Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the time the last Roman king was disposed in 509 B.C. and the beginning of the Roman Republic until Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476 A.D., the Roman Republic/Empire endured for just short of a millennium. If you include the Eastern Empire, (and they considered themselves "Romans", at least for a long time), they endured until the Ottoman Turks, with the aid of gunpowder allowing them to breech the protective walls, ended the Eastern Roman Empire yet another thousand years later, in 1453.
The United States at only 243 years young has a long, long way to go to reach the existence longevity of Rome. It would be truly amazing if the United States continues to exist in some recognizable form for two millennia, as did Rome. With today's divisiveness, it looks doubtful. But fret not, we'll overcome our current disagreements in due time, and reach an acceptable compromise. That's what this country is all about and what it does best.
All empires/superpowers or whatever you want to call them rise and then eventually fall. How low and other affects of said "falling" are another matter.
Great Britain was a superpower with a vast empire for centuries, until post WWII USA replaced them, but never the less Britain still is a major player on world stage.
China, India, and a few other Asian nations are where things are heading in future. Like USA once was the first two have vast populations that will soon move up into middle and above classes which will fuel dramatic changes.
For one thing India and China both have growing populations. While the USA's native born birth rate has been declining for years, especially of white non-Hispanic. If it wasn't for immigration (legal and illegal), USA would be almost or even as badly off as many European nations with declining populations.
Indeed all over western Europe decline in population is the largest threat, and will likely mean a huge shifting of alliances, politics and so forth over coming generations. Again if it wasn't for immigration France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and a few other EU nations would have seen worse population declines than they have already.
Telling for Europe is the same as with USA; whites (of European non-Hispanic race) are slowly seeing declines in birth rates that will sooner or later mean they are minority status.
Totally agree with you! I was going to make the exception of China, until I realized that their sheer numbers in population will help them weather the devastation from the almost global anti-natalist storm.
They are poised to become the top consumers of human trafficking due to their ‘de-femalization’ from one-child & sex-selection. If they take advantage of female importation; they can recover.
(Thank you feminists; the U.S. won’t be so lucky; we are depopulating co-ed style. You know, so we could achieve ‘equality’ without all those kids dragging us down; only to get sold to China?)
Anyway. I don’t think a fracture would be end-game. Rome suffered from Muslim invasions; we could too.
Rome split in two because it was too large to rule as a single power using the communication systems of the time. The U.S. doesn't have that particular problem.
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia did.
I wouldn't be surprised if California and Texas became part of Mexico by the end of the century - without a shot being fired. The demographic changes will allow it. Reconquista. Certain parts of California, like key military bases would remain part of the US.
If the US doesn't split into two or more countries OR if it doesn't allow voluntary segregation, the problems caused by diversity and multiculturalism initiatives will never go away.
What are we seeing in Europe - things similar to what is happening in the US?
I've read some ridiculous things on this forum before, but this has to rank at the top.
Anyway, to the OP, history clearly shows that all things come to an end, sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan
Like Rome? No, Rome fell partially because it had a lack of clear succession of leadership.
Coming to a real history question, this is an excellent point: Roman emperors were acclaimed by military men, praetorian guards and legionnaires, of dubious loyalty.
There were some periods of peaceful succession through family dynasty or by agreement among elders, but too often, especially during a long stretch in the middle 50 years of the 200s, almost every succession was determined by the sword.
"All our people are businessmen, their loyalty is based on that. Try to think as people around you think. Now on that basis anything is possible."
Diocletian and Constantine tried reforms, and they were partially successful for a while, in the west about another 150 years, in the east another 1,000.
One major weaknesses was poor land transport technology, and the Romans were defeated militarily in the north, with attacks coming from east to west until the northwestern quadrant was lost and slowly transformed into Europe.
By the time of Justinian, the empire, centered in the eastern Mediterranean, was reduced to its Mediterranean core, for a brief period as far as Spain (Baetica) and Africa (Carthage) and lasting, as mentioned, many, many centuries in the Aegean/Black Sea area.
I think one element that could lead to a break up of the US is if a locally sourced renewable energy as powerful as oil could completely replace it.
But we have touched upon just a few factors. The realty is multifaceted and much more complex.
1) What might happen in the future is not history.
2) As most of the replies have demonstrated, this thread is nothing more than an excuse for people to proclaim "YES, THE END OF THE U.S. WILL BE CAUSED BY [insert pet socio-political grievance here]!".
Rome's split was due to the fact that maintaining an empire of that size was a logistical and economic nightmare. Also many Roman provinces especially in areas like Gaul were nothing more then a drain on the empire so it wasn't pragmatic to hold onto them. The split when viewing it from an economic angle actually makes sense. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) was in essence a continuation of the Empire in a more reduced form but with all of the more wealthy and populated provinces.
I generally don't see very many parallels between Rome and the US but if we did split into two, one nation would be much wealthier then the other.
Thanks for sharing the graphics. I also remember that after Emperor Augustus / Octavianus repaired the infrastructure in Egypt, so that the sea trade to India blossomed again, more than half of the whole empire's taxes came from Egypt alone.
I wouldn't be surprised if California and Texas became part of Mexico by the end of the century - without a shot being fired.
I wouldn't be surprised in parts of Mexico became part of the United States by the end of the century - without a shot being fired!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
