The New Roman Empire: The United States of America

[Georgy Zhukov]

And so, we dominated the Earth for 400 years.

No.

[Dazey]

When I am lazing around on welfare, I have a lot of time for books.

In between bouts of Jeremy Kyle obviously.

[DieselDaisy]

That is my average day's timetable

- wake up

- watch Jeremy Kyle

- Put on my tracksuit

- go and sign on

- Lunch at Gregges

- Come home

- Read Tacitus (in the original Latin, I might add)

[Dazey]

That is my average day's timetable

- wake up

- watch Jeremy Kyle

- Put on my tracksuit

- go and sign on

- Lunch at Gregges

- Come home

- Read Tacitus (in the original Latin, I might add)

It's a good job you're single cuz you're not leaving much time in there to give the wife an adequate kicking.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Been shopping around for books on East Asian as well as South Asian history.

[DieselDaisy]

That is my average day's timetable

- wake up

- watch Jeremy Kyle

- Put on my tracksuit

- go and sign on

- Lunch at Gregges

- Come home

- Read Tacitus (in the original Latin, I might add)

It's a good job you're single cuz you're not leaving much time in there to give the wife an adequate kicking.

Wor Hazel? She was out getting my methadone supply.

Been shopping around for books on East Asian as well as South Asian history.

Try, George Sansom's History of Japan. My bible.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Ooh three volumes? I like.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes. They have battle maps and appendixes and things - in other words, just the sort of geeky books I like. I suppose you might call them a bit dated (1950s) but they are still the best multi-volume work on pre-20th century Japanese history, in English. I have read them about three times.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I've always been reluctant to get an older history book because of whatever new discoveries were made. Maybe I can buy a modern companion.

Korean history seems harder to find.

[DieselDaisy]

But with written history it is just, written interpretations of the same old original sources (unless something major crops up like the Dead Sea Scrolls). You have a point with pre-history mind, and indeed Sansom begins his account in prehistory.

[Georgy Zhukov]

He cuts off before the Meiji Restoration. I would like to cover that too and beyond.

[downzy]

Well no, the Roman Empire has done more to influence the Western World than the United States ever will. I mean we based part of our existence on them. They still influence us. One of the remaining legacies of the Roman Empire is The Catholic Church. Nobody would give a damn what Francis would say if his Church was never elevated because it happened to be in Rome.

Hell a ton of empires and states throughout history has had more influence on our world today than the United States. The United States simply is powerful based on economy and military alone. And that has been challenged by China which has had lasting influence for thousands of years.

I disagree. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that the empire that U.S. has constituted the last fifty-sixty years rivals the previous empires (Mongolian, Persian, Greek, Roman, French, British, etc.). In terms of military, economy, politics, culture, education - the U.S. is far and away the most influential actor on the planet. It truly is the indispensable nation much like Rome and Athens were during their day.

Sure, we're still influenced to a degree by the Roman empire, but so what? Not sure if that means anything other than the fact that the Roman empire came before America's dominance. But the Romans never had the military or political reach like the U.S. currently enjoys.

China is a regional power, not a global one. It might get there, but it still has a long way to go.

[SoulMonster]

I think an argument can be made that it is easier to influence other countries today than in previous centuries and millenia. Culture, innovations and technology is much easier disseminated in our globalized world now than it has been previously. Whereas in old times the spread of information happened slowly and only reached those areas where trade and communications occurred, in increasinly diluted forms, today even the most remote countries and regions ae recipients of whatever a large empire decides to broadcast and share.

[Len Cnut]

I am a bit busy right now but here is something to ponder,

The United States of America, in 1776, created a form of government, a 'republic' (partially, thanks to Thomas Paine's Common Sense) in which a monarchy does not exist, and there is a degree of popular representation. Correct? Now, ask yourself what this concept is, a republic? In 509 BC, in Rome, Lucius Junius Brutus overthrew the last of the Etruscan kings, Tarquinus Superbus, and established a new form of government based upon collegiality and public consent. Rome called her new government, res publica, a public concern. SPQR ('the Senate and the People of Rome'). From now on, government was in the hands of the city of Rome.

This is Led Zeppelin levels of plagiarism here. America's founding fathers merely ripped off Rome's constitution. They should have been sued for copyright infringement.

I wonder what that bloke meant in that documentary, whats his name, the one you said was camp? I remember him saying that about The American Constitution resembled another document in a knowing sort of way.

[DieselDaisy]

I think an argument can be made that it is easier to influence other countries today than in previous centuries and millenia. Culture, innovations and technology is much easier disseminated in our globalized world now than it has been previously. Whereas in old times the spread of information happened slowly and only reached those areas where trade and communications occurred, in increasinly diluted forms, today even the most remote countries and regions ae recipients of whatever a large empire decides to broadcast and share.

Yes. Also, the world had not been thoroughly explored. For any European prior to, 1492, you cross the Atlantic and hit Asia! Even as late as the late 19th century, vast areas of Africa remained, terra incognita. You cannot have a truly gloabalised empire with vast unexplored continents.

For a Roman, you were a global power - or, near it. Roman power stretched into Asia (where it hit the Parthians). It penetrated Arabia, North Africa, the Balkans and the Rhine (whereupon it hit, Germany). It ruled Britannia, ending at Hadrian's War. But even areas outside the Roman Empire were areas of Rome's 'informal empire'. It is now believed that Hadrian's Wall was less a defensive barrier (to keep the Scots out), more, a demarcation line, facilitating trade and travel between the two zones. There has been archaeological evidence of some sort of Roman presence in Western Ireland, also - perhaps a trading station or the ruins of some, abandoned, invasion attempt. Also, remind ourselves that Rome finally collapsed by barbarians wanting to, belong, to her empire.

The one perhaps exception to Roman global reach was the presence of China, who they called 'Seres' (silk people). The Romans were aware of the Chinese via the Silk Road, and became avid consumers of her luxury silks. There were embassies between the two empires. So the knowledge of another big Empire may have, acted as a check on Rome's conception of itself as an omnipotent power.

I noticed the Greeks mentioned. Alexander reached the Indus. His empire however collapsed swiftly after his death. But this would be the high water mark of Mediterranean Hellenistic imperium.

[SoulMonster]

As a side note, I can hghly recommend Iggulden's historical fiction series on the start and development of the Mongol empire. A fascinating and great read. The Mongols were another of those immense empires that grew out of almost nothing in a rather short time, spanning huge areas with a vast collection of peoples and tribes of highly divergent cultures, and although it started to crumble rather quickly after Djenghis' death, it still remained a powerhouse for a long time.

[Snake-Pit]

I can't wait for them to finish building America

Y'all English speakers of the Free World seem to forget a thing called The British Empire and it's effect it has on your country, whatever country it is, if it speaks English.

Think about it.

[Georgy Zhukov]

British dominance lasted from 1815 to about 1914. The US never truly became a global power until 1946 and never the sole superpower until 1991.

[Snake-Pit]

Centuries ago, when kings, emperors, and warlords reigned over much of the world, it was the English who first spelled out the rights and liberties of man in the Magna Carta. It was here, in this very hall, where the rule of law first developed, courts were established, disputes were settled, and citizens came to petition their leaders.

- President Obama, 2011

You want to talk effect?

Goverment

Language

Banking system

All British in origin, like the road built by the Romans in England and are still there today, to rights and freedoms set out by the Magna Carta enjoyed by Americans and their constitution today.

The Romans had their lasting effect on England, the British Empire left it's mark, it's like a road vs. a way of life...

Truesay, a road was a big deal in the ancient world, but, c'mon... All that stuff we did and the world today; America, Australia, Canada ect... Yeah, that was us Baby.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Snake-Pit

[Iron MikeyJ]

The British Empire had it's share of influence, can't sell them boys short. God only knows what language I'd be speaking without them??? But it sure as hell wouldn't be French...

[DieselDaisy]

British dominance lasted from 1815 to about 1914. The US never truly became a global power until 1946 and never the sole superpower until 1991.

Yes but, from 1870, Germany and the United States were swiftly catching up to Great Britain in industrial capacity and financial resources. British power rested on two things,

1/ Superior fiscal machinery, which allowed Britain to fund warfare solely on government debt (contrast this with the bankruptcy of the French ancien regime). Modern economics, is, a British invention.

2/ The Royal Navy. Britain outstripped her competitors threefold in number of warships between 1805-1870. The mere peacetime presence of this power gave Britain, immense strategic-political clout. One incident serves as an example. France nearly declared war on Britain over Fashoda, but she realised she could literally not fight Britain because of the supremacy of the Royal Navy so resorted to a humiliating political climb down. Even Jutland, a Battle in which the Royal Navy was certainly bested, Britain held the strategic advantage afterwards because of her numerical supremacy in warships (and capacity to build more).

[Georgy Zhukov]

Japan too got rather competitive. They were like the dark horse, learned the best from the best. The British in naval warfare and the Germans in infantry. They humiliated the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire. They played a minimal role in WWI, many German soldiers they've captured in the Pacific ended up staying in Japan, taking Japanese wives and opening beer halls that last to this very day.

Britain's dominance was partially owed to not fighting directly with other European powers in risk of weakening their positions. They smartly organize coalitions against Napoleon and later Tsars Nicolas I and Alexander II of Russia. World War I is when they've started to lose their power through dominance. It took a lot more out of them than Crimea did. Fighting Germany and Japan at the same time during World War II severely weakened them plus the ongoing unrest in South Asia did not help. The partition of India and Pakistan could have been handled better but I don't think they had the military peace keeping power at the time. The Japanese taking Sinapore in 1942 with smaller numbers and even fewer ammunition was the symbolic end of an empire along with the loss of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[DieselDaisy]

Japan too got rather competitive. They were like the dark horse, learned the best from the best. The British in naval warfare and the Germans in infantry. They humiliated the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire. They played a minimal role in WWI, many German soldiers they've captured in the Pacific ended up staying in Japan, taking Japanese wives and opening beer halls that last to this very day.

Britain's dominance was partially owed to not fighting directly with other European powers in risk of weakening their positions. They smartly organize coalitions against Napoleon and later Tsars Nicolas I and Alexander II of Russia. World War I is when they've started to lose their power through dominance. It took a lot more out of them than Crimea did. Fighting Germany and Japan at the same time during World War II severely weakened them plus the ongoing unrest in South Asia did not help. The partition of India and Pakistan could have been handled better but I don't think they had the military peace keeping power at the time. The Japanese taking Sinapore in 1942 with smaller numbers and even fewer ammunition was the symbolic end of an empire along with the loss of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In land battles?

Britain has always presided herself on not possessing an extensive land army. That partially accounts for the prestige of the Royal Navy, 'the senior service'. The British saw, a Navy, as somehow more in tune to her national spirit than land armies, which were associated with continental despotism. There is a historical reason for Britain's apathy of standing armies: the English Civil War and the Cromwellian military dictatorship of the 17th century. It is actually a belief that the American colonies inherited, built upon a 'whigish' hatred of state power. This is why Washington's Continental Army was dismantled. The United States essentially did not have a professional army after that. (As late as the beginning of World War Two, the United States army was relatively paltry).

Rather ironic, really?

So Britain had a much smaller army than the other nations of the Napoleonic Wars. She funded these coalitions against Bonaparte, with her gargantuan financial resources, and blockaded French ports. Her army, when it was used, was used sparingly. In actual fact, in the Peninsular War it made a massive contribution to the defeat of Napoleon but it was husbanded carefully under Wellington.

Britain would not have a massive 'conscript' army until 1916.

Edited December 20, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Lithium]

Will you guys please shut up and let Snake-Pit speak?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Japan too got rather competitive. They were like the dark horse, learned the best from the best. The British in naval warfare and the Germans in infantry. They humiliated the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire. They played a minimal role in WWI, many German soldiers they've captured in the Pacific ended up staying in Japan, taking Japanese wives and opening beer halls that last to this very day.

Britain's dominance was partially owed to not fighting directly with other European powers in risk of weakening their positions. They smartly organize coalitions against Napoleon and later Tsars Nicolas I and Alexander II of Russia. World War I is when they've started to lose their power through dominance. It took a lot more out of them than Crimea did. Fighting Germany and Japan at the same time during World War II severely weakened them plus the ongoing unrest in South Asia did not help. The partition of India and Pakistan could have been handled better but I don't think they had the military peace keeping power at the time. The Japanese taking Sinapore in 1942 with smaller numbers and even fewer ammunition was the symbolic end of an empire along with the loss of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In land battles?

Britain has always presided herself on not possessing an extensive land army. That partially accounts for the prestige of the Royal Navy, 'the senior service'. The British saw, a Navy, as somehow more in tune to her national spirit than land armies, which were associated with continental despotism. There is a historical reason for Britain's apathy of standing armies: the English Civil War and the Cromwellian military dictatorship of the 17th century. It is actually a belief that the American colonies inherited, built upon a 'whigish' hatred of state power. This is why Washington's Continental Army was dismantled. The United States essentially did not have a professional army after that. (As late as the beginning of World War Two, the United States army was relatively paltry).

Rather ironic, really?

So Britain had a much smaller army than the other nations of the Napoleonic Wars. She funded these coalitions against Bonaparte, with her gargantuan financial resources, and blockaded French ports. Her army, when it was used, was used sparingly. In actual fact, in the Peninsular War it made a massive contribution to the defeat of Napoleon but it was husbanded carefully under Wellington.

Britain would not have a massive 'conscript' army until 1916.

And the conscription and subsequent losses is what weakened the Empire. Maybe they didn't see it as having much choice because they would alienate their French and Russian and later American allies who were pouring bodies into the war machine and splatter them onto the battlefield. The British had to sacrifice much for victory. Both wars they've found themselves at conflict at all sides. It cost them money and man power, and the Colonies wanted to be independent at that point.

The British army, when they had the soldiers they were killing machines. At Mons in 1914 they've cut down Germans with only their Lee Enfields without little use of machine guns. But when they've started dying, conscription was used and the British just had ordinary soldiers.