AT ITS PEAK, ANCIENT ROME ruled an area roughly equivalent to the total land area of the United States. The borders of the Empire stretched from northern Britain to southern Egypt, from modern-day Morocco east to modern-day Iran.
For hundreds of years, Roman civilization was an incredibly resilient thing. Its most serious threat was perhaps posed by Carthage, a city that sat on the southern shore of the Mediterranean sea, almost due south of then-Republican Rome.
The two powers clashed in a series of wars known as the Punic Wars in the third and second centuries BC, and the rivalry came to a head in the Second Punic War, during which Carthaginian general Hannibal famously crossed the Alps with a powerful army that included elephants.
In Hannibal, Rome faced perhaps the greatest military strategist in history. After crossing the Alps, he advanced steadily down the Italian peninsula, winning a series of engagements that went increasingly badly for the Roman legions. In just one battle at Cannae on the Italian peninsula, Hannibal’s forces surrounded and annihilated an entire Roman army — perhaps as many as 75,000 men — in a single afternoon. For some perspective, that is roughly one-and-a-half times the total U.S. battle deaths in the entire Vietnam war.
Hannibal lacked sufficient military strength to actually take Rome itself, so his overall strategy was to defeat the Roman legions in the field, and by his successes convince the Italian provinces to turn on Rome. He would then besiege the city and starve the Romans into submission.
But things didn’t work out that way.
The provinces remained loyal to Rome, and the Roman Senate raised a seemingly limitless number of conscripts to replace their losses in the field. After slowly weakening Hannibal’s forces in southern Italy, the Romans fought a decisive battle near Carthage itself — the Battle of Zama — effectively putting an end to Hannibal’s threat.
I think it is worth asking why Rome ultimately succeeded against such a fearsome enemy. I would argue that the most decisive factor in Rome’s favor was the loyalty of the provinces in Italy. A majority of the population had an abiding belief that Roman civilization was worth saving, and acted accordingly.
The western half of the Roman Empire fell apart in the second half of the fifth century AD, and the population of the city of Rome itself declined from perhaps a million residents in the late fourth century to around 100,000 by the end of the fifth. Much has been written about the dissolution of Roman civilization, with no consensus among historians even now, 1,500 years later, on the reasons for its precipitous collapse. I would argue that a significant factor was a lack of that previously mentioned belief — that Roman civilization was “worth saving.”
In the days of the Roman Republic, Romans had a perception that Rome was governed for the benefit of all citizens. Over the centuries, as Roman elites retreated into gated compounds and lost touch with the concerns of the plebeian masses, the belief in the primacy of Roman civilization gradually eroded. By the time of the final collapse of the Western Empire in 476, the majority of its citizens, assailed by unending waves of barbarians and trapped in crushing poverty, could not be bothered to put up much of a fight.
I mention all this because there are some uncomfortable parallels between ancient Rome and the present United States. According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute:
“Despite increasing economy-wide productivity, wages for the vast majority of American workers have either stagnated or declined since 1979, and this weak wage growth extends even to those with a college degree.
“Since 1979, hourly pay for the vast majority of American workers has diverged from economywide productivity, and this divergence is at the root of numerous American economic challenges.
“Between 1979 and 2013, productivity grew 64.9 percent, while hourly compensation of production and nonsupervisory workers, who comprise 80 percent of the private-sector workforce, grew just 8.2 percent. Productivity thus grew eight times faster than typical worker compensation.
“Much of this productivity growth accrued to those with the very highest wages. The top 1 percent of earners saw cumulative gains in annual wages of 153.6 percent between 1979 and 2012 — far in excess of economywide productivity.
“Hourly wages of the vast majority of American workers have either stagnated or declined since 1979, with the exception of a period of strong across-the-board wage growth in the late 1990s.
“Median hourly wages rose just 0.2 percent annually between 1979 and 2013, compared with an annual decline of 0.2 percent for the 10th-percentile worker (i.e., the worker who earns more than only 10 percent of workers) and an annual gain of 1 percent for the 95th-percentile worker.
“Between 2000 and 2013, hourly wages of the vast majority of workers either fell (bottom 30 percent) or were essentially flat (next 40 percent), and only the 95th percentile saw wage growth closely approaching 1 percent annually.”
What the EPI is describing is a civilization in which almost all the gains are enjoyed by a few at the top, while most of the rest of us either run in place or actually lose ground. If this continues long enough, I fear the result will be a civilization that, like the late Roman Empire, will not be considered worth defending by the vast majority of its citizens.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand.
Sharing is caring!
So, who among us today believes that our civilization is not “worth saving.””? It certainly isn’t conservatives is it? In any case, the biggest threat isn’t from those who want to preserve but those who want to exploit, whether by economic, racial, gender or anything else if it benefits their political interests.
the biggest threat isn’t from those who want to preserve but those who want to exploit,
Bingo!
Matt, you speak of the “Western half” of the Empire, but do not mention the Eastern half headquartered in Byzantium after Diocletian’s division in the fourth century. The Eastern half continued for over 1000 years before falling to the Ottomans. Here is a perfect case study of the influence of leadership on a nation or Empire. Two divisions, essentially equal when made, yet one falls, in relatively short order, while the other flourishes. Why?
The answer can be summed up in a few words: Lack of effective leadership.
Roman history geek here. Just a quick note for the benefit of Dennis and everyone else: While the Eastern Empire — Byzantium — lasted nearly 1,000 years after the fall of Rome to Odoacer, it can hardly be said to have “flourished.” Gibbon dedicated three volumes in showing that that millenium was a long, slow, inexorable slide into oblivion, all but barren of glory.
I also would gently dispute Dennis’s contention that the fall of Rome can ever be “summed up in few words.” Don’t forget the unending hordes of barbarians and the destabilizing effect of that strange new religion, Christianity!
Just had to chime in … And what does this have to do with Matt’s larger point? Nothing! Marc, Ed.
Justinian was probably Byzantium’s last, best chance at recapturing the vibrancy of Rome in the mid-second century, but ultimately plague and persistent Goths derailed that project.
I also would gently dispute Dennis’s contention that the fall of Rome can ever be “summed up in few words.”
That was not my intended contention. There are many contributing factors to the fall of Rome, including poor leadership. If memory serves I believe there were 20 Emperors in one span of less than 80 years.
Strong leadership would have reacted to they myriad of threats and contributions which occurred during the last vestiges of the empire. Would they have been successful, had they reacted differently? Likely not, but the inevitable would have been delayed.
As to Matt’s point that Rome fell because they lacked a living wage, that seemed a stretch.
There were over 20 emperors in a 50 year span from 235 to 285 but that was 200 years before the 476 date of the fall of the western empire and well before Constantine divided the empire. It’s not likely this leadership problem led to the fall. In the last twenty years there were 7 or 8 emperors, some lasting months others many years but Rome had already been attacked and sacked earlier and had already been in serious decline. Gibbon blamed a lot of the decline on Christianity but economics and invasions are generally considered key among current researchers.
What is missing in Matt’s piece and the discussion is the role of slavery. The western empire was heavily dependent on slavery with more than 30% of the population slaves. Slaves certainly had little reason to defend the homeland. But generally the list of reasons for the decline and fall focus on barbarian invasions, economics including reliance on slavery that was declining and causing a labor shortage, corruption, overspending on the military among others.
Matt your theme is working well. Keep the middleclass and lower class down. President Obama did an outstanding job of that. Control by the President never works. Lower and middleclass must move forward as the country moves forward. Stay in a $9.00 job and that is where you end up. A $9.00 an hour job will always be what it is. Low skilled and low pay as the rest of the folks wave bye bye.
Good article, Matt, and probably true. Don’t forget the “bread and circuses!” A way for the highest level of the establishment to keep the lower levels’ minds off what was really happening in the society. Ply them with lots of shiny things and they won’t notice. We have the same thing going in with a media and social networking that is totally fixated on shiny things – hours and hours of the likes of the Kardashians and the Housewives, “news” shows that are staffed by non-journalists, total absorption in people who shout and yell ridiculous nonsense to distract from the real reality. I fear for my country but am old enough to know it probably won’t fade until after I am gone.
jfurlong stated:“news” shows that are staffed by non-journalists
I know exactly what you mean.
People like Jorge Ramos who do not know the difference between “reporting” and “creating” the news, as well his actively promoting a personal cause based on fallacious information.
J it will never fade. The folks that are whining and complaining ARE the same ole folks. Just a different time. The folks that do not want to be part of this country will be left behind of their own doing. Yes we will help them but they will always be there. Sing a song and pitch A fork will never get it. You know that J.
Shiny things, for sure. But also, giving a great deal of media attention and air time to a county clerk, rather than just simply relieving them of their duties for not doing their job, is also a distraction we can do without.
Amen Judy.
The title of the article “History Lessons” tells us Matt has not done his home work. He is trying very hard to bring the Roman Empire into todays times. Well when you do not do your home work and try to write about things that have no bearing on today it brings up issues that only Matt has. No one else has those issues. I do believe he trys very hard to make something out of something that has no bearing Trying to make folks think he is a very deep thinker when in fact it is his own fantacy. No one else but his, he owns it.. Nice try Matt.
The title of the article “History Lessons” tells us Matt has not done his home work. He is trting very hard to bring the Roman Empire into todays times. Well when you do not do your home work and try to write about things that have no bearing on today it brings up issues that only Matt has. No one else has those issues. I do believe he tries very hard to make something out of something that has no bearing Trying to make folks think he is a very deep thinker when in fact it is his own fantacy. No one else but his, he owns it.. Nice try Matt.
Speaking of repeats:
“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.”
– George Bernard Shaw
When Matt is the only weekly featured writer on the Forum page he can look like he knows what he is talking about. If he had to compete with Bruce Robinson, Jim Pugh and Dennis Lund every week Matt would be regulated to just an add on or throw in to fill space.. Maybe they will come back. You would immediately notice the rise in quality writing.
If Jim Pugh came back, we’d all be treated to quality writing that he lifted from somebody else.
below the belt comment. But I do expect that from you.
Merely calling out the truth. I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
Please site the reference you have.
1. http://bit.ly/1JVpJjC
2. http://bit.ly/1LXxJ4w
Nice try. Are you going to sleep better now.
His LTTEs are not even original:
1. http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/20150311/jim-pugh-the-obama-way
2. http://bit.ly/1hXQaM6
To the Editor:
Please consider reviewing the links I provided above, if you are in fact considering running any op-eds by Mr. Pugh.
Sincerely,
Thoma Petersen
That has to be the lowest of lowest notes I have ever seen. You apparently hate Jim Pugh.I assume TP you sent A similar note to the DNC also. I assume you would not want VP Biden as a candidate for President. I guess you are OK with a liar or a Socialist. You think very strange TP.
Bob,
It’s probably best if you quit making assumptions.
m,y assumption is you are a Liberal and would vote for the Democratic candidate. I could agree with you on Jim if I thoughtr you were balanced and would understand that another Forum writer did what you are saying Jim did. At the same time agree that VP Biden has no business even being VP or even considering running for President. It is not a one way subject. Everyone is accountible and so is VP Biden. I assume you think that is the case. If not we having nothing further to talk about on this subject.
Jim did, what Jim did. And, that is a fact. All this other stuff you are bringing up (fact or not), is besides the point. Your, “we having nothing further to talk about”, is probably the most cogent comment you’ve added today.
TP are your comments original and only yours? I think not. It appears you seem to think that VP Biden that his over looked writings were ok? I do believe know one even cares TP especially you if it is a Denocrat. Only if it is a Republican. I do not think you or many others accomplishments and credentials can even come close to Jim Pugh. Are you a lawyer, pilot or a Full Bird. I think not TP.
BL – Your swooning over Jim, as well as any other points you’ve attempted to make, are very much irrelevant. They do nothing to negate clear plagiarism.