In a previous post, I addressed the question of whether America is doomed to fall like Rome. My short answer was no, and there are several compelling reasons for this. While American society shares many similarities, it’s better to view ancient Rome as a foundational civilization for modern Western society than to make a direct comparison with them. On the other hand, Rome does provide a cautionary tale for our society in several significant ways. We’ll review Rome’s contributions to our society and arguments against a comparison here in Part III.

First, though, let’s review key ways the Romans have influenced us. This understanding provides an important foundation for comparing the 2 societies.

· The Latin language provides the basis of our ability to communicate. It exerts an enormous influence on English grammar and vocabulary. We also stand in the shadow of, and owe many of our writing conventions to, literary giants like Virgil, Cicero and Ovid. As such, it is indissoluble from our very culture.

· Our military structure and strategies descend from Rome, especially ones emphasizing military discipline and secure, free-flowing supply chains.

· We are the heirs of their notions of civic duty and public service. We owe our representative government to their nascent notions of republicanism, especially regarding the separation of powers. Even our governmental architecture finds its inspiration in Rome, which was in turn inspired by Greece.

Mosaic of the emperor Justinian I. He reigned in the 6th century and was notable for retaking North Africa from the Vandals, virtually depopulating the city of Rome with the devastating Gothic Wars, ordering the slaughter of 30,000 sports fans in Constantinople’s Nika Riots, and, oh yeah, codifying a bunch of laws which is why we remember him today.

· The Code of Justinian, one of the most ambitious organizational projects in history, remains a cornerstone of our modern legal system. This 6th century opus was the culmination of years of research of Roman precedent which introduced concepts such as “innocent until proven guilty” and “equal protection under the law.” These freedoms were codified because of this herculean effort.

· Romans engaged in urban development. They built aqueducts to deliver water from hundreds of miles away and sewage systems to port it and its effluvia away again. They built roads that served as the circulatory system of a vast empire, many of which are still traveled today.

· Many of our festivals and superstitions have their roots in Rome. The Festival of Saturnalia in December was a likely inspiration for the Catholic Church decreeing the birth of Christ on the 25th of that month. If you wear a wedding ring, or carry your bride across the threshold, you’re continuing millennia-long Roman traditions. Even things as mundane as bikinis and whoopee cushions are first noted in Roman writings, ruins and artifacts.

· This is all to say nothing of the impact of Christianity which incorporated the administrative systems of Roman government and formed the basis for Europe’s identity for centuries, owing not least to its then-novel valuation of human life.

As you can see, it’s hard to envision modern society without the foundations that Rome laid down. While they profoundly influenced us, this doesn’t mean we are them.

Here are some of the arguments against a direct comparison with Rome.

Economic Foundations and the Value of Human Life

Comparing the Roman institution of slavery to that of the United States’ between the 15th and 19th centuries probably isn’t as useful as we think. It would be easy to conclude that Roman slaves had the better deal since they could purchase their freedom with the scraps of money they were allowed to keep or could be manumitted (freed) in the master’s will when he passed (this also happened in America). The idea that ‘city slaves’ in Rome were treated better than ‘country slaves’ has some merit, but those in the rural areas vastly outnumbered those in the cities. Don’t be fooled. Slavery was a vile institution then, a vile institution in the 19th century, and remains a vile, and regrettably persistent, one today.

While different concepts, they were inextricably linked in the Empire. Rome was a slave-owning society. Its entire economy was predicated on the free, forced labor of others. Even during the reprehensible days of slavery in the US, the entire economy was not dependent on it. After Rome’s foreign conquests in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, so many slaves were brought to the Empire that economics took over: the price per slave plummeted with each conquest, enabling even the least-prosperous Roman to own a human or two. This of course simply increased the problem of human bondage. In all extant Roman literature, not one writer ever proposed that the idea of slavery was morally wrong. There were some moves toward more humane treatment as the Empire grew, but no one gave a thought to the fact that the very institution was wrong. That’s both stunning and sobering. Slaves were property. Cato the Elder famously dismissed them as “tools that talk.”

The pater familias, or oldest male of the household, had the power of life and death over not only his slaves but his wife, children and anyone else living there like in-laws or aunts, uncles, cousins. When a baby was born, it was placed on the floor. If he acknowledged it, it would be given a name and cared for. If he didn’t, it could be exposed – left outside or in nature – to either die from the elements or be snatched by slave traders or wild animals. If the pater familias was short of cash, or anyone in his household disobeyed him, he could simply sell them into slavery. It wasn’t just slaves who were chattel – it was people.

The Romans were cruel and brutal and thought nothing of feeding criminals to wild beasts, or hunting animals both docile and ferocious that slept in fenced-in pens. While the Romans didn’t invent crucifixion, they employed it mercilessly against slaves and the lowest classes, immune to the abject cruelty of a torture that often lasted days before death mercifully took those so punished.

Sure, it’s an AI-generated image, and its placement in this article is suspect, but it shows that not all women in the empire were prostitutes or matrons working the loom at home. Some fought as gladiators. Many cultures saw women in combat roles, including the Teutons, Celts, Palmyrans and Amazons. Fulvia, the one-time wife of Marc Antony, led a revolt against Octavian (the future Augustus Caesar), or so some scholars believe.

Let’s remember that death was all around them – half of all children born wouldn’t live past their first birthday; it’s estimated that 10% of women died in childbirth; most diseases were incurable, and all were misunderstood; war, which was nearly constant, of course took a savage toll. To our modern sensibilities, this doesn’t excuse them for their callous disregard for human life, but it does provide a context in which they made such choices.

The regard for other humans profoundly influences a people; it informs all levels of their society, from how they feed themselves, work, worship, govern, and enjoy themselves. Whether high or low, this regard forms the bedrock of that civilization. Because we differ so starkly in this respect from the Romans, comparisons between us and them aren’t apples to apples; they’re more like apples to rocks. The arc of our moral universe is indeed long, but we’re fortunate to have travelled as far along it as we have.

The distance traveled along that arc was fueled in large part by the adoption of Christianity in the Empire. The new religion valued the dignity of human life more than its competitors. This characteristic eventually replaced Rome’s martial mindset of the past and proved an equal, if not greater, unifying force. Christianity promoted morality, forgiveness, social equality and the notion of spiritual rebirth. Had this form of monotheism not taken hold, Rome’s devaluing of human life, and its negative consequences, might have endured, resulting in a starkly different society today.

Political Structure and Governance

Rome transitioned from a monarchy to a republic to an empire. To be clear, the empire was an autocracy characterized by one-man rule and not too distinct from a monarchy. Similarly, America’s republican form of government emerged from colonists’ rejection of the British monarchy, but the comparison ends there. We have not transitioned into autocracy despite fears we are headed in that direction.

Such a transformation seems unlikely due to the guard rails the founders put in place. While Rome nominally had a separation of powers through its Senate and various popular assemblies, they were ill-functioning and favored the aristocracy at every turn. America’s founding fathers improved on that idea by codifying the separation of legislative, judicial and executive bodies in the Constitution, each providing checks and balances to the other.

With this system in place, likelihood of a single entity taking control in the US is slim. Any significant shift toward autocracy would require, for example, the unyielding support of the military. That hardly seems a guarantee since the military is expressly an apolitical organization. Such a power grab would require a unified front from not only the military but also law enforcement. The FBI and other federal agencies have police powers, but these are limited to certain crimes. Otherwise, law enforcement in the US is diffuse and spread among various state, county and local forces who often can’t coordinate on a single case much less a plan to enable an autocrat.

The risk is there, of course – many autocratic regimes emerged from societies which thought ‘it can’t happen here’ – but there are significant obstacles. A leader with autocratic tendencies does not an autocracy make.

America also maintains a peaceful transition of power. The events of January 6, 2021, while disruptive, did not prevent this. Conversely, a smooth transition in Rome was the exception rather than the rule. America also engages a larger citizenry. All Americans aged 18 and older are enfranchised in a one person, one vote system. This is vastly different from Rome which denied voting to huge swaths of people – namely women and slaves, along with tens of thousands of free residents who possessed a murky quasi-citizenship. Rome also used a one tribe, one vote system which favored the wealthy and diluted the choice of the average citizen to near insignificance. More on that tribal voting system here.

Cultural Diversity and Integration

To an extent, Rome successfully integrated various cultures. They were generally disarmed, split up, and relocated to multiple areas of the Empire. This nullified ethnic and tribal identification and promoted their adoption of the Roman way of life, thus reducing the likelihood that these people would revolt as a unified cultural group. Conquered peoples were also routinely allowed to worship their own gods. These deities were typically incorporated into the Roman pantheon. The Romans believed in all gods and strived to offend none.

Rome was a cultural melting pot, the likes of which had never been seen. This melange was on prominent display at the public baths, a daily visit to which was de rigeur for most Romans. These sprawling, ornate facilities often allowed men and women to bathe nude together and saw people from all ethnicities and social statuses hang out to discuss business, exercise, read, or get a little lovin’ in a backroom.

In significant ways, though, the Romans had trouble integrating diverse peoples. The Goths, pagans until Christianity had established itself in the Empire, brought different ideas of valor in battle, the role of women, and ways to appease the gods, which sometimes included human sacrifice – anathema to Rome except when they felt compelled to perform it.

Rome didn’t integrate the Goths like other conquered groups, such as the Gauls. And while instances of racism based on skin color are fleeting, the Romans did discriminate against entire groups. Syrians were lazy and effeminate, for example. Germans were willful. Prostitutes, actors and gladiators were infames – a denigrated class of citizens with reduced rights. Slaves were naturally inferior and deserved their fate. Rome's class and ethnic divides were the biggest obstacles to equality and were the source of existential problems for the empire.

*Another image of the baths which aren’t mentioned anywhere in the text of this article? Yeesh … looks like someone is struggling to find images!*

Global Influence and Diplomacy

Rome grew through military expansion. While it did try diplomatic solutions, these often required punitive monetary tributes from conquered peoples. Otherwise, it maintained its rule by force. Its influence waned, however, as the center of power shifted from Rome eastward to Constantinople. While Rome and the United States could be considered to have equivalent hard power, the US has proven more effective at wielding soft power. In part, this is due to globalized diplomacy, exemplified by international bodies such as the United Nations. America also spreads its influence through strong ties with military allies and trading partners. Additionally, the arts and culture spread American influence around the world.

Social Safety Net

Rome provided grain for free or at reduced cost to its populace through much of its history. The number of recipients ebbed and flowed depending on the emperor, the distribution’s economic impact, and availability from centers of agricultural production such as Sicily and Egypt. The empire’s systematic welfare stopped there, however.

By contrast, the United States has a broad safety net which provides monetary assistance to the elderly, the unemployed and the poor along with educational grants, free or reduced-cost healthcare and federal disaster relief. Collectively, these measures reduce poverty, foster economic stability and encourage education to aid career advancement.

*A cheeky statement from my favorite ancient Rome YouTuber,* *Generic History Videos. Check out his channel. Pull up a chair because his videos are in-depth, impeccably researched and riveting. I would like to help him with his production values, tho …*

One may argue about the justification for America’s safety net or its long-term viability, but it results in a degree of social cohesion that significantly differentiates it from the Roman Empire, whose lack of such programs contributed to economic instability, lack of social mobility and social unrest. The well-known “bread and circuses” exemplify this. These short-term appeasements failed to address the systemic problems of an Empire that had grown sclerotic. Rome provided its people band-aids rather than cures.

The above topics only scratch the surface of the differences between the civilizations. America’s relative success in education, public health, crisis response and civic infrastructure also present clear contrasts to the way Rome dealt with those issues.

While much separates the United States from the Roman Empire, there are areas of overlap that may threaten America’s hegemony and, ultimately, its very existence. We’ll look at those red flags and conclude the series in Part IV.

The “FALL” OF ROME: PART III - ARE WE NEXT?

THE “FALL” OF ROME: PART II - THE MEANING OF “ROME”