Civilization #32: Rome's Rise, Fall, and Legacy

The rise and fall of the Roman Empire. And this topic is extremely relevant today because there's a country in the world that purposefully modeled itself after Rome, and this country is the United States of America. The similarities between Rome and the United States are very striking. Both of these societies were, of their time, the most powerful nations. Rome dominated the Western world for centuries, and today America is the world's most powerful nation.

In fact, America is so powerful that if the entire world were to get together, decide for whatever reason to invade and attack America, and not stop until America was defeated, well, if that were to happen, America would win. America is really invincible. It's protected by two oceans, and it has infinite resources, and it has an extremely aggressive population and the world's most sophisticated military.

By studying Rome, we gather insight into America, where America is right now in its history and where America is headed. And the central argument I will make to you is that both of these societies, Rome and America, are really war machines. They're extremely aggressive, and if they cannot turn their aggression outwards, they turn their aggression inwards.

Rome throughout its history was either fighting wars against its enemies, and then when it ran out of enemies, it fought wars within itself, which ultimately led to its decline and collapse. America is in a very similar situation. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, America became a hyperpower. It had no competitors. It has no peers in the world. Even though it tries very hard to look for enemies, for example, for the past ten years America has been trying to paint China as a new threat, America really has no adversaries. And as a result, it can't really be aggressive abroad. If the history of Rome is an indicator, it will lead to a massive civil war in America in the next ten years. That's what the history of Rome tells us.

1. I want to look at three questions. The first question is why did Rome rise? What allowed Rome to become an empire, a superpower of its time?
2. The second question is why did Rome ultimately decline and fall?
3. The third question is what is the legacy of Rome? What is the impact and influence of Rome in today's world?

Why Did Rome Rise?

Let's look at the first question. Rome, the tradition, we don't actually know if this is true or not, but the tradition is that Rome was founded in 753 BCE. And for that early history, Rome was a monarchy. It had a king. Then in 509 BCE, it became a republic. Not a democracy, a republic. And at that point, Rome was very much a poor, backward, and isolated city along the Tiber. And at that point in its history, no one, not even the Romans, could have predicted that in 300 years' time, Rome would become the master of its world, the Mediterranean.

To understand why Rome was able to succeed, let me very quickly draw for you a map of the world, the Mediterranean, in about 500 BC, when the Roman Republic was founded. At the center of this world was really the Persian Empire. The Persian Empire was in control of the world's three most prosperous regions, Egypt, Anatolia, which is modern-day Turkey, and Mesopotamia, which is modern-day Iraq. And these are the three most fertile regions of the Western world. It was extremely prosperous, very heavily populated, and the Persian Empire was in control of all three regions.

Across the Aegean and the Mediterranean from the Persian Empire are the Greeks. You had Athens and you had Sparta. And these were the two dominant city-states, or what we call poleis, on the Greek mainland. Across the Adriatic is, of course, Italy. And the dominant power actually in Italy at this time was not the Romans but a culture, a civilization we call the Etruscans. And the Etruscans for the longest time were dominant over the Romans. In fact, some people believe that Rome was originally a colony of the Etruscans, and the first kings of Rome were actually Etruscan princes.

And then over here is a place called Carthage, which is an emerging power. And over here above the Greeks are the Macedonians. These are the major cultures and powers of that time. Now, one of these powers will eventually dominate and then provide the cultural framework for all Western civilization. And if we were to go back in time and we were to analyze this situation, then we could make some predictions.

Our first prediction would be that Persia would eventually conquer all Europe. Because Persia had infinite wealth, it had infinite resources, it was a superpower that was intent on aggression. And in fact, as we know, eventually it would launch an invasion of the Greek mainland. If we were to predict or guess who would dominate the world, we would think it would be Persia. That's our first guess.

But let's just say, who would be second? Well, we would think that either Athens or Sparta would be second. Why? Because Athens has a navy, and it is a really powerful navy. And at this time, Greek civilization is really growing. We would guess Athens or Sparta. And remember, Athens has a navy, but Sparta is really a military hegemon. It is focused on being a military powerhouse, and it has really the best military in Greece at this time. Our third guess might be Sparta.

Then we could guess Carthage. Why? Because Carthage is strategically located in Northern Africa, which gives it access to all trade routes in Africa, into all of Europe, and then back to the Mediterranean. Carthage would also be a good guess.

We would not guess Macedonia. Why? Because Macedonia is a poor, backward kingdom north of Greece that's being controlled right now by the Persians. We would never guess the Macedonians. But then there's one city that we would never, ever believe could dominate the world, and that's Rome. Rome would not be on our list. Macedonia might be on the list because it still has a strategic location. It has a very militant population. But we would never, ever guess Rome.

Now, what's funny about these predictions, of course, is that eventually Rome does conquer the entire Mediterranean world, and it becomes the superpower of its time, and then it develops the cultural framework for all Western civilization. But not only that, but close to Rome is Macedonia, because remember Macedonia is where Philip the Second builds the world's most powerful military and where Alexander the Great comes from to conquer all the Persian Empire.

It's very strange that the nations that either are not on the list or at the bottom of the list will eventually conquer the world. And this goes back to our first class, where we talked about the oceanic currents of history, how empires are destined to fall, to decline, but in the process they energize these borderlands and empower these borderlands to rise and eventually, over time, to overwhelm the empire. This is true for Macedonia, and this was certainly true for Rome. This fits into our pattern of the oceanic currents of history.

Greek and Roman Cultural Values

There are many different reasons why Rome would eventually win out over its competitors in the Mediterranean. What I want to focus on are the cultural reasons. My argument is that Rome, in opposition to its enemies, developed a cultural system that allowed it to triumph over its enemies. This cultural system made it ideal for military competition against its major enemies.

Let's talk about this cultural system. And to understand this cultural system, I will compare and contrast it with the Greeks, who were basically the most culturally dominant people in this area at this time. What did the Greeks believe in? Well, the Greeks believed in three things. The Greek system, or when I mean Greeks, I basically mean Athenians, because the Athenians were the culturally dominant nation in the Greek world.

What did the Greeks believe in, and how were the Romans different? First, what we understand is that Greeks were culturally dominant, and so what happened was that Romans developed a lot of their cultural systems in opposition to the Greeks, or they learned lessons from the Greeks. Think about as an analogy the relationship between China and Japan. A lot of Japanese cultural systems and values were developed in opposition to China and because of the lessons that the Japanese learned from Chinese history.

Let's talk about the Greek values and then what values the Romans developed in opposition to the Greeks. The first value the Greeks developed was the idea of freedom. What is freedom? Freedom represents an egalitarian society in which everyone has the right to speak his mind. His, not hers. His mind. Every citizen was considered equal, and that was the basis for Greek democracy. Everyone has the right to speak if you're a citizen.

Now, what is the Roman counterpart? The Roman counterpart is what we call liberty. And they sound similar, but they're actually very different concepts. Freedom is the right to speak your mind, the right to live your life. Liberty is the respect for the laws, history, and tradition of your culture, because that's what enables you to be free. If we do not respect the laws, it'd be anarchy. Also, liberty means basically no king. We will never allow a king to rule us because he takes away our liberty.

What's interesting for us is the modern Western concept is more aligned with the Romans than the Greeks. When we think of freedom and liberty, we think of the Roman idea, not the Greek idea. Liberty, the Roman word for this is, of course, libertas.

The second value of the Greeks is the idea of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the pursuit of human flourishing, to be the best that you can be, to be better than your peers and to win respect from your peers, to seek glory, to seek honor. Let's go back and think about Achilles in the epic, the Iliad. Achilles was in Troy not to win glory for the Greek people but to win glory for himself. He was extremely selfish. He was extremely competitive. And he was so competitive that when he abandoned the battlefield, he basically asked his mother Thetis, the goddess, to get Zeus, the high god, to favor the Trojans. This is treason. This is sedition. And for the Greeks, this is good because what's important is to win eudaimonia. In order to achieve eudaimonia, you can do anything because that's what matters.

And the idea of eudaimonia, if you think about it, it's what led to Greek creativity because everyone saw society as a competition, and they wanted to be the best. But if you think about it, it also leads to corruption and selfishness. The Romans didn't like eudaimonia. Instead, their highest virtue was the idea of republic. And this is where we get the word Republic from. Republic means for the greater good, for the public virtue. What's important is not that you win glory for yourself but to sacrifice yourself for the greater good, for the good of Rome. That's what made you a good person or the best person, to fight and die for Rome.

And the third value for the Greeks that mattered was the idea of aretē. Aretē just means excellence. Even though Achilles was a jerk, the Greeks still admired him. Why? Because he was a great soldier on the battlefield. He was fabulous. He was excellent. And therefore, he should be admired. The Romans didn't like this. They didn't want people to outshine everyone else. So, they preferred the concept of piety. Obedience, loyalty to your fathers, to Rome, to the gods. Piety is what mattered. The highest virtue in Rome is not aretē. It is piety.

And again, a lot of Roman values were developed in response to the Greeks, especially to the Athenians. Because remember, the Athenians in 480, they defeated the Persians, and the Athenians became basically an empire. They were a dominant military force in the Mediterranean, in the Aegean at that time. But 80 years later, 400, they had been decimated. They had been destroyed. They fought against Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, and they lost. The Romans witnessed all this because they were just across the Adriatic. They knew all this. And so, they were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the Athenians.

And that's why they developed a system in opposition to the Athenians. The Athenians had democracy, and it was common wisdom at that time that it was the democratic system that caused the collapse of the Athenian Empire. And in response, the Romans developed a system called the Republic.

Democracy and Republic

Now, there's a huge difference between democracy and republic. They sound the same, and in today's world we use these two concepts interchangeably. We say American democracy. We say American republic. It means the same thing. But back then, democracy and republic were two opposing systems. Let me give you an example to show you how different the system is.

• Democracy is basically one man, one vote. It encourages competition, encourages debate, it encourages free thought. Republic is to be ruled by institutions, basically the Senate. Institutions, by laws, and by history or tradition. What's the difference?

Let's pretend that we're all going to go out for lunch today, and each of us has a different opinion. I want to go to McDonald's. Eva wants to go and get dumplings. Echo wants to go to pizza. Who knows? But we all have these different opinions. In a democracy, we resolve this issue by having debate. I make my argument for my idea, then you all make your argument for your ideas. And then we vote, and the majority wins. Simple.

A republic is different. In a republic, you make your decisions based on tradition. For example, today is Thursday, and for whatever reason, we don't know why, but every Thursday we go out to get dumplings. So, guess what? We just go and get dumplings. We don't ask why. We don't even know why. We may not even like dumplings. It doesn't matter. What matters is you respect and follow tradition set by your fathers.

Now, what's interesting is these two systems have benefits and consequences. And it's the idea of the republic that allows Rome to eventually conquer the entire Mediterranean. And the reason why is the idea of a republic solves a problem that democracy cannot solve. It's the idea of citizenship and identity. The way you organize your society is basically through citizenship. Who gets to be a citizen, who doesn't?

Now, in a democracy, it's actually very hard to be a citizen because if we are having debate and competition, we don't want others coming into the system. There's four of us in the classroom. We debate. But let's just say we let in five other people, and these five other people all love noodles. Guess what? We're stuck going to noodles every day. So, we don't want newcomers. And that's why the Athenian Empire failed. The empire had to fight these wars to protect its empire, but in each battle it had to lose soldiers. Even if you win battles, you have to lose soldiers. And it could not replenish these soldiers because it did not want foreigners to become citizens.

But in a republic, you do not have this problem. If we are a republic, we're all stuck going to noodles every Thursday. We let in 100 people, doesn't matter, we're all going to noodles. It doesn't affect us. So, the beauty of a republic is you can allow immigrants and foreigners to come into your system, which allows you to replenish your military. And they become citizens if they are willing to fight for you and if they're willing to follow your traditions, your customs, your history.

It's very similar in America. In China, how are you a citizen? Well, you're born here and both your parents are Chinese, and that's it. There's no other way to become a Chinese citizen. But in America, you can immigrate and just say, "I swear to obey the Constitution. I swear to protect the Constitution." If you say those words, you can become a US citizen. That's the power of the republic.

Citizenship and Place

Let's talk about some historical examples to illustrate the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, people understand polis, or society, as a community of people. The example is in 480, the Persians invaded the Greek mainland, and they were about to attack Athens. And there's no way that Athens could withstand the Persian onslaught. So, what do they do?

Well, what they did was they got onto their ships and they sailed away. The entire Athenian people, the entire city of Athens, got onto the ships and sailed away. And the Persians were like, "Well, you can't do that." And the Athenians said, "Yes, we can because as a community we can be wherever we want. We don't have to be in Athens. As long as we're a community, we will be Athens. We can leave Athens and go sail to Africa, and we will still be Athens." That's the idea of community.

But the Romans didn't believe that. Remember in 216, Hannibal comes and attacks the Italian Peninsula. He destroys and wipes out all the Roman armies. Rome has no army. And at this point, Rome has options. It can surrender or it can leave. It cannot leave because to leave Rome would be to abandon its identity as a Roman people. If you're a republic, the place does matter. Once you leave the place, you abandon the values, the culture, the history that makes you distinctly Roman. So, the Romans said to Hannibal, "We will not surrender. We will fight to the last man if you come and attack us." And Hannibal never did.

And what's really funny about this incident is it's really the proudest moment in Roman history. They were up against impossible odds. They had no army. Hannibal was the greatest general in human history. He had a huge army. But the Roman people were willing to make all the necessary sacrifices in order to protect their identity and their values and their history. They refused to let Rome fall. Every person, whether it's woman, man, or child, would have taken arms and attacked and defended the city against Hannibal. And this was really the highlight of the republican system. It refuses to surrender because to surrender would mean abandoning its identity.

That's why Rome was able to defeat all its enemies. Because the Roman idea of citizenship was flexible. If you're willing to fight for Rome, you could become a citizen. And as such, Rome was able to draw soldiers from all of the Italian Peninsula.

From 280 to 272 BCE, there's something called the Pyrrhic Wars. Pyrrhus, who was a Greek king, came to the aid of the Greek colonies in Italy. These Greeks were complaining and saying, "The Romans are bullying us. Can someone please help us and build us a Greek empire?" So, Pyrrhus comes and attacks the Romans. And he won every battle. The Romans were terrible soldiers. He had the best soldiers in the world, and he was winning every battle. And at a certain point, Pyrrhus said, "We're killing a lot of Romans, but if I win one more battle, if I just win one more battle, I'm going to run out of soldiers. So, we have to retreat." And this is because of the idea of citizenship. The Greeks could not replenish their forces, whereas the Romans could.

And this is what allowed for social mobility and innovation in Rome. The fact that Rome was constantly fighting these battles, these wars against everyone, and learning from their mistakes and growing as a military power. Eventually, Rome comes in conflict with Carthage. And Carthage is at this point the greatest naval power of the Mediterranean. Rome did not have a navy. It doesn't know how to sail ships. Guess what happened? They decided to build a navy, and they lost a lot of battles against Carthage. But again, because Rome was so persistent, because Rome was not afraid to lose soldiers, eventually it overwhelmed Carthage.

This is the reason why eventually Rome was able to conquer the entire Mediterranean world. No one could stop Rome. By about 200 BCE, Rome was the greatest military hegemon of that time, and by 100 BC, 100 years later, it was an empire.

Republic and Empire

But there's a problem. When Rome became an empire, a republic is not the same as an empire. An empire needed a bureaucracy. It needed an emperor. You need a top-down system. And that's in conflict with the idea of a republic, where you have to obey the history and the institutions. If you're an empire, you have to absorb new people into your culture. But the Romans didn't want to do that because it meant giving up their own culture. This created a contradiction. This created a paradox. And this would eventually lead to a series of civil wars that really never stopped until Rome collapsed.

To understand this idea, think about America today. America, again, it is humanity's greatest empire. It controls the entire world, basically. It has 800 military bases around the world. China has about two. It has no peer competitor. But there's one thing that you cannot say about America. If you go to Americans and say, "You guys are an empire," you'll be shouted down. "How dare you say we're an empire? There's nothing imperial about us. We're a republic. We're a democracy. We're not an empire."

For whatever reason, Americans refuse to believe they're an empire. It's ridiculous. And you have some silly things. For example, when Americans talk about the Middle East, clearly America wants to control the Middle East for its resources. But when you talk to American academics, American people, for whatever reason, they believe American Middle East policy is being controlled by Israel, a nation of eight million people in a desert. Israel is able to control the American Empire. And you're like, that makes no sense. How is it possible for Israel to control America? But Americans really believe this.

If you talk about the war in Ukraine, there are a lot of Americans who believe that it's the Europeans who are making America assist Ukraine. It's all European manipulation. And it's the silliest thing. It's like, what are you talking about? The Europeans are a vassal state of America. Israel is a vassal state of America. And the reason why is Americans cannot understand that they're an empire because it goes against their idea of themselves as a democracy, as a republic.

The word for this is called cognitive dissonance. You guys should have studied this in psychology. It's impossible for your mind to hold in place two conflicting ideas. America cannot both be a republic and an empire. Therefore, it's a republic, and don't ever mention the word empire.

And guess what? The Romans had the same problem. They could not conceive of themselves as an empire, and they refused to be an empire even though they were an empire. And this led to lots of civil wars and conflicts between Rome and the people around Rome.

The example is that from 91 to 89, Rome fought something called the Social War. Remember, this is after Rome became an empire. It now has no peer competitor. It has no adversary. So now it starts to fight wars among its own people. The Social War was fought between Rome and its Italian allies or neighbors. For most of its history, Rome was drawing soldiers from its allies. And after Rome became an empire, its Italian allies rightfully said, "Listen, we fought for you for decades. We've lost many men. We demand to be given citizenship." And Rome said no. And so, they fought a civil war. And Rome lost the civil war because, guess what? Its military was from the Italian Peninsula. So, it could not defeat its allies. And so, it had to make its allies into Roman citizens.

And Rome would keep on doing this, where it has all these subject people. The subject people rebel because they want citizenship. But again, for Rome, what matters is the protection of its cultural identity. And you give citizenship to too many people, that dilutes your cultural identity. They were afraid that Rome would stop being Rome. And that led to conflicts throughout its history, and it never really ended.

Princeps and Roman Historians

You can't ever use the word emperor in Rome. Then the question is, wait, wasn't Augustus Caesar, after the Battle of Actium, the first Roman emperor? No. The idea that Augustus Caesar was the first emperor is something that later historians decided on. The Romans did not see themselves as an empire. And Augustus Caesar did not see himself as an emperor. The word the Romans used is the idea of princeps. Princeps just means, in Latin, first citizen. We are still equals, meaning senators, but I'm just a bit better than you. I'm the first among equals. And this is where we get the English word prince from. And Augustus Caesar did not see himself as building an empire. He saw himself as saving the republic.

Now, what's important to understand is that Augustus Caesar was considered the greatest Roman leader because he ruled for 50-plus years. His was a very stable regime. And the reason why, if you recall, is he was the heir to Julius Caesar, and there's tremendous regret and guilt among the Roman people for having killed Julius Caesar. And so, they allowed his heir, his son, to be king or emperor without much opposition. That was not true for his heirs. After Augustus Caesar died, all these civil wars and conflicts that were suppressed now fermented again. And this would now lead to a massive period of civil wars.

Our understanding of Roman history comes a lot from Roman historians themselves, specifically two individuals, Livy and Tacitus. And we basically listen to what they wrote. What we mean by that is we take their word as gospel. We take their word as truth. But what we need to recognize is they were senators, part of the nobility who hated the emperors, who hated the princeps. So, they did whatever they could in order to make the emperors look bad. There were three emperors after the death of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. And they were all made to look very, very bad, especially Nero and Caligula.

Let me give you an example of this. After Augustus dies, Augustus names two people heir to his legacy. The first is Tiberius, who becomes the emperor. Tiberius is not his son. It is his adopted son. That is a Roman tradition where you can adopt someone outside the family to be your heir. And then, after Tiberius died, Augustus anointed Germanicus to be his successor. And Germanicus was considered an extremely talented and capable leader. The problem, though, is that Tiberius, who is now emperor, didn't like the fact that Germanicus was appointed his successor. He wanted to anoint his own successor.

Tiberius, what he did that was very sneaky was he made a man named Sejanus the head of the Praetorian Guard. And the Praetorian Guard was basically the secret police of Rome. And Sejanus, because he was very ambitious, he started to kill not just Germanicus but everyone in Germanicus's family. Sejanus wanted to be the heir to Tiberius. And then, after Sejanus was done killing everyone basically in Germanicus's family, Tiberius had him killed. This is a very common pattern in imperial history.

After Sejanus was killed, there was a purge of Sejanus's allies. His children were killed, and everyone who supported Sejanus was interrogated by the Senate and put to death. And most of these people claimed innocence. "I had nothing to do with Sejanus. I was forced into an alliance with Sejanus."

Now, there's one person, a Roman nobleman named Marcus Terentius, who in 31 CE appeared for his trial, and he decided on a different strategy. Everyone else before him claimed, "I had nothing to do with Sejanus," and the Senate didn't believe them, and they were all killed. Marcus Terentius tried a different strategy, and this is recounted in the history book Annals by Tacitus, who was writing about 100 years later.

And this is what Marcus Terentius argues. He argues, "Yes, I was his friend. In fact, I tried my very best to be his friend. Why? Because Sejanus had the favor of the emperor. Because if I wanted to get anything done, if I wanted to become wealthy, I had to become a friend of Sejanus. And why did I do this, and why was this right? Because it is not up to me to question or think about why Sejanus is a friend of the emperor. All I needed to know was the emperor favored Sejanus, and it's my duty to obey the emperor, and therefore I became his friend." That was his logic.

Now, let's look at what Tacitus wrote. And it's really one of the most striking paragraphs in the history. This is Marcus Terentius's defense of himself before the Senate and the emperor.

It is not ours to ask whom you, the emperor, exalt above his fellow or why. You the gods have made sovereign arbiter of things.

It's not my place to ever question the emperor. If the emperor made Sejanus his right-hand man, I now must also obey Sejanus. If the emperor wants me to marry a dog, I will go marry a dog.

To us has been left the glory of obedience. To search out the hidden thoughts of the emperor and the designs he may shape in secret is unlawful and dangerous, nor would the searcher necessarily find.

What does this mean? It means the emperor is God. He has a secret design. He has a secret logic that we could never know because we're too stupid. And if we try to figure it out, we will be breaking the laws of Rome and the universe. And we could only get into trouble. So, it's not up to me to question the emperor. It is only my duty to obey the emperor.

The firmness of the speech.

He's finished speaking, defending himself in front of the Senate. And this is how the emperor and Senate respond to this speech.

The firmness of the speech.

He speaks with conviction.

And the fact that a man had been discovered to utter what the world was thinking made so powerful an impression that his accusers were penalized by banishment or death.

Rather than punish this man, the Senate punished his accusers, his enemies. Why? Because they had found a man to speak the truth about the world. The emperor was in command. We had to obey the emperor. And they wanted to make a role model out of him. And therefore, they killed all his enemies and let him go and rewarded him lavishly.

Now, this was written in contrast to Roman history. This marks a radical departure from Roman history. Remember in 509, the republic was founded because they threw out the king. In response, the king organized his allies, the Etruscans, and they marched on Rome. And Rome was surrounded by a huge army, and there was nothing Rome could do about it. So, a young nobleman named Mucius went to the senators and proposed a daring plan to assassinate the king. He swims across the Tiber. He goes into the camp of the enemy, and he's captured. He's interrogated by the king. And Mucius says, "We Romans have sworn to kill all kings." And to show that he's serious, he puts his hand into a fire, and he burns his hand in front of the king. And the king is scared, so he runs away.

This story shows us the nature of the Roman character. Romans hate kings. Romans will always disobey kings. Romans will always find a way to kill kings. And this speech shows us that the Roman character has fundamentally changed because of empire. Throughout most of its history, the Roman people have been grappling with what it means to be Roman and how to protect this precious identity.

Now, we know that even though Tacitus wrote this, the Roman identity didn't really change. How do we know this? How do we know that even though Tacitus says empire changed the Roman identity, it didn't really change? How do we know this? Because he's writing about this. He's writing about this. He's telling us that the Roman identity changed because of empire. Well, if the Roman identity really changed, people wouldn't know it changed. It's only because people are resisting the change in nature, the change in character, that people appreciate what Tacitus is writing.

And Tacitus is really saying that that empire, it's gone now because the new emperor has restored the republic. Throughout its history, Rome was constantly in a battle between empire and republic. And every new emperor believed that he was restoring the republic, but then someone else would come along and say, "No, he was the dictator. He was the emperor." This was a conflict throughout Roman history.

Why Did the Empire Fall?

Now we go on to the second question, which is how did the empire fall? Well, the standard explanation is that eventually Rome became too corrupt. And this is the explanation provided by most Roman historians as well as the famous British historian Edward Gibbon in his most famous work, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's corruption. It's because the Romans became more like the Greeks or like the Persians. They started to appreciate the luxury, decadence, and corruption of empire more.

And the explanation is that over time, you've got all these Germanic invaders from the steppes. Remember, the steppes is where the Yamnaya people come from. These Visigoths are being pushed up by the Huns. Remember the steppes is really this massive competitive whirlpool, hurricane, that makes people more and more aggressive. And more aggressive tribes will push out less aggressive tribes, and these people are forced to go into Europe. And over time, the Romans are trying to absorb them into their empire by making them soldiers or by giving them land. But over time, this sheer population will force the empire to collapse. That's the standard explanation.

I want to make a different argument. My argument is this. It really has to do again with the idea of citizenship and identity. Throughout most of its history, imperial Rome has been struggling with this identity issue. And then at some point an emperor came along and said, "Screw this. We no longer want to be a republic. We want to be an empire."

And the way he resolved this issue is, in 212, the emperor Caracalla issued the Edict of Caracalla, which made everyone in the Roman Empire a citizen. He basically destroyed the idea of citizenship. If everyone can be a citizen, citizenship means nothing. Before, you had to fight for Rome, you had to die for Rome in order to become a citizen. You had to believe in the customs, the history, the tradition of Rome to become a citizen. You had to fight for it. It was valuable. In fact, it was the most valuable thing in the world for people. But now everyone got it, so it's absolutely worthless.

And because everyone was now a Roman citizen, there was now no more Roman identity. It was now a clean slate. The emperors were now no longer bound by tradition or history, by institutions like the Senate. And so now they could build the imperial bureaucracy. And this imperial bureaucracy would replace the republic.

And the major change is in 330, the emperor Constantine would move the capital from Rome to a place called Byzantium, which would become the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire. But this is something that was unthinkable. How could you move the heart and center and soul of the empire from Rome to somewhere else? It was unthinkable if to be Roman meant to die for Rome. But now the capital was somewhere else. This marks basically the end of Rome as a cultural identity, as a cultural beacon. This marked really the death of the history of Rome.

Now, historians argue about this, and historians argue when the Roman Empire fell. But the consensus is 476, when a German warlord deposed the last emperor named Romulus Augustulus. But I disagree. I believe that it really happened in 212, when Rome announced everyone could be a citizen.

I know this is a lot.

The Senate and the Emperor

Let me clarify. Tacitus was a senator. The Senate was always in conflict with the emperor. Let me clarify about the Senate. The Senate was basically the Roman aristocracy. It was where the ruling families of Rome sat, and they were supposed to be in charge of the empire. And the emperor was basically the CEO. He was basically in charge of managing the empire. But it was the Senate that was supposed to make the decisions. In reality, it was the emperor who was in charge because the emperor controlled the army, and he controlled the Praetorian Guard, which is the secret police. So, he could kill senators who disobeyed him. And this was always a very complex relationship.

When Tacitus, again, who is a senator who comes from one of the elite families of Rome, when he's writing about the history of the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus to Nero, he's trying to paint them in a very bad light because he's trying to tell us emperors are bad. What's good is the Senate. And that's why he's producing the speech, because if you're a Roman citizen and you read this speech by Marcus Terentius, you are appalled. You're disgusted. We're Romans. We hate kings. We do not obey. We fight. We do not surrender. This speech goes against the very heart and soul of what it means to be Roman.

And that's why Tacitus is writing this and saying, "You see what empire does to the Roman character? It corrupts us. It destroys us. It weakens us. And therefore, we must resist the emperor and protect the Senate."

I'm running through a lot of history in a short amount of time, so I'm missing a lot of important details. What's really important for you to understand is in the republic, the Senate is in charge, meaning the ruling houses, the aristocracy, are in charge. But in an empire, the emperor is in charge. But Rome never resolved this issue. Who should be in charge, the Senate or the emperor? And it changes over time. Sometimes the Senate is in charge. Sometimes the emperor's in charge. But they all believe they're protecting the republic, and this creates cognitive dissonance. And it creates a lot of confusion.

And then in 212, the emperor said, "Screw this. Let's just be an empire. I don't want the Senate anymore." And this begins a process of creating the Byzantine Empire, which does not have the idea of a Roman character.

The Senate is filled by, again, members of the ruling houses. And what's interesting about the system is it's almost like a federal system. I'm not sure you know what a federal system is, but the emperor is in charge of the army. He's in charge of the secret police in Rome. But the senators are actually in charge of the provinces. Basically, each senator gets a certain province to control.

It's like the United States, where governors are in charge of a state. The president is in charge of the nation. Now, what's important for you to understand is technically each state is independent. Each state has its own army, has its own, basically, legal system. And it agrees to be part of the federal system, which the president is part of. And this is very similar to the Roman system. Not exactly, but it's very similar.

The Legacy of Rome

The last question I want to look at is what's the legacy of the Roman Empire or the republic? And the answer is we still live in the Roman world. Even though we like to think that we are heavily influenced by the Greeks, it's the institutions of Rome that we've inherited. The idea of the political system, the legal system, the cultural system, it's something that the Americans basically copied and pasted. The American system is very, very Roman. And right now, of course, America controls the world, and therefore it's able to disseminate Roman values and culture.

We will be examining how Rome came to control the cultural framework of Western civilization. Because even though Rome collapsed, and the character of Rome is now dead, the Roman legacy is still there. And all these warlords, basically German warlords, they're now going to fight the civil war after the death of Rome. They're claiming to be carrying on the legacy of Rome. From their perspective, Rome has not died, but Rome has spread out. And these warlords will adopt a lot of Roman practices, and these warlords will build the culture that will give rise to new nations called France, Germany, Britain, basically the European world. That's the legacy of Rome. That's why it's important to study Rome.

Lessons from Rome

What lessons can we draw from Rome?

1. Well, one really important lesson that we have to learn here is the idea of citizenship and identity. You cannot be a strong and coherent nation if you do not have a strong cultural identity. That's why the Romans were so insistent on protecting their identity against the Greeks, against foreigners. And this is important because if you look at the Western world today, immigration, identity, and citizenship are huge political issues.
   
   I'm a Canadian citizen. I grew up in Canada. And over the past ten years, the population of Canada went from like 30 million to 40 million. These ten million people are all foreigners who have no sense of Canadian identity. They have no interest in being Canadian. They just want a better life for themselves. Forty percent of Canadians now were either foreign-born or have a parent who is foreign-born. So, there's no more identity. And this is a problem. Why? Because the United States, Trump, wants to take over Canada and make Canada into the 51st state.
   
   And this is a problem because Canadians don't want to resist against this. Ten years ago, all Canadians would say nope. But now you have ten million Canadians who are very happy to join the United States because it means more economic opportunities for them. They don't care about cultural identity. So, without controlling immigration, you as a nation can't be coherent, and you will cease to exist over time.
   
   And the same is true of what's happening in Britain, throughout the Western world. Basically, they're letting in too many immigrants, and they're diluting their own cultural identity. So, over the next ten, twenty years, a lot of people are predicting massive civil wars in the Western world as these nations grapple with the consequences of unlimited immigration these past ten years. That's one thing to think about. One lesson that we can learn from the Roman world. Citizenship does matter. Make it hard to become a citizen. Make it valuable. Make it an honor to be a citizen, and your nation will be strong. If citizenship is cheap, if you can just buy it, then it's worthless, and you will cease to be culturally coherent. And eventually you will cease to exist as a nation. That's the first major lesson.
2. The second major lesson about Rome is it won out because it was an aggressive nation. But once you win out against your enemies, this aggression has to go somewhere, and it usually turns inward. And that's why Rome kept on fighting these civil wars amongst itself. And the same is true for America. America is a nation that worships aggression.
   
   For example, think about the number of guns in America. I don't know the exact statistics, but there's about 400 million guns in America. America only has 300 million people. There are more guns than there are people in America. It worships violence.
   
   Also, think about this. The most popular sport in America is American football. There's only one nation in the world that plays American football, and that's America. No other nation plays it. Why? Because it is barbaric. You literally have people trying to kill each other for the entertainment and pleasure of spectators. It's barbaric. I'm not sure if you know this, but after five years of playing football, these athletes, their brains are mush, and they commit suicide at age 30 or 35. It's no different from gladiator sport in Rome, which Romans loved.
   
   America is a violent society. If it cannot turn its violence outside, it will direct its violence and aggression inwards. I think within the next ten years, America will most likely start a war, probably against Iran. I'm predicting within the next five years America will start a war against Iran, probably sooner. And then America will start a civil war as well. Civil war does not mean two sides fighting against each other. It just means that there'll be a lot of political killings, assassinations, a lot of violence in America based on religious, political differences.
   
   That's a second lesson to learn from Rome. Aggression and violence will allow you to defeat your enemies. Once you do, this violence and aggression will turn inwards.
3. And the third lesson that we can learn from Rome is, again, no societies are stable. Everything changes over time. Even though Rome was the dominant superpower of its time, it still collapsed. And the same is true for America today. The world will change, and it always changes.