Sure, there are parallels, but they can be made between any two large powers. Rome is much closer in its makeup to the old Soviet Empire than America. America's organic framework will prevent a Romanesques fall.
I'll buy that. Add the British Empire and the Macedonian Empire to the list. Well, Imperial Rome had some similarities with the Soviet Union. But Rome was first a Republic and was so for longer than it was an Empire. Rome, the young democratic republic, is astonishingly similar to the still young United States of America. As did Great Britain's organic framework, which is essentially similar to ours . . . but fall they did!
Add anyone you like. I don't know about that. The Byzantine Empire evolved from the Eastern Empire. In a sense the Roman Empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 or 93. I forget. Still their are drastic differences. The biggest of which is the Roman allowance of the dictator in times of crisis. That is what lead to the fall of the Rebublic. The British Empire didn't really ever fall. The British just divested itself of its colonies. Many of the commonwealth nations still have very close ties to the British crown. Talking to Australians you'd think they are subjects to the queen.
Looks like in the Senate there might have been some sort of compromise reached. On the surface, it looks like a decent one, but I'm not going to judge it until we see how strictly it will be enforced and what they intend to do about border security. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190770,00.html
An elected leader assuming authoritarian powers during a crisis doesn't sound recently familiar to you? :grin: I agree it leads to the fall of a republic. Most of the colonies forced the issue, especially the big ones (America and India). The British Empire didn't have a sudden collapse but it damn sure went away in less than 50 years. By the end of two world wars Britain was an empire in name only. The commonwealth is a mere relict of empire.
Supa's done a good job so far, but I'll expand a little. A number of broad parallels could be drawn, but the specifics (important ones, not insignificant stuff) are very different. America is in fine shape & not any worse off than it's ever been. People who think things are terrible right now (Crip, pay attention :wink: ) are placing too much importance on the current & not enough on the past. This country has already gone through a horrible depression and a civil war and come out better for it both times. There have been plenty of times when, to the people of the time, things looked doomed, but America came through. Does America need change? Yes, of course, just as it always does. This is why we are so successful! Because we can change.
The Roman dictator was beyond reproach for his term. He could not be questioned. Their were no checks and balances. Even the most stauch leftest can see that is not the case with Bush's emergency powers.
the US is nothing like those others and is in fact totally unique in that they do not colonize so much as rescue and liberate. there has never been a country so giving and gracious as the us. the united states will defeat an agressor, then return it to the locals and encourage them to become rich and happy like us. anyone who calls the us an empire needs a severe beating and a lesson in history. the french and british, these are the countries that have africans and indians speaking their languages and playing cricket. america is not imperialist in any real sense except culturally, and that is a different topic altogether.
