I’m not sure if I’d go that far. Things definitely got worse for Rome, or the regions formerly known as Rome. And they also got somewhat worse for Rome’s neighbors who benefited from the regional stability and trade. But for distant provincials and other people who lived their lives outside of the power vacuum, things were fine or even better.
Strong disagree. Throughout the decline (roughly putting it at ~284 AD because I hate Diocletian, to 474 AD), not only was there a massive and sharp drop in living standards all across the former Empire, but one that dropped some areas below their pre-Roman living standards, most notably Britain (abandoned ~410 AD), but all across the western provinces.
Not only that, but that the decline was accompanied by a collapse of the pax Romana was not some abstract thing for the provincials - it meant, quite literally, war coming to their doorstep. Armies, Roman and barbarian, fighting in their lands and despoiling it, conscripting their children, seizing their grain. And when it was all over, those wars didn’t stop - it was just Romans were no longer involved. There was a massive depopulation of Europe through the fall of the Empire.
And on top of all of that, the collapse of Roman civilization sent Europe and North Africa spiraling back in terms of societal complexity; economic, legal, and architectural complexity would not fully recover for some ~1200 years.
I don’t think the US is quite that level of powerful. But please don’t wish a Roman fall on the US, or you wish a fall on us all.
For better or worse, though, I think it is safe to say that the supposed “Pax Americana” is approaching its end. Hopefully the world is prepared for that.
I think that is still mainly a consideration of the acute effects which occurred within the Roman empire, though, and not so much the effect that it had on the periphery of Rome and beyond its borders.
I agree with your points, I think bad things would happen within a Rome-like collapse of the US. But I think the overall global impact would be primarily limited to North America and other countries which are bound more closely to American geopolitics. But at the same time, given that the collapse of colonial structures restores autonomy to subjugated citizens of colonized regions, we see positive social development in the absence of Rome as I imagine we would see in the absence of America.
The end of USAID says that it isn’t just our close allies that will suffer. The end of NOAA, and our other scientific endeavors means the whole world will suffer to some extent.
I agree with your points, I think bad things would happen within a Rome-like collapse of the US. But I think the overall global impact would be primarily limited to North America and other countries which are bound more closely to American geopolitics.
The whole world is bound up in American politics, man.
I think that is still mainly a consideration of the acute effects which occurred within the Roman empire, though, and not so much the effect that it had on the periphery of Rome and beyond its borders.
… how core do you think Britannia was to the Roman Empire, exactly? There’s a reason I chose it as an example.
But who is Britannia? The Britons, who still led several uprisings trying to oust the Roman invaders? Do we follow the Roman lead of stopping the borders of Britannia arbitrarily at Caledonia and Hibernia and declare the people of those lands as being without value because they had less tribute to extract? Or do we look only at the accounts of the handful of British tribal kings who were willing to appease the Romans in exchange for preferential treatment, enough to be more positively written about in their surviving history?
Beyond Britannia, was Rome great for Judea? Did the tribes of Germania enjoy being invaded every time some emperor wanted to improve their legacy and try to one-up their forebears? Did the remaining Gaulish tribes miss Rome after the fall, if only because they were the only ones left alive after Caesar’s conquest? And, perhaps most importantly, was life in Rome great for all of the people enslaved by it throughout its history?
I really do get what you are saying, but keep in mind that Rome was a great place to be a Roman—it wasn’t so great for everyone else. There was violence and strife during its fall, but so was there in its rise and later stagnation. It’s mainly just lucky for Rome that they were the best record keepers of their time, to have written so many one-sided perspectives about how great it was, which certainly gave later Europe a wonderful ideal to miss after it was gone. But the foundations of that empire were nevertheless built on a brutal cycle of conquest, exploitation, and enslavement.
But who is Britannia? The Britons, who still led several uprisings trying to oust the Roman invaders?
Bruh, Britannia hadn’t had a major native uprising in over 300 years at the time Roman Britain was abandoned.
Do we follow the Roman lead of stopping the borders of Britannia arbitrarily at Caledonia and Hibernia and declare the people of those lands as being without value because they had less tribute to extract?
“Britannia” as in “The Roman province of Britannia”, guy.
Or do we look only at the accounts of the handful of British tribal kings who were willing to appease the Romans in exchange for preferential treatment, enough to be more positively written about in their surviving history?
…
Fucking what.
Beyond Britannia, was Rome great for Judea?
Before and after the Jewish-Roman Wars in which religious fanatics attempted to murder everyone who wasn’t their coreligionist or was their coreligionist but in the wrong way, yes. During them, not so much.
Did the tribes of Germania enjoy being invaded every time some emperor wanted to improve their legacy and try to one-up their forebears?
See, now this is a potentially legitimate point. I would counter, though, that most major cross-border incursions into Germania by Rome after the campaigns of Augustus were provoked by attacks and raids on Roman land and allies - Germania remained unconquered for the same reason that it was not really all that great as a target for loot and plunder - it was dirt poor. Rome’s primary reason for expeditions against the Germanic tribes was defense of the borders - the Germans were neither prestigious nor prosperous targets.
Now, Persia? Persia was a perpetual dream of Roman conquest, and they were probably quite glad to hear half of their enemy’s empire had collapsed.
Did the remaining Gaulish tribes miss Rome after the fall, if only because they were the only ones left alive after Caesar’s conquest?
Yes. Unironically.
And, perhaps most importantly, was life in Rome great for all of the people enslaved by it throughout its history?
No, but was life as a slave of a British chieftain or a Spanish warlord great? It seems an odd question to level considering the ubiquity of slavery in the ancient world.
I really do get what you are saying, but keep in mind that Rome was a great place to be a Roman—it wasn’t so great for everyone else.
No, man, this is pop history shit viewing the Roman Empire through an extremely modern lens of imperialism and exploitation.
There was violence and strife during its fall, but so was there in its rise and later stagnation.
This is like saying there was hunger in the medieval period, but there’s also hunger in developed countries today. It entirely misses the fucking point.
It’s mainly just lucky for Rome that they were the best record keepers of their time, to have written so many one-sided perspectives about how great it was, which certainly gave later Europe a wonderful ideal to miss after it was gone.
Huh. I wonder why Romans were such great record keepers and were so keen on writing about ‘how great it was’ (since you think it’s self-praising pamphleteers that we get our view of the Empire from) while everyone else utterly failed to do so. I guess it was coincidence.
But the foundations of that empire were nevertheless built on a brutal cycle of conquest, exploitation, and enslavement.
The idea of the Empire’s foundations being built on a cycle of conquest, exploitation, and enslavement is insane. That’s plunder economy shit that hasn’t been taken seriously in nearly a hundred years.
Of course, global geopolitics means there won’t be a total power vacuum. China & Russia waiting in the wings to tip things in their favor. Maybe Europe and India too if they can get their act together.
I would bet only ‘globally’ before betting on ‘only the Americas’, and I would bet ‘unlike the fall of Rome’ before I bet on either.
If we collapse soft, British Empire or Soviet Union style, there will be suffering and a massive recalculation of international politics, but life largely goes on.
Of course, global geopolitics means there won’t be a total power vacuum. China & Russia waiting in the wings to tip things in their favor.
Russia has no hope of anything at this point except vassalage to the PRC. China is exactly what I’m worried about, though.
I would bet only ‘globally’ before betting on ‘only the Americas’
What do you mean by this? Why would the US be more likely to be hegemonic over the entire world than just the Americas? Their heavy-handed political interventions in Latin America are well-known.
Russia has no hope of anything at this point except vassalage to the PRC. China is exactly what I’m worried about, though.
Just because everyone overestimated Putin’s military at the beginning of the war doesn’t mean they’re not a serious power. While they may not be quite on the level of the US or the CPC, they’re still the 5th largest in the world and I think despite the war casualties, their military production and organization are stronger than they were before. Their abilities in information warfare and nuclear arsenal also made them punch above their weight. I think they will remain a global power barring some kind of major political or economic collapse, and in a post US world might be more likely to come into conflict with the CPC.
What do you mean by this? Why would the US be more likely to be hegemonic over the entire world than just the Americas? Their heavy-handed political interventions in Latin America are well-known.
Our power is built on global structures, not pan-American structures. Our meddling in Latin America is well-known, but if we collapsed, and my three choices were “The world goes in crisis”, “The Americas go in crisis”, or “Life goes on, like after the fall of the SovUnion”, I would number the likelihood as
“Life goes on”
“The world goes in crisis”
“The Americas go in crisis”
Just because everyone overestimated Putin’s military at the beginning of the war doesn’t mean they’re not a serious power.
Even before the Ukrainian invasion, every serious analyst knew Russia’s future was cooked. Now it’s just that they’re unambiguously turned themselves into a vassal state for the PRC on account of having dropped a full percentage of their young men into a meat grinder in the midst of an already-dire demographic crisis, experienced a mass brain drain, wiped out their economy, and isolated themselves from Western trade.
While they may not be quite on the level of the US or the CPC, they’re still the 5th largest in the world and I think despite the war casualties, their military production and organization are stronger than they were before.
Only by unsustainable deficit spending, and their production quality has dropped markedly since the beginning of the war. When you read “Russia has produced another 200 tanks!”, you have to remember that “produced” means “refitted old Soviet T-72s (which are good enough, mind you) stock”, not “made brand new equipment”.
North Korea is the third largest military in the world, you don’t see it dominating global politics.
Russia has wiped out a massive amount of its materiel, financial, and human resources in a war on its own border with a country a fourth of its size, wherein it still has not managed any major gains past the initial surprise attack three years ago. Its military is anything but capable of meaningful force projection at this point.
Their abilities in information warfare and nuclear arsenal also made them punch above their weight.
This much is true.
I think they will remain a global power barring some kind of major political or economic collapse, and in a post US world might be more likely to come into conflict with the CPC.
There’s no reality in which the Russian Federation, in any recognizably modern form, conflicts with the PRC. It’s like saying a Pomeranian is gonna rumble with a Neapolitan Mastiff - if it was stupid enough to do so, it wouldn’t be anything more than a joke to the mastiff.
Strong disagree. Throughout the decline (roughly putting it at ~284 AD because I hate Diocletian, to 474 AD), not only was there a massive and sharp drop in living standards all across the former Empire, but one that dropped some areas below their pre-Roman living standards, most notably Britain (abandoned ~410 AD), but all across the western provinces.
Not only that, but that the decline was accompanied by a collapse of the pax Romana was not some abstract thing for the provincials - it meant, quite literally, war coming to their doorstep. Armies, Roman and barbarian, fighting in their lands and despoiling it, conscripting their children, seizing their grain. And when it was all over, those wars didn’t stop - it was just Romans were no longer involved. There was a massive depopulation of Europe through the fall of the Empire.
And on top of all of that, the collapse of Roman civilization sent Europe and North Africa spiraling back in terms of societal complexity; economic, legal, and architectural complexity would not fully recover for some ~1200 years.
I don’t think the US is quite that level of powerful. But please don’t wish a Roman fall on the US, or you wish a fall on us all.
Yeah. Europe, gear up, please.
I think that is still mainly a consideration of the acute effects which occurred within the Roman empire, though, and not so much the effect that it had on the periphery of Rome and beyond its borders.
I agree with your points, I think bad things would happen within a Rome-like collapse of the US. But I think the overall global impact would be primarily limited to North America and other countries which are bound more closely to American geopolitics. But at the same time, given that the collapse of colonial structures restores autonomy to subjugated citizens of colonized regions, we see positive social development in the absence of Rome as I imagine we would see in the absence of America.
The end of USAID says that it isn’t just our close allies that will suffer. The end of NOAA, and our other scientific endeavors means the whole world will suffer to some extent.
The whole world is bound up in American politics, man.
… how core do you think Britannia was to the Roman Empire, exactly? There’s a reason I chose it as an example.
But who is Britannia? The Britons, who still led several uprisings trying to oust the Roman invaders? Do we follow the Roman lead of stopping the borders of Britannia arbitrarily at Caledonia and Hibernia and declare the people of those lands as being without value because they had less tribute to extract? Or do we look only at the accounts of the handful of British tribal kings who were willing to appease the Romans in exchange for preferential treatment, enough to be more positively written about in their surviving history?
Beyond Britannia, was Rome great for Judea? Did the tribes of Germania enjoy being invaded every time some emperor wanted to improve their legacy and try to one-up their forebears? Did the remaining Gaulish tribes miss Rome after the fall, if only because they were the only ones left alive after Caesar’s conquest? And, perhaps most importantly, was life in Rome great for all of the people enslaved by it throughout its history?
I really do get what you are saying, but keep in mind that Rome was a great place to be a Roman—it wasn’t so great for everyone else. There was violence and strife during its fall, but so was there in its rise and later stagnation. It’s mainly just lucky for Rome that they were the best record keepers of their time, to have written so many one-sided perspectives about how great it was, which certainly gave later Europe a wonderful ideal to miss after it was gone. But the foundations of that empire were nevertheless built on a brutal cycle of conquest, exploitation, and enslavement.
Bruh, Britannia hadn’t had a major native uprising in over 300 years at the time Roman Britain was abandoned.
“Britannia” as in “The Roman province of Britannia”, guy.
…
Fucking what.
Before and after the Jewish-Roman Wars in which religious fanatics attempted to murder everyone who wasn’t their coreligionist or was their coreligionist but in the wrong way, yes. During them, not so much.
See, now this is a potentially legitimate point. I would counter, though, that most major cross-border incursions into Germania by Rome after the campaigns of Augustus were provoked by attacks and raids on Roman land and allies - Germania remained unconquered for the same reason that it was not really all that great as a target for loot and plunder - it was dirt poor. Rome’s primary reason for expeditions against the Germanic tribes was defense of the borders - the Germans were neither prestigious nor prosperous targets.
Now, Persia? Persia was a perpetual dream of Roman conquest, and they were probably quite glad to hear half of their enemy’s empire had collapsed.
Yes. Unironically.
No, but was life as a slave of a British chieftain or a Spanish warlord great? It seems an odd question to level considering the ubiquity of slavery in the ancient world.
No, man, this is pop history shit viewing the Roman Empire through an extremely modern lens of imperialism and exploitation.
This is like saying there was hunger in the medieval period, but there’s also hunger in developed countries today. It entirely misses the fucking point.
Huh. I wonder why Romans were such great record keepers and were so keen on writing about ‘how great it was’ (since you think it’s self-praising pamphleteers that we get our view of the Empire from) while everyone else utterly failed to do so. I guess it was coincidence.
The idea of the Empire’s foundations being built on a cycle of conquest, exploitation, and enslavement is insane. That’s plunder economy shit that hasn’t been taken seriously in nearly a hundred years.
Maybe not globally but in the Americas maybe yes?
Of course, global geopolitics means there won’t be a total power vacuum. China & Russia waiting in the wings to tip things in their favor. Maybe Europe and India too if they can get their act together.
I would bet only ‘globally’ before betting on ‘only the Americas’, and I would bet ‘unlike the fall of Rome’ before I bet on either.
If we collapse soft, British Empire or Soviet Union style, there will be suffering and a massive recalculation of international politics, but life largely goes on.
Russia has no hope of anything at this point except vassalage to the PRC. China is exactly what I’m worried about, though.
What do you mean by this? Why would the US be more likely to be hegemonic over the entire world than just the Americas? Their heavy-handed political interventions in Latin America are well-known.
Just because everyone overestimated Putin’s military at the beginning of the war doesn’t mean they’re not a serious power. While they may not be quite on the level of the US or the CPC, they’re still the 5th largest in the world and I think despite the war casualties, their military production and organization are stronger than they were before. Their abilities in information warfare and nuclear arsenal also made them punch above their weight. I think they will remain a global power barring some kind of major political or economic collapse, and in a post US world might be more likely to come into conflict with the CPC.
Our power is built on global structures, not pan-American structures. Our meddling in Latin America is well-known, but if we collapsed, and my three choices were “The world goes in crisis”, “The Americas go in crisis”, or “Life goes on, like after the fall of the SovUnion”, I would number the likelihood as
“Life goes on”
“The world goes in crisis”
“The Americas go in crisis”
Even before the Ukrainian invasion, every serious analyst knew Russia’s future was cooked. Now it’s just that they’re unambiguously turned themselves into a vassal state for the PRC on account of having dropped a full percentage of their young men into a meat grinder in the midst of an already-dire demographic crisis, experienced a mass brain drain, wiped out their economy, and isolated themselves from Western trade.
Only by unsustainable deficit spending, and their production quality has dropped markedly since the beginning of the war. When you read “Russia has produced another 200 tanks!”, you have to remember that “produced” means “refitted old Soviet T-72s (which are good enough, mind you) stock”, not “made brand new equipment”.
North Korea is the third largest military in the world, you don’t see it dominating global politics.
Russia has wiped out a massive amount of its materiel, financial, and human resources in a war on its own border with a country a fourth of its size, wherein it still has not managed any major gains past the initial surprise attack three years ago. Its military is anything but capable of meaningful force projection at this point.
This much is true.
There’s no reality in which the Russian Federation, in any recognizably modern form, conflicts with the PRC. It’s like saying a Pomeranian is gonna rumble with a Neapolitan Mastiff - if it was stupid enough to do so, it wouldn’t be anything more than a joke to the mastiff.