i mean, it’s really not like the collapse of the roman empire, because it uh, how do i put this one… Hasn’t collapsed yet?
Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor did it collapse in a day.
progress from and to nothingness is nothing but persistent.
yes, and that’s my problem with these posts, they act as if america is currently in the process of the soviet collapse, problem is, we are literally nowhere near that stage of progression, if we even get there at all.
The collapse of the Soviet union arguably lasted thirty years. The roman empire collapsed over a couple hundred.
Half of the US government does not know whether they currently have a job. And that’s not an exaggeration, thousands on thousands of employees have been fired, their firing paused by a judge, and are currently awaiting whether or not their boss is going to listen to the president or the courts; all while these agencies have effectively been crippled and will not function practically at all for the next four years.
The US is speed running collapse, and we’re later in the game than you seem to want to admit. Scotus will pretty much universally support Trump over the law, as we have seen with recent decisions to overstep lower courts without a writ. It’s now down to individuals, and at that point empires collapse. It just seems slow because societal and economic inertia for 370 million people is ridiculous.
Impending, incipient, in-progress.
that’s what people keep telling me, but the worst thing to happen is DOGE making up numbers, and trump changing the head of the military (no martial law has been enforced, nothing interesting has happened)
There have been a literal million counter suits in regards to every single thing the trump admin has done, those people are still alive, they aren’t getting defenestrated yet.
I’m really trying to see it happening, but all i’m seeing is bad things happening, not the destruction of a country.
When you remove bricks from random places on a structure, it’ll stand for a while, until too many are taken. Then it all comes apart at once. BRICS is looking like it could remove a cornerstone.
yeah and it’s “looking like” and here we are on a post literally titled “At least it will be well documented for future historians”
this is so far removed from “well it’s a real possibility”
Please don’t say that. Please let us collapse like the British Empire, or the Soviet Union.
If we follow Rome’s trajectory, things get much worse for everyone else for a very long time.
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.
I’d say things in the US would not go well during the “fall.” Canada and Mexico would also have a bevvy of new problems to deal with, and maybe even places like Japan and Britain where the US wields a lot of soft power would also decline. But it would open doors to others around the world, where growth has been long hindered or exploited by the US and allies under the current globalist model.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe not globally but in the Americas maybe yes?
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.
-
Except that what we are living through isn’t the collapse of the Roman Empire. It’s the Birth of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the Roman Republic.
If we don’t put a stop to it at it’s beginning, we’re looking at a few hundred years of oligarchy under a line of emperors who vary from corrupt and stupid, to capable but evil.
I have the impression that Neo-Roman Empire would collapse within a couple decades, since it consists solely of Nero(s).
It’s important to remember that the fall of the Roman Republic was not the story of an evil dictator destroying a Free People™, but that of a sickened plutocratic oligarchy refusing to listen to its people for long enough that the people became directly hostile to the state, and when a political crisis came, it could not call upon the people to save it, considering - perhaps not entirely incorrectly - that to be ruled by an autocrat was not really any worse to them than being ruled by a sufficiently callous and ruthless oligarchy.
The comparison may still be apt.
a sickened plutocratic oligarchy refusing to listen to its people for long enough that the people became directly hostile to the state
Exactly. The only real difference is that modern Caesar (Trump) happens to be an idiot. But it’s the same hostility to the status quo that gave him power.
Does that make Musk, Mark Antony?
The only real difference is that modern Caesar (Trump) happens to be an idiot.
And a loser, don’t forget that.
Our only hope is that his ego and stupidity prevent him from succeeding. Unlike Caesar who saw the need to consolidate his power with the people, Trump just assumes he already has or doesn’t need it, and instead is focusing on petty vindictive bullshit.
Caesar may even have genuinely believed in the popular opposition, to some degree - he was a lifelong populare when the norm was to waver between populism and conservatism as suited one’s political career. Trump has no beliefs, because he has no thoughts.
Of course, notably, Caesar didn’t kill the Republic. The man who came after Caesar killed the Republic (Augustus).
So when Trump ‘goes’, we still may need to be vigilant…
Don’t worry we’ll be spared that thanks to global heating.
and the collapse took a long, long time. It took longer for rome to collapse than the US has existed.
Well documented you say? In an age where dissinformation rules supreme?
Actually, its all digital. So there wont be any documentation.
Soon with added AI trump mansplaining narration of complete lies and brags about what’s going on.
yeah sure, just be sure to note that WiFi is creepy beyond imagination (and is proposed to keep getting worse)
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-detect-human-locations-poses-within-a-room
More so than you know. The United States is modeled after Rome. Even down to the layout of Washington DC is modeled after Rome (the National Mall is equivalent to the Roman forum.) The founding fathers were giant Romaboos. It’s poetic that America is following almost the exact trajectory just on a much shorter time frame.
Rome’s fall was due to overexpansion, not fascist self-destruction.
Rome’s fall was due to overexpansion, not fascist self-destruction.
Definitely not due to overexpansion. ‘Fascism’ is a questionable label, but self-destruction, certainly. All of Rome’s institutions were hollowed out in service to autocracy, which, in turn, empowered an aristocracy wholly dependent on that same autocracy at the expense of the rest of society.
That barbarians were loudly and insistently knocking at the door was just the trigger of the collapse, not the underlying cause.
I was referring to the ungovernability of the empire due to its sheer size, not just the barbarian invasions they were spread too thin to defend against.
The Roman Empire’s overexpansion is considered a major factor in its eventual collapse, as the vast territory it controlled became increasingly difficult to manage and defend, leading to logistical problems, strained military resources, and vulnerability to external threats from barbarian tribes, ultimately contributing to its decline and fall.
Someone’s citing history at PugJesus!
I wish Lemmy would let me subscribe to this thread.
I was referring to the ungovernability of the empire due to its sheer size,
The Empire wasn’t ungovernable, though. Far from it. In fact, Roman governance was remarkably maintained throughout the decline and fall. As your quote demonstrates, claims that Rome fell to overexpansion rely on issues of defense.
And the issue of defending Rome’s borders is a complex topic, but one where overexpansion is a very questionable position.
That and also an inherently deflationary currency tied to resource extraction. Bitcoin is also deflationary. Coincidence?
“Inflation scary, we must deflate” - Rome Circa 270 AD
“Why do the poors not have any money???” - Rome Circa 390 AD
It’s one cabbage, Diocletian, how much could it cost? 10,000 sestertii?
Edit: I should clarify this, because it looks like I’m describing inflation here. When Romans ran out of new conquests and mineral deposits, they debased their currency (reduced the amount of precious metals in the coins) which caused the value of new coins to be lower, but also caused those metals (and by extension older coins) to be worth more.
Bitcoin is similar in that there’s only a finite quantity of them, so once they are all “mined” the value of BTC would tend to increase forever, which is one of the main reasons why it’s worthless as a currency: why would you get rid of something that is increasing in value by the minute?
It’s also why BTC transactions are increasingly tiny fractions, i.e. is being debased, just like the denarius.
Edit: I should clarify this, because it looks like I’m describing inflation here. When Romans ran out of new conquests and mineral deposits, they debased their currency (reduced the amount of precious metals in the coins) which caused the value of new coins to be lower, but also caused those metals (and by extension older coins) to be worth more.
Oh, I was going for a different route.
(note - the decrease in silver content previously was not because of a lack of new conquests or mineral deposits, but because Emperors wanted to spend money without needing to raise or collect taxes on their wealthy supporters)
In the later period of the crisis of the Third Century, inflation had gotten bad - several hundred percent by that debasement of the currency. But when the Emperors chose to reform the currency, at long last, they did so by only marginally improving the silver currency, but reinforcing the gold coins to a high standard and decoupling the value of the silver coinage from the gold. This resulted in ‘merely’ bad inflation turning to hyperinflation for the silver currency, which had its value no longer ‘guaranteed’ by the gold coins, and the golden coins becoming increasingly used - the equivalent of the only bills keeping their value being 100s and 1000s. If those are all you can reliably use, a lot of poor folk are fucking screwed. From there, the deflationary nature of gold (ie the low rate of extraction and transformation into currency due to its rarity) meant the demonetization of the Roman economy, which damaged trade, especially small-scale trade, which screwed… everyone, but the poor, especially.
Traditionally, in pre-information age systems, silver is the inflationary currency - it can be turned into money at a speed greater than the economy can generally grow.
(note - the decrease in silver content previously was not because of a lack of new conquests or mineral deposits, but because Emperors wanted to spend money without needing to raise or collect taxes on their wealthy supporters)
Technically true, but they had gotten by for centuries beforehand through plunder and opening new mines, in particular the enormous ones at Rio Tinto as well as those in Dacia. The system worked fine until there was no grist left for the mill.
But the mines were far from exhausted when the inflation started - inflationary policies of debasing the denarius were clustered from Septimius Severus to Diocletian, and each time done by Emperors whose grasp on power was not secure, yet needed to spend money to maintain their legitimacy.
For that matter, they were far from exhausted when the inflation ended, along with the monetary system.
Was it? Look at the first century BC. Octavian took power and transformed the Republic into an empire. Even the word fascism comes from the Latin Fasces, a bundle of rods with an axe in the middle, used to execute citizens at the order of magistrates. The story of Rome is absolutely about fascist self destruction.
It’s true that fasces is an Italian word, but Fascism was coined by Benito Mussolini in 1915. I do see your point about the characteristics being present throughout Ancient Rome though.
The modern term of fascism can be applied in retrospect. For example, early America can easily be described as an Apartheid during chattel slavery and the Jim Crow era. And the ethnic cleansing of native Americans can be described as a genocide despite the term being coined in the 1940s
Considering in the times of ancient Rome that barbarian, which is a dehumanizing term, referred to practically any native people Rome was intent on conquering to expand the empire. I think it fits
The US will collapse like WWII Germany. Although, there’s a possibility of collapse due to over-expansion if Trump tries to take North America.
Come to think of it, both are possible.
WWII Germany collapsed because it was defeated by a superior military. That seems unlikely in this case, unless the US military sides against the MAGAs.
My money is on a Soviet style collapse where within a couple days the whole thing ends up dissolved.
Nah, the Romans had free public utilities and entertainment.
Both are poisoned with lead, though
Nah, the Romans had free public utilities
Citizen, you are obligated to report any illegal taps in the aqueduct for non-authorized use, by the order of the Senate and People of Rome!
… until the wifi stops working, along with the rest of the infrastructure.
Roman empire was in constant state of collapse, it was somewhere along the lines of Somalia and Sudan, US is absolutely fine in comparison.
Lol Rome was like one of those YouTube videos of someone slipping on ice for 20 mins before they fall.
