History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Aldarion]

• Modern 'feel guilty over your ancestors doing colonialism' quasireligion, but with the miscellaneous attempts to stamp out communism abroad during the cold war and the middle eastern forever war added to colonialism in the list of things to feel guilty about? Any wars taking place at the time on the other hand, are assumed to be righteous.

This one. I don't really see any other possibility.

 

[Skallagrim]

By the dark powers of necromancy, I bring this thread back from the netherworld, for WhatIfAltHist has made a video about this. And then @Cherico made me watch it. (So this is all cherico's fault, obviously.) And then I had throughts about that video, to which this thread is well-suited. And why make a new thread if we've got this one already?


The video:




My thoughts:

First of all, it's always nice to see when someone is interested in macro-historial analysis. So my overall sentiment towards this video is very positive, and I find WhatIfaltHist's takes on things to generally be interesting (even if I don't always agree, and typically don't agree completely). This commentary will focus on my quibbles and caveats, so I wanted to make that clear first.

Now, as to the issues I have with this video and its arguments: the main one is the same that I've previously mentioned when discussing another WhatIfAltHist vid (about the future of Russia, I believe): he almost always presents contradictory views in the same video, without any real effort to clear up the resulting confusion. For instance, in this video he likens the World Wars to the Peloponnesian War and then later to the Punic Wars, but obviously those comparisons can't both be legitimate.

This is caused the underlying issue that he doesn't really seem willing to "syncretise" the various models and sources that he uses (Turchin, Spengler, Strauss & Howe...) and instead sort of picks-and-chooses from them "as needed" for whatever argument he's making at any given moment. This fits into his style of presenting various "possibilities" or "scenarios", sure-- but he rarely distinguishes which ideas truly inform which scenario. Result: a video that contains mutually contradictory statements.

That causes confusion, and makes it easier for critics of macro-historical analysis to point out the logical flaws and say "See, that PROVES it's not true!" (All while refusing to engage with the broader argument, of course.) In that sense, a "muddled" take on macro-history might actually be worse than no take at all.


As for specific quibbles and examples of needless internal contradictions:

-- This starts off when he equates the Protestant Reformation with Orphism and Dionysianism. In this, he follows Spengler (via Riencourt; I don't get the impression he's actually read Spengler). I've previously argued that we shouldn't always follow Spengler slavishly, since various ideas of his were based on (now-)outdated scholarship. This is one of these ideas. It would be wiser to make the evident connection between certain philosophical "reforms" in Greece (for there were indeed reforms several centuries before Sokrates!), not in the least because Greek elite culture was often more philosophy-guided than cult-guided. The conflicts between philosophical schools (and their socio-political implications) can be regarded as analogous to the conflicts between different religious strains in Christendom (which also had major socio-political consequences).

-- WhatIfAltHist even makes that connection on some level, when he segues to the analogy between (pre-)Sokratic philosophical renewal, and the Enlightenment. He goes on later to mention the importance of philosophy to Greek intellectual culture, but he doesn't make the connection that certain religious struggles in the West (where Christianity dominated intellectual circles) should then be viewed as analogous to philosophical struggles in Greece (where philosophia dominated intellectual circles).

-- It would be particularly useful here to also look at the Peloponnesian War on the one hand, and the great European Wars on the other. Then you get a better grasp of their remarkably analogous context, and of the underlying analogies between the involved civilisations. It's not just about the change in methods of warfare, but about an escalation in what is very much an emerging "competing states" system. Compare the Greek states of the Peloponnesian War to the Westphalian system and examples such as the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years' War. Again: obvious analogies that should be highlighted, because they tell us a lot about the kind of developments that are going on. (But WhatIfaltHist doesn't make this comparison, because he's later going to make another -- incorrect -- one regarding the Peloponnesian War.)

-- WhatIfAltHist goes on to equate Sokrates and Rousseau. I find this quite obviously wrong-headed. The timing hardly lines up, either. If you want a rough analogy that fits better, Sokrates is more like Voltaire. Both lived through the latter stages of the grat Greek and European "brother wars", respectively, and then became the leading figures of intellectual renewal. And subsequently, we see prominent philosophers in the tradition of these leading figures arising afterwards. Judging by their historic roles, Rousseau is most akin to Plato (the most inclined to prescribe ideal visions of how a state should be organised, and generally a utopian presenting a vision of an otherworldly ideal), and Montesquieu might be viewed as a rought counterpart to Aristoteles (more of an omni-disciplinary scientist with a preoccupation towards knowledge, systems, and understanding of the world).

-- At this point, WhatIfAltHist also follows Spengler in reasoning that this moment (Sokratic philosophy taking over in Greece and Enlightenment philosophy in the West) as the transition point between "Culture" and "Civilisation". But note that Spengler is quite vague and contradictory about that process, and regularly implies that it's more of a process. WhatIfAltHist recognises that a bit later on, but then argues that it started in the 15th century. That's... not supported by Spengler or other macro-historians in his tradition. Rather, Spengler's ultimate argument can be boiled down to the idea that Classical Culture started the process of becoming a true Civilisation with Sokrates (intellectually) and Alexander (politically), and finished it with the victory of Augustus. So we have three centuries of transition, covering the whole Hellenistic Period.

-- This phase began in the West with the Age of Revolutions and with that meteoric conqueror, Napoleon (analogous to Alexander), which also tells us how long we still have to go. (Not all that long.) WhatIfAltHist, however, omits reference to Napoleon here, and later dismisses the idea of the Alexander-Napoleon analogy altogether "because Napoleon didn't play the same role". That really bothers me. Both these men overthrow the old state-system (dominance of the poleis and the Wesphalian system) and the traditional political order. Both left behind a new international order of larger, more organised states with bigger governments and larger armies. Both introduced a model of more active, expansive government that embraced new ideal of what constitutes proper rulership. Seems plenty similar to me.

-- An aside: WhatIfAltHist is wrong about different civilisations using "different logical systems". Logic is, in fact, universal. Different cultures have different premises, which leads them to arrive at different conclusions even though they may well use the same logical "calculations". It's like using the same formula, but inputting different values(!) and thus getting different outcomes. That's a better way to put that. Just thought I'd mention it.

-- His assumption of the Classical World being inherently aristocratic and the West being fundamentally egalitarian is not correct. Both have an ongoing struggle between these impulses. He forgets that in the Classical world, Rome -- and not Greece -- ultimately won. He makes the explicit comparison that Classical civilisation is like a world in which "the Kaiser won [World War I]", but that's not accurate. Because in in Antiquity, the Hellenistic states lost to Rome. Just as the Kaiserreich lost the the Anglo-American power.

-- He goes on to make the "technology stagnated because of slavery!" claim. I've previously dismantled that claim, because it's just utter nonsense. The cultural reasons he mentions directly afterwards were far more important.

-- What really baffles me is that he links Alexander's conquest to the European imperialism of the late 19th century. I have no idea where he gets that, since all macro-historians from Spengler onwards have thoroughly explained the almost self-evident analogy between Alexander and Napoleon. WhatIfaltHist's model is insanely skewed here, and his comparison between the Classical and Western civilisations works less well because of it. (The timing doesn't add up properly because if his deviating notions, whereas it did add up properly in Spengler's work!)

-- He now compares the war of the Hellenistic states (took up 300 years) to the "Great Game" of the late 19th century colonial powers (took only a few decades). That doesn't add up.

-- Then he compares the Peloponnesian War to the World Wars. Obviously incorrect. The Peloponnesian War preceded (and informed!) the Sokratic Revolution, just as the great European (Religious) Wars preceded (and informed!) the Enlightenment. The proper comparison for the World Wars is, obviously, the Punic Wars and the concurrent Macedonian War. He later goes on to also make that comparison, though!


...I can go on a bit longer, but the issue should by now be clear. WhatIfAltHist has very interesting ideas, but some of his interpretations of macro-history just go completely off the rails. It comes across as someone who's read on the subject, but hasn't read the actual "foundational texts" of the school (Spengler and Toynbee). Something gets lost in translation, I think, and this causes some really weird comparisons that don't actually make much sense. Overall, it's definitely a worth-while video, but if you're not already well-versed in macro-historical analysis, I'm afraid this could lead you to some pretty wrong-headed conclusions...

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Controversial opinion: whilst I do think the macro-historical view is interesting, a lot of its creators use it a little too much as a "lens" to see everything with. America's empire is profoundly more informal than Rome's ever was, and essentially presides over multiple civilisations/cultures in the European continent.

There isn't really such thing as "Western Civilisation" in my view. "Christendom" is a good umbrella term, but to my mind Europe is split between no less than three civilisations (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic), with a bunch of other smaller cultures on the sidelines (the Balts, the Celts, the Maygars, and whatever the fuck the Basques are, etc). All these peoples have very ancient roots, do not like each other (indeed, even tribes within their own civilisational group don't like each other), do not view themselves as part of a universal culture, and when the Progressive Paradigm finally comes careening to its end, we'll go back to butting heads with one another as we have done since time immemorial. Likely after a hideous amount of ethnic strife thanks to Neoliberalism and its mass immigration boner, but my point still stands.

Ironically, as people who (rightfully) disdain modernity, Spengler et al still unwittingly apply one of the core Enlightenment philosophies to their work: universalism.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'll be frank, I'm honestly surprised Europe has managed to stay as relevant as it has on the global stage for as long as it has I guess it has something to do with thier ability to form cults of personality and naval prowess but it really does seem like at any moment that will come crashing down and everyone will devolve into a bunch of rag wearing spear welding barbarians.

It be home to some of the fastest expanding global powers but not exactly the most stable.

 

[Cherico]

I'll be frank, I'm honestly surprised Europe has managed to stay as relevant as it has on the global stage for as long as it has I guess it has something to do with thier ability to form cults of personality and naval prowess but it really does seem like at any moment that will come crashing down and everyone will devolve into a bunch of rag wearing spear welding barbarians.

Europe was actually a very impressive place before the world wars broke them.

 

[Skallagrim]

Controversial opinion: whilst I do think the macro-historical view is interesting, a lot of its creators use it a little too much as a "lens" to see everything with. America's empire is profoundly more informal than Rome's ever was, and essentially presides over multiple civilisations/cultures in the European continent.

There isn't really such thing as "Western Civilisation" in my view. "Christendom" is a good umbrella term, but to my mind Europe is split between no less than three civilisations (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic), with a bunch of other smaller cultures on the sidelines (the Balts, the Celts, the Maygars, and whatever the fuck the Basques are, etc). All these peoples have very ancient roots, do not like each other (indeed, even tribes within their own civilisational group don't like each other), do not view themselves as part of a universal culture, and when the Progressive Paradigm finally comes careening to its end, we'll go back to butting heads with one another as we have done since time immemorial. Likely after a hideous amount of ethnic strife thanks to Neoliberalism and its mass immigration boner, but my point still stands.

Ironically, as people who (rightfully) disdain modernity, Spengler et al still unwittingly apply one of the core Enlightenment philosophies to their work: universalism.

I actually agree with most of the points you raise, but I think they're directed at a target that isn't actually guilty of ignoring those points. In other words: I'm not sure that what you describe here is a correct reading of Spengler. There may be macro-historians who do view things in a "universalist" way you suggest (although frankly, I've never met one), but consider the following:

-- America is different from Rome? Certainly! Scale alone makes it different, just as it made Rome different from (say) Egypt. Plus the fact that each High Culture has its own "slant", its own "spin" on things. So saying that there are differences is by no means a disqualifier, or even something a macro-historian would disagree with to any extent. Imagine, if you will, that each High Culture is like an orchestra. And for some reason (which I just call "human nature"), every successive orchestra of this kind ends up playing almost identical compositions! But... they all do it with a unique set of instruments, that is particular to their assembly, and the result is that it sounds different every time. Sometimes it's slower. Sometimes faster. Sometimes brassy and heroic, sometimes cheery and upbeat, sometimes lingering and melancholy. A common refrain, but applied and interpreted uniquely each time.

-- America's empire is more informal than that of Rome? Yes, if we look at the whole of Roman history. But that's not a fair equation, because the whole of Western history hasn't passed yet. If we look at the later phase of the Roman Republic in particular, we see that its arrangements were also often quite informal. This only changed during the Republic's terminal phase, and we may in fact note that one reason the Republic perished was that it wasn't suited to properly imperial administration. Will the same happen in our case? Well, as per the above, it'll have a different spin. And, again, there's the matter of scale. I think any American empire is always going to be less centralised and a bit more informal than the Roman one.

-- Europe is split into multiple civilisations? I'd say different cultures, because in macro-history, "civilisation" has a specific meaning. But given that caveat: sure! But how is that different from Greece, which also had different cultures? There is a difference of scale, certainly, but surely you don't mean to say that someone would mistake a Spartan for an Athenian, or a Macedonian for a Theban? No more than one might confuse a Briton for an Italian, or a Frenchmen for a German!

-- There are others on the periphery, in some cases even "half in, half out"? Oh, indeed! But, much as Gauls and Thracians and Iberians and Mauretanians, these can be absorbed over time. (And note that in the case of Rome, much of that was done in the very last days of the Republic, and then continued throughout the Principate. We're not quite at that point yet.)

-- Spengler as a universalist for assuming that all (or most) of the West will be united under a common political regime ("the universal empire")? That seems an unreasonable charge, because observing that Rome took over the Mediterranean doesn't make one a universalist, either. In fact, we may note that Greek culture persisted through the centuries under Roman rule, and ultimately outlasted Rome. A study of universal empires (and their inevitable collapse) is at its core a study of the impermanence of all universalist ambitions.

 

[ATP]

Controversial opinion: whilst I do think the macro-historical view is interesting, a lot of its creators use it a little too much as a "lens" to see everything with. America's empire is profoundly more informal than Rome's ever was, and essentially presides over multiple civilisations/cultures in the European continent.

There isn't really such thing as "Western Civilisation" in my view. "Christendom" is a good umbrella term, but to my mind Europe is split between no less than three civilisations (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic), with a bunch of other smaller cultures on the sidelines (the Balts, the Celts, the Maygars, and whatever the fuck the Basques are, etc). All these peoples have very ancient roots, do not like each other (indeed, even tribes within their own civilisational group don't like each other), do not view themselves as part of a universal culture, and when the Progressive Paradigm finally comes careening to its end, we'll go back to butting heads with one another as we have done since time immemorial. Likely after a hideous amount of ethnic strife thanks to Neoliberalism and its mass immigration boner, but my point still stands.

Ironically, as people who (rightfully) disdain modernity, Spengler et al still unwittingly apply one of the core Enlightenment philosophies to their work: universalism.

Europe is mix of Roman law,Greek philosophy,and chrystianity.And ,sadly,dead now.

 

[S'task]

Christendom" is a good umbrella term, but to my mind Europe is split between no less than three civilisations (Germanic, Romantic, Slavic)

I'd argue that Anglo culture is also separate and unique from those three. It's obviously a mix of native Celtic combined with Romantic and Germanic parts, but the admixture resulted in something wholly different that then went and seeded it's own civilization scattered around the globe. England has much more in Common with Australia than is does with France, and America has much more in common with New Zealand than it does to Mexico. This isn't just a language thing either, there's a bunch of baked in baseline assumptions that set apart the Anglo world from the rest. You probably can trace those back to the Scottish Enlightenment vs the Continental Enlightenment, but you also see it in how Anglos view "Liberalism" in some fundamentally different ways than Continental Europeans view it, and how the Anglo world tends to see the French Revolution as a Very Bad Thing, whereas in Continental philosophy it's seen as the Origin of Liberalism.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Oh no, I'd say Anglo is very much, if not predominantly, Germanic. The Anglo Saxons, growing out of an ancient tradition, essentially create our baseline assumptions of the world. In fact I think the Enlightenment takes a lot of credit for things Germanic tribes came up with thousands of years beforehand.

We may not have much in common with France, but to an Englishman there's a lot about Scandinavia that is strangely familiar. And up until the world wars drove them insane, the Germans viewed us as cousins and vice versa.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Oh no, I'd say Anglo is very much, if not predominantly, Germanic. The Anglo Saxons, growing out of an ancient tradition, essentially create our baseline assumptions of the world. In fact I think the Enlightenment takes a lot of credit for things Germanic tribes came up with thousands of years beforehand.

We may not have much in common with France, but to an Englishman there's a lot about Scandinavia that is strangely familiar. And up until the world wars drove them insane, the Germans viewed us as cousins and vice versa.

The thing is somewhere along the way the Germanic/Celtic people (I tie these two together because of how intermingled these people were) lost their moxy. Somewhere along the way we want from warrior raiders who gave 0 cares and did what we want to "excuse me sir may I have some 'ore." Yet history has shown that all the written documents and codes are no substitute for actually having a spine and standing up for yourself.

America tried to recapture the spirit of Liberty and self-determination their ancestors once had but then castrated itself. Germany also tried to recapture that spirit... and then promptly went insane.

Personally I think Rome really hosed them over.

 

[CastilloVerde]

Macro-history is fascinating and Spengler (and Toynbee, etc.) certainly had intriguing and interesting ideas for the study of history, even if he (and others) had flawed interpretations for some of them. We can use better historical evidence to refine their theories, but this does not mean that their theories must therefore be rejected. The basic idea that a High Culture forms and possesses its own world-feeling and then proceeds in a more or less recognizable form throughout its history - birth, growth, crisis culminating in a Universal Empire, then stagnation, decline and fall - remains true.

On this topic, the aside on the different european cultures strikes me as somewhat out of place. To be clear, I completely agree that Europe is indeed composed of different cultures like the already-mentioned Germanic, Romantic, Slavic cultures - this is not in doubt. However, this distinction is irrelevant in a macro-historical context. That is, none of these individual cultures are a High Culture. The High Culture for these cultures is Western Civilization, what was traditionally Christendom. In a similar manner, we can consider the Athenians, Spartans and Thebans as individual cultures of the Classical High Culture, as well as the Assyrians and Babylonians are those of the Mesopotamian High Culture.

You can argue that the English and the Germans have differences between them, and this is true. But, both the English and the Germans (and the French and Italians...) are Westerners. Each of these people, then, share the same Western world-feeling.

For Spengler, the world-feeling of a particular High Culture can be represented by a "prime symbol". He has entire chapters dedicated to discussing this, but for the West, the prime symbol is represented by infinite space. He discusses that this, this will to power, manifests itself throughout Western history. The Age of Discovery, for example, shows the western impulse to cross all bounds and explore to the ends of the earth. The later Western project to map the entire earth and categorize and examine everything in different fields of science logically come from this.

The characteristic western mathematic, calculus, is one of dynamics and deals with infinity. Even in art, Spengler says that music is the characteristic Western art form, which is at its purest in Classical chamber music with its melodies carried through the air. In architecture, the Western form is shown in its Gothic cathedrals with its spires reaching to the heavens and its vaunted ceilings. It is also seen in the modern western skyscraper with its towers reaching to infinity. This all may seem like strange ideas, but consider also what Spengler says about the Classical High Culture. He says that the Classical "prime symbol" is the fixed body (or the present point).

So looking at the Classical world, the characteristic Classical art is sculpture. The form of mathematics is geometry - the mathematic of shapes and form. In architecture, Classical temples are more grounded and according to Spengler, its form can be taken in with one sight. In politics, the Classical form manifests itself in the polis with its body of citizenry. In all of these, the prime symbol of the fixed body presents itself. Spengler goes on and on, but his point is that the differences of each High Culture is apparent in its world-feeling.

Back to Western civilization, Spengler does not really discuss much about the formation of the West. He says, using poetic language typical of his romantic inspirations from Goethe, that the West formed c. AD 900 in the land between the Tagus and the Elbe. He does not say it outright, but I'd argue that it was Charlemagne who laid the foundation for the formation of the West in this context. It was Charlemagne and his Carolingian renaissance that birthed the particular Western "world-feeling" in reality (where, before Charlemagne, the Western impulses existed only in potential among the barbarian kingdoms).

We can look to other High Cultures and see that similar "founders" are found at the birth of these. For example, Sargon of Akkad served the same role in Mesopotamia, Menes for Egypt, Cyrus for Persia, Muhammad for Islam, and Tang of Shang for China. Surely other High Cultures like Mesoamerica and the Andean/Peruvian Civilization had similar figures, but the early history of these remain lost to us.

 

[Bacle]

Looking to Rome for an example of what the US's future is shows that the people doing it are trying to compare apples to olives.

I know it gets the boners of some parts going to compare the US to Rome, and to ignore the massive differences that make it a worthless comparison.

We aren't Rome, never were, never will be, and trying to shoehorn the US into 'the next Rome', in order to make predictions about domestic or international politics, is...self-indulgent willful ignorance of the realities of both the US and Rome.

Comparing the US to Rome is done mostly for 'predictive purposes', but the predicitons that come from it are operating on a flimsy, at best, logical and rhetorical foundation.

 

[Skallagrim]

For Spengler, the world-feeling of a particular High Culture can be represented by a "prime symbol". He has entire chapters dedicated to discussing this, but for the West, the prime symbol is represented by infinite space. He discusses that this, this will to power, manifests itself throughout Western history. The Age of Discovery, for example, shows the western impulse to cross all bounds and explore to the ends of the earth. The later Western project to map the entire earth and categorize and examine everything in different fields of science logically come from this.

The characteristic western mathematic, calculus, is one of dynamics and deals with infinity. Even in art, Spengler says that music is the characteristic Western art form, which is at its purest in Classical chamber music with its melodies carried through the air. In architecture, the Western form is shown in its Gothic cathedrals with its spires reaching to the heavens and its vaunted ceilings. It is also seen in the modern western skyscraper with its towers reaching to infinity. This all may seem like strange ideas, but consider also what Spengler says about the Classical High Culture. He says that the Classical "prime symbol" is the fixed body (or the present point).

So looking at the Classical world, the characteristic Classical art is sculpture. The form of mathematics is geometry - the mathematic of shapes and form. In architecture, Classical temples are more grounded and according to Spengler, its form can be taken in with one sight. In politics, the Classical form manifests itself in the polis with its body of citizenry. In all of these, the prime symbol of the fixed body presents itself. Spengler goes on and on, but his point is that the differences of each High Culture is apparent in its world-feeling.

Another thing to consider here is that what you reference here explains why there was no federalism in the Classical world. Even when Rome divided its authority, it was divided between two Emperors who both had imperium over the whole. The notion of dividing that authority geographically was completely impossible to comprehend, because it went against their conception of what made power legitimate.

The West, conversely, tends toward geographical divisions of power, and non-overlapping spheres of power, almost by default. It fits with our conception of the world and of the "proper" order.

These kinds of differences make the instantiations of the ever-recurring refrain fascinatingly different every time.



----------------------------

Looking to Rome for an example of what the US's future is shows that the people doing it are trying to compare apples to olives.

I know it gets the boners of some parts going to compare the US to Rome, and to ignore the massive differences that make it a worthless comparison.

We aren't Rome, never were, never will be, and trying to shoehorn the US into 'the next Rome', in order to make predictions about domestic or international politics, is...self-indulgent willful ignorance of the realities of both the US and Rome.

Comparing the US to Rome is done mostly for 'predictive purposes', but the predicitons that come from it are operating on a flimsy, at best, logical and rhetorical foundation.

All other people in this thread: have loads of arguments.

You: CANTBETRUECANTBETRUECANTBETRUEIDONTWANTITTOBETRUE!!!

Seriously, your whole post is just a round-about way of going "Nuh-uh!" like a disgruntled toddler. You present no arguments at all. None. Zero. Which, as a result, is the value of your contribution here. So for the sake of everybody's sanity and happiness... either participate in the discussion in good faith (which means engaging with the actual arguments), or just... go have fun in another thread. What you do here is functionally just trolling. And not even clever trolling.

 

[Bacle]

All other people in this thread: have loads of arguments.

You: CANTBETRUECANTBETRUECANTBETRUEIDONTWANTITTOBETRUE!!!

Seriously, your whole post is just a round-about way of going "Nuh-uh!" like an disgruntled toddler. You present no arguments at all. None. Zero. Which, as a result, is the value of your contribution here. So for the sake of everybody's sanity and happiness... either participate in the discussion in good faith (which means engaging with the actual arguments), or just... go have fun in another thread. What you do here is functionally just trolling. And not even clever trolling.

Yes, I know the many, tired arguments, and I do not find them convincing, because I am not obsessed with trying to pretend the US is Rome 2.0, nor with trying to use Rome as a predictive tool for modern civilization.

And no, I won't leave, just because I do not go along with the narrative about the US and Rome.

As for arguments for why the US isn't Rome 2.0, well:

1) No slaves (anymore) and no indentured servant system.

2) No Legionary/Auxiliary system, instead an all volunteer military.

3) Two legislative bits, House and Senate, not just a senate, and a Supreme Court separate from the other branches.

4) Federalization of power to the states, something that the Roman's frowned on because they were trying to export Romes wishes and desires, not allow vassals or provinces to have the power to tell Rome 'No.' without getting a legion or two stomping their heads in.

5) We don't use lead as sweetner, or use it to line our pipes, and when we realized how toxic lead was, we tried to cut it out of our society as much as we can.

6) Separation of church and state; something that would have been anathema to Rome, due to the power of the different preist groups vying for adherents/influence.

 

[Skallagrim]

Yes, I know the many, tired arguments, and I do not find them convincing, because I am not obsessed with trying to pretend the US is Rome 2.0, nor with trying to use Rome as a predictive tool for modern civilization.

There we go. You have nothing. You can't even correctly frame what others really believe. It's not about using Rome as predictive tool, but about recognising Roman history as another iteration of the same model. So you inherently confuse "analogous output" for "input", and fail to grasp what's even being discussed. You do it while consistently trying to use weasel words ("tired arguments", "obsessed with") in lieu of using arguments.

And then when you list supposed arguments... you raise points that have been discussed in detail already, but you pretend that you've come up with a genius put-down.

You can be a reasonable fellow about many subjects, but when it comes to this one, you're really hopeless. Imagine a group of people discussing theology, going into all sorts of complex arguments. And then you barge in, yell "JESUS WASN'T REAL, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE DUMB!"

That's how you come across: as the fedora-tipping neckbeard of historiography. And that's not something to be proud of.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

5) We don't use lead as sweetner, or use it to line our pipes, and when we realized how toxic lead was, we tried to cut it out of our society as much as we can.

Why are you expecting an iron age society to understand toxicology? Honestly, I don't sneer at the 18th century for putting arsenic in their make up. It's an innocent mistake made due to lack of knowledge.

2) No Legionary/Auxiliary system, instead an all volunteer military.

By the time of the Principate, the Roman Army was essentially a volunteer force. They even had makeshift recruiting drives, offices, and the like.

 

[Aldarion]

1) No slaves (anymore) and no indentured servant system.

Not if you ask the banks...

2) No Legionary/Auxiliary system, instead an all volunteer military.

Which is literally what Rome had during the Principate, and also mostly later on as well. In fact, Roman Army was de iure a primarily volunteer force all the way from Marian Reforms in 107 BC until the creation of theme system in 640s AD.

3) Two legislative bits, House and Senate, not just a senate, and a Supreme Court separate from the other branches.

Roman Republic had the Senate and the Popular Assembly. As for the "separation of powers", that is irrelevant, we have seen that. Money rules the world, not the legislature.

4) Federalization of power to the states, something that the Roman's frowned on because they were trying to export Romes wishes and desires, not allow vassals or provinces to have the power to tell Rome 'No.' without getting a legion or two stomping their heads in.

Uh, hello? Roman Republic was literally a federation of cities, and it wasn't until the Dominate that Rome properly centralized.

Municipal Administration In The Roman Empire : Abbott, Frank Frost : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

5) We don't use lead as sweetner, or use it to line our pipes, and when we realized how toxic lead was, we tried to cut it out of our society as much as we can.

No, you just use other things that are just as bad as lead. Sugar, for example. Literally every processed food out there in the world has either sugar, artificial sweeteners, or something even worse. And yes, in these quantities and long term, these are about as bad as lead poisoning.

6) Separation of church and state; something that would have been anathema to Rome, due to the power of the different preist groups vying for adherents/influence.

That is because old religion had been supplanted by Marxism. And I can guarantee you that the Church of Woke is very much integrated with the state.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Not if you ask the banks...

Money rules the world, not the legislature.

In fairness, all the money in the world didn't help the Optimates when Augustus decided he'd had enough of them.

Edit: Gold can only get you so far against steel.

 

[Skallagrim]

In fairness, all the money in the world didn't help the Optimates when Augustus decided he'd had enough of them.

Edit: Gold can only get you so far against steel.

Spengler again, way ahead of us all. To paraphrase:

Modernity, such as it is, may be characterised by its being dominated by the rule of money. The only only alternative to this is the rule of blood. And as has every been the case: the rule of blood will eventually drive out the rule of money.

 

[Bacle]

There we go. You have nothing. You can't even correctly frame what others really believe. It's not about using Rome as predictive tool, but about recognising Roman history as another iteration of the same model. So you inherently confuse "analogous output" for "input", and fail to grasp what's even being discussed. You do it while consistently trying to use weasel words ("tired arguments", "obsessed with") in lieu of using arguments.

And then when you list supposed arguments... you raise points that have been discussed in detail already, but you pretend that you've come up with a genius put-down.

You can be a reasonable fellow about many subjects, but when it comes to this one, you're really hopeless. Imagine a group of people discussing theology, going into all sorts of complex arguments. And then you barge in, yell "JESUS WASN'T REAL, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE DUMB!"

That's how you come across: as the fedora-tipping neckbeard of historiography. And that's not something to be proud of.

And you come across as someone who really dislikes when people point out that the comparisons to Rome don't work when you actually look at the wider context of the US and Rome.

Rome is not the end all, be all of civilizational examples, and frankly the US is rather too unique in it's structure and functionality that comparing it to pretty much any civ that came before it is...farcical. Saying Rome is just an iteration of a 'model' as an excuse for why the comparisons work falls flat, because the fact is that trying to tie civilization into 'cycles' is, in and of itself, rather poor at actually being a useful predictive method, rather than used to retro-active fit new events into old patterns.

I could list even more ways the US isn't Rome, and why the comparison is a forced farce, but you don't want to hear them.

Why are you expecting an iron age society to understand toxicology? Honestly, I don't sneer at the 18th century for putting arsenic in their make up. It's an innocent mistake made due to lack of knowledge.


By the time of the Principate, the Roman Army was essentially a volunteer force. They even had makeshift recruiting drives, offices, and the like.

It's less about expecting Rome to understand lead toxicity, and more to point out another reason that we aren't Rome 2.0.

Not if you ask the banks...

Which is literally what Rome had during the Principate, and also mostly later on as well. In fact, Roman Army was de iure a primarily volunteer force all the way from Marian Reforms in 107 BC until the creation of theme system in 640s AD.

Roman Republic had the Senate and the Popular Assembly. As for the "separation of powers", that is irrelevant, we have seen that. Money rules the world, not the legislature.

Uh, hello? Roman Republic was literally a federation of cities, and it wasn't until the Dominate that Rome properly centralized.

Municipal Administration In The Roman Empire : Abbott, Frank Frost : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

No, you just use other things that are just as bad as lead. Sugar, for example. Literally every processed food out there in the world has either sugar, artificial sweeteners, or something even worse. And yes, in these quantities and long term, these are about as bad as lead poisoning.

That is because old religion had been supplanted by Marxism. And I can guarantee you that the Church of Woke is very much integrated with the state.

Yes, I know the arguments that you are using, and I know they are a farce when used to try to make the US into Rome 2.0.

All of the arguments about how the US is Rome 2.0 rely on trying to shoehorn in modern events and context into events that happened during the Roman times.