What do you think?
Rate this book
Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America – A Provocative Warning on Government Corruption and Borders
What went wrong in imperial Rome, and how we can avoid “If you want to understand where America stands in the world today, read this.”—Thomas E. Ricks
The rise and fall of ancient Rome has been on American minds since the beginning of our republic. Depending on who’s doing the talking, the history of Rome serves as either a triumphal call to action—or a dire warning of imminent collapse.
In this “provocative and lively” book, Cullen Murphy points out that today we focus less on the Roman Republic than on the empire that took its place, and reveals a wide array of similarities between the two societies ( New York Times ).
Looking at the blinkered, insular culture of our capitals; the debilitating effect of bribery in public life; the paradoxical issue of borders; and the weakening of the body politic through various forms of privatization, Murphy persuasively argues that we most resemble Rome in the burgeoning corruption of our government and in our arrogant ignorance of the world outside—two things that must be changed if we are to avoid Rome’s fate.
“ Are We Rome? is just about a perfect book. . . . I wish every politician would spend an evening with this book.”—James Fallows
The rise and fall of ancient Rome has been on American minds since the beginning of our republic. Depending on who’s doing the talking, the history of Rome serves as either a triumphal call to action—or a dire warning of imminent collapse.
In this “provocative and lively” book, Cullen Murphy points out that today we focus less on the Roman Republic than on the empire that took its place, and reveals a wide array of similarities between the two societies ( New York Times ).
Looking at the blinkered, insular culture of our capitals; the debilitating effect of bribery in public life; the paradoxical issue of borders; and the weakening of the body politic through various forms of privatization, Murphy persuasively argues that we most resemble Rome in the burgeoning corruption of our government and in our arrogant ignorance of the world outside—two things that must be changed if we are to avoid Rome’s fate.
“ Are We Rome? is just about a perfect book. . . . I wish every politician would spend an evening with this book.”—James Fallows
272 pages, Paperback
First published May 10, 2007
169 people are currently reading
1211 people want to read
About the author
Cullen Murphy
32 books33 followersJohn Cullen Murphy, Jr. (born September 1, 1952) is an American writer and editor probably best known for his work at The Atlantic, where he served as managing editor (1985–2002) and editor (2002-2006).
He was born in New Rochelle, New York, and grew up in Greenwich, Connecticut. He was educated at Amherst College, from which he graduated with honors in medieval history in 1974. Murphy's first magazine job was in the paste-up department of Change, a magazine devoted to higher education.
He became an editor of The Wilson Quarterly in 1977. Murphy, along with his father, John Cullen Murphy, wrote the comic strip Prince Valiant from the mid 70s to 2004. He is also the author of The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own (1999) and Are We Rome? (2007), which compares the politics and culture of Ancient Rome with that of the contemporary United States.
He currently serves as editor at large for Vanity Fair and lives in Massachusetts.
He was born in New Rochelle, New York, and grew up in Greenwich, Connecticut. He was educated at Amherst College, from which he graduated with honors in medieval history in 1974. Murphy's first magazine job was in the paste-up department of Change, a magazine devoted to higher education.
He became an editor of The Wilson Quarterly in 1977. Murphy, along with his father, John Cullen Murphy, wrote the comic strip Prince Valiant from the mid 70s to 2004. He is also the author of The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own (1999) and Are We Rome? (2007), which compares the politics and culture of Ancient Rome with that of the contemporary United States.
He currently serves as editor at large for Vanity Fair and lives in Massachusetts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
July 16, 2019
A clear and insightful essay comparing Ancient Rome and present day America. I particularly benefited from Murphy's discussion of corruption and privatization--important causes for the weakening of governmental will.
November 3, 2014
This book is incredibly well done. I went into it with high hopes, and it met all of them.
Murphy begins the book by stating outright that, obviously, America is not an exact replica of Roma. OF COURSE there are things that are different, and he immediately points out the key differences. There are, however, some noteworthy similarities, things that crippled Rome and could potentially cripple us. These similarities are the focus of the book.
He devotes a chapter to each of his points:
1. "All Roads Lead to Rome" (the view that Washington D.C. is the most important city in the most important country)
2. Role of the military (a lot of smaller points put together, but mostly its increasing importance)
3. Private interest vs. public interest (privatization, "what's in it for me?" mentality in politics)
4. Us vs. Them (our view of foreigners)
5. Borders ("protecting" America)
Within each chapter, he highlights examples from Roman history and how they're applied to the status of America today.
Overall, it's very well written, with each point well encapsulated within an anecdote or story, both making it easier to read and more memorable. It reads incredibly well for non-fiction, particularly something that's essentially trying to make an argument. It doesn't feel overly preachy (until his "here's how we solve the problem" bit at the end, but that part is more thought/speculation than "I know I'm right" cockswinging), and his arguments are well researched and developed. As a couple others on here have mentioned, it's also surprisingly objective/unbiased. One can probably make a solid guess at his politics, but again, I think people will all kinds of political viewpoints can read and appreciate this. It's food for thought, for sure, and a fascinating read for anyone who's curious about the current state of our country and/or Ancient Rome.
Murphy begins the book by stating outright that, obviously, America is not an exact replica of Roma. OF COURSE there are things that are different, and he immediately points out the key differences. There are, however, some noteworthy similarities, things that crippled Rome and could potentially cripple us. These similarities are the focus of the book.
He devotes a chapter to each of his points:
1. "All Roads Lead to Rome" (the view that Washington D.C. is the most important city in the most important country)
2. Role of the military (a lot of smaller points put together, but mostly its increasing importance)
3. Private interest vs. public interest (privatization, "what's in it for me?" mentality in politics)
4. Us vs. Them (our view of foreigners)
5. Borders ("protecting" America)
Within each chapter, he highlights examples from Roman history and how they're applied to the status of America today.
Overall, it's very well written, with each point well encapsulated within an anecdote or story, both making it easier to read and more memorable. It reads incredibly well for non-fiction, particularly something that's essentially trying to make an argument. It doesn't feel overly preachy (until his "here's how we solve the problem" bit at the end, but that part is more thought/speculation than "I know I'm right" cockswinging), and his arguments are well researched and developed. As a couple others on here have mentioned, it's also surprisingly objective/unbiased. One can probably make a solid guess at his politics, but again, I think people will all kinds of political viewpoints can read and appreciate this. It's food for thought, for sure, and a fascinating read for anyone who's curious about the current state of our country and/or Ancient Rome.
May 6, 2021
I abandoned this book... it felt like an endless river of back and forth. It seems like there’s no aim or something that keeps me reading.
August 31, 2021
When the Roman politician Pedanius Secundus was murdered in 61 A.D. by one of his slaves, the issue came before the Roman Senate as to what to do with his hundreds of remaining slaves. The Romans made a practice of killing all the slaves if one of them killed his master, as a means of discouraging rebellious slave conspiracies. In this case, the Senate took up the issue, perhaps because of the sheer number of slaves owned by the wealthy Pedanius. The Senate stuck to the law and to the basic principle underlying it, "in the name of the utility of the entire people", and ordered the innocent slaves killed. It seems pretty likely that it was not just the barbarian invaders who were happy to see the last of this evil empire.
"Are We Rome?" is a work which compares the ancient Roman and contemporary American empires and seeks to draw lessons from their similarities and differences.
In terms of differences, the most glaring is that the US is no longer an empire at all in the conventional sense that Rome was, if you set aside the conquest of the continental US which ended in the 19th century. We still invade other countries (much more often than any other world power), but we don't stay long. We typically exit within a few years or less, having installed a "friendlier" government in office. The only foreign country which we currently occupy is Afghanistan, and we will soon be gone from there [2021 update: I was about a few years off in this prediction!]. True, the US is heavily armed, and maintains troops in scores of countries around the world, but this is not an empire of true colonies directly run by Washington. The Romans, in contrast, physically incorporated most of the lands they conquered directly into their empire, and did so for centuries.
A few other notable differences:
The US is a democracy, but Rome never was, nor was it even a republic in its last four centuries of existence. The Roman economy relied heavily on slaves, its technology was largely static, and its agrarian and tribute-based economy changed very little over the centuries of its existence; the US is one of the most dynamic and innovative powers that the world has ever seen. Power was immensely centralized in Rome for much of the history of the empire, until its final decades; power is significantly more decentralized in the American federal system, despite the immense power of the Federal government.
On the other side of the ledger, it is the similarities of the the US and of the Roman Empire that are of course the scary side of the book. We admire Rome's power, Rome's immense ability to control a vast empire, Rome's literature, Rome's language ... but we don't really want to be Rome. One of the principal similarities is Rome's and the US' overwhelming cultural, economic and especially military superiority. As a consequence of that superiority, Rome had and the US still has an immensely self-centered view of the world, clinging to the idea of the inherent superiority of our respective civilizations, and believing that all others secretly long to be like us. In their imperial phase, Romans still had a militarized view of the world, but didn't themselves want to serve in the army -- that kind of work was for barbarian mercenaries. Likewise, many Americans have a similarly militarized view of our role in the world, but most are no more eager than Romans to serve in the military -- those jobs are better outsourced to contractors and to killer drones, while the professional core of the armed forces shrinks.
In the end, the author's goal is to instill a sense of greater humility in his American readers, and propose a few notions about how to avoid Rome's fate over the next few centuries. Shrink the military. Learn something about the rest of the world. Master a foreign language. Tear the veil away from the security state. Invest more in education so as to assimilate immigrants faster and strengthen the economy. And so on.
Does the book succeed? For the most part, yes, although some of the parallels feel more than a bit forced. For example: Rome was completely in thrall to its legions and their commanders, who during the unstable phases of the empire would overthrow emperors essentially at will. In the US, the military and the vast economic complex of suppliers and contractors that lives off the military exert a tremendous force in warping our government's priorities and skewing its allocation of resources, but there is no danger of the military overthrowing the government. (Though some would argue that military contractors and suppliers have simply bought off Congress instead.)
But, even if you don't completely buy the author's allegory, you will definitely learn a lot of Roman history from this book.
"Are We Rome?" is a work which compares the ancient Roman and contemporary American empires and seeks to draw lessons from their similarities and differences.
In terms of differences, the most glaring is that the US is no longer an empire at all in the conventional sense that Rome was, if you set aside the conquest of the continental US which ended in the 19th century. We still invade other countries (much more often than any other world power), but we don't stay long. We typically exit within a few years or less, having installed a "friendlier" government in office. The only foreign country which we currently occupy is Afghanistan, and we will soon be gone from there [2021 update: I was about a few years off in this prediction!]. True, the US is heavily armed, and maintains troops in scores of countries around the world, but this is not an empire of true colonies directly run by Washington. The Romans, in contrast, physically incorporated most of the lands they conquered directly into their empire, and did so for centuries.
A few other notable differences:
The US is a democracy, but Rome never was, nor was it even a republic in its last four centuries of existence. The Roman economy relied heavily on slaves, its technology was largely static, and its agrarian and tribute-based economy changed very little over the centuries of its existence; the US is one of the most dynamic and innovative powers that the world has ever seen. Power was immensely centralized in Rome for much of the history of the empire, until its final decades; power is significantly more decentralized in the American federal system, despite the immense power of the Federal government.
On the other side of the ledger, it is the similarities of the the US and of the Roman Empire that are of course the scary side of the book. We admire Rome's power, Rome's immense ability to control a vast empire, Rome's literature, Rome's language ... but we don't really want to be Rome. One of the principal similarities is Rome's and the US' overwhelming cultural, economic and especially military superiority. As a consequence of that superiority, Rome had and the US still has an immensely self-centered view of the world, clinging to the idea of the inherent superiority of our respective civilizations, and believing that all others secretly long to be like us. In their imperial phase, Romans still had a militarized view of the world, but didn't themselves want to serve in the army -- that kind of work was for barbarian mercenaries. Likewise, many Americans have a similarly militarized view of our role in the world, but most are no more eager than Romans to serve in the military -- those jobs are better outsourced to contractors and to killer drones, while the professional core of the armed forces shrinks.
In the end, the author's goal is to instill a sense of greater humility in his American readers, and propose a few notions about how to avoid Rome's fate over the next few centuries. Shrink the military. Learn something about the rest of the world. Master a foreign language. Tear the veil away from the security state. Invest more in education so as to assimilate immigrants faster and strengthen the economy. And so on.
Does the book succeed? For the most part, yes, although some of the parallels feel more than a bit forced. For example: Rome was completely in thrall to its legions and their commanders, who during the unstable phases of the empire would overthrow emperors essentially at will. In the US, the military and the vast economic complex of suppliers and contractors that lives off the military exert a tremendous force in warping our government's priorities and skewing its allocation of resources, but there is no danger of the military overthrowing the government. (Though some would argue that military contractors and suppliers have simply bought off Congress instead.)
But, even if you don't completely buy the author's allegory, you will definitely learn a lot of Roman history from this book.
July 2, 2018
What an insightful, rewarding read! I have had this on my list for more than ten years, since it first came out in 2007, and I am so glad that I finally got to it. Delightfully written, this work provides a brief comparison of the late Roman empire to our own times (or, rather, the late Bush years). For those who don't know much about the Roman Empire, this book will provide a pleasant introduction. Similarities to our own time are very useful - then as now the empires grew like Topsy until they gradually became to big and unwieldy to manage, leading to their gradual dissolution through : 1) the gradual transformation of a national culture embracing the power of the common man to an increasingly autocratic one- 2) the gradual outsourcing of the military to outsiders, whether barbarians or corporations-3) the eventual privatization of most government activities- 4) lack of understanding and continual underestimation of people outside the empire- and 5) mistaking the inevitability of migration as invasion. Each of this areas gets its own chapter outlining what happened in Rome, what is happening here and the similarities and differences. On the bright side, we can see that while the Roman Empire did at some point cease to exist, in many ways it is still with us and we can hope for the same from our own civilization. The sadder part of the book is the epilogue, where suggestions are made as to how to avoid some of Rome's mistakes, and they are all, without exception, the exact opposite of the current administration's policies. Nonetheless, I believe that this is a book that thoughtful people from all sides of the political spectrum will enjoy and benefit from.
June 19, 2018
This book got my brain whirling. I had to read it in small chunks to wrap my head around. The guy wrote it 10 years ago, and so many of the ideas he ponders have happening now. I would be surprised if he wasn't writing a 2018 revision right now. He could call it, Clowntown Fuck-the-World Shit Show: The Rise of Dumbfucks and the Fall of Humanity.
December 21, 2010
Ooooh. First time, I read it for the content. The second time for the pure joy of the rhetoric. Ah, those sneaky comparisons. Those well supported false arguments. That snidely reductive element of scholarship. Sigh.
April 5, 2013
I'll admit I was surprised at the general objectivity of this book. When I saw it was by the former editor of The Atlantic Weekly and current editor of Vanity Fair, I was ready for much more of a slanted book. However, the author makes a good, generalized study of the similartities and differences between the Roman Empire and current America. This should not be confused with a history text, by any means (the "Batman Begins" screenplay is in the bibliography, for cryin' out loud), but for a quick look at what the two countries may or may not have had in common, it's not too bad. Even with that, however, the author's bias comes through every now and then, as if he couldn't help himself in commenting on current events. The bibliography, as well, reads almost like a who's who of current liberal rants againt the current administration, from which he drew a lot of information.
Still, he makes some good observations at some of the more general similarities between Rome and America, mainly to caution against what happened to Rome. But, near the end of the book, he says we shouldn't make the comparison too tightly, since it all breaks down upon specifics. Great. Thanks.
He gives three things we can do to "avoid" what happened to Rome:
1. Have a greater appreciation of the wider world. Hmmm. Really? We should learn more about the world? Okay, fine, as long as it's not to the point that we look to the rest of the world for legal direction or guidance. That's why we have the Constitution.
2. Stop treating government as a necessary evil. Hmm. Why not? Sure, there are things government does well and is supposed to, but the rest should be taken care of by private citizens. Again, government governs best when it governs least.
3. Fortify the institutions that promote assimilation. I agree with this one, actually. The huge difference between immigration a hundred years ago and today is that the great majority of immigrants then WANTED to be Americans, to learn the language, to be a part of the country, and make it better. The majority of today's immigrants don't seem to want to do that. But, we shouldn't do this at the expense of what makes America unique and great.
Still, he makes some good observations at some of the more general similarities between Rome and America, mainly to caution against what happened to Rome. But, near the end of the book, he says we shouldn't make the comparison too tightly, since it all breaks down upon specifics. Great. Thanks.
He gives three things we can do to "avoid" what happened to Rome:
1. Have a greater appreciation of the wider world. Hmmm. Really? We should learn more about the world? Okay, fine, as long as it's not to the point that we look to the rest of the world for legal direction or guidance. That's why we have the Constitution.
2. Stop treating government as a necessary evil. Hmm. Why not? Sure, there are things government does well and is supposed to, but the rest should be taken care of by private citizens. Again, government governs best when it governs least.
3. Fortify the institutions that promote assimilation. I agree with this one, actually. The huge difference between immigration a hundred years ago and today is that the great majority of immigrants then WANTED to be Americans, to learn the language, to be a part of the country, and make it better. The majority of today's immigrants don't seem to want to do that. But, we shouldn't do this at the expense of what makes America unique and great.
September 25, 2014
ما يستاهلش الوقت
الكاتب صحفي، بيرغي كتير
مع نزعة علمية جميلة، بتخليه يقارن بين آراء مختلفة قرأها... و حجم مصادر ضخم بس كله في الهوا...
يعني حتى في عرضه للآراء، ممكن تتوه لأنه هو نفسه مش مرتب.
في النهاية "أدبيا" ممكن يكون شاطر، و تشبيهاته جميله، بس المقارنة الأساسية في الكتاب تصلح انها تبقى بين اي اتنين(غير روما و أمريكا). و ما ناقشتش مشاكل امريكا بأي شكل علمي... كأنه فعلا بيكتب مقال رغي في اي جريدة.
ا��حاجة اليتيمة المفيدة فيه، جزئين او تلاتة في الكتاب بيعرض عدد من الآراء المختلفة بدون تبني وجهة نظر فيهم... ملخص كويس لكتب كتيرة. بس مافيهوش تحليل مفيد ليا كقارئ.
ما ارشحش حد يقراه.
الكاتب صحفي، بيرغي كتير
مع نزعة علمية جميلة، بتخليه يقارن بين آراء مختلفة قرأها... و حجم مصادر ضخم بس كله في الهوا...
يعني حتى في عرضه للآراء، ممكن تتوه لأنه هو نفسه مش مرتب.
في النهاية "أدبيا" ممكن يكون شاطر، و تشبيهاته جميله، بس المقارنة الأساسية في الكتاب تصلح انها تبقى بين اي اتنين(غير روما و أمريكا). و ما ناقشتش مشاكل امريكا بأي شكل علمي... كأنه فعلا بيكتب مقال رغي في اي جريدة.
ا��حاجة اليتيمة المفيدة فيه، جزئين او تلاتة في الكتاب بيعرض عدد من الآراء المختلفة بدون تبني وجهة نظر فيهم... ملخص كويس لكتب كتيرة. بس مافيهوش تحليل مفيد ليا كقارئ.
ما ارشحش حد يقراه.
July 22, 2018
While a very short book, it has a ton of information on how Rome and America are similar as well as how they are different. It goes into military roles of both as well as protecting our borders, expending, our capitol's purpose and our struggles within our own borders (and how it can lead to our demise).
Since I read this book a while back, I can't do a more comprehensive review, but it was interesting overall how Rome thought to themselves as too big to fail and how every nation in the history of time, no matter how powerful, eventually fails. Whether that will happen to America is unknown as author points out how we have changed over time and adjusted to certain things. However, it is still a very likely scenario that certain things will lead to our doom.
Since I read this book a while back, I can't do a more comprehensive review, but it was interesting overall how Rome thought to themselves as too big to fail and how every nation in the history of time, no matter how powerful, eventually fails. Whether that will happen to America is unknown as author points out how we have changed over time and adjusted to certain things. However, it is still a very likely scenario that certain things will lead to our doom.
November 8, 2021
The question Cullen Murphy asks, and kind of answers, Are We Rome? Is often asked by historians and researchers, even if the form is different.
Relatively recently, Peter Turchin in Ages of Discord and William Strauss and Neil Howe of The Fourth Turning fame see upheavals as the cycles play out, but not absolute collapse.
Of the collapse genre, an easy and pleasant survey of empires that ran their course is Sir John Bagot Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival.
I became aware of Glubb when a college classmate's copy of A Soldier With the Arabs came to my attention. Sir John, taking over the Arab Legion in 1939, would build it into the best Arab army. He would also write extensively about the Arabs.
In 1978, the man would write his survey of imperial states and how they fared over time. Glubb saw them as being time limited, around ten generations, or about 250 years.
If we look at the American state as beginning on July 4, 1776, our rise to imperial power status has not long to go if we take the generals time frame seriously.
Glubb's analysis was in no way politically correct. As the book was published in 1978, he could get away with much. As it is, it is hard to find a copy on Amazon of this short, but to the point book.
As a little boy, I heard the words "Roman Empire" and asked at dinner what that was. My parents, not college grads, hardly had the erudition of a professor, but did have a store of knowledge on the subject that they shared to whet my appetite and learn more.
At our local branch, the two librarians were always happy to provide books to curious children and checked me out a volume that began with Romulus and Remus and ended with the last emperor in the west, Romulus Augustulus.
Though it was a bit above what a child in the lower grades might usually read, it gripped me and when done with it, I had become a history nerd, and would learn there was a continuation of Rome at Constantinople until 1453 A.D.
So, I was drawn to Cullen Murphy's Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America as a moth to the flame.
As a short study of the imperial states, it is engaging. Its conclusions can be debated.
One would expect no less than a well thought out book on any subject from Cullen Murphy. He has had a long career of literary accomplishment, and was for many years the editor of the Atlantic. Murphy has several books to his credit on subjects as diverse as the Spanish Inquisition and women in the Bible through time.
An interesting aspect of the author is that he is the son of the man who drew the Prince Valiant comic strips. This suggests an interest in history might run in his veins.
In the prologue section, Comparative Anatomy, Murphy mentions how "historians are skeptical of trying to draw explicit "lessons" from history" and then explores some examples. Are we Rome? came out in 2007, and though still timely, history never stops. It brought to your reviewer's mind January 6, 2021 compared with 387 BC.
The events of January 6 were high-lighted in the major media as the worst event ever to happen to "our democracy." There is a bit of a parallel with Rome that is interesting enough, but should not be taken too far.
In 387 BC, a Gallic tribe defeated the Romans and entered the city. While the able bodied went to the Capitol, the older senators stayed to meet their fate unarmed and were slaughtered.
Contrast that with the elected representatives who were beset by a mob in early 2021. Did our solons go out and confront the horde face to face?
No, they evacuated when they could. No one expected them to stick around. They are not an aristocratic class, but elected men. They will eventually be rewarded by a pension and maybe an easy job somewhere in DC. The Roman aristocracy might have thought themselves as the state, not just part of it.
To further digress, the party rancor in Congress continues, with fighting over a January 6th Commission proving whatever Clausewitz said, in Washington politics is war by other means.
The first chapter, The Capitals, is sub-titled Where Republic Meets Empire. That might be a little misleading, and it might not. Rome had an empire before Augustus received the title. The form of a republic might be followed, but by the time of Sulla, the game was up.
With around 800 overseas bases, this country cannot be anything but an empire.
We have elections, though there is now much controversy with the arguments regarding voting rights. One should hope that is resolved amicably, but in my lifetime, disagreement about who casts a ballot and how has never been worse.
On Page 128, Murphy cites the scene in the movie Spartacus where Crassus tells the slave of Rome's irresistible might. He then looks at a much-repeated remark made to reporter Ron Susskind by a Bush administration official: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
The Captals highlights the similarities of imperial metropolises. Murphy's exposition of all that is wonderfully done. Rome and that city on the Potomac were and are where everything ends up.
Granted, there is no annona, that is the huge levy of the ingredients for the free bread given to residents, but what taxes bring to D.C. can be at least somewhat analogous. The author's comparisons remind one that we have a bloated seat of government and to wonder how long this can go on?
The question will eventually answer itself, but the governing class seems to think it can go on forever.
Are we Rome? was published in 2007, but much has happened since then. The Afghanistan expedition was seen for what it was, a debacle and it was ended, maybe not in an Adrianople moment, but it was unpleasant to watch.
No matter, we are "pivoting" aggressively toward China.
Since Mr. Murphy's book, the nation has seen the rise of a virus. For good or ill, the state came down with a heavy hand and divisions that arose during the Trump years have continued.
The national government continues to grow with the administration proposing a mammoth spending program that the president and spokespeople insist will pay for itself. Good luck with that.
Reckless spending and pandemics have happened before and eventually the pain of the consequences subsides.
Not having considered some retrenchment after Afghanistan and engaging with a nuclear adversary is not a great idea. Nuclear war is something Rome never had to consider.
The author looked at the problem of non-Romans in the armed forces and how that compares to our use of contractors. His examination is apt, and the inevitability of the practice leading to no good, should give us pause, but it probably won't.
As there are not enough underclass Americans to feed the imperial maw, it can only get worse under current conditions. Neocon warmonger and sinecurista Max Boot is all for foreign enlistments. It has never in history been a good idea, but it is inevitable in empires.
The spiral is downward.
Cullen Murphy sees decline, or at least change at best in a problematic way.
Mr. Murphy does have some suggestions. Actually, he has a plan. The Titus Livius plan named after the historian more commonly known as Livy.
One might say, he wishes to stop the rot and suggests we start by instilling "an appreciation of the wider world." The author is so glad for immigrants and foreign students to tutor us about the world they bugged out of.
Learning a foreign language will help "drive home the idea that "we are not alone"…" As someone in the hundred-year program to learn one of the Roman successor languages, I value the idea of knowing how to speak another tongue, but this part of the plan does not seem to be a profound answer.
What it does bring to mind, at least to this down-market scrivener, is that the up market intellectual values the other over his proletarian countrymen. He does worry about outsourcing government functions, but the derelict factories that are along New England highways and the jobs that are gone does not seem to enter his consciousness. That class of his countrymen and women are not to be concerned about, but he might think of what has been lost. Chesterton wrote, "The strength of the aristocracy is not in the aristocracy at all; it is in the slums."
But who cares about them?
Next up, love Big Brother, "Second, stop treating government as a necessary evil. And instead rely on it proudly for the big things it can do." Don't overdo privatization, and don't forget the social security check that comes each month.
Should we forget that there is a looming crisis of SS funding as the system that began with collection at 65 and average age of death 63 is now unsustainable? The ship of state will sail through those waters if we all merrily row together.
As part of the plan, the author comes out for "national service." Many "progressives" claim to be for that, at least in the abstract. Most recently, with the ill-fated billionaire vanity campaign of Tom Steyer.
Mr. Murphy opines, "and yes should be the answer to a program of national service for all young people, which would revive the militia ethic of long ago. "We're all in it together" is a spirit that Rome lost. Nothing says "uan naishion, indivisibol" like national service."
It is not clear if by national service he means military service or some kind of "we are the world" do gooderism. It is hard to see that not becoming a joke with upper middle class and above getting the plumbs. One can hear the next generation Hunters and Ivankas saying "We give so much; you get the mop."
As an undergraduate during the Vietnam war, I remember how the draft ended due to reaction over an unfair system. I hope the author has really thought this out.
Our official think tank, The Long Hill Institute for a Military That Stays Out of Stupid Wars and Does Not Cause Needless Division Among Classes (TLHIfaMTSOoSWaDNCkNDAC for short), has, I daresay, given more thought to this than the author. We have seen our nation's trajectory go from the end of the draft and Vietnam to a state of permanent war.
As our intellectual class often looks to foreign examples to follow, so shall we, but first it is important to ask the question correctly, so we shall try.
What democracy has near complete involvement of the country in its defense (national service), but never goes to war?
That would be Switzerland.
Up in those Alps, everybody goes, no exceptions. Such a system does not produce a political or intellectual class hot to monger for war.
The Long Hill Institute sees the value in that, not because it is fair, though the Swiss system comes close.
More, it is because mass participation will do much to make war not so popular, A system where not only BillyBob, Miguel and Deshawn learn the pleasure of low crawling in the mud, but are joined by Brent, just out of prep school for a gap year, will do something for that desired "We're all in it together" thing.
But it has to be everybody, at least in the initial service. The kids of the elite can't just escape into ROTC.
Though Are We Rome? is a pleasure to read as it compares the mega states, there are a couple of aspects that are left out.
What came as close as anything to sinking the Roman Empire was the existential crisis of inflation. The coinage became so debased that Diocletian issued a "Decree of Commanded Cheapness." The people were required to accept the worthless money at fiat prices, yet even under penalty of death, it was ignored.
Constantine solved the problem and instituted one of history's most successful currencies, the Solidus. It was a pillar the Eastern Empire would rest on.
And how did that emperor work this miracle? The emperor looted the pagan temples and institutions of their gold.
I learned of this in Western Civ class after being assigned Constantine and the Conversion of Europe by A.H.M. Jones. Jones' book starts with the accession of Diocletian to the throne and proceeds through the rise of Constantine and his sponsoring of the new faith.
Jones' account of Constantine's affection for Christianity is that it was sincere, but on Page 186, he writes of the emperor's monetary reform; "his success was mainly due to his confiscation of the temple treasures, which enabled him and his sons to keep up an abundant and pure issue."
Does this have any relevance to us today? On Long Hill, we believe so.
In 1971 President Nixon closed the "Gold Window." This meant the US would no longer redeem the dollar in gold. Over the next few years inflation started to rage. It was stanched by the activities of a Federal Reserve Chairman, but never ended.
The dollar has declined in slow motion, but debasement has continued. The house my father bought for $12,000 in a working-class neighborhood in 1954 would fetch several hundred thousand dollars now.
The impact that has had on home ownership is unpleasant, but we have to live with it.
Currently, it feels like the inflation of the 70s has returned. Many policy people and experts refer to it as transitory. Maybe so, but if it can't be controlled, we have no temples to loot.
There are some measures we can take and they are involved with larger issues.
Rome, as she expanded had land borders with other nations and could not just escape. There were only three possibilities: expand, retreat, or stabilize the border. Circumstances determined the course of action.
The United States has a choice Rome did not have, sail home. Jean-Jules Jusserand, the long-serving French Ambassador to the US in the first quarter of the 20th Century, observed of our country, "On the north, she has a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor, on the east, fish, and on the west, more fish."
One can hear think tankers and others of the chattering class screaming that horrible things will happen in the world. An exemplar of the class, Robert Kagan of Brookings published an article in the March/April Foreign Affairs, "A Superpower, Like It or Not: Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role." Like all such screed, it is more assertion than argument.
Indeed, can anything be more insane than risking nuclear war with China over Taiwan. The U.S. recognizes Taiwan as part of China, yet, the Blinken State Department calls for it to be admitted to the UN.
To paraphrase Mr. Dickens' words, "If this is the way we treat our foreign policy, we don't deserve to have one."
Unlike Rome, we can sail away from our mistakes. The world can be a mess without us.
Constantine had another great success and it was named after him, Constantinople. * The main aspects of the story, the empire is too big for one empire and Diocletian instituted the system of Co-Augusti and Constantine would build the city of his name at one of geography's most strategic points. The decaying city on the Tiber would end its imperial pretensions, and that would be that more or less.
So what has that to do with our imperial capital?
Not so glad you didn't ask. Let's be creative, and abandon Potomacville. If one thinks about it, it is an imposition on the rest of the country as the anonna feeds an army of bureaucrats who enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow countrymen and women, even if they are all performing their tasks superlatively, which only those who have taken of leave of their senses believe.
Whether or not Mr. Murphy agrees, he made the case that DC is a bloated imperial behemoth. What to do?
This is a question that we have been pondering on Long Hill for near a decade and have come up with the neo-Constantinople plan.
We can and should move the seat of government to a place that is not as comfortable as the well-air-conditioned beltway complex. A hard climate is what the ruling class needs. This question was a subject that we wrote about in the November, 2012 Sturbridge Times Magazine and republished on Substack.
In it was referenced a cross-country excursion wherein a camping stop was made in Wyoming. It was June and it was one of the coldest nights I've ever spent. I wouldn't wish such a climate on my worst enemy. The solons, justices of the Supreme Court, the president and all the rest of the apparatchiks and nomenklatura are a different story.
One might say that it is callous not to care about the real estate values of that class and the losses they will suffer in either becoming redundant or having to move. Our answer on Long Hill is that we are as solicitous of their net worth as they are of ours.
There you have both Mr. Murphy's suggestions to save the polity and ours. Of one eventuality both of us can be confident, neither the suggestions of the author or the reviewer will be taken up. Either a geopolitical apocalypse will occur or inertia will see us drift into a safe harbor despite all the problems.
If that happens, both of us can just say never mind.
Relatively recently, Peter Turchin in Ages of Discord and William Strauss and Neil Howe of The Fourth Turning fame see upheavals as the cycles play out, but not absolute collapse.
Of the collapse genre, an easy and pleasant survey of empires that ran their course is Sir John Bagot Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival.
I became aware of Glubb when a college classmate's copy of A Soldier With the Arabs came to my attention. Sir John, taking over the Arab Legion in 1939, would build it into the best Arab army. He would also write extensively about the Arabs.
In 1978, the man would write his survey of imperial states and how they fared over time. Glubb saw them as being time limited, around ten generations, or about 250 years.
If we look at the American state as beginning on July 4, 1776, our rise to imperial power status has not long to go if we take the generals time frame seriously.
Glubb's analysis was in no way politically correct. As the book was published in 1978, he could get away with much. As it is, it is hard to find a copy on Amazon of this short, but to the point book.
As a little boy, I heard the words "Roman Empire" and asked at dinner what that was. My parents, not college grads, hardly had the erudition of a professor, but did have a store of knowledge on the subject that they shared to whet my appetite and learn more.
At our local branch, the two librarians were always happy to provide books to curious children and checked me out a volume that began with Romulus and Remus and ended with the last emperor in the west, Romulus Augustulus.
Though it was a bit above what a child in the lower grades might usually read, it gripped me and when done with it, I had become a history nerd, and would learn there was a continuation of Rome at Constantinople until 1453 A.D.
So, I was drawn to Cullen Murphy's Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America as a moth to the flame.
As a short study of the imperial states, it is engaging. Its conclusions can be debated.
One would expect no less than a well thought out book on any subject from Cullen Murphy. He has had a long career of literary accomplishment, and was for many years the editor of the Atlantic. Murphy has several books to his credit on subjects as diverse as the Spanish Inquisition and women in the Bible through time.
An interesting aspect of the author is that he is the son of the man who drew the Prince Valiant comic strips. This suggests an interest in history might run in his veins.
In the prologue section, Comparative Anatomy, Murphy mentions how "historians are skeptical of trying to draw explicit "lessons" from history" and then explores some examples. Are we Rome? came out in 2007, and though still timely, history never stops. It brought to your reviewer's mind January 6, 2021 compared with 387 BC.
The events of January 6 were high-lighted in the major media as the worst event ever to happen to "our democracy." There is a bit of a parallel with Rome that is interesting enough, but should not be taken too far.
In 387 BC, a Gallic tribe defeated the Romans and entered the city. While the able bodied went to the Capitol, the older senators stayed to meet their fate unarmed and were slaughtered.
Contrast that with the elected representatives who were beset by a mob in early 2021. Did our solons go out and confront the horde face to face?
No, they evacuated when they could. No one expected them to stick around. They are not an aristocratic class, but elected men. They will eventually be rewarded by a pension and maybe an easy job somewhere in DC. The Roman aristocracy might have thought themselves as the state, not just part of it.
To further digress, the party rancor in Congress continues, with fighting over a January 6th Commission proving whatever Clausewitz said, in Washington politics is war by other means.
The first chapter, The Capitals, is sub-titled Where Republic Meets Empire. That might be a little misleading, and it might not. Rome had an empire before Augustus received the title. The form of a republic might be followed, but by the time of Sulla, the game was up.
With around 800 overseas bases, this country cannot be anything but an empire.
We have elections, though there is now much controversy with the arguments regarding voting rights. One should hope that is resolved amicably, but in my lifetime, disagreement about who casts a ballot and how has never been worse.
On Page 128, Murphy cites the scene in the movie Spartacus where Crassus tells the slave of Rome's irresistible might. He then looks at a much-repeated remark made to reporter Ron Susskind by a Bush administration official: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
The Captals highlights the similarities of imperial metropolises. Murphy's exposition of all that is wonderfully done. Rome and that city on the Potomac were and are where everything ends up.
Granted, there is no annona, that is the huge levy of the ingredients for the free bread given to residents, but what taxes bring to D.C. can be at least somewhat analogous. The author's comparisons remind one that we have a bloated seat of government and to wonder how long this can go on?
The question will eventually answer itself, but the governing class seems to think it can go on forever.
Are we Rome? was published in 2007, but much has happened since then. The Afghanistan expedition was seen for what it was, a debacle and it was ended, maybe not in an Adrianople moment, but it was unpleasant to watch.
No matter, we are "pivoting" aggressively toward China.
Since Mr. Murphy's book, the nation has seen the rise of a virus. For good or ill, the state came down with a heavy hand and divisions that arose during the Trump years have continued.
The national government continues to grow with the administration proposing a mammoth spending program that the president and spokespeople insist will pay for itself. Good luck with that.
Reckless spending and pandemics have happened before and eventually the pain of the consequences subsides.
Not having considered some retrenchment after Afghanistan and engaging with a nuclear adversary is not a great idea. Nuclear war is something Rome never had to consider.
The author looked at the problem of non-Romans in the armed forces and how that compares to our use of contractors. His examination is apt, and the inevitability of the practice leading to no good, should give us pause, but it probably won't.
As there are not enough underclass Americans to feed the imperial maw, it can only get worse under current conditions. Neocon warmonger and sinecurista Max Boot is all for foreign enlistments. It has never in history been a good idea, but it is inevitable in empires.
The spiral is downward.
Cullen Murphy sees decline, or at least change at best in a problematic way.
Mr. Murphy does have some suggestions. Actually, he has a plan. The Titus Livius plan named after the historian more commonly known as Livy.
One might say, he wishes to stop the rot and suggests we start by instilling "an appreciation of the wider world." The author is so glad for immigrants and foreign students to tutor us about the world they bugged out of.
Learning a foreign language will help "drive home the idea that "we are not alone"…" As someone in the hundred-year program to learn one of the Roman successor languages, I value the idea of knowing how to speak another tongue, but this part of the plan does not seem to be a profound answer.
What it does bring to mind, at least to this down-market scrivener, is that the up market intellectual values the other over his proletarian countrymen. He does worry about outsourcing government functions, but the derelict factories that are along New England highways and the jobs that are gone does not seem to enter his consciousness. That class of his countrymen and women are not to be concerned about, but he might think of what has been lost. Chesterton wrote, "The strength of the aristocracy is not in the aristocracy at all; it is in the slums."
But who cares about them?
Next up, love Big Brother, "Second, stop treating government as a necessary evil. And instead rely on it proudly for the big things it can do." Don't overdo privatization, and don't forget the social security check that comes each month.
Should we forget that there is a looming crisis of SS funding as the system that began with collection at 65 and average age of death 63 is now unsustainable? The ship of state will sail through those waters if we all merrily row together.
As part of the plan, the author comes out for "national service." Many "progressives" claim to be for that, at least in the abstract. Most recently, with the ill-fated billionaire vanity campaign of Tom Steyer.
Mr. Murphy opines, "and yes should be the answer to a program of national service for all young people, which would revive the militia ethic of long ago. "We're all in it together" is a spirit that Rome lost. Nothing says "uan naishion, indivisibol" like national service."
It is not clear if by national service he means military service or some kind of "we are the world" do gooderism. It is hard to see that not becoming a joke with upper middle class and above getting the plumbs. One can hear the next generation Hunters and Ivankas saying "We give so much; you get the mop."
As an undergraduate during the Vietnam war, I remember how the draft ended due to reaction over an unfair system. I hope the author has really thought this out.
Our official think tank, The Long Hill Institute for a Military That Stays Out of Stupid Wars and Does Not Cause Needless Division Among Classes (TLHIfaMTSOoSWaDNCkNDAC for short), has, I daresay, given more thought to this than the author. We have seen our nation's trajectory go from the end of the draft and Vietnam to a state of permanent war.
As our intellectual class often looks to foreign examples to follow, so shall we, but first it is important to ask the question correctly, so we shall try.
What democracy has near complete involvement of the country in its defense (national service), but never goes to war?
That would be Switzerland.
Up in those Alps, everybody goes, no exceptions. Such a system does not produce a political or intellectual class hot to monger for war.
The Long Hill Institute sees the value in that, not because it is fair, though the Swiss system comes close.
More, it is because mass participation will do much to make war not so popular, A system where not only BillyBob, Miguel and Deshawn learn the pleasure of low crawling in the mud, but are joined by Brent, just out of prep school for a gap year, will do something for that desired "We're all in it together" thing.
But it has to be everybody, at least in the initial service. The kids of the elite can't just escape into ROTC.
Though Are We Rome? is a pleasure to read as it compares the mega states, there are a couple of aspects that are left out.
What came as close as anything to sinking the Roman Empire was the existential crisis of inflation. The coinage became so debased that Diocletian issued a "Decree of Commanded Cheapness." The people were required to accept the worthless money at fiat prices, yet even under penalty of death, it was ignored.
Constantine solved the problem and instituted one of history's most successful currencies, the Solidus. It was a pillar the Eastern Empire would rest on.
And how did that emperor work this miracle? The emperor looted the pagan temples and institutions of their gold.
I learned of this in Western Civ class after being assigned Constantine and the Conversion of Europe by A.H.M. Jones. Jones' book starts with the accession of Diocletian to the throne and proceeds through the rise of Constantine and his sponsoring of the new faith.
Jones' account of Constantine's affection for Christianity is that it was sincere, but on Page 186, he writes of the emperor's monetary reform; "his success was mainly due to his confiscation of the temple treasures, which enabled him and his sons to keep up an abundant and pure issue."
Does this have any relevance to us today? On Long Hill, we believe so.
In 1971 President Nixon closed the "Gold Window." This meant the US would no longer redeem the dollar in gold. Over the next few years inflation started to rage. It was stanched by the activities of a Federal Reserve Chairman, but never ended.
The dollar has declined in slow motion, but debasement has continued. The house my father bought for $12,000 in a working-class neighborhood in 1954 would fetch several hundred thousand dollars now.
The impact that has had on home ownership is unpleasant, but we have to live with it.
Currently, it feels like the inflation of the 70s has returned. Many policy people and experts refer to it as transitory. Maybe so, but if it can't be controlled, we have no temples to loot.
There are some measures we can take and they are involved with larger issues.
Rome, as she expanded had land borders with other nations and could not just escape. There were only three possibilities: expand, retreat, or stabilize the border. Circumstances determined the course of action.
The United States has a choice Rome did not have, sail home. Jean-Jules Jusserand, the long-serving French Ambassador to the US in the first quarter of the 20th Century, observed of our country, "On the north, she has a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor, on the east, fish, and on the west, more fish."
One can hear think tankers and others of the chattering class screaming that horrible things will happen in the world. An exemplar of the class, Robert Kagan of Brookings published an article in the March/April Foreign Affairs, "A Superpower, Like It or Not: Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role." Like all such screed, it is more assertion than argument.
Indeed, can anything be more insane than risking nuclear war with China over Taiwan. The U.S. recognizes Taiwan as part of China, yet, the Blinken State Department calls for it to be admitted to the UN.
To paraphrase Mr. Dickens' words, "If this is the way we treat our foreign policy, we don't deserve to have one."
Unlike Rome, we can sail away from our mistakes. The world can be a mess without us.
Constantine had another great success and it was named after him, Constantinople. * The main aspects of the story, the empire is too big for one empire and Diocletian instituted the system of Co-Augusti and Constantine would build the city of his name at one of geography's most strategic points. The decaying city on the Tiber would end its imperial pretensions, and that would be that more or less.
So what has that to do with our imperial capital?
Not so glad you didn't ask. Let's be creative, and abandon Potomacville. If one thinks about it, it is an imposition on the rest of the country as the anonna feeds an army of bureaucrats who enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow countrymen and women, even if they are all performing their tasks superlatively, which only those who have taken of leave of their senses believe.
Whether or not Mr. Murphy agrees, he made the case that DC is a bloated imperial behemoth. What to do?
This is a question that we have been pondering on Long Hill for near a decade and have come up with the neo-Constantinople plan.
We can and should move the seat of government to a place that is not as comfortable as the well-air-conditioned beltway complex. A hard climate is what the ruling class needs. This question was a subject that we wrote about in the November, 2012 Sturbridge Times Magazine and republished on Substack.
In it was referenced a cross-country excursion wherein a camping stop was made in Wyoming. It was June and it was one of the coldest nights I've ever spent. I wouldn't wish such a climate on my worst enemy. The solons, justices of the Supreme Court, the president and all the rest of the apparatchiks and nomenklatura are a different story.
One might say that it is callous not to care about the real estate values of that class and the losses they will suffer in either becoming redundant or having to move. Our answer on Long Hill is that we are as solicitous of their net worth as they are of ours.
There you have both Mr. Murphy's suggestions to save the polity and ours. Of one eventuality both of us can be confident, neither the suggestions of the author or the reviewer will be taken up. Either a geopolitical apocalypse will occur or inertia will see us drift into a safe harbor despite all the problems.
If that happens, both of us can just say never mind.
March 15, 2015
In this book Cullen Murphy proposes several interesting comparisons to the great ancient roman empire that invoke thought and spoke the reader at the same time. In the book Murphy explores many of the similarities between the economic and militaristic characteristics of the two societies in ways that excite and interest the reader. This is certainly no average history book and can be of interest of some many more people than I would have thought when looking at the title. Through Murphy's deep comparison between the ways that our government works together and the corrupt ways of the ancient romans he gives us many reasons to fear a great fall to America like that of rome. By using specific details and dates of the past Murphy does a great job of convincing the reader to buy into the parallels made between the two societies. The author proposes the idea that small nations succeed when they win on one front while great nations must prevail on all fronts to maintain its greatness. This idea stems from how the barbarians of Germany threatened mayhem in rome by defeating there army. He draws parallels from this to that of America's military and economic structure and scares the reader of future riots in the process. In reading this you will surely notice Murphy's powerful persuasive writing style that is sure to impress and interest any curious reader!
January 27, 2009
A brief but engaging look at a number of comparisons between ancient Rome (more specifically, the Roman Empire) and the modern U.S. Cullen examines not only the obvious and common relationships (military power), but a number of less commonly observed connections (such as privatization of government functions, border and immigration issues, the seats of power themselves). It provokes some interesting thought, and provides insight on some aspects of both civilizations with which some people will be surprised. Cullen also has a gift for clever turns of phrase. The book is excellent for the casual reader.
February 16, 2009
Murphy draws some obvious parallels between ancient Rome and the present USA, pointing out drawbacks, immoralities, and just plain wrongness leading to downfall.
Along the way, he namedrops with shameless abandon, both ancient and modern personalities. On the days you are convinced that we're going to hell in a handbasket, Are We Rome? will confirm it.
But Murphy leaves us with a slightly more optimistic future--he feels that Americans have seen the end rushing up and have built in allowances.
We'll see
Along the way, he namedrops with shameless abandon, both ancient and modern personalities. On the days you are convinced that we're going to hell in a handbasket, Are We Rome? will confirm it.
But Murphy leaves us with a slightly more optimistic future--he feels that Americans have seen the end rushing up and have built in allowances.
We'll see
September 24, 2010
I probably tend to over rate books. This time I'm sticking to the letter. I wish I had read the essay, upon which this was based, first. It was probably more focused. With this I got the sense of padding. The book is a book of questions. Hundreds. But they are all part of the title. Are We Rome? Yes, and No. The chapter on contracting was interesting, but it had little to do with Rome. The others, such as Imperial Overreach, are fairly obvious, though Murphy does a good job with his various examples. Overall, it was OK. But that's about it.
September 15, 2008
This book looks at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and draws some parallels with the United States and the political issues and situations we are dealing with today.
February 7, 2015
This book is an extensive comparison and contrast between the United States and imperial Rome. Rome was founded in 753 B.C. as a farming settlement on the eastern bank of the Tiber River. With the conclusion of the Punic War in 146 B.C. (against Carthage in northern Africa), Rome expanded to encompass the entire Italian peninsula. Rome then continued to grow in all directions. By the 2nd century A.D., Rome ruled from Scotland to the Sahara and from the Atlantic to the Euphrates.
Similarities between Rome & the United States
Rome and America are comparable in physical size. The Roman Empire and its Mediterranean lake would fit inside the three million square miles of the lower 48 states, without a lot to spare. The Roman road system consisted of 370 separate highways stretching some 53,000 miles, about the length of the U.S. interstate system.
Both Rome and the United States revel in engineering prowess. Neither can seem to get enough of lawyers and laws. Both accept enormous disparities of wealth and both were slaveholding societies. Both Rome and the U.S. see themselves as a chosen people with an exceptional national character.
Both Rome and America have large, high maintenance militaries, more skilled and expensive than any competitor. Both put great stock in battlefield ferocity like “shock and awe”. America’s European Command incorporates all of the Roman Empire except Egypt and the Middle East (The U.S. maintains more than 700 bases in about sixty countries.).
The dollar bill uses Rome’s language, words derived from Virgil: “novus ordo seclorum” or “new order of the ages”. We still use Rome’s alphabet, exploit its literary genres, inhabit its cities, preserve its architectural styles, and follow its schedule of holidays.
Although this book contains a vast array of comparisons between Rome and the United States, there are three key similarities that I will discuss in greater detail as follows:
Misdirected Prestige
The Visigothic barbarian leader Alaric rose to the rank of general in the service of Rome, fighting under the emperior Theodosius. Only when his further advancement in the hierarchy was rebuffed did he turn against the Roman empire that he had served. When Alaric and the Visgoths sacked Rome, they were already the Roman army and had been for decades. What would a bit of simple prestige for the barbarian Alaric have preserved?
Why must our bequeathing of prestige be so often misdirected, even in modern society? We bathe prestige upon those brandishing inherited wealth, who haven’t personally earned what they have, while often showing contempt for “new money” people, who did in fact earn their way. We lavish praise and adoration upon those showing off new homes, big boats, and fancy cars, while nearly ignoring scientists, researchers, inventors, and technologists, as ill fit geeks.
The clear fact is that a person is less recognized in American (and Roman) society unless they brandish their wealth in displays of open vulgarity. Intellect is less regarded than is the slothful partaking in profuse leisure activities. Few understand, or are even remotely concerned with, their place in history.
It is the praise and worship of undeserving things that we share with Rome.
The Calculus of Corruption
In the year 363 A.D, the residents of Lepcis found themselves under assault by Berber tribesmen. The Lepcitanians looked to Count Romanus for relief, who was the emperor’s man on the scene. However, when Romanus arrived at Lepcis he demanded payment of 4,000 camels before he would consent to hunt down the Berbers. Lepcis refused to pay, Romanus withdrew, and the attacks continued. The citizens immediately sent deputies to the emperor Valentinian.
The emperor decided to dispatch a trusted aide name Palladius to investigate. The emperor sent a large sum of money with Palladius to pay the army’s wages. Upon arrival in Lepcis, Palladius decided to keep some of the money for himself. Romanus found out, and used this as leverage to influence the report Palladius carried back to the emperor. Romanus was exonerated and his accusers were executed.
Romanus remained in good standing, but his continued extortion eventually fed a revolt by a Moorish leader named Firmus. The revolt was so serious that the emperor had to send Theodosius, the army’s chief of staff, to put it down. But Theodosius had to borrow troops from the Roman forces on the Danube, leaving that critical frontier weakened, resulting in invasions of barbarian tribes into Roman territory. Theodosius removed Romanus from command and found in his papers evidence that Palladius had lied to the emperor. Palladius was arrested and committed suicide. The actions of one greedy soldier and one greedy bureaucrat caused serious breaches in public order.
Now imagine this way of doing business extended empire-wide, encompassing everyone, and going on for hundreds of years. This is the sort of paralysis of corruption that leaves countries today, like Haiti or Mexico, languishing in abject poverty. Successful societies must be built upon principals of ethics and righteousness. When these principals are lost, the social fabric crumbles.
America arose upon Puritanism, but where is it today? America is not without corruption. Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham now in jail, infamously drafted a “bribe menu” on official stationery, linking the size of defense contracts he would deliver with the size of payments he received. Too often, because of nepotism or connections, we turn governmental departments over to incompetent cronies. This type of ridiculous leadership was apparent in FEMA’s inability to cope with the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Corruption in the Iraq rebuilding effort is beyond dispute. Companies overcharged the government by tens of millions just for food and gasoline. The Coalition Provisional Authority official in charge of disbursing some 80 million in Iraq rebuilding efforts effectuated contracts by bribes and conspiracy. And really, why did we even blow up Iraq, just so we could build it back? The tax-burdened middle class was taxed heavily to first destroy Iraq and then taxed heavily again to rebuild it, all the while being gouged by corruption.
Or, consider SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation, who’s senior executives tend to be drawn from the government agencies it does business with, and which garners an annual intake from the federal government in excess of six billion, taking on most any project the government wants to outsource. The 100 million dollar computer system that SAIC set up for the FBI had to be abandoned, as did the 1.2 billion Trailblazer system it set up for the National Security Agency. The media venture it attempted in Iraq, ludicrous on its face, went nowhere. But SAIC continues to seek and win federal contracts.
It is corruption that we share with Rome.
Is the Image we project really us?
Americans harbor a lack of awareness of the rest of the world. High school students in Kiev and Kathmandu are better informed about the American Civil War and New Deal than students in Trenton or Omaha. Europeans are more likely than average Americans to have heard about Guantanamo and AbuGhraib .
Americans are viewed abroad as being loud, uncultured, insensitive, God-drunk, and highly materialistic. Islamists see America as the great Satan. The currently popular movie “American Sniper” depicts our forces bearing evil looking deadhead, craft skull insignia. Carter’s National Security Advisor once openly referred publicly to our allies as “vassals” and “tributaries”.
The Romans made a habit of publicly degrading the captured leaders of vanquished peoples. The photo below of prisoner Ali Shallal-al-Qaisi being tortured has become internationally famous, even appearing on the cover of “The Economist” magazine.
I recently heard a graduating high school senior remark: “France! That’s a place in Italy, right?” And not too along ago, I was playing Pictionary with an attorney friend and was aghast to see her draw South America, in an attempt to depict Africa! Sitting on a boat with a college graduate, I remarked about the brilliance of Mars on this particular night and I received the reply: “Come on man, you know you can’t see planets, only stars!” While vacationing at the beach I heard a women honestly inquire of another she had just met from Denmark: “Do ya’ll have cell phones over there?”
Most Americans are encapsulated in their own world. Many are nearly unconscious of the world they live in. A quarter of all high school seniors cannot name the ocean that separates North America from Asia. More than three quarters of Americans aged 18 to 24 can’t locate Iran or Iraq on a map. A third of young Americans believe you’d have to travel north, east or west to get from Japan to Australia. Only two of ten young Americans own a passport.
An experiment was taken by conducting a poll asking Americans about an entirely fictitious ethnic group that doesn’t even exist. What do you think about the, say Far-off-ians? Quite remarkably, the respondents gave the Faroffians a very low favorability ranking, of only 4 on a scale of 10!
It is naivety and arrogance that we share with Rome.
Similarities between Rome & the United States
Rome and America are comparable in physical size. The Roman Empire and its Mediterranean lake would fit inside the three million square miles of the lower 48 states, without a lot to spare. The Roman road system consisted of 370 separate highways stretching some 53,000 miles, about the length of the U.S. interstate system.
Both Rome and the United States revel in engineering prowess. Neither can seem to get enough of lawyers and laws. Both accept enormous disparities of wealth and both were slaveholding societies. Both Rome and the U.S. see themselves as a chosen people with an exceptional national character.
Both Rome and America have large, high maintenance militaries, more skilled and expensive than any competitor. Both put great stock in battlefield ferocity like “shock and awe”. America’s European Command incorporates all of the Roman Empire except Egypt and the Middle East (The U.S. maintains more than 700 bases in about sixty countries.).
The dollar bill uses Rome’s language, words derived from Virgil: “novus ordo seclorum” or “new order of the ages”. We still use Rome’s alphabet, exploit its literary genres, inhabit its cities, preserve its architectural styles, and follow its schedule of holidays.
Although this book contains a vast array of comparisons between Rome and the United States, there are three key similarities that I will discuss in greater detail as follows:
Misdirected Prestige
The Visigothic barbarian leader Alaric rose to the rank of general in the service of Rome, fighting under the emperior Theodosius. Only when his further advancement in the hierarchy was rebuffed did he turn against the Roman empire that he had served. When Alaric and the Visgoths sacked Rome, they were already the Roman army and had been for decades. What would a bit of simple prestige for the barbarian Alaric have preserved?
Why must our bequeathing of prestige be so often misdirected, even in modern society? We bathe prestige upon those brandishing inherited wealth, who haven’t personally earned what they have, while often showing contempt for “new money” people, who did in fact earn their way. We lavish praise and adoration upon those showing off new homes, big boats, and fancy cars, while nearly ignoring scientists, researchers, inventors, and technologists, as ill fit geeks.
The clear fact is that a person is less recognized in American (and Roman) society unless they brandish their wealth in displays of open vulgarity. Intellect is less regarded than is the slothful partaking in profuse leisure activities. Few understand, or are even remotely concerned with, their place in history.
It is the praise and worship of undeserving things that we share with Rome.
The Calculus of Corruption
In the year 363 A.D, the residents of Lepcis found themselves under assault by Berber tribesmen. The Lepcitanians looked to Count Romanus for relief, who was the emperor’s man on the scene. However, when Romanus arrived at Lepcis he demanded payment of 4,000 camels before he would consent to hunt down the Berbers. Lepcis refused to pay, Romanus withdrew, and the attacks continued. The citizens immediately sent deputies to the emperor Valentinian.
The emperor decided to dispatch a trusted aide name Palladius to investigate. The emperor sent a large sum of money with Palladius to pay the army’s wages. Upon arrival in Lepcis, Palladius decided to keep some of the money for himself. Romanus found out, and used this as leverage to influence the report Palladius carried back to the emperor. Romanus was exonerated and his accusers were executed.
Romanus remained in good standing, but his continued extortion eventually fed a revolt by a Moorish leader named Firmus. The revolt was so serious that the emperor had to send Theodosius, the army’s chief of staff, to put it down. But Theodosius had to borrow troops from the Roman forces on the Danube, leaving that critical frontier weakened, resulting in invasions of barbarian tribes into Roman territory. Theodosius removed Romanus from command and found in his papers evidence that Palladius had lied to the emperor. Palladius was arrested and committed suicide. The actions of one greedy soldier and one greedy bureaucrat caused serious breaches in public order.
Now imagine this way of doing business extended empire-wide, encompassing everyone, and going on for hundreds of years. This is the sort of paralysis of corruption that leaves countries today, like Haiti or Mexico, languishing in abject poverty. Successful societies must be built upon principals of ethics and righteousness. When these principals are lost, the social fabric crumbles.
America arose upon Puritanism, but where is it today? America is not without corruption. Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham now in jail, infamously drafted a “bribe menu” on official stationery, linking the size of defense contracts he would deliver with the size of payments he received. Too often, because of nepotism or connections, we turn governmental departments over to incompetent cronies. This type of ridiculous leadership was apparent in FEMA’s inability to cope with the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Corruption in the Iraq rebuilding effort is beyond dispute. Companies overcharged the government by tens of millions just for food and gasoline. The Coalition Provisional Authority official in charge of disbursing some 80 million in Iraq rebuilding efforts effectuated contracts by bribes and conspiracy. And really, why did we even blow up Iraq, just so we could build it back? The tax-burdened middle class was taxed heavily to first destroy Iraq and then taxed heavily again to rebuild it, all the while being gouged by corruption.
Or, consider SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation, who’s senior executives tend to be drawn from the government agencies it does business with, and which garners an annual intake from the federal government in excess of six billion, taking on most any project the government wants to outsource. The 100 million dollar computer system that SAIC set up for the FBI had to be abandoned, as did the 1.2 billion Trailblazer system it set up for the National Security Agency. The media venture it attempted in Iraq, ludicrous on its face, went nowhere. But SAIC continues to seek and win federal contracts.
It is corruption that we share with Rome.
Is the Image we project really us?
Americans harbor a lack of awareness of the rest of the world. High school students in Kiev and Kathmandu are better informed about the American Civil War and New Deal than students in Trenton or Omaha. Europeans are more likely than average Americans to have heard about Guantanamo and AbuGhraib .
Americans are viewed abroad as being loud, uncultured, insensitive, God-drunk, and highly materialistic. Islamists see America as the great Satan. The currently popular movie “American Sniper” depicts our forces bearing evil looking deadhead, craft skull insignia. Carter’s National Security Advisor once openly referred publicly to our allies as “vassals” and “tributaries”.
The Romans made a habit of publicly degrading the captured leaders of vanquished peoples. The photo below of prisoner Ali Shallal-al-Qaisi being tortured has become internationally famous, even appearing on the cover of “The Economist” magazine.
I recently heard a graduating high school senior remark: “France! That’s a place in Italy, right?” And not too along ago, I was playing Pictionary with an attorney friend and was aghast to see her draw South America, in an attempt to depict Africa! Sitting on a boat with a college graduate, I remarked about the brilliance of Mars on this particular night and I received the reply: “Come on man, you know you can’t see planets, only stars!” While vacationing at the beach I heard a women honestly inquire of another she had just met from Denmark: “Do ya’ll have cell phones over there?”
Most Americans are encapsulated in their own world. Many are nearly unconscious of the world they live in. A quarter of all high school seniors cannot name the ocean that separates North America from Asia. More than three quarters of Americans aged 18 to 24 can’t locate Iran or Iraq on a map. A third of young Americans believe you’d have to travel north, east or west to get from Japan to Australia. Only two of ten young Americans own a passport.
An experiment was taken by conducting a poll asking Americans about an entirely fictitious ethnic group that doesn’t even exist. What do you think about the, say Far-off-ians? Quite remarkably, the respondents gave the Faroffians a very low favorability ranking, of only 4 on a scale of 10!
It is naivety and arrogance that we share with Rome.
October 7, 2015
Are we Rome? Will the United States fall, just as Rome fell, and just as (more recently) the Soviet Union fell? Cullen Murphy sets out to address this question, and gives us a lot of interesting history, but in the end doesn’t provide us with a good answer to the question. I read this book in 2007 but didn't add it to Goodreads until just now.
His basic explanation of why Rome fell seems to be that the political system failed. He's on to something, but he's missing a critical element, namely, the economy and the underlying resource base. There are plenty of analogies here, and Murphy examines the capitals, the military, the relationship between public and private enterprise, the relationship between the empire and the rest of the world, and the problem of dealing with the borders. So if you want to go digging for these historical analogies, or just want a good historical read, Murphy’s book is a nice place to start.
But what if you want to know the actual answer to the question "Are we Rome?" The parallels which Murphy discovers are all basically political. All empires, ancient or modern, have capitals, borders, armies, and bureaucracies. They also have certain element of myopia and corruption. What exactly does this prove? Does having capitals, borders, armies, and bureaucracies mean that the empire will fall? Even if it will eventually fall, how do we know where on the trajectory we are? What’s underlying the politics of empire here?
Murphy suggests that corruption in government and ignorance of the outside world are significant factors we can avoid, but I seriously doubt that either of these was fundamental in Rome's fall. There is no indication that ignorance in any absolute sense was less in earlier Rome during its rise (or early America) than in later Rome (or present-day America). Societies in their decline often produce some of their greatest thinkers -- think of Socrates, Plato, and the decline of Athens, for example, or Porphyry, Tertullian, and Augustine during the decline of Rome.
"Corruption" is an even vaguer category. Corruption arises because there is a divide between private interest and public duty, and that the former dominates the latter. But if times are good, private interest and public duty typically coincide anyway. That's what it means to say that "times are good": you don't have to deal constantly with any heart-wrenching decisions and make any noble sacrifices and constantly repeat the Horatio-at-the-bridge thing. That's because your society is not in a perpetual state of crisis. If your society is in a perpetual state of crisis, eventually someone is going to give in to temptation.
So that corruption became a problem in Rome (or America) is just another way of saying that "times were bad," which is saying nothing. Moreover, what replaced the Roman Empire? Nothing. The Roman Empire was not "taken over" by the barbarians; it simply disappeared, and nothing really analogous to Rome was really attempted for over a thousand years, with the possible exception of Justinian, who bankrupted his empire trying to recapture Rome's legacy.
If a corrupt emperor (or two or three) had caused Rome's fall, some barbarian would surely have eventually figured out how to do the same thing right. Thus we have the "myth of Rome": that all it would have taken would have been a strong-willed, competent, and honest emperor (or a series of such emperors) to set things right. Rome had a number of strong-willed, competent, and honest emperors, including Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian. They were not able to save the empire, because they were unable to deal with the underlying problem. Murphy seems determined to invent a similar "myth of America," that a strong-willed, competent, and honest President or group of Americans could set America right again.
Now, Mrs. Laycock in my high school world history class, as well as in Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies, offered an obvious explanation: Rome fell for economic reasons, Rome had no industry. Nothing that the Romans or their subjects did that was fundamentally and notably better than what the barbarians did, it therefore lacked any economic reason for existence. This sort of industrial or trade base is the sort of thing which only happened much later, with the rise of modern Europe.
Given this lack of an economy, the real problem is not explaining Rome’s fall, but explaining its rise. And here the explanation is -- military might. Rome became great not because it was an efficient producer or trader of things which made life better, but because it was a great military power and could confiscate the things which made life better. Rome became rich by looting and pillaging.
However, looting and pillaging has limited economic utility. You can do it once, but eventually you’re going to run out of nations to loot and pillage, or they are going to become increasingly distant and difficult to subdue (Judea, Parthia). You can then raise taxes, but this too soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. You can rest on your laurels for a while -- in Rome’s case, for several hundred years -- but you won’t be able to continue raking money into the treasury at anything approaching the rate you did as you founded your empire. You can economize, maneuver, and delay but you can’t get around this basic fact in the long run.
Well, the United States doesn’t go around looting and pillaging other countries to get its wealth, does it? Isn’t there a fundamental dissimilarity here? Iraq and Vietnam are sometimes held out as examples of our empire-building attempts. Maybe, but so far Iraq has not been particularly profitable, there’s less oil produced now than under Saddam, and there wasn’t anything strategic in Vietnam to begin with. So doesn’t this analogy break down?
But there’s another angle here: while we haven’t looted and pillaged other countries so much (well, not very effectively, and that’s certainly not how we became great), we have been looting and pillaging nature. And like Rome’s adventure in empire, our industrial empire will soon hit the law of diminishing returns, because there’s only so much fossil fuel to pillage. Think: American society is built on the exploitation of natural resources generally and fossil fuels in particular. Think: this is non-renewable or unsustainable or both. Think: this is happening on a vast and previously unimaginable scale.
Cullen Murphy could have written a great book if he had focused on the fundamental reasons that Rome fell, and then tried to argue the pros and cons of whether these reasons apply to the United States. Instead he has written a book that focuses on more superficial similarities and ignores the underlying problems. Too bad.
Someone else may get a shot at writing such a history, but we’re running out of time. Crude oil production peaked in May 2005 and while we might, just might, see a slight uptick sometime later, it’s only a matter of time before the whole basis of modern industrial society enters a period of decline. It’s entirely possible that the United States will be deep in crisis, or worst case actually disappear, before some historian manages to point out the obvious and get it published.
His basic explanation of why Rome fell seems to be that the political system failed. He's on to something, but he's missing a critical element, namely, the economy and the underlying resource base. There are plenty of analogies here, and Murphy examines the capitals, the military, the relationship between public and private enterprise, the relationship between the empire and the rest of the world, and the problem of dealing with the borders. So if you want to go digging for these historical analogies, or just want a good historical read, Murphy’s book is a nice place to start.
But what if you want to know the actual answer to the question "Are we Rome?" The parallels which Murphy discovers are all basically political. All empires, ancient or modern, have capitals, borders, armies, and bureaucracies. They also have certain element of myopia and corruption. What exactly does this prove? Does having capitals, borders, armies, and bureaucracies mean that the empire will fall? Even if it will eventually fall, how do we know where on the trajectory we are? What’s underlying the politics of empire here?
Murphy suggests that corruption in government and ignorance of the outside world are significant factors we can avoid, but I seriously doubt that either of these was fundamental in Rome's fall. There is no indication that ignorance in any absolute sense was less in earlier Rome during its rise (or early America) than in later Rome (or present-day America). Societies in their decline often produce some of their greatest thinkers -- think of Socrates, Plato, and the decline of Athens, for example, or Porphyry, Tertullian, and Augustine during the decline of Rome.
"Corruption" is an even vaguer category. Corruption arises because there is a divide between private interest and public duty, and that the former dominates the latter. But if times are good, private interest and public duty typically coincide anyway. That's what it means to say that "times are good": you don't have to deal constantly with any heart-wrenching decisions and make any noble sacrifices and constantly repeat the Horatio-at-the-bridge thing. That's because your society is not in a perpetual state of crisis. If your society is in a perpetual state of crisis, eventually someone is going to give in to temptation.
So that corruption became a problem in Rome (or America) is just another way of saying that "times were bad," which is saying nothing. Moreover, what replaced the Roman Empire? Nothing. The Roman Empire was not "taken over" by the barbarians; it simply disappeared, and nothing really analogous to Rome was really attempted for over a thousand years, with the possible exception of Justinian, who bankrupted his empire trying to recapture Rome's legacy.
If a corrupt emperor (or two or three) had caused Rome's fall, some barbarian would surely have eventually figured out how to do the same thing right. Thus we have the "myth of Rome": that all it would have taken would have been a strong-willed, competent, and honest emperor (or a series of such emperors) to set things right. Rome had a number of strong-willed, competent, and honest emperors, including Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian. They were not able to save the empire, because they were unable to deal with the underlying problem. Murphy seems determined to invent a similar "myth of America," that a strong-willed, competent, and honest President or group of Americans could set America right again.
Now, Mrs. Laycock in my high school world history class, as well as in Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies, offered an obvious explanation: Rome fell for economic reasons, Rome had no industry. Nothing that the Romans or their subjects did that was fundamentally and notably better than what the barbarians did, it therefore lacked any economic reason for existence. This sort of industrial or trade base is the sort of thing which only happened much later, with the rise of modern Europe.
Given this lack of an economy, the real problem is not explaining Rome’s fall, but explaining its rise. And here the explanation is -- military might. Rome became great not because it was an efficient producer or trader of things which made life better, but because it was a great military power and could confiscate the things which made life better. Rome became rich by looting and pillaging.
However, looting and pillaging has limited economic utility. You can do it once, but eventually you’re going to run out of nations to loot and pillage, or they are going to become increasingly distant and difficult to subdue (Judea, Parthia). You can then raise taxes, but this too soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. You can rest on your laurels for a while -- in Rome’s case, for several hundred years -- but you won’t be able to continue raking money into the treasury at anything approaching the rate you did as you founded your empire. You can economize, maneuver, and delay but you can’t get around this basic fact in the long run.
Well, the United States doesn’t go around looting and pillaging other countries to get its wealth, does it? Isn’t there a fundamental dissimilarity here? Iraq and Vietnam are sometimes held out as examples of our empire-building attempts. Maybe, but so far Iraq has not been particularly profitable, there’s less oil produced now than under Saddam, and there wasn’t anything strategic in Vietnam to begin with. So doesn’t this analogy break down?
But there’s another angle here: while we haven’t looted and pillaged other countries so much (well, not very effectively, and that’s certainly not how we became great), we have been looting and pillaging nature. And like Rome’s adventure in empire, our industrial empire will soon hit the law of diminishing returns, because there’s only so much fossil fuel to pillage. Think: American society is built on the exploitation of natural resources generally and fossil fuels in particular. Think: this is non-renewable or unsustainable or both. Think: this is happening on a vast and previously unimaginable scale.
Cullen Murphy could have written a great book if he had focused on the fundamental reasons that Rome fell, and then tried to argue the pros and cons of whether these reasons apply to the United States. Instead he has written a book that focuses on more superficial similarities and ignores the underlying problems. Too bad.
Someone else may get a shot at writing such a history, but we’re running out of time. Crude oil production peaked in May 2005 and while we might, just might, see a slight uptick sometime later, it’s only a matter of time before the whole basis of modern industrial society enters a period of decline. It’s entirely possible that the United States will be deep in crisis, or worst case actually disappear, before some historian manages to point out the obvious and get it published.
October 8, 2017
Murphy brings his considerable knowledge of classical history and contemporary American politics to bear in this riveting account about the future of America. The final answer to the book's title question is both no and yes. No, because the differences that separate Rome and America are far from trivial, and no serious attempt to answer the question can blithely dismiss them as inconsequential. Yes, because, like its Roman forebears, America is letting its sense of superiority to blind it to the centrifugal forces tearing at the seams of its global empire.
"Are We Rome?" was published in 2007, and Murphy draws heavily from the US debacle in Iraq to make the case for American imperial overstretch. One feels he is on familiar ground here, and he quotes authoritatively from US military documents, diplomatic memoirs, and official dispatches. I wish Murphy would have recounted some of the central episodes which attended America's 19th century slide from republic into empire-- the Spanish-American War and the colonization of the Philippine Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, the Monroe Doctrine and its replacement by the Truman Doctrine, and-- especially --how the belief in Manifest Destiny drove a sense of inevitability about American empire from the very origins of the Republic.
One wonders what Murphy would have interpreted Trump. American Caligula? One can't help feeling that if "Are We Rome?" had been published in 2017, Murphy would have answered this question in the affirmative.
"Are We Rome?" was published in 2007, and Murphy draws heavily from the US debacle in Iraq to make the case for American imperial overstretch. One feels he is on familiar ground here, and he quotes authoritatively from US military documents, diplomatic memoirs, and official dispatches. I wish Murphy would have recounted some of the central episodes which attended America's 19th century slide from republic into empire-- the Spanish-American War and the colonization of the Philippine Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, the Monroe Doctrine and its replacement by the Truman Doctrine, and-- especially --how the belief in Manifest Destiny drove a sense of inevitability about American empire from the very origins of the Republic.
One wonders what Murphy would have interpreted Trump. American Caligula? One can't help feeling that if "Are We Rome?" had been published in 2017, Murphy would have answered this question in the affirmative.
March 18, 2020
I picked this up from my workplace library and decided to give it a whirl. I have always been fascinated by Roman history.
Overall, the book was short enough to be engaging, but lacked historical clarity regarding essential characters (both Roman and US) and Latin phrasing. Murphy writes in a way that assumes the reader already has a strong Roman history background. Additionally, I found the Latin catch phrases annoying only because I had to research what they were actually saying.
I felt this could have been organized more efficiently and with more clarity, as it seemed to jump around and got a bit flowery with imagery at times. Murphy’s writing is stimulating enough to push through the lack of historical explanation, but much will be lost on the common reader. That being said, there were several points in the book that I found illuminating.
Overall, the book was short enough to be engaging, but lacked historical clarity regarding essential characters (both Roman and US) and Latin phrasing. Murphy writes in a way that assumes the reader already has a strong Roman history background. Additionally, I found the Latin catch phrases annoying only because I had to research what they were actually saying.
I felt this could have been organized more efficiently and with more clarity, as it seemed to jump around and got a bit flowery with imagery at times. Murphy’s writing is stimulating enough to push through the lack of historical explanation, but much will be lost on the common reader. That being said, there were several points in the book that I found illuminating.
August 17, 2022
This work tries to use the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as a metaphor and possible warning for America. Between too much privatization, excessive use of the military for everything and a lack of expanding the idea that is America, there are many parallels, if you chose to follow them. However, the author seems to think that there is hope, if America can avoid some of those shortfalls.
Unfortunately, I am not sure the optimism aged. This work came about in the 2000s. Now in the 2020s, many of the issues discussed remain, as well as concern about leadership and stability of power. History does not repeat, but you could be thinking that it might just rhyme.
Reads like an extending Atlantic type essay. Fun exercise to see what ages well and what didn’t. Maybe worth a checkout but not to be lingered over.
Unfortunately, I am not sure the optimism aged. This work came about in the 2000s. Now in the 2020s, many of the issues discussed remain, as well as concern about leadership and stability of power. History does not repeat, but you could be thinking that it might just rhyme.
Reads like an extending Atlantic type essay. Fun exercise to see what ages well and what didn’t. Maybe worth a checkout but not to be lingered over.
November 9, 2017
I enjoyed the manner in which the author went about comparing present-day America to ancient Rome. Fortunately, this is not some convoluted or cherry-picked collection of traits that are only included because they support some "hot take" by an author just looking to make a name for himself.
The conclusion Murphy arrives at, near the end of the book, is somewhat surprising (in a good way), and he backs it up in a way that strongly leans on common sense and realism. The world is not ending, everyone, but there ARE things we each can and need to do if America is to avoid the fate of every empire/superpower that has preceded it.
The conclusion Murphy arrives at, near the end of the book, is somewhat surprising (in a good way), and he backs it up in a way that strongly leans on common sense and realism. The world is not ending, everyone, but there ARE things we each can and need to do if America is to avoid the fate of every empire/superpower that has preceded it.
January 26, 2021
Are We Rome, by Cullen Murphy, was written in 2007. However, Murphy’s observations of how America and the Roman Empire are similar (and different) still apply.
Murphy is a former editor of Atlantic Monthly and Vanity Fair, and his editorial skills show. Murphy's writing is exceptionally tight. Facts lead to logical conclusions and Are We Rome is chock full of interesting facts.
Here and there, like this reviewer, a reader might not fully agree with some of Murphy’s conclusions, but Murphy’s command of often disparate facts about Rome and American is truly amazing. His is a five-star book.
Murphy is a former editor of Atlantic Monthly and Vanity Fair, and his editorial skills show. Murphy's writing is exceptionally tight. Facts lead to logical conclusions and Are We Rome is chock full of interesting facts.
Here and there, like this reviewer, a reader might not fully agree with some of Murphy’s conclusions, but Murphy’s command of often disparate facts about Rome and American is truly amazing. His is a five-star book.
February 19, 2021
In the end, much ado about nothing. Murphy is pretty plan from the opening pages that the comparison between Rome and the United States is fraught with peril. The rest of the book is a bit wish washy, illustrating commonalities then undermining their applicability. In the final few pages, Murphy outlines a few things America can learn from the Roman Empire. In the end, though, it’s “America” that makes America different.
A few pleasant turns of phrase, and a refreshing return to a time in which we thought the Bush presidency was as bad as things could get. The essay doesn’t live up to the apocalyptic flavor text added by the publisher, but I don’t hold that against the author.
A few pleasant turns of phrase, and a refreshing return to a time in which we thought the Bush presidency was as bad as things could get. The essay doesn’t live up to the apocalyptic flavor text added by the publisher, but I don’t hold that against the author.
September 25, 2025
Basically a long drawn out analogy between Romes decline and the direction America has been heading in, based on 2008 standards. The discussion of the ever spreading disease that is corruption, or more simply put, quid pro quo, was a great lesson in the slow deterioration of trust in the roman government. It was also the most glaring and obvious similarity and potentially the most alarming. Although I do think the book leaves out discussions of the differences between the 2 nation-states that would have made a compare and contrast about American principles/systems and their ability to limit decay more fruitful.
September 30, 2025
I agree with other reviewers who found this book hard to get through. At times, it was the back-and-forth writing style that was a struggle, and at other times, I found the details about personalities in Ancient Rome to be unwieldy. I appreciated the points made by the author, just not the writing style. It is already remarkably out of date as well. Needs a revision to bring it up to date with examples that are more recent. The world changes too quickly to ignore the events of the past decade and increasing polarization + isolationism of 21 century politics.
February 7, 2019
A pretty decent mid-aughts comparative study on how Rome fell and the position the US was in vis-a-vis decline and fall circa 2006 or so. Obviously it rings a little outdated today (History is moving very fast) but it's a good look at the root of Rome falling and why comparing America's situation is a faulty premise but then highlights our perils. Really, in short, if you find yourself fascinated by Rome it's worth a perusal
September 23, 2020
I wanted to like this book, I really did. But, this book contains not much more than surface-level associations between Rome and the United States (e.g. "Rome had border neighbors that were less advanced than it was. America too!") and never really seriously attacks the question that comprises it's title: Are We Rome?
Might be a fun, casual read for those who don't have a lot of background knowledge on Rome, but if you're looking for a real discussion on the subject, look elsewhere.
Might be a fun, casual read for those who don't have a lot of background knowledge on Rome, but if you're looking for a real discussion on the subject, look elsewhere.
February 23, 2021
Nice presentation of the parallels between USA and the Roman Empire. This was written during the height of the Iraqi occupation so USA examples are a bit dated. Other than that, Mr. Murphy makes good arguments about military might, problems of privatization of public services, and the mind-set of citizens. He also draws an interesting comparison of today's immigration and the barbarian invasions of the empire. This is a good read to make one ponder the future of America.
July 4, 2024
Excellent book. Firstly it brings modern scholarship of Roman History out, and secondly it does talk about the parallels between USA and Rome and what if anything is to be done about them.
Well written easy read. If you have any kind of mild interest in history and modern day American politics, it's worth your time.
Caveat: it was published in 2007. I would love to hear what Murphy thinks about the last 8 years of American history.
Well written easy read. If you have any kind of mild interest in history and modern day American politics, it's worth your time.
Caveat: it was published in 2007. I would love to hear what Murphy thinks about the last 8 years of American history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews