caitlyn -> RE: What makes U.S.A. so "Different?" (7/21/2006 3:01:11 PM)
|
And yet this paragon of excess was able to engineer victory at the battle of Chalon in 451 AD, only 25 years before capitulation in the west. One might also consider that after Constantine and the spread of Christianity, the lofty elitism of the arrogant empire had largely passed. If living in excess and being arrogant was the path to destruction, the empire wouldn't have made it past Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. To my way of thinking ... which may not be the right way, but it's my post [;)] ... the Early Roman Empire is the only accurate western comparison to United States of today. There have been other powers, but they all had rivals that existed on a level, or nearly level playing field. Napoleon had his Waterloo, but needed a powerful Wellington to play the part. Hitler, after the battles of Britain and El Alamein, wasn't even the strongest power in Europe. Those were good comparisons to the United States of the 1960's and 1970's, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, there really isn't an equal rival out there. That might change, as a matter of fact it surely will ... but don't look for it in our lifetime. The Early Roman Empire could survive Caligula, Nero and Commodus, because they were in an arena of world powers, all by themselves. The United States will survive bad leadership, at least for a while, for the exact same reason. I knew Julia was a kind of history dork, and now we have Lotus too. This is even better then discussing politics ... and you two don't have to listen to your foster dad, telling you to get a "real" major. [;)]
|
|
|
|