Civilization #32: Rome's Rise, Fall, and Legacy
There is a country in the world today that purposefully modeled itself after Rome: the United States of America. The similarities between Rome and the United States are very striking. Both of these societies were, in 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 and decide, for whatever reason, to invade and attack America—and not stop until America was defeated—America would win. America is really invincible. It's protected by two oceans, it has infinite resources, it has an extremely aggressive population, and it has 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. The central argument I will make 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.
Throughout its history, Rome 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 10 years, America has been trying to paint China as a new threat—America really has no adversaries. As a result, it can't really be aggressive abroad. If the history of Rome is an indicator, this will lead to a massive civil war in America in the next 10 years. That's what the history of Rome tells us.
Today, I want to look at three questions:
- Why did Rome rise? What allowed Rome to become an empire, a superpower of its time?
- Why did Rome ultimately decline and fall?
- What is the legacy of Rome? What is the impact and influence of Rome in today's world?
Why Did Rome Rise?
Tradition holds that Rome was founded in 753 BCE. In its early history, Rome was a monarchy. Then, in 509 BCE, it became a republic—not a democracy, a republic. At that point, Rome was very much a poor, backward, and isolated city along the Tiber River. No one, not even the Romans, could have predicted that in 300 years, Rome would become the master of its world: the Mediterranean.
To understand why Rome was able to succeed, let me quickly describe the map of the Mediterranean world in about 500 BCE, when the Roman Republic was founded.
At the center of this world was the Persian Empire, which was in control of the world's three most prosperous regions: Egypt, Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). These were the three most fertile regions of the Western world, extremely prosperous and heavily populated.
Across the Aegean and the Mediterranean from the Persian Empire were the Greeks—you had Athens and you had Sparta. These were the two dominant city-states, or poleis, on the Greek mainland. Across the Adriatic is, of course, Italy. The dominant power in Italy at this time was not the Romans but a civilization we call the Etruscans. For the longest time, the Etruscans were dominant over the Romans. In fact, some people believe that Rome was originally a colony of the Etruscans and that the first kings of Rome were actually Etruscan princes.
Then you have a place called Carthage, which was an emerging power, and above the Greeks were the Macedonians. These were the major cultures and powers of that time.
One of these powers would eventually dominate and provide the cultural framework for all of Western civilization. If we were to go back in time and analyze this situation, we could make some predictions. Our first prediction would be that Persia would eventually conquer all of Europe. Persia had infinite wealth and resources; it was a superpower intent on aggression. And, as we know, it would eventually launch an invasion of the Greek mainland.
Our second guess would be either Athens or Sparta. Athens had a powerful navy, and Greek civilization was growing. Sparta was a military hegemon, focused on being a military powerhouse with the best army in Greece at this time. Our next guess might be Carthage, because it was strategically located in Northern Africa, giving it access to trade routes in Africa, Europe, and back to the Mediterranean.
We would not guess Macedonia, because it was a poor, backward kingdom north of Greece that was being controlled by the Persians. But 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.
What's funny about these predictions, of course, is that Rome eventually did conquer the entire Mediterranean world. It became the superpower of its time and developed the cultural framework for all of Western civilization. But close behind Rome was Macedonia, where Philip II built the world's most powerful military and where Alexander the Great came from to conquer the entire Persian Empire. It's very strange that the nations that were either not on the list or at the bottom of the list would eventually conquer the world.
This goes back to the idea of the oceanic currents of history: how empires are destined to fall, but in the process, they energize and empower their borderlands to rise and, over time, overwhelm the empire. This was true for Macedonia, and it was certainly true for Rome.
The Cultural System of a War Machine
There are many reasons why Rome would eventually win out over its competitors, but I want to focus on the cultural reasons. My argument is that Rome, in opposition to its enemies, developed a cultural system that allowed it to triumph. This cultural system made it ideal for military competition.
To understand this cultural system, I will compare and contrast it with the Greeks, who were the most culturally dominant people in this area at the time. The Romans developed many of their cultural systems in opposition to the Greeks or learned lessons from them. Think of it as an analogy to the relationship between China and Japan; a lot of Japanese cultural systems and values were developed in opposition to China and because of lessons learned from Chinese history.
Let's compare the core values of the Greeks (specifically, the Athenians) and the Romans.
The Romans developed this system because they were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the Athenians. In 480 BCE, the Athenians defeated the Persians and became an empire. But 80 years later, they had been decimated, destroyed by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. The Romans witnessed all this. It was common wisdom at the time that the Athenian democratic system caused the collapse of their empire. In response, the Romans developed a system called the Republic.
There's a huge difference between a democracy and a republic. Today, we use these concepts interchangeably, but back then, they were opposing systems.
- Democracy is basically one man, one vote. It encourages competition, debate, and free thought.
- A Republic is ruled by institutions (basically the Senate), by laws, and by history or tradition.
Let's pretend we're all going out for lunch. In a democracy, we resolve our different opinions by having a debate. I make my argument, you make yours, and then we vote. The majority wins. In a republic, you make decisions based on tradition. For example, today is Thursday, and for whatever reason, every Thursday we get dumplings. So, we just go get dumplings. We don't ask why; we may not even like dumplings. What matters is that you respect and follow the tradition set by your fathers.
The Power of Republican Citizenship
These two systems have different consequences, and it was the idea of the Republic that allowed Rome to conquer the entire Mediterranean. A republic solves a problem that democracy cannot: the problem of citizenship and identity.
In a democracy, it's actually very hard to become a citizen. If society is based on debate and competition, you don't want others coming into the system and changing the outcome. This is why the Athenian Empire failed. It had to fight wars to protect its empire, but in each battle, it lost soldiers. 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 stuck going for dumplings every Thursday, it doesn't matter if we let in 100 new people; we're all still going for dumplings. The beauty of a republic is that you can allow immigrants and foreigners to come into your system, which allows you to replenish your military. They can become citizens if they are willing to fight for you and follow your traditions, customs, and history.
This is very similar to America. In China, you are a citizen if you're born there and both your parents are Chinese. That's it. But in America, you can immigrate and become a U.S. citizen by swearing to obey and protect the Constitution. That's the power of the Republic.
This difference is illustrated by two historical examples. In a democracy, society is understood as a community of people. In 480 BCE, when the Persians invaded the Greek mainland and were about to attack Athens, the Athenians got onto their ships and sailed away. The entire city of Athens evacuated. To them, as long as the community was together, they would still be Athens, even if they sailed to Africa.
The Romans didn't believe that. In 216 BCE, Hannibal attacked the Italian Peninsula and wiped out the Roman armies. Rome had no army left. It could surrender, or it could leave. It could not leave, because to leave Rome would be to abandon its identity as a Roman people. If you're a republic, the place matters. Once you leave the place, you abandon the values, culture, and history that make you distinctly Roman. So the Romans said to Hannibal, "We will not surrender. We will fight to the last man." And Hannibal never attacked the city.
This was the proudest moment in Roman history. They were up against impossible odds, but the Roman people were willing to make all the necessary sacrifices to protect their identity. This was the highlight of the Republican system.
Because the Roman idea of citizenship was flexible, Rome was able to draw soldiers from all of the Italian Peninsula. During the Pyrrhic Wars (280-275 BCE), Pyrrhus, a Greek king, came to the aid of Greek colonies in Italy. He won every battle against the Romans, who were terrible soldiers at the time. But at a certain point, Pyrrhus said that if he won one more battle, he would run out of soldiers and have to retreat. The Greeks could not replenish their forces, whereas the Romans could.
This is what allowed for social mobility and innovation in Rome. The fact that Rome was constantly fighting wars against everyone meant it was constantly learning from its mistakes and growing as a military power. When Rome came into conflict with Carthage, the greatest naval power in the Mediterranean, Rome did not have a navy. So, they decided to build one. They lost a lot of battles, but because Rome was so persistent and was not afraid to lose soldiers, it eventually overwhelmed Carthage.
By about 200 BCE, Rome was the greatest military hegemon of its time, and by 100 BCE, it was an empire.
Why Did Rome Ultimately Decline and Fall?
When Rome became an empire, a problem emerged. A republic is not the same as an empire. An empire needs a bureaucracy, an emperor, and a top-down system. That is in conflict with the idea of a republic, where you must obey history and institutions. This created a contradiction, a paradox, that would eventually lead to a series of civil wars that never stopped until Rome collapsed.
Think about America today. It is humanity's greatest empire, with 800 military bases around the world. But there's one thing you cannot say to Americans: "You guys are an empire." They refuse to believe it. This is what we call cognitive dissonance. It's impossible for your mind to hold two conflicting ideas at once. America cannot be both a republic and an empire; therefore, it's a republic, and you must never mention the word "empire."
The Romans had the same problem. They could not conceive of themselves as an empire and refused to be one, even though they were. This led to lots of civil wars. From 91 to 89 BCE, Rome fought the Social War. This was after Rome became an empire and had no peer competitor, so it started to fight wars among its own people. The war was fought between Rome and its Italian allies. For most of its history, Rome had been drawing soldiers from these allies. After Rome became an empire, its allies rightfully said, "Listen, we fought for you for decades. We've lost many men. We demand to be given citizenship." Rome said no, so they fought a civil war. Rome lost because its military was from the Italian Peninsula, and it had to make its allies into Roman citizens.
Rome kept doing this. It had subject peoples who rebelled because they wanted citizenship, but for Rome, what mattered was the protection of its cultural identity. Giving citizenship to too many people dilutes that identity. They were afraid that Rome would stop being Rome.
The Emperor Who Wasn't an Emperor
You can't ever use the word "emperor" in Rome. The idea that Augustus Caesar was the first Roman Emperor is something that later historians decided. The Romans did not see themselves as an empire, and Augustus did not see himself as an emperor. The word the Romans used was Princeps, which means "First Citizen" in Latin. "We are still equals," it implied, "but I'm just a bit better than you—the first among equals." Augustus saw himself as saving the Republic, not building an empire.
Augustus was considered the greatest Roman leader because he ruled for over 50 years in a very stable regime. This was largely because he was the heir to Julius Caesar, and there was tremendous regret and guilt among the Roman people for having killed Caesar. So they allowed his heir to be king or emperor without much opposition. That was not true for his successors. After Augustus died, all the civil wars and conflicts that were suppressed fermented again.
Our understanding of this period comes largely from Roman historians themselves, specifically Livy and Tacitus. We need to recognize that they were senators, part of the nobility who hated the emperors. They did whatever they could to make the emperors look bad. The three emperors after Augustus—Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero—were all made to look very, very bad.
The Role of the Senate vs. the Emperor
The Senate was the Roman aristocracy, where the ruling families of Rome sat. They were supposed to be in charge of the empire, and the emperor was basically the CEO, in charge of managing it. But in reality, the emperor was in charge because he controlled the army and the Praetorian Guard (the secret police), so he could kill senators who disobeyed him.
This was always a complex relationship. The emperor was in charge of the army and the secret police in Rome, but the senators were in charge of the provinces. It was almost like a federal system, where each senator controlled a certain province.
When a senator like Tacitus writes about the history of the Roman Empire, he's trying to paint the emperors in a very bad light. He's trying to tell us that emperors are bad and the Senate is good. This is the context for a famous speech he records.
After Augustus died, his adopted son Tiberius became emperor. Augustus had also anointed Germanicus as Tiberius's successor, but Tiberius didn't like that. So, Tiberius made a man named Sejanus the head of the Praetorian Guard. The ambitious Sejanus started to kill not just Germanicus but everyone in his family, hoping to become Tiberius's heir. After Sejanus was done, Tiberius had him killed.
A purge of Sejanus's allies followed. One Roman nobleman named Marcus Terentius, on trial in 31 CE, decided on a different strategy from others who claimed innocence. As recounted by Tacitus in his Annals, this is what Marcus Terentius argued: Yes, I was Sejanus's friend. I tried my very best to be his friend because Sejanus had the favor of the emperor. If I wanted to get anything done, I had to be his friend. It is not up to me to question why the emperor favors someone; it is my duty to obey the emperor.
Tacitus records his defense:
It is not for us to pass judgment on the man whom you exalt above all others, or on the reasons for your action. To you the gods have given the supreme direction of affairs; to us has been left the glory of obedience... To search into the hidden thoughts of the sovereign, and the designs which he conceals, is unlawful and hazardous, nor will the search be successful.
According to Tacitus, the firmness of this speech and the fact that a man had been discovered to utter what the world was thinking made such a powerful impression that his accusers were punished by banishment or death. The Senate and emperor made a role model out of him.
This marks a radical departure from Roman history. Remember the story of Mucius, the young nobleman who, after the Republic was founded, tried to assassinate an enemy king. When captured, he said, "We Romans have sworn to kill all kings," and to show he was serious, he put his hand in a fire and burned it. That story shows the original Roman character: Romans hate kings, disobey kings, and will always find a way to kill kings. This speech shows that the Roman character had fundamentally changed because of the empire.
Tacitus is writing this to say, "You see what empire does to the Roman character? It corrupts us, it destroys us, it weakens us. Therefore, we must resist the emperor and protect the Senate."
The Edict that Killed Rome
So how did the empire fall? The standard explanation, provided by Roman historians and the famous British historian Edward Gibbon, is that Rome became too corrupt. Over time, Germanic invaders, pushed by the Huns from the steppes, forced the empire to collapse.
I want to make a different argument. It really has to do with the idea of citizenship and identity.
Throughout most of its history, Imperial Rome struggled with this identity issue. Then, an emperor came along and said, "Screw this. We no longer want to be a Republic; we want to be an Empire." In 212 CE, 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, die for Rome, and believe in the customs and history of Rome to become a citizen. It was valuable—the most valuable thing in the world. Now, everyone got it, so it was absolutely worthless.
Because everyone was now a Roman citizen, there was no more Roman identity. It was a clean slate. The emperors were no longer bound by tradition or institutions like the Senate. Now they could build a true imperial bureaucracy. The major change came in 330 CE, when the emperor Constantine moved the capital from Rome to a place called Byzantium, which would become the center of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. This was something that was previously unthinkable. How could you move the heart and soul of the empire from Rome? It was unthinkable if being Roman meant dying for Rome.
This marked the death of the history of Rome as a cultural identity. Historians argue about when the Roman Empire fell. The consensus is 476 CE, when a German warlord deposed the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus. But I believe it really happened in 212 CE, when Rome announced everyone could be a citizen.
What Is the Legacy of Rome?
The answer is that 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 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 because America controls the world, it is able to disseminate Roman values and culture.
Even though Rome collapsed, its legacy remained. The Germanic warlords who fought civil wars after the death of Rome claimed to be carrying on the legacy of Rome. From their perspective, Rome had not died but had spread out. These warlords adopted many Roman practices and built the cultures that would give rise to new nations: France, Germany, Britain—basically, the European world.
Lessons from the Roman World
What lessons can we draw from Rome?
- Citizenship and identity matter. 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. If you look at the Western world today, immigration and identity are huge political issues. For example, over the past 10 years, the population of Canada went from 30 million to 40 million. These 10 million new people are all foreigners with no sense of Canadian identity. 40% of Canadians now were either foreign-born or have a parent who is foreign-born. Without controlling immigration, you as a nation can't be coherent and will cease to exist over time. The lesson from the Roman world is that citizenship does matter. Make it hard to become a citizen, make it valuable, make it an honor, and your nation will be strong. If citizenship is cheap, it's worthless, and you will cease to be culturally coherent.
- Aggression must be directed somewhere. Rome won because it was an aggressive nation. But once you win against your enemies, this aggression has to go somewhere, and it usually turns inward. That's why Rome kept fighting civil wars. The same is true for America, a nation that worships aggression. There are about 400 million guns in America for only 300 million people. The most popular sport is American football, a barbaric game where people literally try to kill each other for entertainment. It's no different from the gladiator sports in Rome. America is a violent society. If it cannot turn its violence outside, it will direct its violence and aggression inwards. I predict that within the next five years, America will start a war, probably against Iran. And then, America will start a civil war as well—not necessarily two sides fighting, but a period of political killings, assassinations, and widespread violence.
- No societies are stable. Everything changes over time. Even though Rome was the dominant superpower of its time, it still collapsed. The same is true for America today. The world will change; it always changes.