So I'm sure you've repeatedly heard of how the US has entered varying states which the empire that Rome established did. However I'm curious if this is really a good comparison (beyond all the techy stuff we've done) given the massive differences in how we maintain our hegemony.
So, does it actually go deeper than a "hurr durr, America is the biggest power right now, thus it = Rome" or is there more to it that actually lends credence to idea that we're the new Rome?
>>1970530
comparisons* lel
The US really isn't anything like Rome
the US global position is unprecedented. rome could be compared to other ancient civilizations in it's scope, shit the han dynasty was the same size at the same time, and effected about the same area. we as in western culture just like to play up it's significance because roman customs are more recently ancestral to our society.
>>1970530
No it doesn't go deeper and American primacy won't even last a century
>>1970530
No its bullshit.
the worst part is when people say america will collapse like rome. It won't. America will just slowly descend to become part of a new world order where multiple countries hold superpower status in a multipolar world.
Rome's legacy is bringing civilization to countless barbarians and drawing up the legal framework for much of the Western world. The US became dominant in an already educated society and their massive cultural influence boils down to bad music and Hollywood schlock. Really the only comparison is military dominance
>>1970563
>t. Zhou
>>1970530
It can be but really superficially. The division between Populares and Optimates in Rome could be seen as a division between Democrat and Republican, but the problem is that Democrat and Republican today barely are different whereas the Populares and Optimates were pretty different.(So different that it caused civil wars).