was basically defenceless. Then, Carthage was always at disadvantage as it didn't possessed the resources to match rome and her army was mostly consisted of mercenaries unlike the Romans. Its surprising in itself that Carthage managed to stand for so long.

But what sealed the Roman supremacy was not the punic war but the syrian war where Antiochus the idiot was defeated decisively to pave way for total roman supremacy in the med including the bread basket Egypt facilitating further imperial growth.



To be fair to Antichus, and other leaders that went up against Rome (eg: Pyrhus, Phillip V, Hanibal, etc), he really didn't have the war machine that the Romans had. A war machine is as much about generation of force as it is organisation and application (tactics) of that force. This is a repsonse to Plaro's comment here as well:


Plaro wrote:At the same time, Romans defeated Hanibal (who was simply awesome), someone who was like Alexander the Great in his ability to wage war and battle. Basically they defeated a military genius by having their usual very good generals and good army. Not only did they defended Rome against Hanibal's malice, but also turned the tied around and defeated Carthage. Not so many nations in the world have been able to pull of such a task.



Rome had a population of around 250,000 million, very large by the standards of the day. They could lose many battles and keep coming back for more (this is what I mean't when I said they were persistent). Pyrrhus and Hanibal both discovered even clear victories over the Romans only cause them a tempory set back while a lose by Pyrrhus or Hanibal was decisive on the outcome of the war.


It was the case that Antiochus simply couldn't sustain war like the Romans could. As it happens, he didn't preform well in his two battles with them either, which makes him look kinda dorky compared to Pyrrhus and Hanibal (the later was a general of Antiochus during the war with Rome).


So the Romans were masters of logistics and force generation. In this sense, they seem comparable with the contemory hegemony, the USA. Likewise the US is persistent and vindictive(eg: Iraq, war on terror, and they just won't give up on Iran). The treatment of Carthage after it's fianl defeat shows the vindictivness of the Romans. There seems to be a similar outlook between the two cultures.



Plaro wrote:Also with Romans, perhaps modern American military might be somewhat close to Roman one. Yet Romans are interesting, they had really good military leadership always. They had many good generals generation after generation, which you do not see in many countries. Perhaps England comes close to it, especially in The One Hundred Years of War with France. Where I can remember English kings performed very well in battle and their generals, usually defeating their French rivals tactically and strategically. Even though the French for most part had a superior force and fought on their homeland with better supply line available.



As I warned Igor, I warn you too. Never compare the British with the Romans. They get too much satisfaction out of it.


On the subject though, I'd argue the British ran a 'common or garden variety' empire. History has plenty of examples of a militarily successful group coming in and lording it over the conquered. In regard to the focus of our 'silly juxtapositions', I'd argue that the British Empire is more like the Achaemenid Empire. They just came in and set themselves up as the new ruling class, then started expoliting the place to enrich themselves. A typical imperial structure in world history, though such empires are typically short lived.



Plaro wrote:I never got around to reading about the Peloponesian War, even though I had the book. I should finally get to reading it. You inspired me now with all this ancient history talk.



Thucydides, author of 'The Peloponnesian War', is a boring writer, say compared to Plutarch. But he tries to be objective and thorough. I am up to the 8th year of the war. There is a battle at Delium between the Boeotians and the Athenians which Thycudides describes in detail. He states the Theban hoplites were formed 25 deep, Athenians 8 deep and non Theban Boeotians had a variety of formations (ie: no pattern to the deep of their phalanx). I found this very intersting as here are the Thebans with a deep phalanx 50 years before their famous victory over the Spartans at Leuctra (Delium: 424BC; Leuctra: 371BC), in which they deployed the scared band 50 deep and used an oblique approach, breaking the Spartan line with their deep collum before the reast of the line came in contact. So Thucydides describes the Thebans using a precursor to Epaminondas' famous tactic.


I recomend reading that book. Xenophon's 'Hellenica' follows on where Thucydides left off. I am yet to get my hands on that one.
#14374663
I hear you but I think Selecuids in all the history of rise of Rome were the only one who had the chance to end Roman superiority and check her expansion.

Most of the times Rome always managed to fight weaker enemies than her. Of course I am not talking about the infant stage of Roman republic or Roman kingdom.
#14378796
fuser wrote:
Hannibal was himself to blame for defeat of carthage for his failure to sack rome when it was basically defenceless.



Right after Cannae Rome didn't have much of an army but it was a walled city so dunno....Hannibal wanted Neapolis and could've taken any city had it not been for their walls.
#14378803
This will lead this thread astray but what they should had done is to, "Siege the damn town". And IIRC Rome did had some wonderful siege weapons at that time and when you are stationed in core Roman territory for so long either learn siege craft or hire people from roman territories to build and operate siege weapons.
#14636969
We got spoiled and lazy like Rome a little less blood thirsty as the roman citizens were but just as entertained by athletes and actors. Rome was not conquored it was willfully invaded or infiltrated. Like us it actually died from within.

So the huge armies of marauding barbarians had nothing to do with it then? It was actually the indoor plumbing and the central heated homes which did for the Roman Empire?
#14636983
Clearly, it was a willful invasion. The Romans allowed barbarian invasions because the Democrats invited mass numbers of them in, calling them refugees when we all know they were migrants. This liberal cycle of betrayal of one's own civilization never ends, and it is repeating today.
#14637001
Bulaba Jones wrote:Clearly, it was a willful invasion. The Romans allowed barbarian invasions because the Democrats invited mass numbers of them in, calling them refugees when we all know they were migrants. This liberal cycle of betrayal of one's own civilization never ends, and it is repeating today.

That was spot on.
The vultures always gather around rotten food. When the eagles leave, the vultures come.
#14693436
foxdemon wrote:The Americans today rule an empire based on mercantilism and naval supremacy. They are vindictive toward their foes and persistent in the pursuit of their goals. GThey use trade agreements and other forms of access to foreign markets, to expediate the uninterupted expatriatation of profits. They use indirect means, such as neo-liberal ideology and the opinion of the 'international community', to control their allies, and in so doing, turning those allies into subjects.

Which ancient empire is closest to them in character and structure?


My answer to this question is the Americans are most similar to the Athenians, who were also a mercantile society whose strength was based on their navy. They were also democratic and used rhetoric about freedom to legitmate their actions and interests. Like the Americans, they controlled hegomony through indirect means and extracted wealth from their allies/subjects to maintain their empire.


But there are other possibilities. The Americans share the vidictiveness and persistence of the Romans. They like to parade the Imperial eagle and copy Roman architecture. Yet, the Romans treated they allies and subjects very differently.


Another possibility in the Carthaginians, also a navy and mercantile power.

In style, I would say we (the USA) are just like the Athenians yes -- a maritime empire with soldiers every bit as good as anybody else's. The Russians then would be most like the Spartans -- at least they were during the USSR days.

In power, I would say we are most like the Romans however. Overextended armies. Devalued currency. Tax issues. A huge dole. And intoxication with materialism and dope.
#14693438
fuser wrote:None.

sorry but I always find this kind of juxtaposition silly.

And

Hannibal was himself to blame for defeat of carthage for his failure to sack rome when it was basically defenceless. Then, Carthage was always at disadvantage as it didn't possessed the resources to match rome and her army was mostly consisted of mercenaries unlike the Romans. Its surprising in itself that Carthage managed to stand for so long.

But what sealed the Roman supremacy was not the punic war but the syrian war where Antiochus the idiot was defeated decisively to pave way for total roman supremacy in the med including the bread basket Egypt facilitating further imperial growth.

The British were a lot like the Athenians as well, although even more like Crete in prehistory.

Unfortunately we do not know much about Crete in prehistory. But they were a huge naval power who preceded the Mycenaeans and also the Dorians and Ionians who came later.

Ultimately the British got themselves overextended with their navies same as the Athenians.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]