Posted on 02/12/2010 5:58:58 AM PST by Tolik
I think VDH is aware of some new studies that essentially pin most of the blame for Rome’s fall on the decline of the military, both in terms of training, funding, and above all, cohesion by allowing in mercenary units.
I think VDH's point would be that socialism is the symptom, rather than the cause, of the decline.
In our case, there is an understandable belief that our incredible wealth carries with it a duty toward those who are less fortunate. And to an extent that is correct.
The pernicious part comes when our sense of duty is coupled with a tolerance of, and making excuses for, the abdication of responsibility on the part of those whom our duty calls on us to help. And along with that, there is the expectation on the part of those "helped," that they deserve such help, without questions or requirements.
Add in also the fact that our wealth has given us tremendous leisure time, and the ability to spend money on expensive pursuits and toys and gear for our kids ... and the kids begin to have expectations of deserving rather than earning.
Now you can add in folks who are ardent enough on the topic to make such considerations a governmental issue -- that's where the socialism comes in. But it's only enabled by that cultural sense and expectation of "deserving" help, rather than earning it.
By FReepers NattieShea and PowerBaby
How ‘bout this? Within a generation of the Marian reforms, the Roman Army invaded Rome at least twice [I think three times]. The Roman Army, even with good emperors had to be bought. It both held the state together, and, increasingly, tore it apart, with various armies and legions proclaiming [for a good payday] their general as ‘Caesar’.
And by the late Empire, Romans were not stepping up to serve in the Roman Army. Increasingly, barbarians were, sometimes in whole tribal units [ Alaric was a Roman general, and Chief of the Visigoths]. This had three serious effects for the Western Roman Empire. First, the barbarians learned the Roman military system. Second, the same group that defended the Empire was best positioned to bring it down. Third, they had learned the Roman Army’s tradition of interfering in the government of Rome for personal benefit, and of being separate, both in allegiance and outlook, to the society they were to defend. And when the politicians didn’t pony up the lands and other ‘gifts’ on their lists, the tribes took matters into their own hands.
VDH Bump. Always worth reading.
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Mixed up in all of this, especially in Europe, has to be the decline in birth rate (to native stock) (which at least in part stems from a loss of serious, demanding religion). As has been observed (Mark Steyn among others), how do you convince a retired childless couple that their government benefits should be cut for the future benefit of unrelated future generations of countrymen? The US birthrate is higher than Europe’s but the concept is the same. Along the same lines is the decline of the family, by which perceived obligations to future generations are also strained.
I'd agree with that. I also think that socialism eventually "creeps up" the socio-economic latter, to the point where virtually everyone believes they are entitled to things, either material goods, or "lifestyle" choices. Then decadence and sloth set in, a kind of cultural malaise. You have fewer and fewer Peters to rob from.
(And would you agree that today's parallels for the Blues and the Greens would be the Blacks and the Greens?)
Isn’t it fascinating how Roman politics became so inextricably tied to sports? The Blues, Greens, Reds, and Whites were chariot racing teams. It would be as if todays Republicans and Democrats were instead called Cowboys and Steelers.
Terrific article. Worth reading and re-reading. Perhaps VDH should be the one running for Senate from CA. He’d be sending everyone to their dictionareis, for sure.
Speaking from my neck of the woods, the descendants of the proletariat who used to provide un and semi-skilled laborers in the factories of Newark, Paterson, Brooklyn, etc. who did NOT end up with advanced degrees and white collar jobs are now largely employed, directly or indirectly (via contracts for waste disposal, construction, etc.) by the state and local governments, which is why NY and NJ teeter on bankruptcy.
I would say post-industrial economics, a radically declining infant mortality rate, and increased life spans have a lot more to do with the declining birth rate than a decline in religiosity. Having large numbers of children simply isn’t economically feasible or desirable in a modern economy - you can’t put them to work (it’s illegal and their labor isn’t worth much anyway), and it is very expensive to raise them for 20 years with a high standard of living and with the degree of education required by our economy.
Having large numbers of children in the West is almost always subsidized by the welfare state. That means it probably isn’t rational behavior for our society - not unless you’d rather go back to an economy where most of us do menial work in factories and on farms.
This topic is the stuff of entire books, entire academic careers. One must remember a couple of things about the Western Empire - Rome had already been sacked by the Visigoths under Alaric in 410 some sixty-six years before the nominal "fall" under Odoacer. Both of those leaders considered themselves Romans by virtue of service, which was the original requirement for Roman citizenship back in the long-gone (and highly romanticized) days of the Republic. By that measure they were better Romans than the inert sloths populating the city.
Rome, and the Roman mob, had become so entirely dependent on external sources for its very bread that when the grain fields fell to the Vandals and Ostium was cut off from the city, the thing was over no matter what happened at the gates. And not much had happened at the gates since the times of Hannibal.
The focus of activity stayed away from Rome until Justinian sent first Belisarius, and then Narses, to take the place back from the Goths. It ended up in the hands of a strange sect called the Christians, but I don't know whatever happened to them...
In the latter stages of the Empire, Roman citizens simply weren’t willing to defend their world at the cost of shedding their own blood. So they hired mercenaries - and then often refused to pay them. Oops.
What you said!
Well, Rome had been in the hands of Christians for well over a century by then. Both the Byzantines attacking Rome (including Justinian, Belisarius, and Narses) and the Goths occupying it (including Odoacer and his predecessor Alaric) were Christian, as were the Western Roman emperors from whom the Goths took the city.
After decades of civil war, they let in the Goths, abused them, and then used them as mercenaries.
That was supposed to be a joke. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.