X Close

Will America share Rome’s fate? Our empire's over-extension could be its downfall

"A great power cannot cut and run" (Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images)

"A great power cannot cut and run" (Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images)


June 6, 2023   7 mins

The similar destinies of the United States and Rome can at times seem eerie. The three Punic Wars fought between the middle of the third century BC and the middle of the second century BC, constituted the great world wars of ancient Mediterranean civilisation, and ended with Rome’s complete destruction of Carthage. More recently, the two world wars of the 20th century ended with the complete destruction and defeat of Germany and Japan, and with the United States in a position of global dominance. In both conflicts, an empire’s supremacy reached its peak at the moment of victory.

Like the United States during the Second World War, Rome in the course of the Punic Wars became an empire. The First and Second Punic Wars saw Roman power established over Sicily, Sardinia and a good part of Spain — all former areas of Carthaginian influence. Rome also gradually extended its sway over greater Greece and Numidia, the latter coinciding with modern Algeria, to the west of Carthage on the North African coast.

Again, somewhat like the United States, imperialism helped lead to a dramatic increase in wealth in Rome itself, as a class of nouveau riche in the capital benefited from war booty, overseas trade, money lending and the like, according to the late British classicist S. A. Handford. Eventually, the Roman legions would evolve from a mass conscription military to a more professional, volunteer fighting force in order to regulate the vast territories under its influence as an imperial behemoth. The rough parallel with the development of the United States as a great power is hard to ignore, given how Washington itself has developed into a money-culture of well-heeled think tanks and flashy lobbyists, even as the mass conscription army that fought Second World War and Vietnam has morphed into a highly professional volunteer force of working-class youth, culturally divorced from the well-bred policy nomenklatura in the capital.

But the comparison becomes especially eerie when one considers that following the Punic Wars and Rome’s becoming an empire, it immersed itself in small wars against tribes and other chieftains that brought little glory and much political complications to Rome, and were a factor in its gradual decline. Of course, that is the common fate of empire, since to influence large and varied regions of the Earth naturally requires military as well as economic and political involvement. In the oft-quoted words of the mid-20th century American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr:

“The same strength which has extended our power beyond a continent has also interwoven our destiny with the destiny of many peoples and brought us into a vast web of history in which other wills, running in oblique or contrasting directions to our own, inevitably hinder or contradict what we most fervently desire.”

The young Winston Churchill was reading into the worst nightmare of Niebuhr’s and America’s imperial future when, in 1897, he described Afghanistan in The Story of the Malakand Field Force: “a roadless, broken and underdeveloped country; an absence of any strategic points; a well-armed enemy with great mobility and modern rifles, who adopts guerrilla tactics. The result… [is] that the troops can march anywhere, and do anything, except catch the enemy….

“The impractical”, the young Churchill wisely continues, “may wonder why we, a people who fill some considerable place in the world, should mix in the petty intrigues of…border chieftains”. Some, whom Churchill calls “bad and nervous sailors”, would simply cut and run, even though that would be impossible under the circumstances, whereas others call for “full steam ahead”, that is, a dramatic increase in military resources until the frontier valleys “are as safe and civilized as Hyde Park”. But, as Churchill intimates, there are usually neither the troops nor the money nor the will to do any such thing. Therefore, “the inevitable alternative” is a system of “gradual advance, of political intrigue among the tribes, of subsidies and small expeditions”.

Subsidies and small expeditions? Now we are at a point of concision that defines the ancient Roman imperial past and the modern American one. Arguably the signature Roman imperial expedition, which vexed Rome and contributed to much political turmoil in the capital, was the so-called Jugurthine War, which lasted for seven years near the end of the second century BC. We owe our account of it to Sallust, who was born a few decades later in the first century BC, a time when this war fought by the Romans in Numidia against its king, Jugurtha, was still recent and presumably hotly debated. The geopolitics of the Jugurthine War were straightforward. Numidia, to the west of Carthage, had been an ally of Rome and their common hostility to Carthage had cemented their alliance. Yet, following Rome’s destruction of Carthage, Numidia suddenly no longer required Roman protection. That set the context for Numidia’s efforts at erasing Roman influence from its sprawling and difficult geography.

Jugurtha was a brilliant and devious king who fought against his adopted siblings over the spoils of Numidia, and bribed his way to victory time after time by his intrigues with Rome. He corrupted Rome and concomitantly gained power in Numidia. At first he was Rome’s ally. Then he became Rome’s enemy. By the time the Roman power structure realised he had to be destroyed it was too late to avoid a major war in a faraway territory. Sallust describes the war as “a hard-fought and bloody contest in which victories alternated with defeats”. The struggle, he goes on, “played havoc with all our institutions… For Jugurtha was so crafty, so well acquainted with the country, and so experienced in warfare, that one never knew what was the most deadly — his presence or his absence, his offers of peace or his threats of hostilities.”

There are shades of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in Jugurtha, in terms of the unconventional threat posed to Rome and the United States. In some cases the imperial power was ultimately victorious, as was Rome against Jugurtha; in some cases not. But the overall effect over time was to subtly and not so subtly weaken the empire.

An analogue from British imperial history was in Waziristan of the Thirties and Forties, when British troops tried and failed to capture the Faqir of Ipi, a radical cleric who, because of his narrow tribal base, appealed to pan-Islamic ideals in the struggle against colonial occupiers. The Faqir, or holy man, whose real name was Mirza Ali Khan, hid out for years in the caves straddling the Afghanistan and Pakistan border, inspiring his troops with sermons on religious war. Despite British aerial bombardment, the Faqir died a natural death in 1960.

Churchill’s comments ring loudly here. A great power cannot often cut and run, nor can it achieve total victory in these small wars. Britain, whose days as a great empire are over, no longer faces this dilemma. But the United States surely does. America is not a country like Sweden or Belgium. It would be simple if it were. Instead, it is, to repeat, a great power. Despite Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States cannot merely withdraw from the developing world, whose very size, political and cultural variety, and general instability guarantees that Washington will regularly face wrenching choices about how to proceed.

The problem is compounded by the nature of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, often disparaged as the “Blob”, because it often thinks according to a single, well-rehearsed mindset. The Blob wants to do great things in this world, because its heroes — those it particularly wants to emulate — were “present at the creation”, as the saying goes. I refer to the American inventors of the post-war order: men such as George Kennan, John McCloy, Averell Harriman, Dean Acheson and so on. The alliance structure that these men built would eventually, over the course of the decades, win the Cold War. The Blob wants to do something similar: create a new and long-lasting American order.

The difficulty with this grand ambition is that the United States is not the country it was in the Fifties. During that period, America was the only major industrial power in the world whose infrastructure was not severely damaged by the Second World War. This gave the United States a comparative advantage that would last for decades. Back then, it completely dominated the world economy. Its robust middle class underwrote a great navy. It was a real nation-state with a military draft. This was long before the American middle class divided into an upper-middle global elite and a lower-middle trending toward poverty. Moreover, this middle class had just gone to war in Europe and the Pacific, and was consequently understanding of rebuilding Europe and Japan. And the foreign policy elite that guided America, the elite that was “present at the creation”, had themselves just gone through the Second World War, holding key positions. They had a comprehension of the world and the tragic choices involved that the American elite of today often lacks.

There is a pattern in all of this: great power wars strengthen a nation and relatively smaller expeditionary wars dissipate it. In our age, a small war means a professional military in fierce combat and a nation at the shopping mall, oblivious to what is going on overseas. When the population at home cannot relate to the fighting overseas, it is probably best if possible not to do it.

The question becomes: can great power conflict over Ukraine and Taiwan rejuvenate America, as it did after 1945? In that way, America would avoid the fate of Rome. Possibly. Of course, there is no mass conscription military anymore and President Joe Biden — despite all the military aid he has been sending — has wisely not committed American troops to the defence of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the national interest in defending Ukraine and Taiwan is clearly much more obvious than toppling an Iraqi dictator or staying militarily engaged in Afghanistan for two decades.

And yet, the Biden Administration is going beyond merely defending Ukraine and Taiwan with arms shipments. It is actually demanding that all countries in the world become democracies, something that the great secretaries of state of the late-Cold War Era, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Baker III, never would have done. Those diplomats were more interested in reconciliations than with issuing ultimatums. Issuing ideological ultimatums is a sign of decadence, that befits a country that is splitting at the seams politically and with an out-of-control national debt.

The Jugurthine War helped presage the end of the Roman Republic. Will America recover from the stain of its Middle East adventures? It’s an open question. Yet, great power rivalry that will likely continue for years, by engaging the whole society and economy, may change America in unpredictable ways, possibly leading to more political and social cohesion. Meanwhile, possessing a memory of Rome and what it went through can only help.


Robert D. Kaplan is an American author and intellectual. He holds the Robert Strausz-Hupé Chair in Geopolitics at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The Loom of Time: Between Empire and Anarchy, from the Mediterranean to China will be published in August by Random House.


Join the discussion


Rejoignez des lecteurs partageant les mêmes idées qui soutiennent notre journalisme en devenant abonnés payants.

Subscribe

To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

86 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

This article’s timeline is simply not correct. The Roman Republic was governered by the Senate for another 100+ years after the Punic Wars. Julius Caesar marches his army into Rome in BC 51, and is assasinated by republican Senators opposed to his dictatorship. Another generation pases before his nephew Octavian (Augustus) is crowned the first Emperor in BC 27.

The territorial extent of the Rome crested not after the Punic Wars, but almost 250 years later, after a century of empire. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GylVIyK6voU)

The underlying comparison between America and Rome is likely accurate, but the author’s inaccurate timeline misplaces where we are. He thinks our American Empire is at about 250 AD, at its maximum territorial extent and headed for decline. This common equation today is likely very wrong.

Like Rome, we have a sprawling international “empire”, but we are still politically a republic, both on paper and in reality. Elections still have consequences. It’s not 300 AD with barbarians ready to carve up the spoils from a decrepit empire. It’s BC 50 — we haven’t even had our Caesar yet.

This is not my theory. Thinkers as diverse as Mary Harrington, Rod Dreher, and Martin Gurri, Christopher Lasch, and Peter Turchin have said similar things. Adam Smith said “there’s a lot of ruin in a nation”. A nation as large and powerful as America can drag it’s aging carcass around for a long time (for good or ill to others) before it actually dies.

The American Republic is likely near the end of its life. However, the American Empire is just being born.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Rome’s territorial expansion may not have peaked until Trajan’s brief conquest of Mesopotamia and Assyria in what we now call 117 AD, but she was effectively mistress of the Mediterranean World after the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.

Having in short order defeated Carthage in 202 BC, Macedonia in 197 BC, after Magnesia there was only subservient Egypt left.

Despite Caesar’s later conquest of Gaul, and further ‘infilling’ by Augustus & Co, this was essentially an agrarian Mediterranean* Empire.

(* Or “Mare Nostrum “- our sea, as the Romans so charmingly called it.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

So…. what are your conclusions vis a vis the US, and the (dis)similarities with Rome. This is your field after all, or are your lips sealed by Chatham House?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

A major factor that precipitated the ‘fall of Rome’ was that they tore themselves apart fighting ruinously expensive civil wars.

Perhaps the US is about to emulate them?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Highly unlikely, unless the US military changes radically.
Those late Roman civil wars were launched by regional military leaders against the central govt. They had nothing to do with the M-16 toting clowns we see today. A few drones would take them out in short order.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Highly unlikely, unless the US military changes radically.
Those late Roman civil wars were launched by regional military leaders against the central govt. They had nothing to do with the M-16 toting clowns we see today. A few drones would take them out in short order.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

A major factor that precipitated the ‘fall of Rome’ was that they tore themselves apart fighting ruinously expensive civil wars.

Perhaps the US is about to emulate them?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

So…. what are your conclusions vis a vis the US, and the (dis)similarities with Rome. This is your field after all, or are your lips sealed by Chatham House?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You were doing do well until your final paragraph – anyone who confuses what the US is with a Republic is deluded to the point of wishful thinking.. the US is a totally corrupt, money driven plutocracy where the people’s votes are of zero input into government: they do not elect, but merely select between two puppets, Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Eisenhaur warned the MIC and moghuls would replace the government; they have, a long time ago. The Barbarian hoards are not at the gates, that’s true.. they are already unside the walls, heavily armed and when poverty (from de-dollarisation) hits the hoards will strike. The MIC’s vast military power will be of little use as carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes nuclear weapons cannot realistically be used. The army has fewer that a million to fight the 40 million (min.) well armed enemy within.. Then they will indeed get their Caesar.. maybe Trump? Maybe an general general such as Caesar himself?

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

At the point when Augustus turned it into an Empire, the Roman Republic was also totally corrupt.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

That didn’t stop Caesar from conquering Gaul.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

That didn’t stop Caesar from conquering Gaul.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Whether a society is a republic has to do with whether they have elections in which the will of the voters can meaningfully change policy outcomes. By that standard, America is a republic, and ancient Rome was as well.
That doesn’t mean ancient Rome wasn’t corrupt (although the modern definition of corruption really doesn’t apply 2000 years ago.) It doesn’t mean America isn’t corrupt in some ways (although I think you’re straining on that point.) Turkey is also a republic, as is Poland, as is Hungary — all 3 are also corrupt.
I suspect a functional, non-corrupt republic isn’t conducive to being transformed to an empire at all. My belief that America’s future is truly imperial is an admission of a certain level of corruption of the republic even today.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Villanueva
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“Eisenhower”
“hordes”
Sadly, the “well-armed enemy within” possesses only semi-automatic M-16s, little better than Mattell toys. The gun industry has been marketing their useless guns to the clueless idiots for decades.
A few drones strikes and any “insurrection” melts like snow.
Jan 6 shows what happens to people who oppose the US govt.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

At the point when Augustus turned it into an Empire, the Roman Republic was also totally corrupt.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Whether a society is a republic has to do with whether they have elections in which the will of the voters can meaningfully change policy outcomes. By that standard, America is a republic, and ancient Rome was as well.
That doesn’t mean ancient Rome wasn’t corrupt (although the modern definition of corruption really doesn’t apply 2000 years ago.) It doesn’t mean America isn’t corrupt in some ways (although I think you’re straining on that point.) Turkey is also a republic, as is Poland, as is Hungary — all 3 are also corrupt.
I suspect a functional, non-corrupt republic isn’t conducive to being transformed to an empire at all. My belief that America’s future is truly imperial is an admission of a certain level of corruption of the republic even today.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Villanueva
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“Eisenhower”
“hordes”
Sadly, the “well-armed enemy within” possesses only semi-automatic M-16s, little better than Mattell toys. The gun industry has been marketing their useless guns to the clueless idiots for decades.
A few drones strikes and any “insurrection” melts like snow.
Jan 6 shows what happens to people who oppose the US govt.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

The Blob is British, our equivalent is the deep state.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Rome’s territorial expansion may not have peaked until Trajan’s brief conquest of Mesopotamia and Assyria in what we now call 117 AD, but she was effectively mistress of the Mediterranean World after the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.

Having in short order defeated Carthage in 202 BC, Macedonia in 197 BC, after Magnesia there was only subservient Egypt left.

Despite Caesar’s later conquest of Gaul, and further ‘infilling’ by Augustus & Co, this was essentially an agrarian Mediterranean* Empire.

(* Or “Mare Nostrum “- our sea, as the Romans so charmingly called it.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You were doing do well until your final paragraph – anyone who confuses what the US is with a Republic is deluded to the point of wishful thinking.. the US is a totally corrupt, money driven plutocracy where the people’s votes are of zero input into government: they do not elect, but merely select between two puppets, Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Eisenhaur warned the MIC and moghuls would replace the government; they have, a long time ago. The Barbarian hoards are not at the gates, that’s true.. they are already unside the walls, heavily armed and when poverty (from de-dollarisation) hits the hoards will strike. The MIC’s vast military power will be of little use as carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes nuclear weapons cannot realistically be used. The army has fewer that a million to fight the 40 million (min.) well armed enemy within.. Then they will indeed get their Caesar.. maybe Trump? Maybe an general general such as Caesar himself?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

The Blob is British, our equivalent is the deep state.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

This article’s timeline is simply not correct. The Roman Republic was governered by the Senate for another 100+ years after the Punic Wars. Julius Caesar marches his army into Rome in BC 51, and is assasinated by republican Senators opposed to his dictatorship. Another generation pases before his nephew Octavian (Augustus) is crowned the first Emperor in BC 27.

The territorial extent of the Rome crested not after the Punic Wars, but almost 250 years later, after a century of empire. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GylVIyK6voU)

The underlying comparison between America and Rome is likely accurate, but the author’s inaccurate timeline misplaces where we are. He thinks our American Empire is at about 250 AD, at its maximum territorial extent and headed for decline. This common equation today is likely very wrong.

Like Rome, we have a sprawling international “empire”, but we are still politically a republic, both on paper and in reality. Elections still have consequences. It’s not 300 AD with barbarians ready to carve up the spoils from a decrepit empire. It’s BC 50 — we haven’t even had our Caesar yet.

This is not my theory. Thinkers as diverse as Mary Harrington, Rod Dreher, and Martin Gurri, Christopher Lasch, and Peter Turchin have said similar things. Adam Smith said “there’s a lot of ruin in a nation”. A nation as large and powerful as America can drag it’s aging carcass around for a long time (for good or ill to others) before it actually dies.

The American Republic is likely near the end of its life. However, the American Empire is just being born.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

It is a certainty… Outside financial services and the tech industry, the demise of the Fords, GMs, Chryslers, IBMs, the breweries, car parts suppliers, is exponential. The tech industry had reached the stage where the visionary entrepreneurs will be gone, and they too will become management run monoliths, failing to compete with Asian rivals. The woke internet has just added to the demise, plus the insular lack of education ( as in Britain) of the vest majority.

The great US wasp generation of financiers and bankers, the greatest in history who came to London and transformed world capital markets are gone… buried by the false God of egalitarianism, equal opportunity and ” diverse inclusive”… RIP USA.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

As you say the visionary entrepreneurs will be gone, and the businesses they founded will become management run monoliths
James Burnham’s Managerial Elite provides a very good insight into this phenomenon and why it appears to be inevitable

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I gave you an uptick more in hope than in belief!

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

As you say the visionary entrepreneurs will be gone, and the businesses they founded will become management run monoliths
James Burnham’s Managerial Elite provides a very good insight into this phenomenon and why it appears to be inevitable

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I gave you an uptick more in hope than in belief!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

It is a certainty… Outside financial services and the tech industry, the demise of the Fords, GMs, Chryslers, IBMs, the breweries, car parts suppliers, is exponential. The tech industry had reached the stage where the visionary entrepreneurs will be gone, and they too will become management run monoliths, failing to compete with Asian rivals. The woke internet has just added to the demise, plus the insular lack of education ( as in Britain) of the vest majority.

The great US wasp generation of financiers and bankers, the greatest in history who came to London and transformed world capital markets are gone… buried by the false God of egalitarianism, equal opportunity and ” diverse inclusive”… RIP USA.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

While I agree with the broad sweep of the author’s “fall of empire” comparisons, we need to understand the following: The success against Carthage laid the seeds of the Roman Empire, but the Empire did not achieve its greatest territorial expansion and especially the superior military organisation it is renowned for until nearly three centuries later.
It seems to be the genius of today’s Neocons to be able to telescope time; the transformation from republic to empire took Rome 200-250 years; the Neocons achieved it in 40; even greater is the Neocon achievement is precipitating the fall. It took (the Western half of) Rome 400 years for imperial overreach to outrun the Empire’s commercial might. The US is gunning for getting there in 30.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

While I agree with the broad sweep of the author’s “fall of empire” comparisons, we need to understand the following: The success against Carthage laid the seeds of the Roman Empire, but the Empire did not achieve its greatest territorial expansion and especially the superior military organisation it is renowned for until nearly three centuries later.
It seems to be the genius of today’s Neocons to be able to telescope time; the transformation from republic to empire took Rome 200-250 years; the Neocons achieved it in 40; even greater is the Neocon achievement is precipitating the fall. It took (the Western half of) Rome 400 years for imperial overreach to outrun the Empire’s commercial might. The US is gunning for getting there in 30.

Gordon Hughes
Gordon Hughes
1 year ago

I am struck by how limited the historical comparisons are in this article. From his previous writings as well as this article it seems that Mr. Kaplan’s knowledge of geo-history is quite small. Why not refer to the conflicts between the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) and the Sassanians or later the Islamic empires that dominated the area from the 8th century onwards? Or, even more important, the waxing and waning of Chinese and Indian dynasties with their relationships with neighbouring nomadic polities. Some of his observations have a much wider base than just Rome or the US, but he seems to lack a proper understanding of the cyclical and evanescent nature of empires and their geographical scope.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Hughes

Yes, a synopsis of all those Chinese Empires from Han to Qing would have been useful, given the current state of world politics.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Hughes

Yes, a synopsis of all those Chinese Empires from Han to Qing would have been useful, given the current state of world politics.

Gordon Hughes
Gordon Hughes
1 year ago

I am struck by how limited the historical comparisons are in this article. From his previous writings as well as this article it seems that Mr. Kaplan’s knowledge of geo-history is quite small. Why not refer to the conflicts between the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) and the Sassanians or later the Islamic empires that dominated the area from the 8th century onwards? Or, even more important, the waxing and waning of Chinese and Indian dynasties with their relationships with neighbouring nomadic polities. Some of his observations have a much wider base than just Rome or the US, but he seems to lack a proper understanding of the cyclical and evanescent nature of empires and their geographical scope.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

I’m very pleased to see a scholar drawing analogies between the current American situation and the Roman Republic rather than the “fall of Rome” (a non-event, actually, amplified by later Westerners from Charlemagne to Gibbon into an event of mythic importance because they wanted to dispossess the organic continuation of the Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople of its Roman-ness: the last Western Augustus was retired to a villa near Naples because the Eastern Augustus reigning in Constantinople decided the parallel office was pointless, as the King of the Ostrogoths, in his other role as Patrician of the Romans, could handle imperial affairs in Italy just fine).
I have declined to vote for the major party candidates in the last two Presidential elections here because I saw all of them as wannabe Caesars, and I prefer living in a republic, even if it is increasingly corrupt to living in an empire.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

I’m very pleased to see a scholar drawing analogies between the current American situation and the Roman Republic rather than the “fall of Rome” (a non-event, actually, amplified by later Westerners from Charlemagne to Gibbon into an event of mythic importance because they wanted to dispossess the organic continuation of the Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople of its Roman-ness: the last Western Augustus was retired to a villa near Naples because the Eastern Augustus reigning in Constantinople decided the parallel office was pointless, as the King of the Ostrogoths, in his other role as Patrician of the Romans, could handle imperial affairs in Italy just fine).
I have declined to vote for the major party candidates in the last two Presidential elections here because I saw all of them as wannabe Caesars, and I prefer living in a republic, even if it is increasingly corrupt to living in an empire.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

To look at it through my British goggles, Churchill’s words are a hauntingly accurate description of our current behaviour. Except that now we do it on behalf of another empire. Well, we don’t have one of our any more so what are our leaders to do?
As to why it always come back to the comparison with Rome – Romans wrote books and historians read them.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Harley Schlanger of LaRouch reckons is a joint UK/US Empire.. What say you (and you Charlie) to that assertion?

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s a US Empire with the UK as a poodle. Still, it allows our deluded leader to claim that they are still of some importance – Top Poodle!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

No, the US is the Organ grinder and we are the Monkey, and have been since late 1916.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I looked up his site – gave him a few minutes. He seems to want to blame the Brits for US foreign policy.
Oh Liam, if only!
The British government has no influence on US policy whatsoever – none at all. The UK is just a site for American military and spy bases, and provides British troops to lend an air of international respectabilty to American ventures abroad. It was only the obduracy of the left-wing of the Labour Party that stopped the UK sending British troops to die in Vietnam. Sadly the Labour Party no longer has a genuine left-wing.
I would be in favour of closing all US bases in Britain and restucturing UK defence forces to defend the UK only. I am not interested in having an empire, or being part of anyone elses. As Charles alluded, The British Empire died in the trenches of the Somme. – Good riddance.

Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s a US Empire with the UK as a poodle. Still, it allows our deluded leader to claim that they are still of some importance – Top Poodle!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

No, the US is the Organ grinder and we are the Monkey, and have been since late 1916.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I looked up his site – gave him a few minutes. He seems to want to blame the Brits for US foreign policy.
Oh Liam, if only!
The British government has no influence on US policy whatsoever – none at all. The UK is just a site for American military and spy bases, and provides British troops to lend an air of international respectabilty to American ventures abroad. It was only the obduracy of the left-wing of the Labour Party that stopped the UK sending British troops to die in Vietnam. Sadly the Labour Party no longer has a genuine left-wing.
I would be in favour of closing all US bases in Britain and restucturing UK defence forces to defend the UK only. I am not interested in having an empire, or being part of anyone elses. As Charles alluded, The British Empire died in the trenches of the Somme. – Good riddance.

Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Harley Schlanger of LaRouch reckons is a joint UK/US Empire.. What say you (and you Charlie) to that assertion?

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

To look at it through my British goggles, Churchill’s words are a hauntingly accurate description of our current behaviour. Except that now we do it on behalf of another empire. Well, we don’t have one of our any more so what are our leaders to do?
As to why it always come back to the comparison with Rome – Romans wrote books and historians read them.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Interesting and useful article.
Bizarre that commentators are already piling in with an almost adolescent anti-Americanism. Nowhere does the article take a partisan pro-US view nordoes it suggest that eveything the US has done was right. It’s a well-balanced view.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Nothing adolescent about it you just CANNOT compare the two.

Nor for that matter could you make such a comparison with say the late, lamented British Empire, which I for one so fondly remember.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Of course you can always compare two different things and look at differences and similarities. There’s no scale of difference which makes it suddenly impossible to compare things when they become “too different”.
I don’t really subscribe to the idea that the US has an “empire” in the traditional sense in any case. What it has had is a pretty much worldwide sphere of influence, which was largely achieved not through conquest and occupation. Yes, it does have an exrtraordinarily large number of overseas military bases in a very large number of countries. But that’s not the same as actually occupying the countries and directly dicating what they can and cannot do.
Perhaps – obligatory British Empire reference – it’s closer to the way we (Britain) first dealt with Egypt – I can’t track down the exact quote where someone (Evelyn Baring ?) said “We don’t rule Egypt. We rule the rulers who rule Egypt”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well let us say an invidious comparison then.

Egypt off course is interesting because we declared a Protectorate over it, thus it was never a Crown Colony for example.

The US effectively has declared a Protectorate over most of South & Central America , thanks to the Monroe Doctrine.

As to the rest of US ‘Imperium’, it more closely resembles the way we controlled the Indian States, internal independence within reason, but control of foreign affairs and defence.
Even the UK falls into this category, although we hate to admit it!

ps. I regard the continental United States as an Empire. Only unusual in that it virtually exterminated the original population rather ruling and civilising them.

The Romans would NOT have been impressed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Except that’s not really true. I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before. How did the US ever allow Harold Wilson to sit out the Vietnam War if what you say is true ?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

We already had two nice little ‘wars’ on the go as you may recall.

If the White House had wanted our support they only had to ask.

It seems to be rather topical these days to quote this Leftish nonsense that “Harold kept us out of Vietnam “.

What he should be pilloried for is deploying the Army so late to Northern Ireland, and then NOT giving it the power it needed to suppress that incipient insurgency.*

(* Martial Law.)

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

I was assuming we were “asked”. I also assumed that the Aussies didn’t just rock up there of their own volition without an invitation.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I don’t think we were ‘asked’ for military support, just moral support.
I gather the Aussies ‘volunteered’ as it was rather close to home for them.

If Iraq is anything to go by the US were VERY fortunate that we didn’t try to stick our nose into Vietnam.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I don’t think we were ‘asked’ for military support, just moral support.
I gather the Aussies ‘volunteered’ as it was rather close to home for them.

If Iraq is anything to go by the US were VERY fortunate that we didn’t try to stick our nose into Vietnam.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

I was assuming we were “asked”. I also assumed that the Aussies didn’t just rock up there of their own volition without an invitation.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

We already had two nice little ‘wars’ on the go as you may recall.

If the White House had wanted our support they only had to ask.

It seems to be rather topical these days to quote this Leftish nonsense that “Harold kept us out of Vietnam “.

What he should be pilloried for is deploying the Army so late to Northern Ireland, and then NOT giving it the power it needed to suppress that incipient insurgency.*

(* Martial Law.)

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

However, many countries, like Poland and Baltic States, would be very happy to have even more American bases.
Is it not quite different from Russian Empire (to bring it closer to modern times) where empire provinces did not really want to be part of it?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Except that’s not really true. I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before. How did the US ever allow Harold Wilson to sit out the Vietnam War if what you say is true ?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

However, many countries, like Poland and Baltic States, would be very happy to have even more American bases.
Is it not quite different from Russian Empire (to bring it closer to modern times) where empire provinces did not really want to be part of it?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Your final sentence also describes the current US Empire.. 3rd country ‘rulers’ are ruled by US threats, bribes and sanctions (where they don’t go the whole hog and invade, assassinate or topple) with the same iron fist that Rome and the BE exerted. Puppet regimes might as well have US governors so the similarity stands.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Total nonsense.
Many countries like Poland and Baltic States have interests, at least partially, aligned with USA.
They would be more than happy to have even more USA bases.
You conveniently forget that USA saved Europe in two world wars and then provided Marshal Plan aid, relieved West Berlin, and protected Western Europe against Russian threat.
Whereas your lot supplied German Uboats.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Total nonsense.
Many countries like Poland and Baltic States have interests, at least partially, aligned with USA.
They would be more than happy to have even more USA bases.
You conveniently forget that USA saved Europe in two world wars and then provided Marshal Plan aid, relieved West Berlin, and protected Western Europe against Russian threat.
Whereas your lot supplied German Uboats.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well let us say an invidious comparison then.

Egypt off course is interesting because we declared a Protectorate over it, thus it was never a Crown Colony for example.

The US effectively has declared a Protectorate over most of South & Central America , thanks to the Monroe Doctrine.

As to the rest of US ‘Imperium’, it more closely resembles the way we controlled the Indian States, internal independence within reason, but control of foreign affairs and defence.
Even the UK falls into this category, although we hate to admit it!

ps. I regard the continental United States as an Empire. Only unusual in that it virtually exterminated the original population rather ruling and civilising them.

The Romans would NOT have been impressed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Your final sentence also describes the current US Empire.. 3rd country ‘rulers’ are ruled by US threats, bribes and sanctions (where they don’t go the whole hog and invade, assassinate or topple) with the same iron fist that Rome and the BE exerted. Puppet regimes might as well have US governors so the similarity stands.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

If you remember the BE Charlie you must be what, 90 years old? ..I’m assuming your ‘knowledge’ of the empire wasn’t very well developed until you were say 10 years old? Unless your counting Scotland, Wales and NI as imperial colonies?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Certainly older that you Liam old chap, assuming you are about 73?

Incidentally when would date the end of the BE?

Off course Wales, NI and Scotland or North Britain as I prefer to call it are “Dediticii”, as the Romans would say, but we mustn’t dwell on that in these sensitive times must we?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Is there any acknowledged “end date” for the British Empire ? I guess you’re the likely authority on that round here. Just curious if mid 1960s would be too late to be blessed/contaminated by the Empire. Of course, this modern hereditary guilt means even our unborn descendents will still be held responsible.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I would go for 1960 when we let Nigeria* go.
After that only the minnows were left.

(* Population 45 million in 1960.)

ps. Liam you were 13 then , surely you remember that famous day and year?

pps. Why has this innocuous reply been censored?

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Probably because current population of Nigeria is over 4 times larger?
Obviously nothing to do with Western science, engineering and medicine.
Like Starkey said “why are there so many bl**s if they were genocided by Europeans?”
Maybe unherd should commission article from BLM to tell us?

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew F
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Thanks. Afraid I only saw the echoes in old school books and geography lessons studying agriculture in Malawi (along with crofting in Scotland and a quite fun sort of game where we picked oil drilling squares in the North Sea).
But you’ll be delighted to learn that I do own a wash bag with a period world map of the British Empire on it. Haven’t been stopped and challenged about this. Yet.
I think the censorship must kick in randomly after you’ve passed some sort of comment limit. Don’t always agree with you, but it’s always worth reading and you should never be censored.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Probably because current population of Nigeria is over 4 times larger?
Obviously nothing to do with Western science, engineering and medicine.
Like Starkey said “why are there so many bl**s if they were genocided by Europeans?”
Maybe unherd should commission article from BLM to tell us?

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew F
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Thanks. Afraid I only saw the echoes in old school books and geography lessons studying agriculture in Malawi (along with crofting in Scotland and a quite fun sort of game where we picked oil drilling squares in the North Sea).
But you’ll be delighted to learn that I do own a wash bag with a period world map of the British Empire on it. Haven’t been stopped and challenged about this. Yet.
I think the censorship must kick in randomly after you’ve passed some sort of comment limit. Don’t always agree with you, but it’s always worth reading and you should never be censored.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I would go for 1960 when we let Nigeria* go.
After that only the minnows were left.

(* Population 45 million in 1960.)

ps. Liam you were 13 then , surely you remember that famous day and year?

pps. Why has this innocuous reply been censored?

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Is there any acknowledged “end date” for the British Empire ? I guess you’re the likely authority on that round here. Just curious if mid 1960s would be too late to be blessed/contaminated by the Empire. Of course, this modern hereditary guilt means even our unborn descendents will still be held responsible.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Certainly older that you Liam old chap, assuming you are about 73?

Incidentally when would date the end of the BE?

Off course Wales, NI and Scotland or North Britain as I prefer to call it are “Dediticii”, as the Romans would say, but we mustn’t dwell on that in these sensitive times must we?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Of course you can always compare two different things and look at differences and similarities. There’s no scale of difference which makes it suddenly impossible to compare things when they become “too different”.
I don’t really subscribe to the idea that the US has an “empire” in the traditional sense in any case. What it has had is a pretty much worldwide sphere of influence, which was largely achieved not through conquest and occupation. Yes, it does have an exrtraordinarily large number of overseas military bases in a very large number of countries. But that’s not the same as actually occupying the countries and directly dicating what they can and cannot do.
Perhaps – obligatory British Empire reference – it’s closer to the way we (Britain) first dealt with Egypt – I can’t track down the exact quote where someone (Evelyn Baring ?) said “We don’t rule Egypt. We rule the rulers who rule Egypt”.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

If you remember the BE Charlie you must be what, 90 years old? ..I’m assuming your ‘knowledge’ of the empire wasn’t very well developed until you were say 10 years old? Unless your counting Scotland, Wales and NI as imperial colonies?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Nothing adolescent about it you just CANNOT compare the two.

Nor for that matter could you make such a comparison with say the late, lamented British Empire, which I for one so fondly remember.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Interesting and useful article.
Bizarre that commentators are already piling in with an almost adolescent anti-Americanism. Nowhere does the article take a partisan pro-US view nordoes it suggest that eveything the US has done was right. It’s a well-balanced view.

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago

Reminds me of the alien spaceship flying past the earth. Looking down, the captain says, “do you know that they’ve got extra-terrestrial vehicles with thermo-nuclear explosives? Co-pilot -“wow, advanced alien intelligence then?” Captain – “Na, exact opposite, they’re aimed at each other”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Black

Bravo!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Black

Bravo!

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago

Reminds me of the alien spaceship flying past the earth. Looking down, the captain says, “do you know that they’ve got extra-terrestrial vehicles with thermo-nuclear explosives? Co-pilot -“wow, advanced alien intelligence then?” Captain – “Na, exact opposite, they’re aimed at each other”.

rob clark
rob clark
1 year ago

“Issuing ideological ultimatums is a sign of decadence, that befits a country that is splitting at the seams politically and with an out-of-control national debt.”
Very well stated! Epitomizes the Washington establishment today!

Last edited 1 year ago by rob clark
rob clark
rob clark
1 year ago

“Issuing ideological ultimatums is a sign of decadence, that befits a country that is splitting at the seams politically and with an out-of-control national debt.”
Very well stated! Epitomizes the Washington establishment today!

Last edited 1 year ago by rob clark
James Anthony Seyforth
James Anthony Seyforth
1 year ago

It’s still telling that even in 2023, all the technology the world cannot conquer the formless and the orderless. Not to mention the desolate deserts and mountains of those lands that evade all civilisation. It’s much like trying to conquer Mars or the moon by blowing it up and sitting on it for twenty years, ludicrous and farcical yet still we spent trillions trying to do so.

Again I’m not arguing all the people are without civilisation there. Even bring them to the west and you see they can regularly prosper and join our community, but that place itself is some kind of civilisational black hole of earth.

But at least it is where all empires’ egos go to die… Now that’s something to behold!

Last edited 1 year ago by James Anthony Seyforth
James Anthony Seyforth
James Anthony Seyforth
1 year ago

It’s still telling that even in 2023, all the technology the world cannot conquer the formless and the orderless. Not to mention the desolate deserts and mountains of those lands that evade all civilisation. It’s much like trying to conquer Mars or the moon by blowing it up and sitting on it for twenty years, ludicrous and farcical yet still we spent trillions trying to do so.

Again I’m not arguing all the people are without civilisation there. Even bring them to the west and you see they can regularly prosper and join our community, but that place itself is some kind of civilisational black hole of earth.

But at least it is where all empires’ egos go to die… Now that’s something to behold!

Last edited 1 year ago by James Anthony Seyforth
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
1 year ago

Lots of people have been portenting the fall of the American imperial moment but it has not arrived yet. The comparison with the Roman Empire is more futile than the comparison with the British. In an age (500yrs) of truly global empires it is the ability to project naval power which is the most important test. Will the US be able to do this in Asia where it doesn’t have a compliant or cowed seaboard (unlike in the Atlantic)? I would suggest not.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
1 year ago

Lots of people have been portenting the fall of the American imperial moment but it has not arrived yet. The comparison with the Roman Empire is more futile than the comparison with the British. In an age (500yrs) of truly global empires it is the ability to project naval power which is the most important test. Will the US be able to do this in Asia where it doesn’t have a compliant or cowed seaboard (unlike in the Atlantic)? I would suggest not.

David Harris
David Harris
1 year ago

“The Jugurthine War helped presage the end of the Roman Republic.”
We still have Pax Americana – just, but for how long? There is, as someone once said, ‘a lot of ruination in an empire’.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Harris
David Harris
David Harris
1 year ago

“The Jugurthine War helped presage the end of the Roman Republic.”
We still have Pax Americana – just, but for how long? There is, as someone once said, ‘a lot of ruination in an empire’.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Harris
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

How ridiculous!
To state that there is ANY comparison between Ancient Rome and the US is completely specious and not a little conceited.

As the late Georges Clemenceau* is reported to have said, more than a century ago :”The US is the only nation in history which has gone from barbarism to degeneration without the normal interval of civilisation .”
Has anything changed, or have things actually got worse? Recent evidence seems to indicate the later.**

(* President of France.)
(** The unparalleled barbarism of the Iraq ‘adventure’ being a case in point.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
1 year ago

Agree with you 100%. Rome actually did things, some good and some bad (by today’s standards) but the US just throws money at things. In fact, when it tries to do something it often fails – many stupid wars including Iraq, as you say.

The rise to civilisation and subsequent decline has taken about 100 years – no time at all. If there was a stable point it might have been the 1980s. Within about 30 years of achieving anything it started to believe in the Hollywood image of itself – the Goodies fighting the Baddies. The US is now a joke – a very dangerous joke.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago

Whilst I’m very unhappy with us trajectory in the last 30 years, to dismiss USA like that is a little strong. They have done things too. They built incredible infrastructure (which they have not maintained to sometimes outright destroyed), helped to rebuild western Europe and other countries after WW2 and in philanthropic terms donated huge amounts of money to effective causes (kellog foundation being just one example).

However, the last 30 years have seen them turn away from all that and do all the stupid things (Iraq, etc). if a Rome comparison were used, we could be looking at the third century crisis. Endless wars and succession with little infrastructure or development.

Rome still came back after that in the fourth century with Constantine and even a rump empire in Byzantium lasted until 1453, so who knows how long a version of USA power/empire might last.

To Charles’ point about civilisation, if you look at architecture and films of USA from 20s-50s, I would say there was evidence of a spiritual, aware culture that was still looking to create beauty in their environment. All gone now

Last edited 1 year ago by L Easterbrook
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

80 years ago today they landed at great cost on Utah and Omaha beaches. Surely that was something.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

and Gold Juno and Sword..

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

The US led on Omaha and Utah, Britain on Gold and Sword and Canada on Juno. Of course there were also US soldiers involved in the other waves and none of them could have happened without US logistics, intel, bombing raids etc.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

The US led on Omaha and Utah, Britain on Gold and Sword and Canada on Juno. Of course there were also US soldiers involved in the other waves and none of them could have happened without US logistics, intel, bombing raids etc.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Absolutely, I didn’t mention it explicitly but hoped my positive view of those events was implied through my point about reconstruction post war. A sacrifice for which we should always be grateful for from that great generation

Last edited 1 year ago by L Easterbrook
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

I am the only person upvoting your comment at time of writing.
Most others clearly don’t appreciate it.
Hate of USA is strong here.
But Russia?
They are such cuddly and cultured people….

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Cheers. Although to be historically fair to the Russians, their sacrifice in world war 2 was monumental and should not be forgotten either. And if you want culture from there, Pasternak, solzhenitzhyn, Grossman, Eisenstein are just a few from the last century.

For myself, I certainly hate aspects of the USA, but I hate aspects of most countries I’ve lived in for long enough to gain some understanding, including my own. However, I also appreciate, admire and love the many wonderful aspects too, and wish that the irrational hatred would not lead people to dismiss such places out of hand.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Cheers. Although to be historically fair to the Russians, their sacrifice in world war 2 was monumental and should not be forgotten either. And if you want culture from there, Pasternak, solzhenitzhyn, Grossman, Eisenstein are just a few from the last century.

For myself, I certainly hate aspects of the USA, but I hate aspects of most countries I’ve lived in for long enough to gain some understanding, including my own. However, I also appreciate, admire and love the many wonderful aspects too, and wish that the irrational hatred would not lead people to dismiss such places out of hand.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

I am the only person upvoting your comment at time of writing.
Most others clearly don’t appreciate it.
Hate of USA is strong here.
But Russia?
They are such cuddly and cultured people….

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

It counted for far more than you imagine! It cost European countries their independence not only militarily but economically..

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not quite sure what your comment is replying to.
But do you mean the Eastern European countries which actually lost their freedom and independence for over 40 years and got to live under the actual occupation of a real empire (the Soviet Union’s one) ? Or the Western European countries which were liberated and recovered their freedom and independence ?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

What independence?
You would be speaking either German or Russian now if it was not for USA.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not quite sure what your comment is replying to.
But do you mean the Eastern European countries which actually lost their freedom and independence for over 40 years and got to live under the actual occupation of a real empire (the Soviet Union’s one) ? Or the Western European countries which were liberated and recovered their freedom and independence ?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

What independence?
You would be speaking either German or Russian now if it was not for USA.

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Given the ongoing spewing hatred of all things Russian in the MSM (and elsewhere) it is worth noting the following.
On 22nd June 1941 3,800,000 Nazi troops started the invasion of the Soviet Union. Without the extraordinary sacrifice of ~25,000,000 Russian lives from June 1941 to May 1945 there would now be no Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Finland, Estonia, Poland etc etc.
These territories would be merely lander of the Great Third Reich and we would be all writing in German. There would be monuments throughout the lands dedicated to that wonderful visionary leader – A.H.
I am struggling to find the appropriate language to describe the situation but somehow the word ‘ingrates’ keeps popping up in every sentence I try to put together.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

I suggest you refresh on the Soviet Union’s active participation in the start of WWII by its joint invasion of Poland in September 1939 following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before breaking out the violins and claiming victim status for the USSR.
Then ask the countries of Eastern Europe just how grateful they are for over 40 years of occupation and enslavement under the USSR empire after their “liberation”. Start by asking the Poles.
In case it isn’t yet clear from the current absolute incompetence of Russian leadership in Ukraine, a pretty high percentage of that 25 million will have been self-inflicted. Recall that they used to have political troops just behind the front lines shooting any of their own troops who retreated. Recall the appalling treatment of returning Soviet POWs when they returned home after the war.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

I am sorry but Soviet Union started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland.
Then it supplied German war machine when Germany invaded other European countries.
Your lies about Baltic States and Finland are equally disgusting.
All this countries were invaded by Soviet Union.
Then Soviets were persuading Communist party members to sabotage war effort against Germany because Soviet Russia was Germany ally.
Then Soviets murdered millions including Polish army officers, University professors etc in Katyn and other places.
After ww2 when Western Europe enjoyed democracy and Marshal Plan Aid, Eastern Europe was subjugated by Stalin.
So I describe situation for you.
You are nothing more but “Sovietskaya scatina”…

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

I suggest you refresh on the Soviet Union’s active participation in the start of WWII by its joint invasion of Poland in September 1939 following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before breaking out the violins and claiming victim status for the USSR.
Then ask the countries of Eastern Europe just how grateful they are for over 40 years of occupation and enslavement under the USSR empire after their “liberation”. Start by asking the Poles.
In case it isn’t yet clear from the current absolute incompetence of Russian leadership in Ukraine, a pretty high percentage of that 25 million will have been self-inflicted. Recall that they used to have political troops just behind the front lines shooting any of their own troops who retreated. Recall the appalling treatment of returning Soviet POWs when they returned home after the war.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

I am sorry but Soviet Union started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland.
Then it supplied German war machine when Germany invaded other European countries.
Your lies about Baltic States and Finland are equally disgusting.
All this countries were invaded by Soviet Union.
Then Soviets were persuading Communist party members to sabotage war effort against Germany because Soviet Russia was Germany ally.
Then Soviets murdered millions including Polish army officers, University professors etc in Katyn and other places.
After ww2 when Western Europe enjoyed democracy and Marshal Plan Aid, Eastern Europe was subjugated by Stalin.
So I describe situation for you.
You are nothing more but “Sovietskaya scatina”…

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Yes, this supposedly cultured Europeans slagging USA off forget that.
USA saved Europe ass in two world wars and then rebuild it and protect it against Russia.
European civilisation gave us many great things but Naz**m and Communism and millions of deaths as well.
But let’s not worry about it, let’s slag off America while using technology which was mostly invented and developed there.
Poor French they had Minitel….

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Not forgotten by this European Andrew.
Their name liveth for evermore.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Small disagreement on world war 1. Wilson’s insistence on nation-states did more harm than good in Versailles treaty and didn’t help to rebuild at all. Also not entirely true they saved Europe, but helped France and UK yet over the finishing line on western front. Germany was already prett exhausted when USA entered (although is blockades helped enormously).

As to WW2, we agreed before that USA saved and rebuilt Europe (helped save USSR too).

As to the French, they have their uses by disagreeing with prevailing opinion. They were completely right on Iraq (although woefully misguided on Libya)

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Not forgotten by this European Andrew.
Their name liveth for evermore.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Small disagreement on world war 1. Wilson’s insistence on nation-states did more harm than good in Versailles treaty and didn’t help to rebuild at all. Also not entirely true they saved Europe, but helped France and UK yet over the finishing line on western front. Germany was already prett exhausted when USA entered (although is blockades helped enormously).

As to WW2, we agreed before that USA saved and rebuilt Europe (helped save USSR too).

As to the French, they have their uses by disagreeing with prevailing opinion. They were completely right on Iraq (although woefully misguided on Libya)

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

and Gold Juno and Sword..

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Absolutely, I didn’t mention it explicitly but hoped my positive view of those events was implied through my point about reconstruction post war. A sacrifice for which we should always be grateful for from that great generation

Last edited 1 year ago by L Easterbrook
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

It counted for far more than you imagine! It cost European countries their independence not only militarily but economically..

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Given the ongoing spewing hatred of all things Russian in the MSM (and elsewhere) it is worth noting the following.
On 22nd June 1941 3,800,000 Nazi troops started the invasion of the Soviet Union. Without the extraordinary sacrifice of ~25,000,000 Russian lives from June 1941 to May 1945 there would now be no Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Finland, Estonia, Poland etc etc.
These territories would be merely lander of the Great Third Reich and we would be all writing in German. There would be monuments throughout the lands dedicated to that wonderful visionary leader – A.H.
I am struggling to find the appropriate language to describe the situation but somehow the word ‘ingrates’ keeps popping up in every sentence I try to put together.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Yes, this supposedly cultured Europeans slagging USA off forget that.
USA saved Europe ass in two world wars and then rebuild it and protect it against Russia.
European civilisation gave us many great things but Naz**m and Communism and millions of deaths as well.
But let’s not worry about it, let’s slag off America while using technology which was mostly invented and developed there.
Poor French they had Minitel….

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

Okay we’ll grant you a brief, minor culture and maybe mini Eastern and Western empires as well, ie New England and Greater California but the Americans Barbarians will surely overrun the middle and South, not so much Visigoth, more Misbegotten?

vjanakiraman79@gmail.com vjanakiraman79@gmail.com
vjanakiraman79@gmail.com vjanakiraman79@gmail.com
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

Wonderful article, explaining clearly about the situation prevailing around us, in simple words,is something which I had never experienced.
Thanks for the lovely articles. Await more from you. Kindly try to compress the size
Regards,
Janakiraman.V
99433 56779

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

80 years ago today they landed at great cost on Utah and Omaha beaches. Surely that was something.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

Okay we’ll grant you a brief, minor culture and maybe mini Eastern and Western empires as well, ie New England and Greater California but the Americans Barbarians will surely overrun the middle and South, not so much Visigoth, more Misbegotten?

vjanakiraman79@gmail.com vjanakiraman79@gmail.com
vjanakiraman79@gmail.com vjanakiraman79@gmail.com
1 year ago
Reply to  L Easterbrook

Wonderful article, explaining clearly about the situation prevailing around us, in simple words,is something which I had never experienced.
Thanks for the lovely articles. Await more from you. Kindly try to compress the size
Regards,
Janakiraman.V
99433 56779

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Your cartoonish black and white view of the US is actually worse than the false picture you paint of the US as seeing the world as only “Goodies and Baddies”.
I sometimes wonder if people who hold such views of the US have actually ever spent much time in the US.
To suggest that the US has made no positive contributions to the world over the past 100 years is both ludicrous and ignorant.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Of course the US has done good all over the world ..a great many corrupt tyrants became very wealthy and armed to the teeth as a result of US generosity. If you want to scam your victims it’s a good ploy to offer a few freebies first.
Sadly, there are 8 million or so dead who didn’t do so well having been bombed, assassinated, invaded and starved; and a few hundred million more whose resources were looted.. but we don’t need to count those.
Ask your average American how many died in Vietnam and you’ll get an immediate answer: 58,000. The correct answer of course is three million and 58,000 but who counts gooks eh? That sums up the American (and Israeli) mindset.. the rest of us are just dross!

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Then on other side of the ledger USA help to defeat Na*is, rebuild Europe and contain Soviets.
Communist and Na*is killed well over hundred millions together.
But that is not your problem, is it?
USA is.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Then on other side of the ledger USA help to defeat Na*is, rebuild Europe and contain Soviets.
Communist and Na*is killed well over hundred millions together.
But that is not your problem, is it?
USA is.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Of course the US has done good all over the world ..a great many corrupt tyrants became very wealthy and armed to the teeth as a result of US generosity. If you want to scam your victims it’s a good ploy to offer a few freebies first.
Sadly, there are 8 million or so dead who didn’t do so well having been bombed, assassinated, invaded and starved; and a few hundred million more whose resources were looted.. but we don’t need to count those.
Ask your average American how many died in Vietnam and you’ll get an immediate answer: 58,000. The correct answer of course is three million and 58,000 but who counts gooks eh? That sums up the American (and Israeli) mindset.. the rest of us are just dross!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..a brief glance at its (wouldbe) leaders seems to confirm that image.. with the notable exception of RFK jnr who, I expect will be shafted if he’s lucky (like Sanders) or assassinated if he isn’t like his father and uncle.

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago

Whilst I’m very unhappy with us trajectory in the last 30 years, to dismiss USA like that is a little strong. They have done things too. They built incredible infrastructure (which they have not maintained to sometimes outright destroyed), helped to rebuild western Europe and other countries after WW2 and in philanthropic terms donated huge amounts of money to effective causes (kellog foundation being just one example).

However, the last 30 years have seen them turn away from all that and do all the stupid things (Iraq, etc). if a Rome comparison were used, we could be looking at the third century crisis. Endless wars and succession with little infrastructure or development.

Rome still came back after that in the fourth century with Constantine and even a rump empire in Byzantium lasted until 1453, so who knows how long a version of USA power/empire might last.

To Charles’ point about civilisation, if you look at architecture and films of USA from 20s-50s, I would say there was evidence of a spiritual, aware culture that was still looking to create beauty in their environment. All gone now

Last edited 1 year ago by L Easterbrook
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Your cartoonish black and white view of the US is actually worse than the false picture you paint of the US as seeing the world as only “Goodies and Baddies”.
I sometimes wonder if people who hold such views of the US have actually ever spent much time in the US.
To suggest that the US has made no positive contributions to the world over the past 100 years is both ludicrous and ignorant.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..a brief glance at its (wouldbe) leaders seems to confirm that image.. with the notable exception of RFK jnr who, I expect will be shafted if he’s lucky (like Sanders) or assassinated if he isn’t like his father and uncle.

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Never mind Charlie, I gave you an uptick.. I’d thought that was Gandhi’s quote? ..perhaps he plagiarised it from Clemenceau?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Your correct Liam old chap, there is some dispute about the origin of this apposite quote.
I think it more likely it was Clemenceau, given his somewhat acerbic temperament.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Your correct Liam old chap, there is some dispute about the origin of this apposite quote.
I think it more likely it was Clemenceau, given his somewhat acerbic temperament.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

But then France is really jealous of USA success.
I noticed your low opinion of unherd readers with frequent explanation of most basic facts of history.
Civilisation in Europe? Yes, great paintings and music. Literature in USA is not that inferior.
Then European Civilisation gave us 2 World wars, Naz**m, Auschwitz and Communism and millions of deaths.
So I would say that Clemenceau is a little French p***k.
We have another one in office now.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

No nation in modern history has drunk so deeply from the well of national humiliation as the French.
Thus I agree with you ‘they’ can be remarkably ungrateful and chippy towards their saviours!

They are also obsessed with the idea of an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy which sadly is purely motivated by jealousy.

As to the US it has done splendidly in many fields, which is why ‘many of my lot’ still regard it as a sort of prodigal son! Ridiculous really, but there it is.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

USA is an offspring of European civilisation. Yes, Europe did give rise to great evils, but that is partly due to geography and resources being fought over on a land mass where sometimes there are no natural barriers and huge crossover of ethnic and linguistic groups who can suddenly turn on one another.

If you look at Switzerland with it’s mountains, UK as an island or Norway being so isolated, they all escaped succumbing to these extremes (bar Norway’s occupation in WW2).

The great fortune of the USA was lack of enemies north and south after mid 19th century and huge oceans either side. This allowed USA to build up it’s great experiment and foster one of the most dynamic and democratic places that has ever existed based on the very best of European values.

Of course France is jealous, but most importantly it is different linguistically, culturally and politically. That is what leads to disagreements and a different way of looking at things. Happily that difference from Anglo Saxon world is what led them to help US in indépendance war, and as I said, gave us the US experiment.

Lastly, Clemenceau was alright – was an opponent of colonialism so he can’t be all that bad.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

No nation in modern history has drunk so deeply from the well of national humiliation as the French.
Thus I agree with you ‘they’ can be remarkably ungrateful and chippy towards their saviours!

They are also obsessed with the idea of an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy which sadly is purely motivated by jealousy.

As to the US it has done splendidly in many fields, which is why ‘many of my lot’ still regard it as a sort of prodigal son! Ridiculous really, but there it is.

L Easterbrook
L Easterbrook
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

USA is an offspring of European civilisation. Yes, Europe did give rise to great evils, but that is partly due to geography and resources being fought over on a land mass where sometimes there are no natural barriers and huge crossover of ethnic and linguistic groups who can suddenly turn on one another.

If you look at Switzerland with it’s mountains, UK as an island or Norway being so isolated, they all escaped succumbing to these extremes (bar Norway’s occupation in WW2).

The great fortune of the USA was lack of enemies north and south after mid 19th century and huge oceans either side. This allowed USA to build up it’s great experiment and foster one of the most dynamic and democratic places that has ever existed based on the very best of European values.

Of course France is jealous, but most importantly it is different linguistically, culturally and politically. That is what leads to disagreements and a different way of looking at things. Happily that difference from Anglo Saxon world is what led them to help US in indépendance war, and as I said, gave us the US experiment.

Lastly, Clemenceau was alright – was an opponent of colonialism so he can’t be all that bad.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
1 year ago

Agree with you 100%. Rome actually did things, some good and some bad (by today’s standards) but the US just throws money at things. In fact, when it tries to do something it often fails – many stupid wars including Iraq, as you say.

The rise to civilisation and subsequent decline has taken about 100 years – no time at all. If there was a stable point it might have been the 1980s. Within about 30 years of achieving anything it started to believe in the Hollywood image of itself – the Goodies fighting the Baddies. The US is now a joke – a very dangerous joke.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Never mind Charlie, I gave you an uptick.. I’d thought that was Gandhi’s quote? ..perhaps he plagiarised it from Clemenceau?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

But then France is really jealous of USA success.
I noticed your low opinion of unherd readers with frequent explanation of most basic facts of history.
Civilisation in Europe? Yes, great paintings and music. Literature in USA is not that inferior.
Then European Civilisation gave us 2 World wars, Naz**m, Auschwitz and Communism and millions of deaths.
So I would say that Clemenceau is a little French p***k.
We have another one in office now.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

How ridiculous!
To state that there is ANY comparison between Ancient Rome and the US is completely specious and not a little conceited.

As the late Georges Clemenceau* is reported to have said, more than a century ago :”The US is the only nation in history which has gone from barbarism to degeneration without the normal interval of civilisation .”
Has anything changed, or have things actually got worse? Recent evidence seems to indicate the later.**

(* President of France.)
(** The unparalleled barbarism of the Iraq ‘adventure’ being a case in point.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
David Brightly
David Brightly
1 year ago

“And yet, the Biden Administration … is actually demanding that all countries in the world become democracies”. Really?

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago

This article is beyond stupid.
“There is a pattern in all of this: great power wars strengthen a nation and relatively smaller expeditionary wars dissipate it.” WWII did not strengthen the US; the aftermath of it did. So, the author is suggesting that blowing up the world and killing millions of people is a means of strengthening a nation. Ridiculous! Prosperity through nuclear destruction, great idea.
“Issuing ideological ultimatums is a sign of decadence, that befits a country that is splitting at the seams politically and with an out-of-control national debt.” This has to be the dumbest sentence I have ever read! It makes zero sense. Whether or not you agree with US foreign policy, standing up for representative government and human rights is not decadent and has nothing to do with polarization or debt. Kissinger’s foreign policy of realpolitik is responsible for war crimes from the bombing of Cambodia to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
What is truly dangerous is intellectuals who look back at the last century and draw all the wrong conclusions and then make specious comparisons to ancient history to justify nonsense.

Last edited 1 year ago by Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago

This article is beyond stupid.
“There is a pattern in all of this: great power wars strengthen a nation and relatively smaller expeditionary wars dissipate it.” WWII did not strengthen the US; the aftermath of it did. So, the author is suggesting that blowing up the world and killing millions of people is a means of strengthening a nation. Ridiculous! Prosperity through nuclear destruction, great idea.
“Issuing ideological ultimatums is a sign of decadence, that befits a country that is splitting at the seams politically and with an out-of-control national debt.” This has to be the dumbest sentence I have ever read! It makes zero sense. Whether or not you agree with US foreign policy, standing up for representative government and human rights is not decadent and has nothing to do with polarization or debt. Kissinger’s foreign policy of realpolitik is responsible for war crimes from the bombing of Cambodia to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
What is truly dangerous is intellectuals who look back at the last century and draw all the wrong conclusions and then make specious comparisons to ancient history to justify nonsense.

Last edited 1 year ago by Benjamin Greco
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Quick look at the map, clearly shows that USA is not even remotely in position of Rome.
Who is going to invade USA (militarily)?
Then is the question of resources.
Rome needed a lot of imports, USA not really if it wanted to avoid it (globalisation was the decision of USA rulling class, stupid, but their decision).
Then is the timing. Rome was still dominant empire for at least 300 years after defeating Carthage.
What will most likely destroy USA is mass immigration of low IQ people from South America and resulting change of cultural makeup of the population.
But then Europe is well down this road importing even worse benefit scroungers.
Looking at possible competitors of USA who can dominate?
China? Blockade the trade routes and China is finished in a year or so.
One thing you have to admire about Romans rulling classes.
They had a clear vision of the danger Cathage posed and dealt with it.
Do leaders of USA in the last 30 years had similar vision.
Obviously not, just look at rise of China.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew F
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Quick look at the map, clearly shows that USA is not even remotely in position of Rome.
Who is going to invade USA (militarily)?
Then is the question of resources.
Rome needed a lot of imports, USA not really if it wanted to avoid it (globalisation was the decision of USA rulling class, stupid, but their decision).
Then is the timing. Rome was still dominant empire for at least 300 years after defeating Carthage.
What will most likely destroy USA is mass immigration of low IQ people from South America and resulting change of cultural makeup of the population.
But then Europe is well down this road importing even worse benefit scroungers.
Looking at possible competitors of USA who can dominate?
China? Blockade the trade routes and China is finished in a year or so.
One thing you have to admire about Romans rulling classes.
They had a clear vision of the danger Cathage posed and dealt with it.
Do leaders of USA in the last 30 years had similar vision.
Obviously not, just look at rise of China.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew F
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Civilisations decline beause the spirit of the people decline. Spirit declines when the ruling class have no longer been tempered by adversity and they are no longer prepared to die for the civilisation. When the ruling class class use their wealth to evade life or death challenges ; the civilisation dies.
When the Equites and Senatorial classes refused to send their sons to fight and die on the frontier from about 300 AD, the Empire was in decline. Why should the poor die if the rich refuse to aquire martial valour and die fighting to defend the Empire? In WW1, 20 % of British aristocracy died compared to 5% for the ranks and 27 % of Harrovians died, the highest of any school. Orwell pointed out that more aristocrats were were killed than left wing middle class intellectuals in WW2.
The USA forced Britain to sell all it’s overseas possesions which included 20 % of the USA stock market, all of the tool making industries and we handed over the the secrets free- atomic fission, jet engines and latest radar plus others – see Tizard Commission . Britain undertook most of the initial research into atomic bombs and people such as William Penney undertook much of the most vital research. Yet due to an act passed by Congress , British scientists were banned from taking their norebooks or any plans back to the UK after the war. This gave the USA a massive economic advantage. The question is does the USA have sufficient number of people blessed with genius such as Michelangelo, Newton, Mozart, James Watt, G Stephenson, Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, etc. For a population of 330 M much of those living within inner cities are poorly educated. Also much of the undergradaute and post graduate technical and scientific skills depend upon foreigners ?
30% of the Indian Army comprised Muslims. My Father played cricket for a Pakistani’s General team in the 1960s who was very proud to have served and fought in the British Army in WW2.
What the author fails to recognise is the inability of Americans to earn the loyalty of foreigners to fight to the death for the USA . One of the tests of an Empire is whether leaders earn the respect and loyaty of foreigners such that they will die for it- Rome achieved this, Greece did not.? Proof in the case of Britain was the large numbers of VCs, GCs and Indian Order of Merit First Class plus other awards for gallantry – Noor Inayat Khan GC and Sher Shah Awan VC to name but a few.
Americans need to learn one cannot buy loyalty, only earn it.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago

The answer is yes, but baseball caps, fat people, hollywood and porn will not quite make the same impact on history as Latin, roman law, buildings, roads…..

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago

Ps even the lions would have choked at the horror of having to eat Trump or Biden…

Michael Layman
Michael Layman
4 months ago

Given its status as the world’s largest economy, can one state that the U.S. has been weakened by dabbling in regional conflicts? Undeniably, “the national interest in defending Ukraine and Taiwan is clearly much more obvious than toppling an Iraqi dictator or staying militarily engaged in Afghanistan for two decades”.
Kissinger was justified in deterrance and it is senseless to expect widespread democratic reform world-wide. The optimal position is one of strength and maintaining the status quo without depleting war capabilities.

Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
1 year ago

Q. Will America share Rome’s fate?
A. No!

Last edited 1 year ago by Mike Doyle
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

judging by American’s idea of a good pizza, I’d say ” definitely”….

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I think the tegular pancake stack will get ’em all!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I think the tegular pancake stack will get ’em all!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Incorrect. Take another guess!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

judging by American’s idea of a good pizza, I’d say ” definitely”….

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Incorrect. Take another guess!

Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
1 year ago

Q. Will America share Rome’s fate?
A. No!

Last edited 1 year ago by Mike Doyle