yeah sure, just be sure to note that WiFi is creepy beyond imagination (and is proposed to keep getting worse)
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-detect-human-locations-poses-within-a-room
Well documented you say? In an age where dissinformation rules supreme?
Except that what we are living through isn’t the collapse of the Roman Empire. It’s the Birth of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the Roman Republic.
If we don’t put a stop to it at it’s beginning, we’re looking at a few hundred years of oligarchy under a line of emperors who vary from corrupt and stupid, to capable but evil.
and the collapse took a long, long time. It took longer for rome to collapse than the US has existed.
It’s important to remember that the fall of the Roman Republic was not the story of an evil dictator destroying a Free People™, but that of a sickened plutocratic oligarchy refusing to listen to its people for long enough that the people became directly hostile to the state, and when a political crisis came, it could not call upon the people to save it, considering - perhaps not entirely incorrectly - that to be ruled by an autocrat was not really any worse to them than being ruled by a sufficiently callous and ruthless oligarchy.
The comparison may still be apt.
a sickened plutocratic oligarchy refusing to listen to its people for long enough that the people became directly hostile to the state
Exactly. The only real difference is that modern Caesar (Trump) happens to be an idiot. But it’s the same hostility to the status quo that gave him power.
The only real difference is that modern Caesar (Trump) happens to be an idiot.
And a loser, don’t forget that.
Our only hope is that his ego and stupidity prevent him from succeeding. Unlike Caesar who saw the need to consolidate his power with the people, Trump just assumes he already has or doesn’t need it, and instead is focusing on petty vindictive bullshit.
Caesar may even have genuinely believed in the popular opposition, to some degree - he was a lifelong populare when the norm was to waver between populism and conservatism as suited one’s political career. Trump has no beliefs, because he has no thoughts.
Of course, notably, Caesar didn’t kill the Republic. The man who came after Caesar killed the Republic (Augustus).
So when Trump ‘goes’, we still may need to be vigilant…
Please don’t say that. Please let us collapse like the British Empire, or the Soviet Union.
If we follow Rome’s trajectory, things get much worse for everyone else for a very long time.
I’m not sure if I’d go that far. Things definitely got worse for Rome, or the regions formerly known as Rome. And they also got somewhat worse for Rome’s neighbors who benefited from the regional stability and trade. But for distant provincials and other people who lived their lives outside of the power vacuum, things were fine or even better.
I’d say things in the US would not go well during the “fall.” Canada and Mexico would also have a bevvy of new problems to deal with, and maybe even places like Japan and Britain where the US wields a lot of soft power would also decline. But it would open doors to others around the world, where growth has been long hindered or exploited by the US and allies under the current globalist model.
For better or worse, though, I think it is safe to say that the supposed “Pax Americana” is approaching its end. Hopefully the world is prepared for that.
I’m not sure if I’d go that far. Things definitely got worse for Rome, or the regions formerly known as Rome. And they also got somewhat worse for Rome’s neighbors who benefited from the regional stability and trade. But for distant provincials and other people who lived their lives outside of the power vacuum, things were fine or even better.
Strong disagree. Throughout the decline (roughly putting it at ~284 AD because I hate Diocletian, to 474 AD), not only was there a massive and sharp drop in living standards all across the former Empire, but one that dropped some areas below their pre-Roman living standards, most notably Britain (abandoned ~410 AD), but all across the western provinces.
Not only that, but that the decline was accompanied by a collapse of the pax Romana was not some abstract thing for the provincials - it meant, quite literally, war coming to their doorstep. Armies, Roman and barbarian, fighting in their lands and despoiling it, conscripting their children, seizing their grain. And when it was all over, those wars didn’t stop - it was just Romans were no longer involved. There was a massive depopulation of Europe through the fall of the Empire.
And on top of all of that, the collapse of Roman civilization sent Europe and North Africa spiraling back in terms of societal complexity; economic, legal, and architectural complexity would not fully recover for some ~1200 years.
I don’t think the US is quite that level of powerful. But please don’t wish a Roman fall on the US, or you wish a fall on us all.
For better or worse, though, I think it is safe to say that the supposed “Pax Americana” is approaching its end. Hopefully the world is prepared for that.
Yeah. Europe, gear up, please.
Maybe not globally but in the Americas maybe yes?
Of course, global geopolitics means there won’t be a total power vacuum. China & Russia waiting in the wings to tip things in their favor. Maybe Europe and India too if they can get their act together.
Maybe not globally but in the Americas maybe yes?
I would bet only ‘globally’ before betting on ‘only the Americas’, and I would bet ‘unlike the fall of Rome’ before I bet on either.
If we collapse soft, British Empire or Soviet Union style, there will be suffering and a massive recalculation of international politics, but life largely goes on.
Of course, global geopolitics means there won’t be a total power vacuum. China & Russia waiting in the wings to tip things in their favor.
Russia has no hope of anything at this point except vassalage to the PRC. China is exactly what I’m worried about, though.
More so than you know. The United States is modeled after Rome. Even down to the layout of Washington DC is modeled after Rome (the National Mall is equivalent to the Roman forum.) The founding fathers were giant Romaboos. It’s poetic that America is following almost the exact trajectory just on a much shorter time frame.
Rome’s fall was due to overexpansion, not fascist self-destruction.
Rome’s fall was due to overexpansion, not fascist self-destruction.
Definitely not due to overexpansion. ‘Fascism’ is a questionable label, but self-destruction, certainly. All of Rome’s institutions were hollowed out in service to autocracy, which, in turn, empowered an aristocracy wholly dependent on that same autocracy at the expense of the rest of society.
That barbarians were loudly and insistently knocking at the door was just the trigger of the collapse, not the underlying cause.
I was referring to the ungovernability of the empire due to its sheer size, not just the barbarian invasions they were spread too thin to defend against.
The Roman Empire’s overexpansion is considered a major factor in its eventual collapse, as the vast territory it controlled became increasingly difficult to manage and defend, leading to logistical problems, strained military resources, and vulnerability to external threats from barbarian tribes, ultimately contributing to its decline and fall.
Someone’s citing history at PugJesus!
I wish Lemmy would let me subscribe to this thread.
I was referring to the ungovernability of the empire due to its sheer size,
The Empire wasn’t ungovernable, though. Far from it. In fact, Roman governance was remarkably maintained throughout the decline and fall. As your quote demonstrates, claims that Rome fell to overexpansion rely on issues of defense.
And the issue of defending Rome’s borders is a complex topic, but one where overexpansion is a very questionable position.
Was it? Look at the first century BC. Octavian took power and transformed the Republic into an empire. Even the word fascism comes from the Latin Fasces, a bundle of rods with an axe in the middle, used to execute citizens at the order of magistrates. The story of Rome is absolutely about fascist self destruction.
It’s true that fasces is an Italian word, but Fascism was coined by Benito Mussolini in 1915. I do see your point about the characteristics being present throughout Ancient Rome though.
The modern term of fascism can be applied in retrospect. For example, early America can easily be described as an Apartheid during chattel slavery and the Jim Crow era. And the ethnic cleansing of native Americans can be described as a genocide despite the term being coined in the 1940s
Considering in the times of ancient Rome that barbarian, which is a dehumanizing term, referred to practically any native people Rome was intent on conquering to expand the empire. I think it fits
That and also an inherently deflationary currency tied to resource extraction. Bitcoin is also deflationary. Coincidence?
“Inflation scary, we must deflate” - Rome Circa 270 AD
“Why do the poors not have any money???” - Rome Circa 390 AD
It’s one cabbage, Diocletian, how much could it cost? 10,000 sestertii?
Edit: I should clarify this, because it looks like I’m describing inflation here. When Romans ran out of new conquests and mineral deposits, they debased their currency (reduced the amount of precious metals in the coins) which caused the value of new coins to be lower, but also caused those metals (and by extension older coins) to be worth more.
Bitcoin is similar in that there’s only a finite quantity of them, so once they are all “mined” the value of BTC would tend to increase forever, which is one of the main reasons why it’s worthless as a currency: why would you get rid of something that is increasing in value by the minute?
It’s also why BTC transactions are increasingly tiny fractions, i.e. is being debased, just like the denarius.
Edit: I should clarify this, because it looks like I’m describing inflation here. When Romans ran out of new conquests and mineral deposits, they debased their currency (reduced the amount of precious metals in the coins) which caused the value of new coins to be lower, but also caused those metals (and by extension older coins) to be worth more.
Oh, I was going for a different route.
(note - the decrease in silver content previously was not because of a lack of new conquests or mineral deposits, but because Emperors wanted to spend money without needing to raise or collect taxes on their wealthy supporters)
In the later period of the crisis of the Third Century, inflation had gotten bad - several hundred percent by that debasement of the currency. But when the Emperors chose to reform the currency, at long last, they did so by only marginally improving the silver currency, but reinforcing the gold coins to a high standard and decoupling the value of the silver coinage from the gold. This resulted in ‘merely’ bad inflation turning to hyperinflation for the silver currency, which had its value no longer ‘guaranteed’ by the gold coins, and the golden coins becoming increasingly used - the equivalent of the only bills keeping their value being 100s and 1000s. If those are all you can reliably use, a lot of poor folk are fucking screwed. From there, the deflationary nature of gold (ie the low rate of extraction and transformation into currency due to its rarity) meant the demonetization of the Roman economy, which damaged trade, especially small-scale trade, which screwed… everyone, but the poor, especially.
Traditionally, in pre-information age systems, silver is the inflationary currency - it can be turned into money at a speed greater than the economy can generally grow.
(note - the decrease in silver content previously was not because of a lack of new conquests or mineral deposits, but because Emperors wanted to spend money without needing to raise or collect taxes on their wealthy supporters)
Technically true, but they had gotten by for centuries beforehand through plunder and opening new mines, in particular the enormous ones at Rio Tinto as well as those in Dacia. The system worked fine until there was no grist left for the mill.
But the mines were far from exhausted when the inflation started - inflationary policies of debasing the denarius were clustered from Septimius Severus to Diocletian, and each time done by Emperors whose grasp on power was not secure, yet needed to spend money to maintain their legitimacy.
For that matter, they were far from exhausted when the inflation ended, along with the monetary system.
The US will collapse like WWII Germany. Although, there’s a possibility of collapse due to over-expansion if Trump tries to take North America.
Come to think of it, both are possible.
WWII Germany collapsed because it was defeated by a superior military. That seems unlikely in this case, unless the US military sides against the MAGAs.
Nah, the Romans had free public utilities and entertainment.
Both are poisoned with lead, though
Nah, the Romans had free public utilities
Citizen, you are obligated to report any illegal taps in the aqueduct for non-authorized use, by the order of the Senate and People of Rome!
… until the wifi stops working, along with the rest of the infrastructure.
Roman empire was in constant state of collapse, it was somewhere along the lines of Somalia and Sudan, US is absolutely fine in comparison.
Lol Rome was like one of those YouTube videos of someone slipping on ice for 20 mins before they fall.
