Customer Reviews

Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Are We Rome? is a short but highly important examination of the fall of the Roman Empire and its implications for the twenty-first century United States. Cullen Murphy begins by acknowledging that many parallels between Rome and America have been drawn over the years. The similarities and differences he draws, however, differ from those made by other writers and historians in that he focuses on the moods and attitudes of the two empires at their apogees.

Here Murphy finds much which will alarm concerned Americans today. He notes that both Rome and the US have had similar beliefs in their own exceptionalism, that somehow both Romans and Americans are superior to the rest of the world and thus need take little notice of the opinions of others. He observes that both empires saw foreigners as being inferior and somewhat contemptible, fearing their influence while at the same time coming to rely on them more and more. Most interestingly, Murphy sees in both societies a reluctance to take part in public life and to adequately finance public services.

While Murphy sees much over which to be concerned in modern America, he is not completely pessimistic. He calls for Americans to take a greater interest in the outside world while at the same time taking the problems we face within our society more seriously.

Throughout this short (206 pages plus notes) work Murphy writes with a wit and flair that, despite the somber nature of most of the material, helps to inspire his readers. It is a breath of fresh air to read such trenchant observations amidst the obfuscation and blame-throwing which unfortunately has come to characterize political debate today.

Comparisons between Rome and America are as old as our founding fathers, and thus the picture of Horatio Greenough's marble statue of George Washington on the cover of this book; he looks like a Roman caesar in his toga. Today "triumphalists" celebrate the comparison and want to export America as a model to the world, while "declinists" lament the similarities and warn about over-extension, arrogance and fall. But are we Rome? Murphy, former managing editor of the Atlantic Monthly for twenty years and currently editor at large for Vanity Fair, stakes a middle ground: "In a thousand specific ways, the answer is obviously no. In a handful of important ways, the answer is certainly yes" (p. 197).

After a short prologue, Murphy devotes one chapter each to six parallels of "direct relevance" between ancient Rome and modern America. Both empires exhibit the symptoms of solipsism-- an exaggerated self-identity, the isolating effects of exceptionalism, ignorance of others, the presumptions of privilege, and sheer arrogance. Militarism characterizes both societies. Today America has 700 bases in 60 countries, and in any one year will conduct "operations" of some sort in 170 countries. Murphy suggests that our military is both "too large to be affordable, and too small to do everything it is asked to do." He then turns to how America has blurred the distinctions between the private and public (government) sectors, "the deflection of public purpose by private interest." Outsourcing government responsibilities might be effective and even necessary, but selling the public good for private profit isn't. The fourth parallel between Rome and America is the disdain with which both view outsiders ("barbarians") as inferior. Fifth, Murphy explores the complex notion of borders, both literal (eg, immigration) and figurative. Finally, in his epilogue he examines the "inherent complexity" of large empires like Rome and America. Are they ungovernable?

Rome's empire lasted for a thousand years, and in many obvious ways its "decline and fall" did not mean it simply disappeared. When I have traveled to places like Egypt or China that have had continuous civilizations for thousands of years, and consider that America is just 200 years old--barely a blip on the graph of historical time--I resonate with historically-minded intellectuals like Murphy and their "brutal reminder of impermanence." I find it hard to imagine what America might look like a mere thousand years from now. For his part, Murphy is not overly pessimistic; he urges the country to be more rather than less like the America our founders imagined.

This is a highly provocative book that provides the reader with a good deal to ponder. Its basic premises is that parallels exist between selected phenomena found in the U.S. today and analogous phenomena in what is called ancient Rome. Yet Cullen Murphy is too careful a writer not to set some implicit or explicit ground rules for comparing the U.S. and Ancient Rome. First, Rome as a geo-political entity was not a nation state in the 21st Century meaning of the term. Second, Rome like most geo-political entities was constantly evolving from its foundation until its eventual evolution into a religious center. Third, any comparisons between ancient Rome and the modern U.S. must begin by establishing want phase of evolutionary Rome is being used to compare with the current U.S. situation. And finally, it should be obvious that any comparison between ancient Rome and the U.S. must be based on broad issues and trends and not on specific details. Using these ground rules as a framework, it really is possible to build an analogy between the current U.S. and Ancient Rome.

The founding fathers were clearly thinking of their creation as sort of a new and better Roman Republic with all its citizens having equal responsibilities and privileges. To the extent that anybody today has ever heard of the Roman Republic it is still the model which the U.S. would like to follow. Murphy however sees the present day U.S. more like the more grandiose Roman Empire as it was under say the Antonines (CE 138-192) when the Roman Empire was at its zenith. This was of course right before the calamitous Third Century caused Rome to evolve in yet another direction.

Well how accurate is Murphy's comparison? On the whole in terms of broad trends and attitudes it appears Murphy is much on the mark. For example, the general arrogance, ignorance, and lack of insight that seems characteristic of the Washington D.C. power establishment certainly seems to mirror the characteristics of the movers and shakers of the Roman Empire. Yet as Murphy is quick to warn such analogies can be carried too far. A set of similarities between two political entities widely separated by time and culture really is a vary unreliable way to predict the future of one based on the historical example of the other.

To recap some of the salient points already made -- it is short, pithy, and an enjoyable read, the erudition is clearly there, but it doesn't overwhelm the reader. Mr. Murphy focuses mostly on the comparison between the Rome of the 1st - 4th century AD to the U.S. in drawing his six analogies. He has a bit of a liberal bias, but not crazy liberal, and it is a shame that he doesn't include maps and pictures for our ADD-driven, multimedia culture. So far so good.

What I liked about the book is that it is clearly a subject that is close to the bone for the author. He's visited Hadrian's wall and Rome, he's walked the halls of Congress and among the ruins of the Capitoline Hill. He's read his Gibbon, Appian, Livy, Tacitus, etc. Even the casual student of Roman history will acknowledge the author's fluency in the classical materials. I learned some things I didn't know about Roman archaeology and current Roman studies. (Oddly, I didn't have the feeling that he was as well-versed in American political thought.)

I also liked the provocative questions that he raised about our hubris, our military-industrial complex, our borders, our culture etc. because in the end, a book like this isn't about Rome at all, it's about us, who are we? where are we going? what are we doing? how can we have a little more self-knowledge?

But, I don't think he went far enough or even that he chose the right era. I'm going to be writing about all of this soon, but let's just put it this way -- within 100 years of the third Punic War and the fall of Carthage, Rome went from being a republic with a dominant oligarchy and free lower middle class with a near-universal commitment to public service to the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, and a city where a third of the inhabitants were on the dole.

This is the era where I believe the parallels are truly striking, and where a truly profound study would have begun -- with the increasing separation of the military from the populace, the increasing gridlock and crisis affecting political office-holders, the electoral degradation, the moral degradation of the elite aristocracy, the decline of a sense of public purpose.

So you see, the purpose of the author isn't really about holding up a mirror to us about ourselves as a regime, he is interested in holding up a mirror to us about how we come across vis-a-vis others -- whether immigrants, Iraqis, or sophisticated, liberally-educated Europeans.

This is why my conclusion is that this is a helpful, interesting, and yes, provocative, book, but why it is ultimately not totally satisfying. Definitely worth reading however.

I consider this small book to be a must-read for thoughtful Americans. True, there are many differences between our present complex, technological society and that of the Roman Empire that make evolutionary comparisons difficult and tenuous, yet, as Cullen Murphy well points out, our society is following some trends that proved disastrous to Rome and may well prove disastrous to us if we do not recognize and alter them while we still have the time. Though Murphy does not break new ground, he elegantly writes thought-provoking prose.

This is a short, but very substantive book. Cullen Murphy has a nice writing style that combines academic research with a journalistic touch that makes for very easy reading. There is much to be learned here from start to finish.

Early on Murphy acknowledges that the query of the book's title is nothing new. He likes to debunk the easy myths. In his prologue he even suggests that it might be helpful to be skeptical of that most sacred of all cows of historical interpretations drilled into us by generations of bumper sticker citers of George Santayana ( 'those who can not remember the past.. etc, etc' ).

He presents his evidence and then asks the reader to think for themselves to answer the book's title question. So if you're looking for a simple money quote for the late night dorm room or bar conversation look elsewhere. Also, readers that want to fit a thesis into the simplicity of our current ideological contexts might be frustrated as well. Murphy is clearly too even handed and ultimately too intelligent for either of those approaches. His conclusions might surprise and - if you're looking for an easy answer- disappoint you. To use one of the quotes in the book from another historian: 'too often people focus on a handful of similarities and ignore all the differences'.

Thus, he never comes out and says definitively that we ARE Rome. Instead he spells out, fairly convincingly in my opinion, the reasons that we are in many cases, and don't have to be in others. I found this approach to be very refreshing. In the end, he kind of decides that we 'MAY' be Rome but because of the uniqueness and strengths of America, the fate of our empire does not have to be the same as theirs.

Through all the screw-ups and missteps we take, and factors outside our control that we face, the book ends on a hopeful note by saying that America's historic willingness to change and desire to improve is our best shot. Who can argue with that ?

All in all highly recommended.

Cullen Murphy's book on how our American and Roman empires overlap and don't overlap, and what we might be able to learn from this, explores territory that's been explored in this country since we were a country. What makes the question more urgent today, of course, is the war in Iraq, Islamic terrorism, and a set of political leaders that most of us don't find competent or trustworthy, according to all polls. This book is no simplistic jeremiad, however. In fact, what distinguishes Murphy's take on the subject, and what made this book a delight to read, is his own delight in searching out what's interesting and complex, instead of what's dull and simple to say. His voice in this book is a voice I can only compare to that of your favorite college lecturer: smart, alert, and provoking. (Murphy has written humor in his past life, and it shows.)

I finished this book feeling not just educated but fairly hopeful, which in these times is pretty good value for the money (particularly the fairly hopeful part). I found Murphy's take on the first-century Roman wars in comparison with our Iraqi adventure particularly interesting, though Murphy is careful to maintain that in spite of the clear comparisons (such as the use of "outsourcing" to supply infrastructure and security) you can't just say that we've got the same bad habits that ultimately reduced Rome from an empire to a city that earns a good living from its ruins.

P.S. I was surprised to see this morning that Adam Kirsch, a book reviewer for the New York Sun--a newspaper less likely to be sympathetic to Murphy's take on contemporary U.S, foreign policy than, say, the Times--liked "Are we Rome?" and called it "pithy [and] provocative" and other good things. That's my point about leaning back with this book and hearing your favorite college professor go at it for an hour. Kirsch's review, by the way, is at (...)

Comparisons between the American Republic and the Roman Empire are not new. Since the Founding Fathers used Polybius's "The Rise of the Roman Empire" as one of their most important source documents in drafting the Constitution, this is only natural. Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell - those famous destroyers of republics -- were the arch-villains always in the forefront of our founders' tragically-thinking minds. Cullen Murphy, a former editor with The Atlantic Monthly who is currently with Vanity Fair, makes all of this clear in the prologue to this brisk, conversational book. Murphy is not the first to make comparisons between America and ancient Rome, and certainly won't be the last. He does identify, however, six important parallels between 21st Century America and the later Roman Empire (as opposed to the early Roman Republic or even the Augustan Principate) that make for a fun, quick, and interesting summer read.

The first parallel is the self-importance with which the inhabitants of the two founding cities, Rome and Washington D.C., view themselves vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Murphy is happy to point out that our "Capitol" comes from the Roman Capitoline Hill on which the Roman forum stood. He also comments how much ruins of our own capitol city would look centuries hence compared to the ruins one sees in Italy today. The second parallel is the professional militaries fielded by both powers. Much ink has been spilled on this topic, but of the six parallels cited by Murphy, this one rings the most true. A professional military capable of deploying world-wide on short notice is a characteristic that few great powers have ever attained throughout history, and it is one that Rome had and America still enjoys.

Murphy's third parallel of "privatization" or "corruption" begins to tip his hand. His liberal agenda begins to seep out here. Still, he marshals enough evidence from ancient sources and more recent stories with which many of us are familiar to make his point that excessive privatization leads to less government control, which leads to increased corruption. His fourth parallel involves how Romans viewed their world and how Americans see our world. Would it really surprise anyone to learn that both view the world as spinning almost completely around themselves? The fifth parallel questions the porous borders of both powers and posits, "Did Rome really fall, or was it assimilated into something else?" This chapter will resonate with those who are following the current hot-button topic of immigration reform. Finally, the last parallel compares the complexity of managing the later Roman Empire with the inherent complexity of America leading in an era of globalization. This line of thinking has been explored in more detail by other authors, most notably Thomas Friedman, but Murphy's contribution here is useful too.

In conclusion, this book that will make for good discussion around a summer barbecue. My primary criticism of it is that it contains no maps or pictures. Murphy makes some thoughtful geographic comparisons between the Roman Empire and the United States (such as the Roman Empire could have fit neatly into the Continental United States), and further laments Americans' terrible knowledge of world geography. He even spends some time writing about those maps of the Roman Empire that many of us studied in high school and college and from whence those barbarian invasions came. But Murphy oddly includes no maps of his own. Why not? Is he himself guilty of that geographic indifference which he ascribes to others? Murphy also fails to show any pictures aside from the small one of George Washington on the cover. A picture of the Capitoline Hill could have been nicely juxtaposed with one of our own Capitol building; a picture of Hadrian's wall could have been shown opposite one of our own border fences; a picture of the Rio Grande vs the Danube, etc, etc. These simple additions in a small picture insert (which Murphy no doubt has in an album in his home) could have added considerably to his thesis (and still can in the paperback edition). But these are minor flaws with an otherwise insightful, learned, and enjoyable summer read.

This book compares contemporary America to the Roman Empire. In asking whether we are Rome, Murphy is really asking whether we are doomed to decline and fall, as Rome did. When I began this book I was thinking of Rome at its peak. However, its focus is really on the decline of the empire. With the focus on the negative aspects of the (mostly late) Roman Empire and of America, it gradually becomes clear that the author does not much like either Rome or America. Two examples from the text will explain what I mean. The author takes exception to the plaque left by Neil Armstrong on the moon that says "We came in peace for all mankind," apparently on the grounds that Americans should not be speaking for all mankind. The second refers to the famous `line in the sand' episode from Roman history. In 168 BC, the Roman Consul Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a line in the sand around King Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire who was about to invade Egypt, saying, "Before you cross this line I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate". The implication was that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus wisely chose to withdraw. This would seem to be a triumph of diplomacy since armed conflict was averted without any loss of life or an arrow being fired. Murphy holds this up as an example of Roman arrogance. Arrogance or not, the responsibility that comes with power is such that great nations cannot be spectators and do have to show leadership.

In general the book consists of a series of musings about the similarities between American and Roman governments, militaries, industry, etc. The chapter on privatization of government services is more polemic than scholarly discussion. Unfortunately there seems to be no strong underlying thesis. That there are many similarities between Rome and America should come as no surprise because the imperatives of governing a large nation state are as universal as gravity. In keeping with this idea, most of the similarities between America and Rome would as well apply to the British Empire. Early on, the author tells us that the school history class cliché about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it is not particularly true. This is disconcerting, because what then is the point of this book?

The question posed in the title is of course rhetorical. All empires rise and fall. Murphy reminds us that in some sense Rome never went away completely. Many of our institutions today, not to mention our language, are direct descendents of their Roman counterparts. That America faces many of the same challenges as Rome did is a given. Certainly there are many similarities between the body politic of both Rome and America, but no more than with other large nations. There are also some of the same failings. Yet there are differences as well. America has many strengths, and Murphy does mention some of them at the very end, though only in passing. The entrepreneurial spirit that beginning in the late nineteenth century would power America to global prominence is not mentioned. Obviously Murphy is not happy with the America he sees around him. He makes a strong case for America being Rome at its worst and suggests some ideas to turn things around. Unfortunately, he makes a much poorer case for America NOT being Rome.

I've given this book 3 stars essentially because it was an easy and entertaining, but lightweight, read.

The author notes that ancient Rome casts a long shadow, so long that many have (usually with little substance) fancied themselves living in a New Rome. Mussolini fancied himself leader of a new Roman Empire, yet he did not partition Gaul into three parts; also, the Russian Czars were not Caesar; nor (as historians never tire of telling us) was the Holy Roman Empire either holy, or Roman, or an empire. Yet, having warned the reader of this common (and commonly fallacious) comparison, the author proceeds to march right in, comparing (and contrasting) the contemporary United States with that one-and-only Roman Empire.

Potential buyers should at least be aware that the Decline and Fall presented in this book is probably not the one you were taught in school, nor is it one that is accepted by all scholars. Thus, he asserts that those "barbarian invaders" you learned about were really more like undocumented immigrants (who entered the Empire to do work that Romans would not do). And, he asserts, the (western) Empire didn't really fall so much as undergo a transformation.

To support this, he points out what others have- that the dioceses of the medieval (Roman Catholic) Church largely match the political dioceses established by (the Roman Emperor) Diocletian, and that most Western Europeans today still speak languages that are directly descended from Latin.

Nonetheless, something clearly came to an end when the Pax Romanus could no longer be enforced, and (as others have pointed out) areas which had experienced centuries of peace would, after the Empire's collapse, experience centuries of incessant warfare- along with (the author does briefly touch on this) an overall decline in living standards, and in literacy and other trappings of civilization. Nor should it be forgotten that, while Roman imperial taxes were never light, neither were the duties and obligations owed to feudal warlords in the post-Roman world.

In my opinion, this would have been a better book if the author had taken those who disagree with him a little more seriously. But, then again, this is a very lightweight book, and not at all a scholarly overview of the subject. It's also a good, entertaining read.