PurÂsued to any depth, the quesÂtion of whether the UnitÂed States of AmerÂiÂca counts as an empire becomes difÂfiÂcult to address with clarÂiÂty. On one hand, the counÂtry has exertÂed a strong culÂturÂal influÂence on most of the world for the betÂter part of a cenÂtuÂry, a pheÂnomÂeÂnon not unreÂlatÂed to the milÂiÂtary presÂence that extends far beyond its borÂders. (In Korea, where I live, I once met a forÂmer KATUSA, the branch of the KoreÂan Army secÂondÂed to the US Army, who told me he’d joined because he “wantÂed to see what it was like to be a modÂern Roman solÂdier.”) On the othÂer hand, we can’t quite say that it rules the known world — at least, not in the way that the Roman Empire did twenÂty cenÂturies ago.
Yet the tempÂtaÂtion to draw parÂalÂlels between AmerÂiÂca and Rome remains irreÂsistible, not least when it comes to the subÂject of impeÂrÂiÂal decline. In this video from Told in Stone, hisÂtoÂriÂan GarÂrett Ryan evalÂuÂates “the idea that modÂern AmerÂiÂca is desÂtined to decline and fall like ancient Rome.” The arguÂments for this motion tend to involve “an increasÂingÂly unsetÂtled interÂnaÂtionÂal landÂscape” and “domesÂtic diviÂsion,” leadÂing to the disÂsoÂluÂtion of Pax AmerÂiÂcana — the sucÂcesÂsor of Pax BriÂtanÂniÂca, which itself sucÂceedÂed Pax Romana. AmerÂiÂcans, Ryan explains, “have a sense that Rome is in their politÂiÂcal DNA. The conÂstiÂtuÂtion, after all, repÂreÂsents an attempt to creÂate a new and perÂfectÂed Roman RepubÂlic. AnxÂiÂeties about Roman-style decline have been present since the beginÂning.”
Rome and AmerÂiÂca: each “was the greatÂest powÂer of its time,” each “had a strong legal sysÂtem and a sociÂety that left room for social advanceÂment,” and each “proÂfessed to be guidÂed by ChrisÂtÂian prinÂciÂples.” Their politÂiÂcal, ecoÂnomÂic, techÂnoÂlogÂiÂcal conÂdiÂtions could hardÂly be more difÂferÂent, of course, but when observers “say that AmerÂiÂca is falling like Rome, the underÂlyÂing assumpÂtion is not that AmerÂiÂca is specifÂiÂcalÂly like Rome; it’s that all empires, ancient and modÂern, folÂlow a simÂiÂlar course from greatÂness to grave.” The Roman Empire fell because “GerÂmanÂic tribes overÂcame its fronÂtier defensÂes,” because “a series of ruinous civÂil wars sapped its strength,” because “it had lost the loyÂalÂty of provinÂcial elites,” and for many othÂer reaÂsons besides — few of which are likeÂly to play major parts in a notionÂal AmerÂiÂcan colÂlapse.
But the fact that “the decline of Rome has no preÂcise parÂalÂlels in the twenÂty-first cenÂtuÂry does not mean that it has no lessons to offer modÂern AmerÂiÂca.” To learn those lessons, we could do worse than to turn to eighÂteenth-cenÂtuÂry hisÂtoÂriÂan Edward GibÂbon, whose The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is the subÂject of the School of Life video above. “The immense stoÂry that GibÂbon tells us moves from one disÂasÂter to anothÂer, cenÂtuÂry after cenÂtuÂry,” says narÂraÂtor Alain de BotÂton: failed reforms, instiÂtuÂtionÂal corÂrupÂtion, breakÂdowns in civÂil-milÂiÂtary relaÂtions, plagues, poor harÂvests, ecoÂnomÂic colÂlapse. And yet the RenaisÂsance, the EnlightÂenÂment, and the arrival of moderÂniÂty, as we know it, all lay ahead. “You aren’t going to like what comes after AmerÂiÂca,” Leonard Cohen once wrote, but maybe our descenÂdants will like what comes a milÂlenÂniÂum or so after AmerÂiÂca.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
The SplenÂdid Book Design of the 1946 EdiÂtion of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Based in Seoul, ColÂin Marshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂter Books on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
The answer is “YES!” This counÂtry is in total decline because we have let it decline. No borÂders, no morals, in debt up to our eyeÂballs, and we keep digÂging deepÂer. 248 years. It was a good run, but all things must come to an end.
So it’s not just joe potaÂto then..
“the known world”: Known to whom? CerÂtainÂly not AusÂtralia, ChiÂna, Japan, PolyÂneÂsia, RusÂsia, sub-SahaÂran Africa.… (It’s time to retire that westÂern-euroÂcenÂtric expresÂsion from hisÂtorÂiÂcal disÂcourse.)
“but maybe our descenÂdants will like what comes a milÂlenÂniÂum or so after AmerÂiÂca”: SupÂposÂing that anyÂone, anywhere—of any species whatever—has descenÂdants on this planÂet in a thouÂsand years’ time.