Military Review

General features of the policy of the Roman Empire since the principles of the principality and the modern United States

28
General features of the policy of the Roman Empire since the principles of the principality and the modern United States



1. Foreign policy making


To solve this question, it is necessary to determine the status of that circle of persons who participated in the development of foreign policy decisions, find out their intellectual level and cultural orientation, and consequently, the degree of competence in this field of activity. However, one should not, however, extend modern ideas about qualifications and competence to a society with a different mentality than now. It is also important to take into account the distinction between ancient and modern understanding of foreign policy. Thus, provincial uprisings within Pax Romana (Roman world), similar to Pannonian and Dalmatian in 6 AD. or Hebrew in 66-71. AD, were considered by the Romans as external wars. Today such a view would seem absurd.



The Roman Empire during its greatest expansion into the reign of Trajan in 117 AD.


With the establishment of a principality, his place was gradually usurped by the emperor, who relied on the council (Consilium principis), which included mainly the so-called “friends” (amici) and “satellites” (comites) and genetically associated with those informal councils of friends and relatives that were formed with the aristocratic governors of the provinces and the commanders of the armies of the republican period. According to their social status, these were, as a rule, representatives of the rich and educated senatorial and equites of the empire. However, the Roman aristocracy received education mainly in the field of literature, philosophy and rhetoric, and very much appreciated these activities as an important part of their cultural and class identity. But its representatives were not experts in the field of economics, political science or military theory, or even, most often, people who had any practical experience in a particular area.

A detailed description by the Roman historian Herodian of the meeting of the emperor Commodus with his “friends” regarding the continuation or cessation of hostilities on the Danube border in 180 AD There are no arguments about the strategic advantages of a particular border line, economic benefits, financial costs or human losses. The argument of "friends" in favor of continuing the war lies exclusively in the sphere of psychology and boils down mainly to the fact that the opposite decision would be inglorious, and insufficient aggressiveness would undermine the security of the empire, since it would give the barbarians confidence. And such considerations were very typical for the Romans when discussing issues of war and peace.



The basis of the behavior of the Romans was the concern for the status or "honor" of the empire, mainly the way the empire (and to some extent the emperor himself) is perceived by his subjects and foreigners. Symbolic manifestations of respect and submission on the part of enemies were the goal of politics; arrogance or insult on their part were immediate and legitimate reasons for war. Intimidation and revenge were tools to maintain the image of the empire. However, there is no reason to deny that human or financial resources imposed certain “real” restrictions on Roman politics. The Roman strategy was thus, at least in part, determined by moral and psychological motives.

2. Image of the world


In general, the geographical and ethnographic representations of the Roman elite always remained predominantly literary in character. Traditional views of the world and the peoples inhabiting it, going back to Homer and Herodotus, continued to enjoy authority even when new information became available.

However, the accuracy and practical significance of this information was almost always limited to the form in which it was submitted. Its source was mainly victorious reports and “memoirs” of generals of the type of the famous “Notes on the Gallic War” by Julius Caesar, who performed ideological and propaganda functions to a greater degree than stated reliable facts.



3. Military aspects of foreign policy


In the era of principality, the empire ensured its security with the help of relatively small, professional, well-armed forces of more or less unchanged number (about 300-400 thousand soldiers), and this was one of the determining factors of the Roman strategy.

Due to the limited size of the army, the lack of trained reserves, the slow speed of its movement during the existing vehicles and the grandiose spaces of the empire, the reaction to a major military crisis (whether a massive invasion or rebellion) was always late, and the concentration of troops in one region led to a weakening the safety of others. Under such conditions, efforts aimed at expanding the empire, as well as perseverance in retaining newly conquered territories (often of dubious economic or strategic value), look more or less irrational, if we ignore the fact that Roman politics basically operated on a psychological level (revolving around image or “national honor”), and not on strict military or economic calculation.

The true foundations of the Roman strategy should be sought in the field of psychology and best illustrated by the speaker’s thesis of the fourth century. AD The Theism, according to which the Scythians (ie, ready) and the Romans are divided not by the river, not by the swamps, not by the fortifications, since all this can be overcome or destroyed, but the fear that does not allow it. The defense of the empire, therefore, was based on the "faith" of the enemy in the inevitability of retribution. And if the Romans could not prevent it from breaking through on a particular section of the border, then the only way to respond to the situation was to retaliate into the enemy’s territory after the concentration of the necessary forces was complete.

All such expeditions were intended to avenge, punish, intimidate the enemy, i.e. return it to the state of consciousness (the state of fear of Rome), which ensured the protection of borders. This "strategy of intimidation" was the traditional model of behavior of the Romans in the international arena during all periods of their stories.



4. Economic aspects of foreign policy


According to some calculations, the cost of maintaining the army constituted the overwhelming part (from 2 / 3 to 3 / 4) of the state budget. And if the size of this army was relatively small, then it seemed to be the maximum forces that the empire was able to contain.

The wars were very expensive. According to sources, they devastated the treasury and put a heavy burden on the provinces, especially on those adjacent to the theater of operations, where the bulk of the troops were concentrated. However, mining, especially in the form of precious metals and slaves, was the most obvious compensation for military costs. Sometimes its volume was so large that it had a significant impact on the economy. But in addition to the undoubted economic benefits of military production contained a huge prestigious value, symbolizing the humiliation of the enemy.

In addition to mining, there were other potential benefits of war. The accession of new provinces increased (sometimes very significantly) the income of the Roman state as a result of an increase in the number of taxpayers and the acquisition of new sources of mineral resources. And this circumstance, possibly, was one of the important factors that determined the adoption of foreign policy decisions. However, the truly lucrative wars of Rome are in the past, in the era of the great conquests of the republic. The only truly profitable military event of the imperial period was the conquest by the Emperor Traian of Dacia. Most wars of the era of the empire were waged against poor nations, and they, in fact, were unprofitable for Rome. It is precisely the low profitability of the wars of the principality period and the “uselessness” of the territories that remained outside of the empire, which partly explains the much lower rate of conquest in the period under consideration compared to the previous one.

In general, despite the fact that economic considerations undoubtedly played a certain role in the military decisions of the Romans, a purely economic model of their adoption is not confirmed in the sources. A vivid example here is Britain, which throughout its existence as a Roman province was, rather, a kind of “black hole” for the financial resources of the empire, than a source of income. But the Romans held her with fierce stubbornness, demonstrating the well-known truth from ancient sources that once won can not be lost without prejudice to honor and glory. In the same way, to conquer Dacia, Trayan needed almost half of the entire Roman army and huge financial resources. True, the colossal military efforts of Rome were rewarded by rich mining and the acquisition of gold mines. However, it must be borne in mind that the Dacian wars, despite their tremendous value (both in terms of material and human resources), would have occurred even in the absence of any hope of profit. For Traian and his advisers, other considerations were more important.

The Dacian king humiliated Rome, defeating the Roman army and forcing the world to bring shameful to the empire, and this could not be left without revenge. Both the Dacian wars of Trajan were thus wars of retribution and punishment. And precisely for this reason, the emperor was ready to use military and financial resources on a gigantic scale, without a guarantee of compensation. Consequently, the image problem arises here as incomparably more important than a simple economic calculation.



5. System of values


Of course, the superiority of Rome over the barbarians was ultimately ensured by the superiority of its military strength. However, the most significant element in this relationship system was the state of minds in the camp of the enemy: the security of the empire depended on the ability of Rome to inspire reverence and horror. Rome always had to prove its power superiority through victorious wars and conquests. No military defeat could remain unforgiven, and a breach of contract or rebellion unpunished. Retribution should always be as aggressive as possible, accompanied by invasion, repression, and even genocide. Conquests committed in order of deterrence and revenge, were considered "fair" and "necessary." Manifestations of weakness (such as insufficient revenge for an attack or insufficient cruelty during the suppression of an uprising) could be considered by the enemy as a signal to launch against Rome. As a state, the Romans, therefore, behaved in the international arena like Homer's heroes, mafia gangsters or members of any other community in which status and security depend on the ability to use violence and any other pattern of behavior in those conditions was not possible.

Since antiquity, attempts have been made to explain the phenomenon of the Roman Empire. Even in the II. BC. The Greek historian Polybius believed that the movement of the Romans to world domination was a product of conscious politics. Historians of the New Age completely rejected this idea. In order to explain the Roman expansion, the theory of "defensive imperialism" was advanced, according to which the Romans made conquests in order to ensure their security and prosperity and, as a rule, in response to the provocative actions of other nations. In recent years, this theory has gone out of fashion, but the study shows that it made a valuable contribution to understanding the nature of Roman imperialism in the sense that the Romans themselves would hardly disagree with it.

But then the explanation of the final result - the creation of the greatest empire - should be sought in something else, for example, in the value system of Roman society, including maiestas (greatness), honos (honor), fama (glory), census (wealth), dignitas ( dignity), formed the basis of the Roman foreign policy. It would be a mistake to describe the actions of the Romans as “aggressive” or “defensive”. More precisely, such concepts as insult and revenge, terror and respect convey them, and the “great strategy” of Rome itself appears as a complex of political ideas, ideas and values.



A source:
Mattern SP Rome and the enemy imperial strategy in the principate. Berkeley etc. Univ. of California, 1999. XX, 259 P. Bibliogr. P. 223-244 (V Ave. Medovicheva AE).
Author:
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Duke
    Duke 22 March 2014 07: 41
    +3
    America is not Rome and Obama is not an emperor. Although there are similarities in pressure on the world.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 22 March 2014 08: 41
      +5
      Quote: Duke
      America is not Rome and Obama is not an emperor. Although there are similarities in pressure on the world.
      --- to compare Rome and the Yankee empire --- not correctly and not right ........ there are some similarities - but no more than between the way of the Zalupumba tribe and modern Britain, for example ...
    2. Horde
      Horde 22 March 2014 09: 33
      +2
      article - delirium on delirium immediately to conclusions, the author deduces the meaning of the existence of empires, as
      the creation of the greatest empire - should be sought in something else, for example, in the system of values ​​of Roman society, including maiestas (greatness), honos (honor), fama (glory), census (wealth), dignitas (dignity), formed the basis of Roman foreign policy.

      Imagine the situation, the meeting of the city's fathers of noble patricians explains to the people the GOALS OF THE WAR, as GREATNESS, they say, "we will put our sons in the war, but we will become GREAT" - THIS is nonsense people will not understand such goals of war and will trample such "fathers"
      Wars are conquering or liberating; there are NO OTHER MOTIVES at the heart of wars, therefore, when the United States gets into Iraq, they get there not abstract greatness, but banal OIL.
      THE ROMAN EMPIRE is a too contradictory tangle of views from a civilian system to a military one. The Roman Empire CANNOT EXIST FOR MANY REASONS. A city that was far from trade routes could not develop so successfully, it was not possible for Roman civilization to develop trade and the rest of the economic BASIS of its civilization, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to OPERATE with ROMAN NUMBERS. The main position declared by historians on the ability of ROMA to mine and produce MAJOR DESIGN - IRON is completely untenable and deceitful.
      Therefore, to carry out some parallels between that and this time, to write another novel in the style of science fiction.
    3. Sibiriya
      Sibiriya 22 March 2014 10: 03
      +1
      Clown .obaka and State Department - circus the further the more
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 22 March 2014 07: 42
    +3
    I'm tired of waiting for the collapse of the "empire". patience is running out. just in case, I put my passport and the soldier in a bag and carry it with me. but the military registration and enlistment office is still silent
  3. Normman
    Normman 22 March 2014 07: 43
    +10
    The main imperative of the West as the heir to the Roman Empire - Divide and conquer!
    The main imperative of the Orthodox Slavs, as the spiritual heirs of the Byzantine empire - Our strength is in unity!
    Not for nothing, the main idea inscribed on the coat of arms of the USSR is "Workers of all countries - unite!" and the name of the now ruling party "United Russia", only modifications of the basic common Slavic idea of ​​unity.
    This is the root of the antagonism of the east and west. It is impossible to reconcile polar ideological aspirations!
    The West crushes everything it can reach. It divides, atomizes, its own society, potential opponents, beaten off from the hands of supporters and vassals. A small group that considers itself "chosen by God" in whose hands, through violence, power is concentrated, can win only in this way.
    Russia is dangerous as the bearer of the killer idea of ​​unity and equal living of nations and nationalities. This initially fair idea, the West can not oppose anything but money and lies, the only tools through which he disguises his true goals and recruits performers.
    I think the time has come to admit that Russia does not need to invent a national idea. He already is -
    Our strength is in unity!
    1. Retx
      Retx 22 March 2014 09: 07
      +4
      We are also the heirs of the Roman Empire. Moscow is the third Rome. Our coat of arms is a reminder to this, do not forget this.
      1. StolzSS
        StolzSS 22 March 2014 12: 58
        0
        Only the problem is in the emblem of the head, then two and the crowns then three))) For centuries, we have not had a reasonable centrism ...
      2. Normman
        Normman 22 March 2014 13: 09
        +1
        We are all the heirs of Adam, in that case. Do not forget about the second Rome - Constantinople! The Roman and Byzantine empires existed in parallel. Constantopol both spiritually and financially became an adversary of Rome. And it was Moscow that inherited Constantinople.
      3. RUSS
        RUSS 22 March 2014 14: 40
        +1
        We are the heirs of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium), and the West is the heir of the Western Roman Empire (Catholic Rome).
    2. lg41
      lg41 22 March 2014 09: 18
      +5
      usa power - a private organization that prints money (shares) for international payments located in the usa. So far, the United States is invincible. and Russia is giving its real wealth for these candy wrappers
    3. Horde
      Horde 22 March 2014 10: 05
      -3
      Quote: Normman
      The main imperative of the Orthodox Slavs, as the spiritual heirs of the Byzantine empire - Our strength is in unity!


      not so, the BASIC IDEA of the Russian people SERVING THE FATHERLAND and it was this idea that the Russian people have been faithful for centuries.
      Quote: Normman
      Not for nothing, the main idea inscribed on the coat of arms of the USSR is "Workers of all countries - unite!" and

      "proletarians unite" was not invented by the Slavs and not by the Russians, but by the Jew Karl Marx in his manifesto, so don't ...

      Quote: Normman
      the name of the now ruling party "United Russia", only a modification of the basic common Slavic idea of ​​unity.

      "United Russia" - a party of crooks and thieves - these are officials and oligarchs - Putin's friends all keep the stolen assets-bins abroad ...
      Quote: Normman
      This is the root of the antagonism of the east and west. It is impossible to reconcile polar ideological aspirations!

      nonsense - you don’t know history at all and don’t understand the SOURCES OF ANTAGONISM OF THE RUSSIAN WORLD AND THE WORLD OF THE WEST ...

      Quote: Normman
      Russia is dangerous as the bearer of the killer idea of ​​unity and equal living of nations and nationalities.


      unfortunately, RUSSIA-the USSR has become a conductor of the completely false and inconsistent idea since the French Revolution - this is the idea of ​​EQUALITY AND BROTHERHOOD. This can not be the first if you take only TWO PEOPLE there is NO EQUALITY between them, what to speak of estates, peoples and nation.
      secondly, the BASIC idea of ​​the USSR was SOCIAL JUSTICE, but EQUALITY and JUSTICE are POLAR concepts. A society built on the principle of EQUAL EQUALITY cannot be JUST. This is the BASIC HIDDEN CONTRADICTION and led to the collapse of the Slavic USSR.

      Quote: Normman
      Russia is dangerous as the bearer of the killer idea of ​​unity and equal living of nations and nationalities.

      RUSSIA is dangerous, just not the ideas of abstract equality and unity, with whom are you going to be one? with oligarchs zhid_dy or kavazkimi traders from our markets? are we always on opposite sides of the counter, with bureaucrats from the State Duma adopting such as 282 Russian laws?
      The Russian people and present-day Russia are not the same thing and the WEST is dangerous not this Putin Russia, but the RUSSIAN PEOPLE its culture and its OTHER DIFFERENT system of values ​​from the West ...
      1. Metlik
        Metlik 22 March 2014 11: 55
        +2
        Quote: Horde
        "proletarians unite" was not invented by the Slavs and not by the Russians, but by the Jew Karl Marx in his manifesto, so don't ...

        The idea of ​​unity was preached by Sergius of Radonezh, and it became the basis of victory in the Kulikovo field.
        1. Horde
          Horde 22 March 2014 12: 22
          -2
          Quote: Metlik
          The idea of ​​unity was preached by Sergius of Radonezh, and it became the basis of victory in the Kulikovo field.


          why are you somehow wrong, talking specifically about proletarians who should unite
          about Sergius of Radonezh do not pamper the source?
          by the way, Nosovsky recently made a DISCOVERY - perhaps Sergius of Radonezh in the world BATHLOMEUS CHERNETS was no less than POWDER A. There were no tales about China right away, and according to TI, gunpowder was opened by the so-called Bertold Schwartz. Now Bertold Schwartz and Bartholomew Chernets are one and the same person. And Sergius gave his weapon to Dmitry Ivanovich before the Battle of Kulikovo ...
          http://www.chronologia.org/audio/20140310_eho_nosovsky2.html
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 22 March 2014 12: 50
            +2
            Quote: Horde
            about Sergius of Radonezh do not pamper the source?


            Sergius of Radonezh, like Metropolitan Alexy, was a true patriot of the Motherland. His work was a tangible help to the Moscow princes in uniting the Russian lands. During the disagreement between the princes, only Sergius managed to become a peacemaker - his authority was very high.

            When the Moscow Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich gathered in 1380 for the battle with Mamaia, which would become the main feat of his life, he came to St. Sergius for a blessing. According to legend, Sergius, having overshadowed the prince with the sign of the Cross, predicted him victory over the Tatars and gave, as already mentioned above, two monks of warriors to associates.

            The word and blessing of Sergius meant a lot! His predictions have come true more than once, he had the glory of a miracle worker. His authority helped Prince Dmitry to assemble a huge army from different regions of Russia and for the first time to defeat the Tatars. Although this victory was not final, but it strengthened forces, inspired the Russian princes who aspired to unity. She accelerated the liberation of Russia from the Horde dependence, and contributed to the process of the collapse of the Golden Horde.

            http://rudocs.exdat.com/docs/index-170588.html?page=9
            1. Horde
              Horde 22 March 2014 13: 17
              -2
              Quote: Metlik
              The idea of ​​unity was preached by Sergius of Radonezh, and it became the basis of victory in the Kulikovo field.


              Sergius preached the idea of ​​UNITING THE LANDS OF THE RUSSIANS, and where does "unity"? with whom is unity?
              1. Metlik
                Metlik 22 March 2014 13: 27
                0
                Quote: Horde
                Sergius preached the idea of ​​UNITING THE LANDS OF THE RUSSIANS, and where does "unity"? with whom is unity?

                Battle of Kalka. 20 Mongols tore 000 Russian troops due to the fact that there was no single leadership.
                Kulikovo field. Russian troops are a single unit, and act according to the general plan.
                1. Horde
                  Horde 22 March 2014 14: 14
                  -3
                  Quote: Metlik
                  Battle of Kalka. 20 Mongols tore 000 Russian troops due to the fact that there was no single leadership.


                  Yana read a lot? you at least use the correct terms not "single leadership" and the ONE INITIATION IN THE ARMY. And how was there no "unified leadership" in the battle on the Kalka, by the way, historians still cannot find such a river that the soldiers themselves took and gathered and themselves went to the battlefield and began to fight the Mongols themselves or what? could this be? and even 80 thousand? again let us source that I have not heard that there were 80 thousand Russians on the "kalka".
                  1. Metlik
                    Metlik 22 March 2014 16: 46
                    0
                    Quote: Horde
                    you at least use the correct terms not "single leadership" and the ONE INITIATION IN THE ARMY.


                    What kind of one-man management can we talk about when each prince owned his own squad? Forgot: the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal? It is a single guide - do not confuse the concept.
                    1. Horde
                      Horde 22 March 2014 17: 06
                      -2
                      Quote: Metlik
                      What kind of one-man management can we talk about when each prince owned his own squad?


                      Russian history is not just distorted, but FALSE intentionally, you want to say that the princes went to fight the Mongols without choosing a commander? this is nonsense, so NOBODY waged war neither then nor now, our ancestors were not idiots, as the silencers try to assure us, I remind you that Russian history was composed 150 years after Peter by German historians, because in the Russian Academy of Sciences RUSSIAN DID NOT HAVE...
      2. Irokez
        Irokez 22 March 2014 12: 01
        -1
        Quote: Horde
        "United Russia" - a party of crooks and thieves - these are officials and oligarchs - Putin's friends all keep the stolen assets-bins abroad.


        Firstly, Berezovsky still stood at the origins (but not of United Russia itself but its antecedent); secondly, it is not necessary to personify and unite the oligarchs who left under Yeltsin with the subsequent successor, non-oligarch Putin.
        1. Horde
          Horde 22 March 2014 12: 29
          -2
          Quote: Irokez
          second, it is not necessary to personify and unite the oligarchs who left under Yeltsin with the subsequent successor, non-oligarch Putin.


          why is it NOT NECESSARY? oligarchs may have been since that time, but Putin’s regime protects them and protects them very well, and it’s very comfortable for these robbers of the people in this regime ...
          1. Normman
            Normman 22 March 2014 13: 26
            +1
            This is not a controversy, continuous labels, one "Putin's Russian" is worth something! The state is inseparable from the people, let me remind you - a great multinational people. How much should one despise this people in order to speak offensively about their state? Yes, this state is not ideal, but there are problems! But you will not be able to divide us into red and white, supporters of Putin and opponents, rich and poor for this not our imperative! I laugh at the drooling false patriots who rage in their clumsy attempts to sow discord and once again set people against the state in order to force them to engage in self-destruction instead of building. You did it in 1917 and in 1991, yes! But 1945 will always come for them, and I'm sure 2015!
            Our strength is in unity!
            1. Horde
              Horde 22 March 2014 13: 59
              -3
              Quote: Normman
              This is not a controversy, continuous labels, one "Putin's russia" is worth something!


              I understand that the type of response to my post, but not directly, but indirectly? generally speaking in the third person is an attempt to somehow lower the significance of the conversation and the opponent and so raise your not-so-high level, but on this site such tricks do not work therefore ...

              Quote: Normman
              The state is inseparable from the people, I remind you - a great multinational people.

              why "not separable" has long been separable those who at the top of the state receive 95% of the public wealth, live in palaces, talk nonsense on TV, sit in the Duma and commit lawlessness ie laws protecting this state of affairs, travel around Courchevel and buy food in the most expensive stores, and 98% of the country's population who are not allowed to share the WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY live from paycheck to paycheck, or no wages at all, consume all sorts of genetically modified but cheap products, pay more than 50% of the salary for housing and communal services, children are now not admitted to the knowledge of civilization because education has to be paid for and, accordingly, the DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION is deteriorating since the average family cannot have SEVERAL CHILDREN.

              Quote: Normman
              How much should this people be despised in order to speak abusively about its state?

              well, how else does it relate to the fact that the head of state justifies the thieves and does not allow justice to be done, slows down JUSTICE and instead imposes justice on the elect, such a head has no right to respect ...

              Quote: Normman
              But you will not be able to divide us into red and white, Putin's supporters and opponents, rich and poor, for this is not our imperative!

              and what is your "imperative"?, how do you like that word sunk into your bosom laughing Russian slaves should work, Yafreisk managers should skim the cream? Is this a natural state of affairs for you, should the rich be richer and the poor poorer? don’t roll, you should know that the Russian people do not agree with such orders and the changes will come sooner or later ...

              Quote: Normman
              I laugh at the drooling false patriots who rage in their clumsy attempts to sow discord and once again set people on the state to force them to engage in self-destruction instead of building.

              strongly do not laugh, or laughter for no reason is a sign of foolishness ...
              Quote: Normman
              You did it in 1917 and in 1991, yes! But the 1945th will always come for them, and I'm sure 2015!
              Our strength is in unity!

              you have every word Nonsense, a CONTRADICTION WITH A HEALTHY SENSE, such as you are not able to combine anything, because you can’t prove anything ...
              1. Normman
                Normman 22 March 2014 14: 15
                0
                When there are no arguments, insults come into play :) Apparently from a bo-o-big mind!
          2. Irokez
            Irokez 22 March 2014 13: 35
            +2
            Quote: Horde
            why is it NOT NECESSARY? oligarchs may have been since then, but Putin’s regime protects them and protects them very well, and it’s very comfortable for these people to rake

            It turns out that all that is not democracy is the regime.
            Communists - the regime.
            Dictatorship is a regime.
            But democracy is what?

            In addition, when Putin became president in those days, he did not have such power as right now, and therefore he could not lead as he did today, and therefore was forced to follow the liberalism and privatization of the new oligarch democrats. But right now, another time and still blame him for everything that you do not like, too, can not.
            1. Horde
              Horde 22 March 2014 14: 22
              -2
              Quote: Irokez
              It turns out that all that is not democracy is the regime.
              Communists - the regime.
              Dictatorship is a regime.
              But democracy is what?


              Mohawk, do you disagree? with the fact that, as Norman said, "ALL are ONE" and the oligarchs and thieves are officials, and the people being robbed?
              DEMOCRACY is a way to fool the people, that is, to rule ...

              Quote: Irokez
              In addition, when Putin became president in those days, he didn’t have such power as right now, and therefore he could not lead since today he couldn’t

              the stool is sitting? no? then everything is clear with "unity" and with Putin ...
              1. Irokez
                Irokez 22 March 2014 14: 27
                0
                Quote: Horde
                the stool is sitting? no? then everything is clear with "unity" and with Putin ...

                If you are the personification of justice and the owner of life, then put him on this stool, but just do not say that you will not succeed due to lack of opportunities.
                Even the president does not have full power and is trying to be in the legal field, and why someone doesn’t plant it there, ask those who don’t plant it.

                Quote: Horde
                "ALL are ONE" and the oligarchs and thieves, officials, and the plundered people?

                And by the way, yes, they are all citizens of Russia, well, maybe of some other country and not only Russians, but maybe of another nationality, but they still live with us and not all of us, as you expect, they are so bad.
                And by the way, point your finger at a country in a world where there are no such oligarchs, thieves and officials?
                Everywhere there is everything, but with different sauce and sharper.
                1. Horde
                  Horde 22 March 2014 14: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: Irokez
                  If you are the personification of justice and the owner of life, then put him on this stool, but just do not say that you will not succeed due to lack of opportunities.

                  joke is what should I arrest Taburetkin, judge him and take him to jail? nnda I thought you were smarter ...
                  Quote: Irokez
                  And by the way, point your finger at a country in a world where there are no such oligarchs, thieves and officials?


                  in Germany there is more order and such theft, as we do not have ...
                2. Horde
                  Horde 22 March 2014 14: 58
                  -2
                  Quote: Irokez
                  And by the way, yes, they are all citizens of Russia, well, maybe of some other country and not only Russians, but maybe of another nationality, but they still live with us and not all of us, as you expect, they are so bad.


                  such an order, when a robber can live peacefully with a robber, suits only a Robber, and WE DO NOT SUCH ORDER ...
                  1. Irokez
                    Irokez 22 March 2014 15: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: Horde
                    joke is what should I arrest Taburetkin, judge him and take him to jail? nnda i thought you were smarter

                    So what do you think to arrest Taburetkin, judge him and take him to jail Putin should do this? Nnda, I thought you were smarter.
                    Quote: Horde
                    in Germany there is more order and such theft, as we do not have ...

                    Do you think that the leaders or founders of Deutsche Bank and similar syndicates are not aligarchs who seem to be people, but they own HUGE fortunes not only in Germany, but throughout the world. The same eggs but in a different sauce.
                    And in Germany, by the way, there was very little theft among the common people (Hitler taught).
                    1. Horde
                      Horde 22 March 2014 15: 50
                      -3
                      Quote: Irokez
                      So what do you think to arrest Taburetkin, judge him and take him to jail Putin should do this? Nnda, I thought you were smarter.


                      the level of controversy fell below the plinth. Iroquois, what do you think I’m the president of Russia too? early on, you should begin to relax in the evening, and in general you would go to zhshshku or to do a lot of fools there, but go and see a few hares ...
                      1. Irokez
                        Irokez 22 March 2014 16: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Horde
                        Iroquois what do you think that I am also the president of Russia? early you started to relax

                        I think that you, as president, would do nothing more than act the current president.
                        Everyone has their own place, and if they were to say so, everyone can.
                        And you don’t have to send me anywhere (everyone knows how) last time. You have already sent me frankly.
                        Once again I say that it’s not the prime minister or the president who is to blame for everything that happens, but all the people who directly or indirectly influence the surrounding reality and blame everything on one thing - this is paranoia. For some reason, you are silent about Medvedev as about the former president and right now the prime minister, and if he were right now in the place of Putin we would all have been a good fucker. But it’s Putin who is unpleasant to you (well, this is your personal, subjective hostility and nothing more).
                        Therefore, we will not argue further today, as I am watching your reasoning trying to understand what is the reason for such views.
                        I honestly admit in most opinions I agree with you in many ways, but not in some key issues.
                      2. Horde
                        Horde 22 March 2014 17: 09
                        -2
                        Quote: Irokez
                        About Medvedev, you are silent for some reason as about the former president and right now the premiere,


                        But what prevents Putin from taking off Medvedev’s fool and putting in a competent person?
                      3. Irokez
                        Irokez 22 March 2014 17: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Horde

                        But what prevents Putin from taking off Medvedev’s fool and putting in a competent person?

                        If I knew I would definitely tell you. But my opinion is that the removal of Medvedev will raise the howl of the liberals and the next political war, but for this is not the best time right now.
                      4. Horde
                        Horde 22 March 2014 18: 25
                        -2
                        Quote: Irokez
                        But my opinion is that the removal of Medvedev will raise the howl of the liberals and the next political war, but for this is not the best time right now.

                        do not create unnecessary entities, the liberals have NO FORCE behind them and the country is now Putin’s one power, as he will say so, for example, the West has now raised a howl about CRIMEA, which prevents the West from investing caps in the same Medvedev or Chubais and throwing off Putin? however, Washington sees the situation perfectly and soberly assesses the balance of power in Russia and will not do such adventures as in Ukraine in Russia, now everything is under Putin’s control ...
                      5. Irokez
                        Irokez 22 March 2014 18: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: Horde
                        now Putin has everything under control

                        Almost everything is under control now. And remember our swamp Maidan, and such pro-Westerners as the Nemtsovs, Navalny and their similar environment, and this is not a project of the West. The main thing is to shake and at the right moment all the way will collapse and it will be like in Kiev, Syria, Libya and it would seem friends, and at the right moment a knife in the back.
                        Yes, and the Russian media are most liberal (right now a little quiet), but they all sing as something anti-Russian than pro-Russian.
                        It would have been everything under control - if the Russian constitution had been made pro-Russian long ago and the Bank of Russia would have been deployed at 100% service to Russia, it would still be stifled, albeit less than 5-6 years ago.
  • mad
    mad 22 March 2014 07: 45
    +3
    The Roman Empire fell, at its decline sodomy and complete separation from reality flourished there. This means that we do not have to endure the "Exclusive Nation" for long, and Vladimir is pushing it to the edge of the abyss dug with his own hands.
  • delfinN
    delfinN 22 March 2014 07: 55
    +4
    "All such expeditions were aimed at revenge, punishment, intimidation of the enemy, that is, to return him to that state of consciousness (a state of fear of Rome), which ensured the protection of the borders. This" strategy of intimidation "was the traditional model of behavior of the Romans in the international arena all periods of their history. "
    The Asashais are glorious successors of intimidating the enemy. Neither one nor the other was helped by "your Poles." The Asashay Indians then killed, and did not have time to adopt their centuries-old experience:
  • VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 22 March 2014 07: 56
    +3
    Why not gather Maidan representatives and take them to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and especially the remnants of Yugoslavia on the achievements of American democracy, let them talk with people on the street and then share what they saw on the Maidan. Many would have cleared the brains! fool
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 22 March 2014 08: 44
      +1
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      Why not gather Maidan representatives and take them to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and especially the remnants of Yugoslavia on the achievements of American democracy, let them talk with people on the street and then share what they saw on the Maidan. Many would have cleared the brains!
      - will not work --- their CPU is securely locked
    2. lg41
      lg41 22 March 2014 09: 34
      +1
      representatives of the Maidan will not go for it. they received a lot of money for the collapse of the state. and now they have a season of work
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 22 March 2014 08: 11
    +2
    Empires themselves do not fall; they are helped in this by creating external and internal problems.
  • serge
    serge 22 March 2014 08: 32
    +4
    The basis and meaning of Roman expansion, just like American expansion now, just like British expansion in the XNUMXth century, is not in honor, glory or revenge, but in the acquisition of material values ​​and the slaves that create them. That is, in the desire to live at the expense of others. The similarity between Romans and Americans is that the Romans always found a formal reason for new invasions, i.e. Rome always found the "offended" as an object of future aggression and formally came out to protect them. Britain, which consisted of rabid racists, was less looking for a pretext for an invasion, kept on the fear of raids and playing off potential adversaries. The classic examples of playing off are financing the Bolshevik revolution and financing the creation of a Hitlerite army against the USSR. The Roman Empire collapsed, because it seized more than it could keep with the help of the citizens of Rome proper, and began to rely on a hired army not from the Romans, i.e. followed the path of Carthage defeated by her for the same reasons.
    1. lg41
      lg41 22 March 2014 09: 38
      +2
      they said very true. Separated the reasons from the reasons
  • Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 22 March 2014 09: 02
    +3
    Compare amers and Rome, humiliate Rome. Similarities zero most far-fetched. And yes, the only legitimate heirs of Rome are us.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 22 March 2014 11: 10
    +1
    The collapse of the empire, as they say, on the face, even bury the dollar and all.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 22 March 2014 11: 28
    +1
    Everyone wants to cling a little to the glory of Rome, and at one time Rome really performed a civilizational function, well, really compare some Germans or Gauls who were, to put it mildly, "uncivilized" and the Romans, well, in no way. although after 476 Rome lost its influence for some time, but very soon restored it in the form of the "Papacy" and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, there is some similarity between the Roman Empire and the USA, but only America is increasingly falling into insanity and frenzy , and breeds the same insanity and frenzy everywhere, degrades in one word. You don't even need to go far for an example, just look at Ukraine, "civilization" there just overlaps the edge, you look at what is happening in Kiev and you understand: yes, "Ukraine is tse Europa ". In short, if you use the very concept of Rome as the idea of ​​global domination, then yes, America is the new Rome, but if you dig deeper, then there is no comparison between the United States and Rome.
  • Metlik
    Metlik 22 March 2014 12: 09
    +3
    The secret of the Roman Empire is the way of life of the Romans. Hannibal defeated the Roman army over and over again, but he failed to subdue Rome, failed to tear its allies from the republic. People throughout Italy wanted to live in Roman.
    To destroy the US domination in the world, you just need to create a way of life that allows you to realize yourself and your abilities.
  • Arbatov
    Arbatov 22 March 2014 12: 13
    +4
    The article was originally embossed at the University of California, so the efforts of the local historians to "adjust" the foreign policy of the States to the Roman Empire are understandable. But they are little historically justified.
    The history of Ancient Rome is permeated with rationality. The Latin language itself is already an example of order. Roman law is based on impeccable logic. Architecture, engineering, art - all this is recognized by the classics precisely as a standard of ordered harmony. There were quirks, and no small ones, among a number of emperors, are known to everyone. But! These emperors ruled for several years (in the aggregate - a small percentage of the entire Roman history), and their quirks were limited to capitals and did not influence the then Roman "Zamkadye" too much.
    I am convinced that the Americans are once again trying to cling to someone else's story, at least somehow.
  • muginov2015
    muginov2015 22 March 2014 12: 26
    +2
    the article is clearly far-fetched. As we were taught at school: the Roman Empire is the highest point in the development of the slave system, i.e. the country's productive forces were slaves, not hired workers. slaves have a strange habit of dying like flies with poor care, then, naturally, a constant influx of fresh meat to the markets was needed. Well, judge for yourself - what kind of wealth could you get from those who are ready? Only captives. Well, Carthage is one of the rivals in the sales market and the slave market. At the same time, it’s a little coin to rob. In modern conditions, all the actions of mattresses are aimed at what? correctly ! To maintain their own productive forces. And what is needed for this? Of course, raw sources. And if other countries are looking for their sources in more civilized ways, be it cooperation, trade, then the mattresses most often break into a gangster’s cap, hiding behind slogans about democratic values ​​and other blabbl