The "crisis" lasted 50 years.  Sound familiar?

After Diocletian "solved" the crisis, Rome had another almost 2 centuries before collapse.

I think it could go either way.  Similar to Rome, we have constant peripheral wars, barbarian invasions and a debasement of our currency.

One significant difference is that we have an internal 5th column that Rome did not, but that could be easily solved and only exists because it is tolerated IMO.

The Crisis:

"The crisis began in 235 with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops. During the following 50-year period, the empire saw the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions and political instability, with multiple usurpers competing for power. This led to the debasement of currency and economic collapse, with the Plague of Cyprian contributing to the disorder. Roman troops became more reliant over time on the growing influence of the barbarian mercenaries known as foederati. Roman commanders in the field, although nominally working for Rome, became increasingly independent."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

Diocletian:

"Diocletian's reign stabilized the empire and ended the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian reigned in the Eastern Empire, and Maximian reigned in the Western Empire. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as junior colleagues (each with the title Caesar), under himself and Maximian respectively. Under the Tetrarchy, or "rule of four", each tetrarch would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire's borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Persia, the empire's traditional enemy, and in 299, he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favorable peace."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

I have no answers for your question OP. But do you have any recommendations for good books on the roman empire?

Honestly it could go either way or perhaps a different path entirely.

I'm personally hoping for a return to Constitutional sanity and a resurgence of American spirit. I do all I can towards that goal.

If so; it'd have to be a world wide collapse. Seeing as US has the fastest growing economy right now, and least amount inflation compared to everybody else and we're energy independent.

I like our chances. Our best days are still to come.

Did Rome fail?  Or do we now call the leader of the new Roman empire "His Holiness"?

Economic and contraction of empire.  We will survive.  Weiji.

I find the "empire" less interesting than the republic. Rome was the  public thing, the res publica (forgive my shitty latin) at first, but ultimately just became the Army.

Here's an interesting one, from my perspective, a bit dry but if you want to geek out upon the subject, it's good.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-roman-army-9780195328783?cc=us&lang=en&


Here's a really well done podcast, covering Rome soup to nuts as they say:

https://www.youtube.com/@-timaeus-9781/videos

Glad to see you posting, PP, good stuff as always. I hope you're well.

IMO, the internal enemies are too strong. Further, other great powers around the world will not sit idle while we screw ourselves up, they will gladly help push us along, fomenting more discord, and aiding any group that will cause more chaos/destruction. That will make collapse the far more likely scenario.

However it comes down, holding the Union together will eventually reach a point where the US becomes overtly and undeniably authoritarian. Whether that is a Leftist or something else, like an American Antonio Salazar. That would be nice.

The pontiff is certainly the rump of the Roman religious establishment, for sure.

Decorative but not effective, IMO

Very possible, even likely.

However, the debasement of currency problem needs to be fixed, IMO.

More like the Late Republic period, immediately prior to the Triumvirates and Civil Wars.


Loss of governmental legitimacy ("Not My President!"/"Election Stolen!", Erosion of the Judiciary's authority, etc).  Socio-economic crises as employment patterns shift and vast workforces are made redundant (in the Republic, it was slave-run Latifundia gobbling down Citizen Farmers' land and pushing them into the urban areas as a poor underclass....forming the eponymous Mob).  Open-ended military commitments exhausting both the treasury and the Citizens' willingness to Serve.  Currency crises.  Demagogues in every direction.

Maybe because much of my Roman history is consumption of History Channel shows and hollywood film. I have a difficult time seperating the Republic vs Imperial Rome. They feel like the same entity to me, just one has a King/Caesar.

We are so back!

I would say our collapse will be more like South Africa. Competence crisis and invaded by third worlders with low IQ.

It's a great combination for clown world viewing.  I can work full time and pay even more taxes, but why? I have completely checked out of society.

I have done foster parenting, mentored with big brother big sister, donated tens of thousands of dollars over the years. All that has come to an end ,fuck everybody.

The only way this ends is with a full blown police state or rivers of blood.

or both.

We burned that bridge in 2020.

I hope you're wrong OP. I hope I'm wrong. But I chose my sig line because I fear it reflects the current state of this nation that I love.

IMO we haven't been a republic since, at least, "direct election" of senators.

We've been an Empire for over a century.

Debt crisis is coming; we can't continue spending at the levels we do, and the politicians will continue trying to buy votes by running the printing presses.

They can keep the dog and pony show going for a while, but when that eventually comes to a head, the incompetent grifters we've elected will mismanage us into a full blown collapse.

The Republic was a very different political animal. Very different.

The early to mid republic, when they still respected their institutions, culture and legal norms?  That system produced absolutely amazing men both of patrician and plebian class.

I agree.

The illusion of Constitutional rule is over.

It was dead way before 2020 IMO.

It will be fixed when the US defaults through monetization AND we reject CBDC, thereby ending bancos los federales.  No more central planning.

I'd trace our decline starting with 1913 when legislation enacting the Fed Res was created as well as Prop 16.  The latter was supposed to apply only to the rich and enabled the spurious growth of a leviathan we call the Fed gubmint.  Ph*ck that traitor from Princeton, Woody Wilson.

Obama/Obiden did what they said they would do = Transform America.

Now America and the citizens are screwed.

Both, most likely both. All over the world too.

There are a number of scenarios. But if we have to stick to the Roman example then we will wind up with a narcisstic psychopathic man-baby with a whole lot of other psychological issues in charge who will be utterly OBSESSED with the concepts of power projection and spawning a suitable bloodline to run his glorious empire for at least a thousand years.

No more central planning?

No. The open Imperial days are yet to come. We approach the Social Wars.

Beyond the scope of this discussion, but the US Constitution died, after a long illness, in 1964.

Recent developments are only mold on the corpse. IMO.

Rome had been in decline for centuries prior to Diocletian.  It was in decline decades (if not a century) before Julius Caesar.

To argue that Rome had not already "collapsed" by the time of the crisis of the third century, or that it regained some of its former glory after Diocletian, is to overlook the fact that Rome and its culture would be unrecognizeable to a Roman from the early second century B.C.

We face a similar situation, though the level of demographic replacement we face is far greater than anything felt in most parts of Roman Italy.

I don't know if we're in 85 B.C., 45 B.C., A.D. 235, or A.D. 476.  All I know is that we are well and truly f*cked.  Unless we organize and make WWII's atrocities look tame, tens of thousands of years of human development will have been pissed away.

If you are going to use that analogy, I'd say the social wars already happened and in our case, Rome lost.

I agree, as I knew my perception about the Republic and Imperial Rome was not fully informed on the history of Rome.

Fed monetary policy picks the winners and losers but I guess you weren't aware of it.

I disagree we are in the late Republican, rape Spain and accumulate masses of wealth without sharing the gains with the soldiers (plebs) the won it. Those days. And of course there's the allies.

More like the late 4th century or early 5th century.   Rome was lead by a bunch of incompetent emperors who no longer put the nation in the fore front.  Though previous emperors had ruled the empire for their own personal benefit to a certain extent they still put the needs of the empire in the fore front of their strategies.  The emperors of the early 5th century were out for themselves no matter what the consequences for the empire.

The 3rd century though in crisis had several competent to outstanding emperors who rose to the occasion in the second half of the 3rd century and basically restored the empire over a period of a few decades.  

I do not see us having an Auerlian, Probus, Diocletian or even a Constantine on the horizon.

I wonder if Rome did indeed have a fifth column but it’s unknown to history?
Did certain wealthy elite pay the wages of all the town criers?

Will history mention the “deep state” other than to mock the term or not mention it at all in fifty years?

Thanks for the thought provoking excercise.

currency devaluation was the main factor IMO

It was more like the 17-19th century collapse of Spain. Both lost not only an empire but never recovered. They were great nations that slowly rotted from within. Neither had the common sense to see it coming. They became so corrupt, they had no clue how to recover, and the world's vultures picked their bones clean. We can't, won't even build a wall, enforce laws, or elect politicians who know how things work. All they can do is line their pockets.

The most hilarious thing about modern political thought is that we're so obsessed with "left" vs "right" that we've completely forgotten about the millennia long debate between monarchy and democracy. We've just decided that democracy has won despite it only existing as the prevalent form of government for a tiny fraction of human history.

It's a very open question if modern democracy (and even the modern conception of nation states) has hit its limits and is approaching its final stages as the particular conditions that gave it birth in the 18th century disappear - just as how the conditions that fostered the Roman and Greek republics gave way to much longer-lived empires.

The Plebs of that era were contributors, not cowed, disenfranchised bread and circus parasites like in the Imperial times.

We are in Imperial times.

Our formation of latifundia to enrich the Patrician/Senatorial class was the exportation of our manufacturing base overseas after the cold war, and replacing with "service" and "finance".

The plebs have already moved to Rome for the grain dole, bread and circus.

In our case that happened almost 30 years ago.

The U.S. might not be at a Rome Empire moment but D.C. is at a Monty Python moment.

That was just changing and in come brothers Gracchi.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

lol

We are definitely on a similar trajectory that many empires / civilizations face through the course of history.   I think the US won't completely collapse, and I don't think it will be quite like the collapse of the Roman Empire which more or less was a global collapse of the western world at that point in time.

I think we are sliding down a slope similar to past empires, and would say the Spanish and British are probably better predictors.    No longer will we be the #1 influence in the world.  That will be taken by China, either by force or by being there to swoop in after the US self destructs.

Many empires ultimately decline as a result of their own hubris and a loss of focus on actually operating the empire.   They go through a difficult period of retraction, but ultimately stabilize and settle into their new position in the world.

A few leading indicators to me:

Internal domestic policy in the US is intentionally dividing into an elite "ruling class" and a "peasant class" under the ruse of the government actually trying to improve the quality of life of the "under privileged."   Almost 1/3 of the US population is on some sort of social welfare with either federal or state funds.   Almost 1/2 of students in public schools are receiving some form of assistance.    While on the surface some of it may appear as buying votes, it is deeper than than and it is really consolidating power within tha truling class.   If a person is dependent on the government for basic survival they essentially become subjects to that government.

Social divisions are only deepening on the clear liberal / conservative battle lines.  For the religious folks in the room, there is a clear line there too with Christians and non-Christians.   Society will spend increasing time and resources fighting those fights than focusing on day to day needs of survival.

The US job market is increasingly dependent on trade as a major economic driver, vs. production of goods (ag, manufacturing, energy) meaning more and more people are not actually creating a physical product with value, and rather just part of a value chain.   Free market economics is actually going to hurt us there as it puts pressure to reduce costs, often by outsourcing and job cuts, which only adds to the first point above.

China is actively working to establish its currency as an alternative to the dollar, which will further devalue the dollar and therefore the United States economic influence globally.   Much of our power is derived from our economic influence.   I expect once that happens the "Cold War II" with China escalates and China basically tries to do what we did to the USSR... forces us into bankruptcy  by having to keep pace on military spending at the expense of domestic spending.  Eventually it will all collapse.

"They" whoever "they" are...destroyed the middle class on purpose because this was a system that actually required the "consent of the governed."

("Grind them between the twin millstones of inflation and taxation"--Some guy, who "they" admire because of philosophy)

The real "currency" is power.

I think we're more looking at ~50 B.C. Rome.  Civil War followed by Empire.

Another thing people need to understand is that Rome is not equivalent to America...or Britain...or France...or Spain...

Rome is equivalent to the West - Christendom - whatever you want to call it.  The West has been brutalizing itself in earnest since the protestant reformation: the 30 Years War, the English Civil War, the French Revolution, World War I, World War II...

Think of that when thinking about where we fall on the Roman timeline.

I have no idea.  I'm just here to say that I'm glad to see the OP posting again.

So was the Roman Republic, since they beat the Carthaginians (third, and final, time) and started smacking down the Hellenic Successor States.

The "pull" from trying to manage half the Mediterranean Basin from Rome caused massive social and economic (and, thus, political) upheavals.  Finally placing true power into the hands of the Generals (and the Governors), not the Senate, while paupering most of the Roman plebeian class (making them dependent on whoever would be their champion and make sure bread and fish was distributed).

Our precipitous decline was written into our founding with the majority of the founders understanding of liberty really being more akin to unbridled licence to do whatever anyone wants.  That's why we have such a moral decline being followed by a political economic decline.  As the family dies, so does the republic.  No question we are headed to an authoritarian despotic oligarchy.

My first thought.  Awesome to see you back.