Trump = Stilicho - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14889522
Warning: Fall of the Roman Empire Analogy

Stilicho and the Fall of the Western Empire
Here is a really brief summation regarding the fall of the western Roman Empire.

So there was this guy named Flavius Stilicho. He has been called "the last Roman General."

During his lifetime, the western Roman Empire had grown weaker and was only barely fending off barbarian incursions, the most dangerous of which came from King Alaric of the Visigoths.

Stilicho somehow pulled off a diplomatic coup d'etat and got over 30,000 Visigoth warriors to defect from Alaric and serve Rome.

The average Roman was culturally sophisticated in ways that made no sense to the average Visigoth warrior. They hated the Visigoth transplants even though said transplants were making up the core of their military by that time.

Stilicho didn't have a perfect record. He failed to win against the barbarians every time. Eventually his enemies at court got him accused of treason, executing him and his son.

Angry mobs attacked the families of the Visigoth soldiers. About 30,000 Visigoths defected back to King Alaric, demanding that he lead them against Rome. He did and Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years. This is generally treated as the end of the western Roman Empire.

As an aside, a strange campaign had been underway to have the western Roman Empire invade the eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantium). As part of this campaign, the western Emperor Honorius deliberately sabotaged Rome's economy so that they would have limited access to north African wheat. This was meant to manipulate the population of Rome. To want to invade the eastern empire essentially required someone to buy into elaborate conspiracy theories before it could make any sense. When Alaric began his siege, it has been theorized that if Honorius had not previously starved Rome for grain, willpower to withstand Alaric's siege might have been higher and therefore the gates would not have been opened, thus Rome would not have been sacked.

Trump as Stilicho
Trump is accused of "normalizing" the far-right rednecks.

Currently the core of the American military is staffed by "far-right rednecks" that I will be comparing to the Visigoths.

Liberals are the culturally "sophisticated" Romans.

Russia is the eastern empire.

The liberals (Romans) hate the rednecks (Visigoths). They want Trump and in many cases, Trump Jr. to be brought up on treason charges and executed. Instead of considering that rednecks (Visigoths) are basically running their military they want to attack Russia, something that can only be justified with extensive conspiracy theories that amount to "we have to look more before we can know what they did wrong".

If Trump goes down, angry mobs of AntiFa might get the wrong idea and attack populations of rednecks, even though these are the parents, wives and children of the people who make up the core of their military.

The bad attitude towards Russians will ultimately not manifest as anything. Instead, the rednecks/Visigoths decide they have had enough. The coup that was supposed to be a left-wing (Roman) coup turns into a right-wing (Visigoth) coup. Although the Visigoths offer various terms of alliance, the Romans would never accept this because of their egos and the final result is that Visigoth culture turns into something else whereas Roman culture largely disappears.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14889524
Currently the core of the American military is staffed by "far-right rednecks" that I will be comparing to the Visigoths.

Liberals are the culturally "sophisticated" Romans.

Russia is the eastern empire.

:lol:

Wrong on all counts.

After that particularly deep think, maybe you need to lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You know, just to recharge your brain's batteries for your next deep think.... :)
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14889525
Potemkin wrote::lol:

Wrong on all counts.

After that particularly deep think, maybe you need to lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You know, just to recharge your brain's batteries for your next deep think.... :)

Get with the times Potemkin, we already agreed that the new term is deep thunks, although thicc thunks might be better.

Cultural sophistication is just being able to argue that back stabs don't count as stabbings. The average angry redneck would stab you from the front, the average angry liberal would stab you from the back and then say it doesn't count.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14889527
Get with the times Potemkin, we already agreed that the new term is deep thunks, although thicc thunks might be better.

Cultural sophistication is just being able to argue that back stabs don't count as stabbings. The average angry redneck would stab you from the front, the average angry liberal would stab you from the back and then say it doesn't count.

Image
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14889530
Potemkin wrote::lol:

Wrong on all counts.

After that particularly deep think, maybe you need to lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You know, just to recharge your brain's batteries for your next deep think.... :)


Wrong doesn't even come close to describing the text that I just read.

@Hong Wu

Ok. There is so much wrong with your opinion on this so i don't even know where to start.

Let me just say this. Rome did not fall because of some "cultural" conflict between liberals and conservative rednecks. Rome fell because it was overstretched and could not properly defend itself. As time went on Rome went from the most disciplined army in the known world(For them) to an army of Barbarians.

The percentage of Barbarians in the roman army increased because Hadrian stopped the expansions of the empire and basically settled its neibhours as buffer states which were allowed to live on Romes borders but were forced to give men for the army. As time went on, the border legions changed from Roman elites to fully Barbarian-underequiped packs of men.

Don't get me wrong, Rome still had SOME well equiped and well trained legions but those were mostly special legions that took part in all of the fighting. Let us call them Emperors Legions. Usually they were enough but when the great migration started, it became obvious that underequiped Barbarians that manned your borders were not enough anymore. And the legions who were trained and equiped were too few in numbers compared to the times of the republic and early empire when all legions were up to standard.

Hence Rome burned, because it neglected the military.

There are obviously WAY WAY more things that can be added to this. But the 2 main issues were mentioned: weaking on the legions and the great migration.
#14889533
Hong Wu wrote:Trump is accused of "normalizing" the far-right rednecks.

No, Trump is accused of lining his own pockets, and working with foreigners to take power. Since you don't understand this, the rest of it doesn't make much sense.

Currently the core of the American military is staffed by "far-right rednecks" that I will be comparing to the Visigoths.

America's problem is not the typical military grunt; it's the kleptocrats like Trump, and his use of hatred to mobilise the dumbass far right who aren't qualified to get into the military.

Liberals are the culturally "sophisticated" Romans.

OK, we'll try to work with this...

Russia is the eastern empire.

The eastern empire was united with the west when Stilicho's career started. This just doesn't work. Of course, Stilicho rose to power through his skill, and had several military successes, and so comparing Trump to him fails as well. Your analogy is hopeless. Hardly anything matches well enough to be useful.

If Trump goes down, angry mobs of AntiFa might get the wrong idea and attack populations of rednecks, even though these are the parents, wives and children of the people who make up the core of their military.

Jesus, now we're into fearmongering Turner Diary fanfic. What a waste of everyone's time.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14889543
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, Trump is accused of lining his own pockets, and working with foreigners to take power. Since you don't understand this, the rest of it doesn't make much sense.


America's problem is not the typical military grunt; it's the kleptocrats like Trump, and his use of hatred to mobilise the dumbass far right who aren't qualified to get into the military.


OK, we'll try to work with this...


The eastern empire was united with the west when Stilicho's career started. This just doesn't work. Of course, Stilicho rose to power through his skill, and had several military successes, and so comparing Trump to him fails as well. Your analogy is hopeless. Hardly anything matches well enough to be useful.


Jesus, now we're into fearmongering Turner Diary fanfic. What a waste of everyone's time.


By the way, :lol: at comparing american military with visigoths :lol:

While comparing "cultured" romans to liberals.

The most effective legions were the Roman legions. Highly trained, disciplined, well equiped.
Visigoth/Barbarians aka Border legions were the opposite to Roman legions.

American military is basically the Roman Legion of the late Republican period right now. Or perhaps Trojans legions. Anything that came after Trojan was sub-par.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14889573
JohnRawls wrote:Rome fell because it was overstretched


I've been noticing this for some time. America can police (in an effort to maximize her $/power) the world to some extent but not to the extent that she has been/is. ie. WTF are we doing in Syria? It is a total and unmitigated mess with no end in sight with a half dozen or more armies involved. Hey, why not just sit back and watch the assholes beat the shit out of each other?
#14890077
JohnRawls wrote:American military is basically the Roman Legion of the late Republican period right now. Or perhaps Trojans legions. Anything that came after Trojan was sub-par.


Im curious how so.

It seems to me that there’s a fundamental difference, mostly in how soldiers are funded. The American military is not dependent upon ambitious generals looking to fill the coffers of their loyal foot soldiers.

This, I feel, is a crucial element to the Roman military in the late republic. Am I over emphasizing this aspect?
#14890100
I sorta think right before the Third Century Crises.

Though I heard a conservative pundit the other day talk about how Trump was the first of the “bad emperors” in the imperial presidency. In that the public almost delights in talking about all the rotten shit he does and how he lives in spite of his responsibilities and whatnot.

Roman comparisons are always fun, and always so flawed as to be almost useless.
User avatar
By Beren
#14890111
The Immortal Goon wrote:I sorta think right before the Third Century Crises.

Though I heard a conservative pundit the other day talk about how Trump was the first of the “bad emperors” in the imperial presidency. In that the public almost delights in talking about all the rotten shit he does and how he lives in spite of his responsibilities and whatnot.

Roman comparisons are always fun, and always so flawed as to be almost useless.

It could be a good shot as well. I used to think myself that Bush II was Trajan and Obama was Hadrian.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14890116
It could be a good shot as well. I used to think myself that Bush II was Trajan and Obama was Hadrian.

Nah, Bush I was Trajan - he presided over the USA when it was at the height of its power, and won a major war in the Middle East which enhanced his empire's prestige enormously. It's been downhill for America ever since, as it was for Rome. :lol:
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14890212
The Immortal Goon wrote:Im curious how so.

It seems to me that there’s a fundamental difference, mostly in how soldiers are funded. The American military is not dependent upon ambitious generals looking to fill the coffers of their loyal foot soldiers.

This, I feel, is a crucial element to the Roman military in the late republic. Am I over emphasizing this aspect?


Actually not necessarily true. There was an element of spoils of war in the Roman army but it was to a different degree what you think. They got the regular salary(like the us army does) but what was most important in the Republican-Eearly imperial times were the other benefits. Also 1 of the issues was that the salary during republican-early imperial times was really good while later on due to inflation it was meaningless. (Blame Hadrian for that and many others)

So how it worked in the legion is that all of booty went to the camp prefect/general. After that the general decided what to do with it. (Send it to rome, use it himself, give it to the soldiers). The majority of the money that the soldiers got was not the booty, but the salary itself. The bonuses for good campaigns were not necessarily that good. (At times they were when the generals wanted to raise moral etc, but it was rare)

The main benefit came from serving in the army your time. The common misconception is that people think that very few legionares finished their time, which is definately not the case. Majority did have a full service and then retire. What they got for that:

1) Land to farm.
2) No taxation at all.
3) Additional benefits fit to your rank.

Obviously the points 1 and 2 are the more important ones. In later Empire 1 and 2 were basically discarded.

If we compare it to the us military then it is quite similar. They do get quite a large salary and they do have retirement benefits. If i remember they get free housing but they still get taxed.

@jimjam
I've been noticing this for some time. America can police (in an effort to maximize her $/power) the world to some extent but not to the extent that she has been/is. ie. WTF are we doing in Syria? It is a total and unmitigated mess with no end in sight with a half dozen or more armies involved. Hey, why not just sit back and watch the assholes beat the shit out of each other?


It is a bit more complicated then that. You can't compare Rome and America. Rome was besieged by enemies on many fronts and it had to keep every frontier manned with certain amount of legions. If i remember correctly Rome had 3 legions in Britain, 6 legions in France/Central Europe, 3 Legions in greece, 2 legions in Algeria/Near morocco and around 5-7 legions in Syria/Egypt/Turkey. My numbers can be wrong because i can't be asked rechecking.

Rome was constantly attacked by Celts in Britain, Gauls in Europe, Nomadic african tribes in Africa, Parthians in the East, Dacians in the Balcans. America is not attacked by anyone nor does it have to have such massive forces defending its borders. So america can't overstretch itself because there are no pressure points to overstretch it. What america does is out of its free will and it can retreat and go to battle at will which does not threaten the mainland of US.
By foxdemon
#14890439
@JohnRawls these are all good points. America has a strong strategic position. Perhaps Carthage is a better analogy? However contemporary America does have the airs of the late Republic about it.

BTW, wasn’t Stilicho Germanic? I can’t remember if he was a Goth or a Vandal. But he wasn’t Roman.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14890444
foxdemon wrote:@JohnRawls these are all good points. America has a strong strategic position. Perhaps Carthage is a better analogy? However contemporary America does have the airs of the late Republic about it.

BTW, wasn’t Stilicho Germanic? I can’t remember if he was a Goth or a Vandal. But he wasn’t Roman.


Stilicho was a vandal, well half-vandal half roman.

Carthage is a better example but then again, life of Carthage was also not as simple as fighting only Rome. Carthage was technically a confederation of forces. At points those forces betrayed Carthage, for example Numidians at Zama which ultimately lead to loss in the 2nd punic war. Maps in textbooks always baffled me. Carthage borders were different depending on the allegiances of those forces within the federation. You can't simply picture Carthage as a state that encompases northern Africa and parts of Spain. ( My knowledge of Carthage is limited though so i might be wrong )

The loose confederation also was probably the reason why they lost against Rome in the first place. If they reinforced Hannibal while they had the seas and the Greak city states with them, they might have been able to take Rome itself. But they sent reinforcement to Spain and ultimately lost both in Spain and Italy. Also lost the greek city states in Italy.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]