Most Helpful Customer Reviews
41 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Roman history that is truly relevant, August 3, 2008
Classicist Thomas F Madden has seen the light. He realized after 9-11 that academics have a larger role to play in society than ivory tower occupiers. Since 9-11 he has consciously striven to help people understand the past and how it can help us determine the context in which we make some monumental decision in the present. While he still writes and publishes for academics, he has included the lay person and politician in his circle and has tried to make ancient history relevant.
Such is the foundation of Empires of Trust--ancient history made accessible. After having taken two years of College Latin and Roman history my understanding of that great civilization was changed forever after finishing Madden's work. He wrote the book mainly out of the misunderstanding of Rome and its empire, which has been used by a flood of writers of late to compare what they see as the decline of the United States' Empire with the corruption and decline of the Roman Empire. For starters, he points out that all comparisons of the US with the late Roman Empire is somewhat of a stretch and much of the material written is absurd. For instance whatever one's feelings about President Bush the comparisons to him and the Roman Caesars is laughable:
"Claiming that President Bush or any other American president is a new Pompey or Augustus is simply the kind of frivolousness to be expected in a time of pax. It sells books and makes for good talk show fodder, but it is historically absurd. The men who overturned the Roman Republic did so by wielding raw military power against their own government. Sending the armed forces to Iraq(after a supporting congressional resolution) is one thing, sending them to Washington DC, is quite another. (p.125)"
Instead Madden argues that the empire the Romans had under the Republic before the Caesars offers better insight into the current American condition. He argues that both Rome and the US possessed and possesses an "Empire of Trust," and empire built on security and protection, not conquest. Contrary to popular myth, the Roman Republic gained an empire first because they did not want one and secondly to secure their "horizon." Because the Romans were distrustful of empire, their conquered enemies, which often became allies did so because they trusted Rome to wield such power responsibly. As they made alliances with people inside and just outside their sphere of influence they pledged to protect them. Thus when an ally was attacked, the Romans fought and further expanded their empire. The US is much the same way: distrustful of concentrated power and empire, but steps into the fray when their allies are threatened or national security warrants it. For the most part, the world has trusted the Untied States with that power. This is why the bulk of NATO's power and might comes from the US and why many nations feel they don't need to build up any armed forces at all, because they trust the US to protect them from any enemies and will not tolerate an attack by their neighbors. This argument is in direct contrast with Robert Kagan's thesis in "The Return of History and the End of Dreams," in which he sees a return to 19th century geopolitics, where neighboring nations militarize and threaten each other to get what they want.
In contrast to Kagan, Madden claims we are in an era of American Peace or Pax. Despite the terrorist problems, which he sees analogous to the Jewish radicals of the Roman Empire (a fight that took a long time to win but was won through understanding the religious nature of the conflict), we are more secure than ever. As a way to measure the peace he points to the anti-Americanism that is rampant throughout much of Europe and the Middle East. Ultimately, people talk bad about the US because they trust the US will use power responsibly. No one in their right mind would say the things that Hugo Chavez or some of the leaders of Europe have said if they really thought the US would use their immense might against them. Therefore the US Empire of Trust is robust because people know the US wields mighty power and they can attack it with words and not be destroyed.
Madden does not claim the US Empire of Trust will last, he doesn't give much advice on how to make it last but simply says that all empires pass away and if we are lucky enough to last as long as the Romans then so be it. Despite Madden's uncertainty about the future of the US, the book has an overall optimistic tone. By looking at that other unique empire in world history, namely the Roman Republican empire, we have reason to be optimistic. One thing is almost certain, that Americans will not give up this empire willingly, it will end out of necessity, not choice.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Special Case Empires, August 14, 2008
The US is often compared to historical empires, yet the comparison usually rings hollow. If we are an empire and we conquered a country that produces oil, how come fuel is so expensive? If we are truly imperialistic, why did our troops leave Germany after conquering it in WWI? Why give Japan back its independence after WWII?
In this book, Thomas F. Madden compares the US to Rome. Rome is considered the quintessential empire in the west because it ruled so much and survived for so long. Thomas F. Madden shows the differences between Rome and other empires in history.
He makes the case that during the time when the Romans conquered their empire (until about 140 BCE):
1. They did not want an empire.
2. They wanted safety, which required allies in a dangerous world.
3. Keeping those alliances required them to fight their allies' enemies.
4. Having conquered their enemies, the Romans often attempted to turn them into allies, rather than conquered territories.
5. By 140 BC they had implicit control of the entire Mediterranean area, yet still insisted on keeping up the charade of their relationships with other polities being alliances between equals.
This, by itself, would make this book worthy reading for anybody interested in the history of western civilization. But Thomas Madden goes further than that. He shows the parallels between Rome and the US, and the world Rome inhabited (Greeks and Jews) and the one the US inhabits (West Europeans and Muslims).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Overstated but thought-provoking, March 4, 2009
The problem with EoT is that the author has a tendency to either oversimplify or misrepresent history to support his thesis; he seems to discount the realities of power-politics. The examples are numerous but the two most egregious that come to mind were when he portrays the U.S. occupation of the Philippines as an accidental and benevolent liberation from Spain (it was brutal, opportunist, and overtly colonial) or that President Bush (the Elder) declined to occupy Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein out of some high-minded desire to convert enemies into friends (he wanted to avoid a power-vacuum that the U.S. would have to try to fill to prevent the spread of Iranian influence and power in the Middle-East--that's why we maintained him in power from the 1980's onward).
While these simplistic presentations of history are surprising (and somewhat insulting to one's intelligence), it doesn't necessarily mean that his overall thesis is without merit. In fact, in many ways, the argument was compelling. Aside from the MAJOR flaw mentioned above, EoT is actually a very interesting read (especially if you enjoy digressions into Roman history). Yes, the point is overstated, but is still thought-provoking.
Recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
