Customer Reviews

Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America Is Building--a New World

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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).

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.

Most Americans don't like the idea of empires, myself included. But not all empires were of the purely conquest type. Madden offers a fresh look at how Rome grew to become the empire it did and how America is dealing with its own superpower status. He admits that the two are not similar in every way, but there are some similarities and common patterns that stand out. While I may not find what he has to offer as necessarily comforting, he does make some solid points.

Rome, as Madden argues, did not acquire an empire out of a desire to rule over other territories or to exploit their lands. Madden argues that Rome was merely interested in guaranteeing its own peace and security, which necessarily led to its expanding realm. It wanted allies, not enemies, and as a result Rome became a trusted power and was depended on by other states to safeguard their own security and their own way of life. Only in cases where Rome's adversaries posed ongoing threats did Rome find it necessary to destroy its rivals, such as Carthage, for example.

America also had and has a history of isolationist sentiment and has had to accept its role in the world, especially when its own security was threatened as in World War II. America became and remains a trusted power that doesn't seek to deprive other nations of their freedoms, as we ourselves cherish our own. This doesn't mean that other nations love us. To the contrary, because other nations expect us to act in a just fashion, do they feel they can verbally abuse us. If they thought we would deprive them of their sovereignty and destroy their way of life, do you think they would heap this verbal abuse on us? Most likely not. I agree with Madden on this point. Madden uses the Greeks behavior towards the Romans as an example.

Rome did not remain a republic throughout its history. It eventually did come under the rule of emperors, but there were customs and traditions that had been established that even an emperor had to acknowledge. While it is true that all powers do fall, Madden ably argues that those saying America is ready to collapse is a bit premature. Several of the Greek and Roman historians said the same thing about Rome, centuries before it ultimately fell.

Madden also delves into modern day issues such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the War on Terror. He does get into a certain amount of political discourse, but I don't think its obsessively partisan. While readers may have some differing viewpoints on America's role in the world, and I don't always agree with the author, I find his historical knowledge gives his book weight and is important for what lessons it has to offer. An insightful book and certainly worth reading.

Madden develops an interesting thesis - that Rome and the American empires share a common method of expanding their influence. According to Madden, both empires started off reluctantly, but forged alliances, protected friends, and promoted stability. In short, they became Empires of Trust because other powers trusted them to use their power wisely. Like the U.S., Romans also respected the rule of law and laws of war, making sure to treat subjects with respect (although of course both often fell short of these standards). As such, most illuminating comparisons in the book come from the U.S. after World War II and NATO and Roman interventions in Greece.

His comparison of Rome with the U.S. is far better than Niall Ferguson's comparison of the U.S. with the British empire. Britain pursued a mercantilist empire and intentionally intervened in order to promote economic goals. Unlike the U.S. and Rome, it created its empire by force and design. Furthermore, it never stood as the sole hegemonic power.

My criticism of this book is its analysis of the post-9/11 world. Madden is a conservative, and while that doesn't mar the book too much, it does warp his analysis of the war in Iraq and the future of the U.S. empire. For example, he accepts the claim that Iraq was a preemptive war and that foreign criticism of the U.S. is no more serious than Greek criticism of Rome. However, the problem with the recent Iraq war is that it reduced the world's trust in us. Much of the rest of the world no longer sees the U.S. as using its power responsibly, but rather views the Iraq war (rightly or wrongly) as a breach of that trust.

Furthermore, Madden dismisses the "rise of the rest" a bit too quickly. It is of course true that China, Russia, and other powers have miniscule militaries and cannot challenge the U.S. However, the real threat from the rest of the world to the U.S. empire of trust is that it allows regional powers to develop more trust than the U.S. has. China is developing a lot of trust across Africa and could soon become a hegemon there. It also has friends and allies in Southeast Asia, which was a pretty pro-U.S. bloc until recently. With the financial crisis and inability of the U.S. to solve world problems (climate change, poverty, etc), and the world's increased tendency to look to other countries for leadership (notice China and India's presence at the G-20 summit last month), I fear that the U.S. may not be able to maintain an empire of trust for too much longer. On the other hand, Obama's election may hopefully help restore some of the world's faith in our system.

Overall, Madden has a very intelligent thesis and well-written, accessible book. His understanding of pre-Iraq American empire is right on target. I hope more Americans, liberal or conservatives, read the book and start to think thoughtfully about the use of history and America's empire.

What a truly interesting and gripping book to read. From page one until the last, I couldn't wait each night to dive in and had a difficult time putting the book down. The fact the Romans never wanted an empire but got one anyway is a great parallel to our own history. His premise that Rome and the U.S. were similar not in their rise and fall but in their compassion and wish to live in peace within their own borders is brought home in fascinating stories and anecdotes. This is a book that should be read by all.

This is an excellent reminder that we are indeed the heirs of Rome. Empire to empire, this is a great study.

Thoroughly engaging analysis of America through the lens of Rome. Easy and fun to read, accessible, and coherent, which is a plus for armchair historians and political readers. They will not get lost nor does it as it covers a vast horizon of materials quite well.

My only complaint is one of its charms: It is very upbeat and puts a postive spin or gloss on everything. All things are not well. Not only roses bloom in Rome. To cast the current American situation as all good is disingenuous; luckily he exposes lies and disturbing misconceptions. There was a great dark side to glorious Rome, which helped lead to its fall, and resulting plunge into a resulting Dark Age for an entire continent. We are currently perched upon a precipice and the future could go either way. This book can be read as both positive and a dire warning of the negative. Call it positively cautionary.

A must read for anyone interested in the United States, history, politics, current affairs, and international -- oh, hell. If you want to understand the world you live in, do yourself a favor and read this book.

The US has long been compared with ancient Rome, mostly to predict our demise through corruption and rampant sexuality. Madden's book, however, makes a much better comparison between the Roman Republic (not the Empire) and the United States. What is unique about both states is that they acquired a sort of "empire" that was not by conquest, but by alliances and trust. This is a fascinating book, and one that provides a needed antidote to so much hyper-critical bashing today.

Madden's comparison of the Roman Republic with the present day United States is fascinating and useful. He is particularly strong in describing the Romans, most intriguingly when he writes about the relationship between Rome and the Jews of the Holy Land. How many people know that the Romans initially tried to be helpful and protective toward the Jews? That perspective has been missing from most historical accounts and from popular media treatments.

Madden is on less secure ground when writing about the contemporary U.S. Some of his analogies seem a little weak, perhaps because the events are too recent to allow detached analysis. Nonetheless, this is a unique perspective in the current literature, one that challenges the stereotype of an empire in decline.

Somehow most of Roman history is viewed through the lens of the Ceasers and emperors. This book has helped me to understand better the roles that pre-Ceaser Rome and the United States played on the world stage. I highly recommend this book especially in today's climate of domestic recriminations leveled against our involvement in the Middle East. I have always maintained that we did not ask to go there but by the actions of 9/11 there we are. This has helped clarify for me our role and I can see the dilemma that President Elect Obama is going to find himself in when he becomes the "guy in charge". Like the old Chinese curse; we are going to be living in interesting times.