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.
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)
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)