A new proposal by Hudson Valley Congressman Pat Ryan, called the 'Courage to Serve Act' would allow qualified and vetted migrants and expedited path to citizenship if they service in the military. FOX 5 NY's Morgan McKay has the story.
At what point are you referring here? Rome had struggle sessions about citizenship for military service since even before the Empire, with a notable example being the Social War, which ended with the extension of citizenship to allied tribes.
Non-citizen armies were already a thing since the early Julio-Claudian period. And doling out citizenship for "good service" was a practice as long as citizenship itself in Rome.
One could hardly call that a "main factor" to the fall if it was so present during Rome's rise in the first place, unless they severely compress the timeline. In fact it's a common technique by modern racists to try and equate Roman non-citizens and "barbarians" with modern USA immigrants, and pin the whole fall of (Western) Rome on trying to incorporate those "migrants".
It's worth remembering that the entirety of Rome's "Fall" historiographical section is usually some 250 years in length, about the same as the entire history of the USA.
And even after the dissolution of the Western Half by the Odoasser coup, Eastern Rome still kept trudging along for almost a thousand years
And for most of that time they employed foreign mercenaries and soldiers, either from unincorporated regions of Anatolia, or later on from the region that eventually became the Kievan Rus', who were given privileges. Two notable examples are the Isaurian-born emperor Zeno and the Varangian Guard.
Maybe I'm a bit over-serious when it comes to Rome, but I think it's important to not be fall into anachronism to criticise the current Empire.
This current development could be taken as a proxy of a sign of desperation to get new recruits. It could also be an useful tool to groom loyal "good migrant" future citizens, to create more splits in migrant communities and prevent class consciousness. I would argue it worked out very well for the Roman regime in many parts of their history.
I'm referring to the later days of the empire where the currency got devaluated to the point where they started having trouble paying their professional army. The empire started increasingly taking tribes from Gaul and other places and effectively using them as a mercenary army with promises of land and pay. Eventually these armies turned on Rome because they weren't getting what they were promised.
This is a similar situation we're currently seeing develop with US empire where it's finding itself overstretched globally, while it's economy is now shrinking due to factors such as dedollarization and the rise of BRICS. The premise of grooming a new loyal army sourced from people that come from the countries that US has been brutalizing for the past century seems like a risky proposition in this context.
Meanwhile, it's also worth remembering that rate of communication back in Roman days was orders of magnitude slower than it is today. Even simple things like sending messages from one end of the empire to another could take weeks or months time. Today we have instant communication, and all forms of physical transport happen at a much faster rate as well. So, it's silly to compare timelines of the fall directly.
And sure, if US ends up dissolving, then we'll see enclaves of former states that band together much like parts of the Roman empire did after the initial collapse.
Makes sense. I didn't quite understand what you were referring to, so the reply was a bit kneejerk. I wonder if there'll ever be a "low pay" situation for the MIC, though. It seems to be the only thing the US ever bothers to fund.
Your point regarding BRICS makes a lot of sense too. I don't think Rome ever had any equal competitor after Carthage like China is to the USA. Most comparable empires were too far away to "steal" Roman support. Best I can think is Axum or the Sassanid Empire, but they're too far from the Mediterranean. Imagine the impact of something like BRI but for western Latin America.
I still think it's risky to compress the Roman timeline when it comes for ideological and policy decisions, moreso due to how it simplifies a lot of the nuance and ebb and flow of history. It's so much time, with so much happening and so much surviving history, that it's easy to cherrypick specific events to create one specific narrative.
So for example, much as I agree that not being able to maintain their professional non-citizen army created the conditions for (at least) regime at multiple points in Roman history, I also think that promising citizenship for alliances during the Social War was critical for Roman victory against the rebelling tribes, and drove a wedge between them.
And it may be my Byzantophile heart speaking for me, but given the East remained fairly strong up until the 7th century (and almost retook Italy under Justinian I in the 6th), I'd say that was actually just the new core for the Empire rather than "parts of" Rome.
I remember reading something about how the Roman economy was already being redirected from Italy and Iberia to North Africa and Anatolia, but I can't confirm it with a source right now. But a good proxy is how many post-Hadrian senators and Emperors wrote in Greek rather than Latin.
Overall though, I agree with your points and am just being pedantic.
I think that ultimately it's not just a question of printing money, but rather that of the material conditions. If US continues to erode things like social services, industry, and infrastructure, then the ability to keep the military supplied and equipped will necessarily erode as well. Meanwhile, a big military is putting a burden on society because labour ends up being diverted from socially useful activities towards stuff like weapons production. This, in turn, translates into having a less capable workforce. For example, Raytheon had to bring back retirees to produce missiles indicating lack of available skilled labour. It's not possible to have a well functioning military without having a well functioning society to back it.
I very much agree that we shouldn't get too invested into analogies with Rome or any other empire. Each historical period is subject to the material and social conditions of the time. There are similar dynamics that can be observed, but it's also important to focus on the actual driving factors that are in play today. We might see similar overall trends, but the details will always be different.
Playing tribes against each other was very much a successful strategy for Rome, and we can see loose parallels to that with how US creates instability globally by interfering in other countries and promoting separatist elements within them. Keeping people divided is a true and tested methodology that empires use to keep control.
And don't think you're being pedantic, my original comment was pretty shallow. :)
You'd consider Axum a competitor to the Roman empire but not the Parthians? That's a perspective I haven't really heard before, do you mind elaborating on that? (EDIT, this is meant to be curious and earnest, not an accusation or anything, I'm interested in hearing your opinion)
I think Parthia counts as one of the biggest competitors during the rise period, but during the decline period they were already the replaced by the Sassanids (I'm not acquainted the internal details of how that happened).
But like Axum, neither were ever in a position where they could capitalise on the failing Roman grasp in the Northwestern Mediterranean (nowadays called "Europe"). So the pressure they applied was in the frontiers rather than the direct blows to the core of the Western Half by the Visigoths and Vandals and such.
Geography severely restricted them in a way that can't restrict China from forming economic alliance with the USA's plundering grounds, so that was the gist of what I was referring to.
But after the fall of the West, the Sassanid empire became the biggest imperial rival for Rome until the Muslim expansion made them look like rump states. So in a very contrived way, one could say Iran was always (Imperial) Rome's biggest opponent, but sadly there was no Iran in Britain.
Very succinct, thank you. I mentioned Parthia because Axum was a contemporary of theirs, but they lasted for an insanely long time, so they were a contemporary of the Sassanids too.
And if I remember correctly, the Sassanids were a Satrap of Parthia who revolted and ended up taking most of their territory from them. And both the Sassanids and Eastern Romans spent so many resources fighting each other that the Muslims were able to devastate both empires. (though there's more too it than just that obviously)
Nah, you're good. People (myself included) tend to apply a lot of oversimplified Roman history to the modern united states, but they aren't alike at all, and the simple version we often tell rarely gives us a proper picture of events.
But did it really matter they were foreign? For the entire history of the empire the Praetorians threatened to kill the emperor if they didn’t get bonuses.
The first people that Caesar paid after his campaigns were his soldiers.
I think it matters from the perspective of the regime. The people in US are conditioned to believe in the greatness of US, and their superiority over other cultures. The whole American exceptionalism business basically. As a result, people in the army feel loyalty to the existing power structures and the state. On the other hand, once you start moving to what is effectively a mercenary army sourced from countries the empire has been ravaging, they don't have the same level of commitment to the imperial project.
It depends on the period you are talking about, Rome as an entity existed for approximately 2 thousand years, in various situations foreign soldiers vary between opportunistic and extremely loyal, such as the Gauls serving Caesar in his campaigns and in the civil war and the Varangian guard in the Byzantine Empire.And there were the Entruscans and Germans who, at the first opportunity, usually betrayed their Roman allies.
At the end of the western Rome empire, foreign soldiers were one of the factors in its downfall.
i dunno, i think it had more to do with roman racism than outsourcing the army... but yeah, combined with racism, it was a disaster waiting to happen...
Worked for the Romans and French, didn't it?
Arguably one of the main factors in the fall of the Roman empire.
At what point are you referring here? Rome had struggle sessions about citizenship for military service since even before the Empire, with a notable example being the Social War, which ended with the extension of citizenship to allied tribes.
Non-citizen armies were already a thing since the early Julio-Claudian period. And doling out citizenship for "good service" was a practice as long as citizenship itself in Rome.
One could hardly call that a "main factor" to the fall if it was so present during Rome's rise in the first place, unless they severely compress the timeline. In fact it's a common technique by modern racists to try and equate Roman non-citizens and "barbarians" with modern USA immigrants, and pin the whole fall of (Western) Rome on trying to incorporate those "migrants".
It's worth remembering that the entirety of Rome's "Fall" historiographical section is usually some 250 years in length, about the same as the entire history of the USA.
And even after the dissolution of the Western Half by the Odoasser coup, Eastern Rome still kept trudging along for almost a thousand years And for most of that time they employed foreign mercenaries and soldiers, either from unincorporated regions of Anatolia, or later on from the region that eventually became the Kievan Rus', who were given privileges. Two notable examples are the Isaurian-born emperor Zeno and the Varangian Guard.
Maybe I'm a bit over-serious when it comes to Rome, but I think it's important to not be fall into anachronism to criticise the current Empire.
This current development could be taken as a proxy of a sign of desperation to get new recruits. It could also be an useful tool to groom loyal "good migrant" future citizens, to create more splits in migrant communities and prevent class consciousness. I would argue it worked out very well for the Roman regime in many parts of their history.
I'm referring to the later days of the empire where the currency got devaluated to the point where they started having trouble paying their professional army. The empire started increasingly taking tribes from Gaul and other places and effectively using them as a mercenary army with promises of land and pay. Eventually these armies turned on Rome because they weren't getting what they were promised.
This is a similar situation we're currently seeing develop with US empire where it's finding itself overstretched globally, while it's economy is now shrinking due to factors such as dedollarization and the rise of BRICS. The premise of grooming a new loyal army sourced from people that come from the countries that US has been brutalizing for the past century seems like a risky proposition in this context.
Meanwhile, it's also worth remembering that rate of communication back in Roman days was orders of magnitude slower than it is today. Even simple things like sending messages from one end of the empire to another could take weeks or months time. Today we have instant communication, and all forms of physical transport happen at a much faster rate as well. So, it's silly to compare timelines of the fall directly.
And sure, if US ends up dissolving, then we'll see enclaves of former states that band together much like parts of the Roman empire did after the initial collapse.
Makes sense. I didn't quite understand what you were referring to, so the reply was a bit kneejerk. I wonder if there'll ever be a "low pay" situation for the MIC, though. It seems to be the only thing the US ever bothers to fund.
Your point regarding BRICS makes a lot of sense too. I don't think Rome ever had any equal competitor after Carthage like China is to the USA. Most comparable empires were too far away to "steal" Roman support. Best I can think is Axum or the Sassanid Empire, but they're too far from the Mediterranean. Imagine the impact of something like BRI but for western Latin America.
I still think it's risky to compress the Roman timeline when it comes for ideological and policy decisions, moreso due to how it simplifies a lot of the nuance and ebb and flow of history. It's so much time, with so much happening and so much surviving history, that it's easy to cherrypick specific events to create one specific narrative.
So for example, much as I agree that not being able to maintain their professional non-citizen army created the conditions for (at least) regime at multiple points in Roman history, I also think that promising citizenship for alliances during the Social War was critical for Roman victory against the rebelling tribes, and drove a wedge between them.
And it may be my Byzantophile heart speaking for me, but given the East remained fairly strong up until the 7th century (and almost retook Italy under Justinian I in the 6th), I'd say that was actually just the new core for the Empire rather than "parts of" Rome.
I remember reading something about how the Roman economy was already being redirected from Italy and Iberia to North Africa and Anatolia, but I can't confirm it with a source right now. But a good proxy is how many post-Hadrian senators and Emperors wrote in Greek rather than Latin.
Overall though, I agree with your points and am just being pedantic.
I think that ultimately it's not just a question of printing money, but rather that of the material conditions. If US continues to erode things like social services, industry, and infrastructure, then the ability to keep the military supplied and equipped will necessarily erode as well. Meanwhile, a big military is putting a burden on society because labour ends up being diverted from socially useful activities towards stuff like weapons production. This, in turn, translates into having a less capable workforce. For example, Raytheon had to bring back retirees to produce missiles indicating lack of available skilled labour. It's not possible to have a well functioning military without having a well functioning society to back it.
I very much agree that we shouldn't get too invested into analogies with Rome or any other empire. Each historical period is subject to the material and social conditions of the time. There are similar dynamics that can be observed, but it's also important to focus on the actual driving factors that are in play today. We might see similar overall trends, but the details will always be different.
Playing tribes against each other was very much a successful strategy for Rome, and we can see loose parallels to that with how US creates instability globally by interfering in other countries and promoting separatist elements within them. Keeping people divided is a true and tested methodology that empires use to keep control.
And don't think you're being pedantic, my original comment was pretty shallow. :)
You'd consider Axum a competitor to the Roman empire but not the Parthians? That's a perspective I haven't really heard before, do you mind elaborating on that? (EDIT, this is meant to be curious and earnest, not an accusation or anything, I'm interested in hearing your opinion)
I think Parthia counts as one of the biggest competitors during the rise period, but during the decline period they were already the replaced by the Sassanids (I'm not acquainted the internal details of how that happened).
But like Axum, neither were ever in a position where they could capitalise on the failing Roman grasp in the Northwestern Mediterranean (nowadays called "Europe"). So the pressure they applied was in the frontiers rather than the direct blows to the core of the Western Half by the Visigoths and Vandals and such.
Geography severely restricted them in a way that can't restrict China from forming economic alliance with the USA's plundering grounds, so that was the gist of what I was referring to.
But after the fall of the West, the Sassanid empire became the biggest imperial rival for Rome until the Muslim expansion made them look like rump states. So in a very contrived way, one could say Iran was always (Imperial) Rome's biggest opponent, but sadly there was no Iran in Britain.
Very succinct, thank you. I mentioned Parthia because Axum was a contemporary of theirs, but they lasted for an insanely long time, so they were a contemporary of the Sassanids too.
And if I remember correctly, the Sassanids were a Satrap of Parthia who revolted and ended up taking most of their territory from them. And both the Sassanids and Eastern Romans spent so many resources fighting each other that the Muslims were able to devastate both empires. (though there's more too it than just that obviously)
Nah, you're good. People (myself included) tend to apply a lot of oversimplified Roman history to the modern united states, but they aren't alike at all, and the simple version we often tell rarely gives us a proper picture of events.
Arguably one of the factors in the rise of it too
I think we can agree that US is looking more like the late Roman empire today than when it was at its prime though.
... No one tell the United States... We still think we look like Rome during its rise or its prime ...
Don't go getting my hopes up like that.
Weren’t the foreign troops some of the most loyal, fierce, experienced, and determined fighters?
The very same that turned on the empire when it couldn't afford to keep paying them and sacked Rome in the end.
Ha, soldiers are soldiers no matter where you go
But did it really matter they were foreign? For the entire history of the empire the Praetorians threatened to kill the emperor if they didn’t get bonuses.
The first people that Caesar paid after his campaigns were his soldiers.
I think it matters from the perspective of the regime. The people in US are conditioned to believe in the greatness of US, and their superiority over other cultures. The whole American exceptionalism business basically. As a result, people in the army feel loyalty to the existing power structures and the state. On the other hand, once you start moving to what is effectively a mercenary army sourced from countries the empire has been ravaging, they don't have the same level of commitment to the imperial project.
It depends on the period you are talking about, Rome as an entity existed for approximately 2 thousand years, in various situations foreign soldiers vary between opportunistic and extremely loyal, such as the Gauls serving Caesar in his campaigns and in the civil war and the Varangian guard in the Byzantine Empire.And there were the Entruscans and Germans who, at the first opportunity, usually betrayed their Roman allies. At the end of the western Rome empire, foreign soldiers were one of the factors in its downfall.
i dunno, i think it had more to do with roman racism than outsourcing the army... but yeah, combined with racism, it was a disaster waiting to happen...
and there's certainly no lack of racism to be had in the old US of A
aye