Interesting discussion. I have a new movie to view one of these days. Megalopolis. It deals with this and the possible future. Should be good I hear, we shall see.
There's nothing wrong with trying to avoid the mistakes of the past. Every nation has its time, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't strive for the survival of our nation and our people.
America is not the New Rome. There have already been two "New Romes" since the first one fell—Constantinople and Moscow. We just don't recognize them, because we are not heirs to them in the West. While anyone who lives in a modern nation benefits from the original Roman system of administration and infrastructure, that's all just engineering. Empire thrive or collapse for reasons other than engineering—some of them include things we vaguely call "culture" but should specifically identify as "religion."
Contrary to what we distant children of the Enlightenment assume, the Roman Empire was an thoroughly religious world. Rituals, liturgies, and worship held it together. The Byzantines continued this tradition through Constantinople's religious transformation of the Roman Empire to Christianity. After the fall of that city to the Turks in 1453 this legacy was carried on in Russia via the marriage of Byzantine princess Sophia Paleiologina to Ivan III and other forces. As the saying goes: "Two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth."
The question of administration and infrastructure is a dodgy one when it comes to that Third Rome. At times it's been abysmally underdeveloped and at other times it's been catastrophically implemented. But whether it was Orthodox Christianity or Soviet atheism, the Russian Rome has preserved the cultural dimension of its imperial identity—you can worship God or the State, but you must worship something. As Ivan Karamazov's "Grand Inquisitor" puts it: "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship."
While it has certainly adopted many principles and strategies from the First Rome, America has never bothered to cultivate a unified liturgy or civic religion for its citizens. For many, this omission is a happy one, but it is a essential ingredient to the Three Romes. We might be an empire, but we're not a Roman one.
Excellent. I long ago concluded that our comparison with Rome was wishful thinking and that we are much closer to Carthage than Rome. I’d love to see someone write a book making that comparison.
I can see the title now: “Americo delenda est”? On that angle, you should read Chesterton’s take on Carthage in The Everlasting Man—it helped me understand the brutality of civilization.
Great post. I’ll note that Harry Jaffa of Claremont tried. His portrait of Lincoln as some anointed prophet, the holy crusade, the eternal union, etc. fine but for the fact that every bit of is bullshit.
What do you recommend as a solid history of Byzantium? most of what i know is through theological history (being Orthodox) but I am missing a lot. i read the Norwich books a long time ago.
Norwich’s A Short History of Byzantium was my introduction years ago. Since then, I’ve dipped into his full trilogy a few times (I. Early Centuries, II. Apogee, III. Decline and Fall) and it would great for a season. But if you already read all of those, maybe try Fr John Strickland’s first volume of his four part Christian history: Paradise and Utopia. In terms of Russian history, one of my favorite books is “The Icon and the Axe.”
The curia wasn't (isn't) round. Caracalla was a despot. None of Rome's various assemblies - the comitia centuriata & tributa, & the consilium plebis - were even remotely similar to what we moderns would describe as 'democratic,' let alone the archly aristocratic senate.
The lesson from Rome, if there be one, for America today is the overly litigious nature of republics in their declining decades and the, at first, gradual then rapid weakening of legitimate governance over that period: America's collapse will come quickly, when it comes.
Still, I'd guess that the US is really only at the Sulla stage - so to speak - as Trump, or his handlers at least, seeks to actualise some sort of distorted vision of an earlier age, with revivified constitutional frameworks. It didn't work then & it won't now.
On the upside, imperial Rome was a deal more assertive & militaristically more powerful than republican Rome, so we might well see, after a period of uncertainty, a more muscular approach to the maintenance of the Pax Americana - no pun intended! - but it will come at an even greater cost in lives lost & her various satrapies despoiled. Against that, one must remember that, howsoever mighty the legions were, they didn't have nukes, & neither did their opponents.
The similarities are unmistakable. America has such an interesting history and way of viewing itself. In my extensive studies of history, geography, and geopolitics, there is not a single nation quite like the United States; whose identity is based on inherent, divine rights of the individual. The first country to almost rip itself apart for the sake of freeing its slaves was the United States of America. Contrary to popular belief, American history has many virtues that we should acknowledge.
The parallels are fascinating, but the virtue of the American people themselves isn't the key. Americans are no different to any other collection of human beings in history, and I'm sure the founders knew that. The only real difference in America (and every other modern democracy) is that the people have been given a responsibility too, namely using their right to free speech and government transparency to hold the legislature accountable.
If you fail in this duty and cannot hold your leaders accountable for their actions, or choose not to for partisan reasons, then you will be on the same slippery slope as Rome.
The hubris of thinking there is any objective comparison between Rome and- which brought centuries of peace to the world - and the US, is one of the clearest reasons that makes a mockery of this comparison. That’s before one considers that Rome brought deeply humanistic concepts such as the fairness and equanimity that a civil law system brings to many barbaric kingdoms, while the US inherited its own concepts of freedom from European nations. Being inspired by Roman ideals and being an ‘empire’ in the Roman sense (and Republican and Imperial Rome are two different beasts) are very different indeed.
It is not "hubris" to recognize that the Founding Fathers were avid admirers of the Roman Republic; nor is it hubris to recognize that the Founders' fondness of Rome and its myths heavily influenced the United States to this day. Furthermore, it was the American Revolution that inspired nations like France, Brazil, many nations of South America and Caribbean to revolt against the European colonizers. And the American Revolution would have not happened had Europe not persecuted the very people who would create Americe; had it not been so authoritarian in its dealing with the colonists. To claim all America's successes as "European" is a willful misunderstanding of American culture and identity. That's to say, America is fundamentally anti-European in its ideas. If you need proof of this, look at the horrors of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution. Even the Founding Fathers refused to support France in its ambitions. That's a point in history where you can see a distinct "American" identity.
Your points bear no relation to either the OP or my own assertion though - we are talking about whether the article (or the rather misleading title, actually) comparing the US to Rome, as Far Right fantasists like Elon Musk who know precious little history are wont to do lately, has any historical merit. I only mentioned Europe to make the point that however well the Founding Fathers implemented Montesquieu’s doctrine on the separation of powers in their new democracy, this concept of freedom was inherited from the Enlightenment (in Europe) and not created ex novo, as the Roman civil law system that transformed the known world was.
I'm aware of your assertions. The reason I wrote about the Founding Fathers' fondness of Rome and its Republic and their influence on the US, was my argument for why there *is* historical merit to compare the US to Rome. The influence Rome had on America is evident in the way the Founding Fathers wrote the separation of powers. And the influence and power the United States has gained overshadows that of Rome. So the comparison is fair in my view. Secondly, the reason I mentioned the impact the American Revolution had on other countries was to emphasize how the American view of freedom has a unique impact of its own; and how American freedom was not purely a European idea. The Constitution, Bill or Rights, and the American ideal of freedom were and are, uniquely American. While it's true that freedom was an idea from the Enlightenment (and an idea far before that period), the US had a different view of "freedom" than Europe did; and it seems you understated the influence the US had on the world at that time and currently. If my reasoning wasn't clear, then my apologies. As for Elon Musk and the Far Right, that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
I agree with you that the American idea of freedom has been unique and sustained for a long period. I don’t think I’ve understated US influence on the world relative to the Roman comparison - the Pax Romana has not been close to being equalled for breadth (in the known world at the time) or longevity in history. And while I agree the inspiration the Founding Fathers took from Roman Republican ideals, separation of powers (esp independence of the judiciary) was certainly not an antique doctrine but one devised by Montesquieu. In fact if we look at the biggest indicator of what would bring a subsequent republic or empire to be compared what metric would we use? I suggest it’d be how far and deeply the laws and cultural norms have been emulated and appropriated by the ‘colonised’ nations (let’s make no mistake, if one thinks of the US as an empire - which it likely isn’t and it’s indicative this narrative has started abounding just when pre-WW2 expansionism is being revived by Trump - then everywhere else has to be thought of in terms of colonised or rival kingdom). The statute books of countries from France, Italy, the US, and a host of others retain to this day many institutes born and spread by Rome. What would the USA’s legacy be if we were to analyze it in this key?
The issue of how this narrative has been seized by the Far Right lately - and relevance - in my view relates precisely to timing (now) of the OP, and what imho is the hubris and naïveté of the proponents of this theory.
I see, you believe the Far-Right view the United States as the Roman Empire; desiring to conquer and to expand its territory. And you have a very simplistic, post-modernist view on empires. For example, you say if there is an empire, that everyone else must be viewed as colonized or a rival kingdom. But this is already the case.
We in the modern era may think we are so beyond the old ways of human history, but in actuality, nothing has changed. You talk about the technicalities of what it takes to be an empire; you can talk about how the US "technically" doesn't have colonies, or hasn't been around as long as Rome. But make no mistake, the modern Superpower of the United States is the modern-day equivalent of an empire; a vast one at that. Its ways of "conquering" are economic. Its ways of swaying the views of the world and subduing its people are entertainment. Its way of enforcing its interests is controlling the global trade routes on the earth's oceans with its Navy. The US does not even need to fire a shot to get what it wants. It merely whispers and the world falls like dominos.
This is why I say that the power the US holds overshadows anything the Roman Empire could ever dream of. The US' legacy is still being established, but its shameless pursuit of freedom, constitutionalism and democracy (rightly or wrongly) will far outlast America as a country.
A good example of how potent US influence is would be the example of the Prime Minister of Canada resigning. Trump wanted a specific thing from Trudeau; he wanted him to get control over the mass illegal and legal immigration in Canada, and to fix the trade deficit with Canada. Then, Trump added that if Canada didn't do these things, it might as well become the 51st state since it can't take care of itself. And Trump ran with this joke. Trudeau didn't want to give in the Trump's demands, and his cabinet felt so threated by Trump's tariff threats and jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state, that the Second in command of Canada resigned. Soon after, the Prime Minister of Canada resigned as well.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted. He didn't want Canada; he wanted Trudeau gone, and he wanted Canada to fall in line. And that's what happened. Similar things can be said about Greenland and the Panama canal. Trump wants to *buy* Greenland and the canal back to keep America's influence over its region in the world. This is a new reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and aligns with how the US "conquers;" through money. It likes to buy land and uses tariffs and sanctions as a weapon. However, the modern US under Trump does not want to conquer for the sake of it, it wants to maintain its global hegemony among its rising rivals.
So, all this talk about buying specific countries in North America is a form of American protectionism and a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. It's not purely colonization or expansion for the sake of it. This is to expand America's ability to protect its interests; as any good empire would.
We may call colonies "territories" now, or rival kingdoms "adversaries," but the idea is the same. Humanity's desperation to secure resources and advantages for their favored tribe goes beyond political identity, right into the soul of human nature. I am not surprised by how the political pendulum has swung to the Right. The Left is just as much to blame for the rise of Trump as the Right is.
Ah, now I see where you’re coming from. I disagree on most of your views but I get why you bristled at my characterising this Far Right obsession as empty hubris. I’ll tell you one thing though - if there were any truth to these fantasies about American nationalistic ‘greatness’ bandied about by Trump he wouldn’t have been elected on the platform he has - of America markedly NOT being ‘great’ any more.
And of course America WAS great for a while - when the Berlin Wall came down and free market capitalism made new middle classes in many countries prosperous, when America stood for a discernible set of values and freedoms based on multilateralism and respect for the rule of law and democracy; when they united a coalition of peace loving nations after they were attacked on 9/11 to fight together against Taleban barbarism.
All that is long gone and this rubbish you’re quoting about Greenland and Canada is just pseudo-fascism by a small coterie of deluded plutocrats who think portraying themselves as Julius Caesar through boosted algorithms can keep the unwashed masses distracted from the damage they’re doing to a world order that had stood for decades.
Rome has been a model for many countries; not only the United States has based its parliaments, frescoes, palaces, etc., on the classical model. Defining the USA as heirs of Rome is at least questionable, considering the centuries that separate the two institutions.
While I agree that Rome was of great influence on our founders, I have to point out the fact that the Bible and Christian morality was more so, and is the salvation of our nation, if there is to be one.
Yes all true, but let’s not forget the actions of Rome on the vassal states. And the price it paid in the end. America, with the likes of trump will be a lesser power after four years. Beware the goths and vandals.
The founding fathers use of the Republic’s mixed constitution is so interesting. Even in the ancient world (as I discuss in more detail here: https://open.substack.com/pub/allancienthistory/p/do-all-democracies-have-to-die?r=1hsf85&utm_medium=ios) the republican balance of powers was recognised as an exceptional system - one which, it was hoped then as now, might slow or even prevent the decline into corruption, chaos, and eventual revolution that was thought to be the inevitable fate any form of government.
I had no knowledge about 'The Apotheosis Of Washington'. I learnt a fair lot by reading this your article. It also brought back what I remembered from five years of Latin (compulsory in Switzerland, with the inclusion of Roman history). Thank you!
A nation that openly mocks God, sacrifices its children and promotes things that God finds detestable will not stand. God is good, we need to get back to worshiping Him… and not all our idols. There are other empires who practice much less freedom, by our failure… they rise.
Great side by side images. All empires fall after 250 years. Let's do everything we can to help American avoid that fate.
We must carry the fire: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/carry-the-fire-civilization-free-speech
Interesting discussion. I have a new movie to view one of these days. Megalopolis. It deals with this and the possible future. Should be good I hear, we shall see.
Why does America think it is the only Empire in history that won't be affected by natural cycles?
There's nothing wrong with trying to avoid the mistakes of the past. Every nation has its time, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't strive for the survival of our nation and our people.
Just signed up for the Hillsdale course--thank you for such informative content (both on Substack & X).
It's a really beautifully put together course, enjoy! Thanks Kate.
America is not the New Rome. There have already been two "New Romes" since the first one fell—Constantinople and Moscow. We just don't recognize them, because we are not heirs to them in the West. While anyone who lives in a modern nation benefits from the original Roman system of administration and infrastructure, that's all just engineering. Empire thrive or collapse for reasons other than engineering—some of them include things we vaguely call "culture" but should specifically identify as "religion."
Contrary to what we distant children of the Enlightenment assume, the Roman Empire was an thoroughly religious world. Rituals, liturgies, and worship held it together. The Byzantines continued this tradition through Constantinople's religious transformation of the Roman Empire to Christianity. After the fall of that city to the Turks in 1453 this legacy was carried on in Russia via the marriage of Byzantine princess Sophia Paleiologina to Ivan III and other forces. As the saying goes: "Two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth."
The question of administration and infrastructure is a dodgy one when it comes to that Third Rome. At times it's been abysmally underdeveloped and at other times it's been catastrophically implemented. But whether it was Orthodox Christianity or Soviet atheism, the Russian Rome has preserved the cultural dimension of its imperial identity—you can worship God or the State, but you must worship something. As Ivan Karamazov's "Grand Inquisitor" puts it: "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship."
While it has certainly adopted many principles and strategies from the First Rome, America has never bothered to cultivate a unified liturgy or civic religion for its citizens. For many, this omission is a happy one, but it is a essential ingredient to the Three Romes. We might be an empire, but we're not a Roman one.
Excellent. I long ago concluded that our comparison with Rome was wishful thinking and that we are much closer to Carthage than Rome. I’d love to see someone write a book making that comparison.
I can see the title now: “Americo delenda est”? On that angle, you should read Chesterton’s take on Carthage in The Everlasting Man—it helped me understand the brutality of civilization.
i'll take a look
Great post. I’ll note that Harry Jaffa of Claremont tried. His portrait of Lincoln as some anointed prophet, the holy crusade, the eternal union, etc. fine but for the fact that every bit of is bullshit.
A minor detail 😂
What do you recommend as a solid history of Byzantium? most of what i know is through theological history (being Orthodox) but I am missing a lot. i read the Norwich books a long time ago.
Norwich’s A Short History of Byzantium was my introduction years ago. Since then, I’ve dipped into his full trilogy a few times (I. Early Centuries, II. Apogee, III. Decline and Fall) and it would great for a season. But if you already read all of those, maybe try Fr John Strickland’s first volume of his four part Christian history: Paradise and Utopia. In terms of Russian history, one of my favorite books is “The Icon and the Axe.”
The curia wasn't (isn't) round. Caracalla was a despot. None of Rome's various assemblies - the comitia centuriata & tributa, & the consilium plebis - were even remotely similar to what we moderns would describe as 'democratic,' let alone the archly aristocratic senate.
The lesson from Rome, if there be one, for America today is the overly litigious nature of republics in their declining decades and the, at first, gradual then rapid weakening of legitimate governance over that period: America's collapse will come quickly, when it comes.
Still, I'd guess that the US is really only at the Sulla stage - so to speak - as Trump, or his handlers at least, seeks to actualise some sort of distorted vision of an earlier age, with revivified constitutional frameworks. It didn't work then & it won't now.
On the upside, imperial Rome was a deal more assertive & militaristically more powerful than republican Rome, so we might well see, after a period of uncertainty, a more muscular approach to the maintenance of the Pax Americana - no pun intended! - but it will come at an even greater cost in lives lost & her various satrapies despoiled. Against that, one must remember that, howsoever mighty the legions were, they didn't have nukes, & neither did their opponents.
Buckle up, Snowflakes...
The similarities are unmistakable. America has such an interesting history and way of viewing itself. In my extensive studies of history, geography, and geopolitics, there is not a single nation quite like the United States; whose identity is based on inherent, divine rights of the individual. The first country to almost rip itself apart for the sake of freeing its slaves was the United States of America. Contrary to popular belief, American history has many virtues that we should acknowledge.
The parallels are fascinating, but the virtue of the American people themselves isn't the key. Americans are no different to any other collection of human beings in history, and I'm sure the founders knew that. The only real difference in America (and every other modern democracy) is that the people have been given a responsibility too, namely using their right to free speech and government transparency to hold the legislature accountable.
If you fail in this duty and cannot hold your leaders accountable for their actions, or choose not to for partisan reasons, then you will be on the same slippery slope as Rome.
The hubris of thinking there is any objective comparison between Rome and- which brought centuries of peace to the world - and the US, is one of the clearest reasons that makes a mockery of this comparison. That’s before one considers that Rome brought deeply humanistic concepts such as the fairness and equanimity that a civil law system brings to many barbaric kingdoms, while the US inherited its own concepts of freedom from European nations. Being inspired by Roman ideals and being an ‘empire’ in the Roman sense (and Republican and Imperial Rome are two different beasts) are very different indeed.
It is not "hubris" to recognize that the Founding Fathers were avid admirers of the Roman Republic; nor is it hubris to recognize that the Founders' fondness of Rome and its myths heavily influenced the United States to this day. Furthermore, it was the American Revolution that inspired nations like France, Brazil, many nations of South America and Caribbean to revolt against the European colonizers. And the American Revolution would have not happened had Europe not persecuted the very people who would create Americe; had it not been so authoritarian in its dealing with the colonists. To claim all America's successes as "European" is a willful misunderstanding of American culture and identity. That's to say, America is fundamentally anti-European in its ideas. If you need proof of this, look at the horrors of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution. Even the Founding Fathers refused to support France in its ambitions. That's a point in history where you can see a distinct "American" identity.
Your points bear no relation to either the OP or my own assertion though - we are talking about whether the article (or the rather misleading title, actually) comparing the US to Rome, as Far Right fantasists like Elon Musk who know precious little history are wont to do lately, has any historical merit. I only mentioned Europe to make the point that however well the Founding Fathers implemented Montesquieu’s doctrine on the separation of powers in their new democracy, this concept of freedom was inherited from the Enlightenment (in Europe) and not created ex novo, as the Roman civil law system that transformed the known world was.
I'm aware of your assertions. The reason I wrote about the Founding Fathers' fondness of Rome and its Republic and their influence on the US, was my argument for why there *is* historical merit to compare the US to Rome. The influence Rome had on America is evident in the way the Founding Fathers wrote the separation of powers. And the influence and power the United States has gained overshadows that of Rome. So the comparison is fair in my view. Secondly, the reason I mentioned the impact the American Revolution had on other countries was to emphasize how the American view of freedom has a unique impact of its own; and how American freedom was not purely a European idea. The Constitution, Bill or Rights, and the American ideal of freedom were and are, uniquely American. While it's true that freedom was an idea from the Enlightenment (and an idea far before that period), the US had a different view of "freedom" than Europe did; and it seems you understated the influence the US had on the world at that time and currently. If my reasoning wasn't clear, then my apologies. As for Elon Musk and the Far Right, that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
I agree with you that the American idea of freedom has been unique and sustained for a long period. I don’t think I’ve understated US influence on the world relative to the Roman comparison - the Pax Romana has not been close to being equalled for breadth (in the known world at the time) or longevity in history. And while I agree the inspiration the Founding Fathers took from Roman Republican ideals, separation of powers (esp independence of the judiciary) was certainly not an antique doctrine but one devised by Montesquieu. In fact if we look at the biggest indicator of what would bring a subsequent republic or empire to be compared what metric would we use? I suggest it’d be how far and deeply the laws and cultural norms have been emulated and appropriated by the ‘colonised’ nations (let’s make no mistake, if one thinks of the US as an empire - which it likely isn’t and it’s indicative this narrative has started abounding just when pre-WW2 expansionism is being revived by Trump - then everywhere else has to be thought of in terms of colonised or rival kingdom). The statute books of countries from France, Italy, the US, and a host of others retain to this day many institutes born and spread by Rome. What would the USA’s legacy be if we were to analyze it in this key?
The issue of how this narrative has been seized by the Far Right lately - and relevance - in my view relates precisely to timing (now) of the OP, and what imho is the hubris and naïveté of the proponents of this theory.
I see, you believe the Far-Right view the United States as the Roman Empire; desiring to conquer and to expand its territory. And you have a very simplistic, post-modernist view on empires. For example, you say if there is an empire, that everyone else must be viewed as colonized or a rival kingdom. But this is already the case.
We in the modern era may think we are so beyond the old ways of human history, but in actuality, nothing has changed. You talk about the technicalities of what it takes to be an empire; you can talk about how the US "technically" doesn't have colonies, or hasn't been around as long as Rome. But make no mistake, the modern Superpower of the United States is the modern-day equivalent of an empire; a vast one at that. Its ways of "conquering" are economic. Its ways of swaying the views of the world and subduing its people are entertainment. Its way of enforcing its interests is controlling the global trade routes on the earth's oceans with its Navy. The US does not even need to fire a shot to get what it wants. It merely whispers and the world falls like dominos.
This is why I say that the power the US holds overshadows anything the Roman Empire could ever dream of. The US' legacy is still being established, but its shameless pursuit of freedom, constitutionalism and democracy (rightly or wrongly) will far outlast America as a country.
A good example of how potent US influence is would be the example of the Prime Minister of Canada resigning. Trump wanted a specific thing from Trudeau; he wanted him to get control over the mass illegal and legal immigration in Canada, and to fix the trade deficit with Canada. Then, Trump added that if Canada didn't do these things, it might as well become the 51st state since it can't take care of itself. And Trump ran with this joke. Trudeau didn't want to give in the Trump's demands, and his cabinet felt so threated by Trump's tariff threats and jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state, that the Second in command of Canada resigned. Soon after, the Prime Minister of Canada resigned as well.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted. He didn't want Canada; he wanted Trudeau gone, and he wanted Canada to fall in line. And that's what happened. Similar things can be said about Greenland and the Panama canal. Trump wants to *buy* Greenland and the canal back to keep America's influence over its region in the world. This is a new reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and aligns with how the US "conquers;" through money. It likes to buy land and uses tariffs and sanctions as a weapon. However, the modern US under Trump does not want to conquer for the sake of it, it wants to maintain its global hegemony among its rising rivals.
So, all this talk about buying specific countries in North America is a form of American protectionism and a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. It's not purely colonization or expansion for the sake of it. This is to expand America's ability to protect its interests; as any good empire would.
We may call colonies "territories" now, or rival kingdoms "adversaries," but the idea is the same. Humanity's desperation to secure resources and advantages for their favored tribe goes beyond political identity, right into the soul of human nature. I am not surprised by how the political pendulum has swung to the Right. The Left is just as much to blame for the rise of Trump as the Right is.
Ah, now I see where you’re coming from. I disagree on most of your views but I get why you bristled at my characterising this Far Right obsession as empty hubris. I’ll tell you one thing though - if there were any truth to these fantasies about American nationalistic ‘greatness’ bandied about by Trump he wouldn’t have been elected on the platform he has - of America markedly NOT being ‘great’ any more.
And of course America WAS great for a while - when the Berlin Wall came down and free market capitalism made new middle classes in many countries prosperous, when America stood for a discernible set of values and freedoms based on multilateralism and respect for the rule of law and democracy; when they united a coalition of peace loving nations after they were attacked on 9/11 to fight together against Taleban barbarism.
All that is long gone and this rubbish you’re quoting about Greenland and Canada is just pseudo-fascism by a small coterie of deluded plutocrats who think portraying themselves as Julius Caesar through boosted algorithms can keep the unwashed masses distracted from the damage they’re doing to a world order that had stood for decades.
Rome has been a model for many countries; not only the United States has based its parliaments, frescoes, palaces, etc., on the classical model. Defining the USA as heirs of Rome is at least questionable, considering the centuries that separate the two institutions.
While I agree that Rome was of great influence on our founders, I have to point out the fact that the Bible and Christian morality was more so, and is the salvation of our nation, if there is to be one.
Yes all true, but let’s not forget the actions of Rome on the vassal states. And the price it paid in the end. America, with the likes of trump will be a lesser power after four years. Beware the goths and vandals.
The founding fathers use of the Republic’s mixed constitution is so interesting. Even in the ancient world (as I discuss in more detail here: https://open.substack.com/pub/allancienthistory/p/do-all-democracies-have-to-die?r=1hsf85&utm_medium=ios) the republican balance of powers was recognised as an exceptional system - one which, it was hoped then as now, might slow or even prevent the decline into corruption, chaos, and eventual revolution that was thought to be the inevitable fate any form of government.
I had no knowledge about 'The Apotheosis Of Washington'. I learnt a fair lot by reading this your article. It also brought back what I remembered from five years of Latin (compulsory in Switzerland, with the inclusion of Roman history). Thank you!
Old Rome, Washington DC was originally titled Rome!
A nation that openly mocks God, sacrifices its children and promotes things that God finds detestable will not stand. God is good, we need to get back to worshiping Him… and not all our idols. There are other empires who practice much less freedom, by our failure… they rise.