Ok NC here are a few. The Mexican War we lerft as soon as an armistace was signed. The only thing we did there was take land we wanted. The Spanish American War we left Cuba quickly and did nothing to rebuild. WW1 we left as soon as we could get our troops out and left it to Europe to rebuild. WW2 & Korea were different animals. Our remaining in Eurpoe, Japan & Korea was to insure the Russians didn't take over. The Cold War was an extension of those wars and our presence and rebuilding of Europe & Japan were as much statecraft and supporting allies as anything.. However we left Vietnam as soon as thr treaty of Paris was signed. So you see our staying after peace is an aberation and wasn't to help rebuild but to project power and deter a growing enemy. I guess you could cite the Indian wars as we did stay to build but we didn't do much for thse we sent to reservations. Rome was racked by many issues from the early 200s ad through the "fall" when the Vandals sacked it. Civil War, how to manage succession, a stagnant society and loss of population were the main issues that caused the empire to disentegrate. It didn't fall due to invasion in fact most of the barbarians were asked to come into the empire to fill the empty country side. What happened was that after a while rather than try to become Roman the new romans decided to stay German, Frank, Goth & Vandal etc. By the mid 4th century the Roman was a shell fascade of Romans at the top and barbarians filling the greater part of the empire. Even the "Romans" weren't really roman but Spaniards, Albanians (Constintine, Diocletian) and Africans (Septimus Servus and his heirs). Did you know St Augustine was african and likely a moor? Read Gregory of Tours accounts of the Franks. The Roman armies and emperors were in fact barbarians by 400 ad. Theodosius who ruled about 395 ad and I believe was the last emperor to rule over both east & west was part Goth. The "last" emperor of the west's army was 100% barbarian and his master of the horse was a Frank. The eastern empire remained until 1454 when the Turks sacked Constantinople (Istanbul) but the eastern empire was seperated from the west and what Europeans considered Rome after Theodosius. A few such as Justinian in the early 6th century tried to ressurect the west but never made an impression. Most of it was subsumed by the Arabs in the 8th century after Mohammad BTW the Vikings didn't appear on the world stage until after 800 bce (ad) several hundred years after the western empire dissapeared. I know I covered several centuries and brushed over many issues but the information is available in Gibbon (The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire) and so many others. If you want to get more info feel free to ask but check out what I just told you.
Winston, I will concede that I overspoke regarding our stay after wars, however, you have also conceded that this isn't new, the notion of leaving contingencies behind. All of this may also be moot by the fact that it doesn't currently appear that Karzai will sign the agreement and we will leave en masse next year, leaving no one behind. I also concede that I misspoke by including the Vikings. My bad. My minor in college was history and specifically Roman history. It's been a few moons since then and after brushing up a bit I realize I included them in error. That said, while you have provided more detail about what led up to those final days of the Roman Empire, and in doing so have correctly pointed several of the issues that had racked the Empire, you have done absolutely nothing to disprove my original statement. Below is a timeline from Wikipedia that shows the series of events that led to the fall of Rome, and while you will notice that all of the events you listed above are present, so are the ones that I presented. So here is the issue: I made a true statement that the sackings of Rome were largely responsible for the fall of Rome and that the chief objective of those sackings was to basically rape, plunder, and as a consequence, cripple the Roman economy.....which they succeeded at doing. Your statements that the Roman Army was largely comprised of barbarians by 400 a.d. is false and this timeline confirms it, unless of course you think that these barbarians were somehow fighting themselves for the entire fifth century. You also reference Gibbon, who is one of many hundred Roman historians, but he is the only one to place the blame for Roman decline on failing moral convictions. I honestly have never given much credence to his writing because of this failure on his part to see the greater causes of decline, many of which we've pointed out in this thread. We can go back and forth like this all day and night, doesn't matter to me. BUT! Do you deny that there is a parallel between the sackings of Rome and what the modern day terrorists are attempting to do? This is what started the whole discussion. LaSalle made the statement that Obama had only continued Bush's policies in the ME and to refute that statement I pointed out that our prosecution of the war on terror has been much more efficient since Obama took office because we started using smaller, SF units and drone strikes rather than our big, lumbering army. I doubt this was Obama's idea, probably the military leadership, but either way it is a smarter strategy. To illustrate the folly of Bush's policy I used the example of the Roman Army trying to chase down roving, nomadic bands of barbarians. You have since tried to turn this into a referendum on my knowledge of Roman history, which is fine with me....I enjoy the Romans. But, it fails to refute my original argument. Care to try and do that? Highlights See also: Fall of the Western Roman Empire The decline of the Roman Empire was a process spanning many centuries; there is no consensus when it might have begun but many dates and time lines have been proposed by historians. 3rd century The Crisis of the Third Century (234 - 284), a period of political instability. The reign of Emperor Diocletian (284 - 305), who attempted substantial political and economic reforms, many of which would remain in force in the following centuries. 4th century The reign of Constantine I (306 - 337), who built the new eastern capital of Constantinople and converted to Christianity, legalizing and even favoring to some extent this religion. All Roman emperors after Constantine, except for Julian, would be Christians. The first war with the Visigoths (376 - 382), culminating in the Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378), in which a large Roman army was defeated by the Visigoths, and Emperor Valens was killed. The Visigoths, fleeing a migration of the Huns, had been allowed to settle within the borders of the Empire by Valens, but were mistreated by the local Roman administrators, and rebelled. The reign of Theodosius I (379 - 395), last emperor to reunite under his authority the western and eastern halves of the Empire. Theodosius continued and intensified the policies againstpaganism of his predecessors, eventually outlawing it, and making Nicaean Christianity the state religion. 5th century The Crossing of the Rhine: on December 31, 406 (or 405, according to some historians), a mixed band of Vandals, Suebi and Alans crossed the frozen river Rhine at Moguntiacum (modernMainz), and began to ravage Gaul. Some moved on to the regions of Hispania and Africa. The Empire would never regain control over most of these lands. The second war with the Visigoths, led by king Alaric, in which they raided Greece, and then invaded Italy, culminating in the sack of Rome (410). The Visigoths eventually left Italy and founded the Visigothic Kingdom in southern Gaul and Hispania. The rise of the Hunnic Empire under Attila and Bleda (434-453), who raided the Balkans, Gaul, and Italy, threatening both Constantinople and Rome. The second sack of Rome, this time by the Vandals (455). Failed counterstrikes against the Vandals (461 - 468). The Western Emperor Majorian planned a naval campaign against the Vandals to reconquer northern Africa in 461, but word of the preparations got out to the Vandals, who took the Roman fleet by surprise and destroyed it. A second naval expedition against the Vandals, sent by Emperors Leo I and Anthemius, was defeated at Cape Bon in 468. Europe in 476, from Muir's Historical Atlas (1911). Deposition of the last Western Emperors, Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustus (475 - 480). Julius Nepos, who had been nominated by the Eastern Emperor Zeno, was deposed by the rebelledmagister militum Orestes, who installed his own son Romulus in the imperial throne. Both Zeno and his rival Basiliscus, in the East, continued to regard Julius Nepos, who fled to Dalmatia, as the legitimate Western Emperor, and Romulus as an usurper. Shortly after, Odoacer, magister militum appointed by Julius, invaded Italy, defeated Orestes, and deposed Romulus Augustus on September 4, 476. Odoacer then proclaimed himself ruler of Italy and asked the Eastern Emperor Zeno to become formal Emperor of both empires, and in so doing legalize Odoacer's own position as Imperial viceroy of Italy. Zeno did so, setting aside the claims of Nepos, who was murdered by his own soldiers in 480. Foundation of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy (493). Concerned with the success and popularity of Odoacer, Zeno started a campaign against him, at first with words, then by inciting theOstrogoths to take back Italy from him. They did as much, but then founded an independent kingdom of their own, under the rule of king Theodoric. Italy and the entire West were lost to the Empire.
NC I understand your thoughts and you are right about Gibbon to some extent though he places more blame on Christianity. From the time of Augustus & Tiberius to the mid 300's barbarians were fearful of entering Roman territory because of the strong Roman legacy. Due to civil wars (selection of the next emperor, economic stagnation in western eurpoe and general population decline the western empire lost that ability to protect or even support its borders. Rome pulled out of Britain in about 360 because it had neither men nor wealth to hold it. That is what happened in the entire western empire for the next 100 years. If you look at the background of Odacer and many of the "Roman" notables of the late 4th and 5th centuries you see they were barbarians who chose the Roman side. I guess we differ on what we call a Roman to some extent though I feel it is vital to know where these people came from if you analyse the time. A barbarian in a Roman army was still a barbarian. And yes Barbarians did fight each other in these battles. They were mercanaries and were paid. You mention the crossing of the Rhine by the various German tribes in 405. They crossed because the land was empty and depopulated. There was no Roman Gaul beyond a sprinkling of people like Gregory of Tours. The western empire was a vaccum then not ecological but from a population view. Look at the demographics. NC did Rome fall because of the sacks or were the sack a result of a disentigrated social structure? . To me there was no longer any rome when the first sack occured. I am writing this from memory but have taken enough course work read primary & secondary sources to feel pretty confident if you ask a professor at and history department they will tend to agree with my analysis.
To your last statement I suppose it is the chicken and egg discussion that could go on eternally. I am glad we've landed on the Romans though because, and as adept historically as you seem you will agree, there are some similarities between what led to Rome's decline that I fear we are falling into today. Much of it begins with the excesses, corrupt politics, outrageously high taxes (yes, there is a limit even for me) and over extension of their military. With the exception of outrageously high taxes the others sound oddly familiar to the condition we now find ourselves in today. There is a saying in the business world, "Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered." It's just the way it works and Rome fell prey to this temptation, and we are at risk of doing the same here today by following the same patterns of military overextension, political corruption and perverse monetary policy. I did always find it odd that Gibbon blamed Christianity and moral decline at the same time.
Boys, boys, boys. You are way over thinking this, though I do agree if you don't see parallels in the Fall of the Roman Empire and the ol' US of A, you are not looking very hard. The deal in Afghanistan is that we had no exit strategy to begin with. We have ab-libed several and none, obviously work. After we deposed, the best we could of the Taliban, we were done. But we stayed. If we had made Afghan the 51st state, we would have been ok, but we did not. We tried to retain a culture (nation building, Karazai, et al) that begat the Taliban in the first place. This is the key. Like pumping water out of a sinking ship and the hose is doubled back into the ship. We have changed NOTHING, and will end up changing NOTHING, over the long run, hell, make it the short run. When NC states the mission of the remaining troops, it sounds like the comments made when we started up in Viet Nam. You don't "train" troops sitting in the classroom. We need to form up one convoy, get air support on both sides of the road, and get the hell out of dodge. Deep in your hearts/souls put aside your nationalism and pride in the ol USA, and you know the outcome, if we left today, will not be one iota different.
Exactly right HR. This was suggested by many when we first went in and it was the right thing then and is still the correct move. In the intervening decade plus we have wasted lives and treasure down a rat hole. Bush should have done it as should Obama.
This is the basic fact of the Afgan people. They refuse to quit under any circumstances. This is why we cheered them on when they were fighting the Soviets and why W should have left as soon as the Army toppled the government in 2001. This is why the surge the President Obama sponsored and any idea we should stay another 10 years in any capacity is so wrong and dangerous. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...pakistan-and-afghanistan-return-to-jihad.html
You know if you could convince me that we were in Afghanistan to protect the rights of women and children and things of that nature I would be more sympathetic to this cause. But we all know that's not why we are there.
I know as they are really going to be F**ked when we leave. Unfortunately there was never a chance for that to happen.
As it stands, it looks like our argument will be for naught as it doesn't appear that Karzai is going to sign the agreement and we don't seem to eager to prod him into signing it as the pentagon and administration have made clear that if he doesn't sign it, we go home and so does our money. Guess we'll find out soon enough.... I do agree with the assessment of how we waged the war to begin with. I remember being flabbergasted when we outsourced the job to Afghan militias to chase down the bad guys in the hills of tora bora. I thought we should have used our own resources and finished the job, heavy casualties or not, right then and there.
