The Roman Predicament: How the Rules of International Order Create the Politics of Empire [Hardcover]

Harold James (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 13, 2006

Modern America owes the Roman Empire for more than gladiator movies and the architecture of the nation's Capitol. It can also thank the ancient republic for some helpful lessons in globalization. So argues economic historian Harold James in this masterful work of intellectual history.

The book addresses what James terms "the Roman dilemma"--the paradoxical notion that while global society depends on a system of rules for building peace and prosperity, this system inevitably leads to domestic clashes, international rivalry, and even wars. As it did in ancient Rome, James argues, a rule-based world order eventually subverts and destroys itself, creating the need for imperial action. The result is a continuous fluctuation between pacification and the breakdown of domestic order.

James summons this argument, first put forth more than two centuries ago in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, to put current events into perspective. The world now finds itself staggering between a set of internationally negotiated trading rules and exchange--rate regimes, and the enforcement practiced by a sometimes-imperial America. These two forces--liberal international order and empire--will one day feed on each other to create a shakeup in global relations, James predicts. To reinforce his point, he invokes the familiar bon mot once applied to the British Empire: "When Britain could not rule the waves, it waived the rules."

Despite the pessimistic prognostications of Smith and Gibbon, who saw no way out of this dilemma, James ends his book on a less depressing note. He includes a chapter on one possible way in which the world could resolve the Roman Predicament--by opting for a global system based on values as opposed to rules.

Editorial Reviews

Review

[A] brilliant essay.
(Robert Skidelsky New York Review of Books )

Starting from an analogy with Rome, James describes the mounting domestic tensions that increasingly threaten the global system and an interconnected world. . . . The greater challenge to the international order may lie in the tensions within, rather than between, states, as James suggests. . . . Like Rome . . . the American-led global order faces problems created primarily by its own internal dynamics. What James calls the 'Roman dilemma' arises from the fact that the way in which peaceful commerce produces a stable, prosperous and integrated global order also creates undercurrents of conflict. A vicious circle thus leads the liberal, commercial world order to subvert and destroy itself.
(William Anthony Hay The National Interest )

James writes with care and nuance, rarely straying into sensationalism or political posturing. . . . [A]bsorbing in its elaborate detail.
(Jakub J. Grygiel Claremont Review of Books )

There have been rather too many books recently seeking lessons and analogies from imperial history in order to comprehend the contemporary global order and assess its viability.... [The Roman Predicament] is ... far better than most because Harold James brings to it a rare combination of insight into both the history of global finance and trade and the history of modern Europe.
(Dominic Lieven American Historical Review )

James conveys a genuine analytical desire to understand the current American preponderance of power, and he grounds hi analysis in thoughtful historical parallels.
(Timothy J. Lomperis Historian )

If only we did teach and learn from history, Harold James's outstanding . . . book would be at the center of our current political campaign, because we are faced with the Roman Predicament of which he writes.
(BrothersJudd.com )

Review

In a glut of books about American empire, Harold James's stands out for its subtlety and erudition. Few other scholars could so elegantly and persuasively relate Edward Gibbon's account of the decline of Rome to the present predicament of the United States.
(Niall Ferguson, Harvard University, author of "Empire and Colossus" )

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 176 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (March 13, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691122210
• ISBN-13: 978-0691122212
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,782,345 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Lessons from the past, April 4, 2006

By 

viktor_57 "viktor_57" (Fairview, Your Favorite State, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Roman Predicament: How the Rules of International Order Create the Politics of Empire (Hardcover)

The current global political climate has led many observers to draw parallels between the American empire and those of Rome and Great Britain, and to the extent that all three, at the height of their power, were globally dominant, this comparison holds superficially. Prof. James, however, has not simply taken this comparison at face value, but sought the lessons and rules of empire as understood in Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". His reading of the two leads to the idea of the "Roman dilemma", that peaceful economic prosperity under a liberal order of free commerce cannot be maintained because the rule and enforcement of the laws necessary for such commerce require power, and power tends to be unequal and to concentrate itself, leading to two opposing and irreconcilable camps: "people who believe in universal rules and people who see power behind the rules". For its modern application, Prof. James draws upon Robert Kagan's "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus" view of how the current military power disparity across the Atlantic inevitably leads to the unilateral use of that power by America and its opposition by Europe, i.e. Americans believe in the exercise of military power despite rules and Europeans believe in the universal application of rules as a result of its relative military weakness, both in pursuit of a liberal economic order and sustained prosperity.

We can already see how such a global hegemony draws to itself the very seeds of instability it tries to contain. This, then, is the current incarnation of the Roman predicament: the growing resentment and suspicion towards the United States demands further use of power, increasing opposition towards that power, resulting in a cycle of increasing instability and the possible dissolution of not only empire, but the very peace and stability it tries to maintain.

But this does not have to be, as Prof. James, at the end of his concise and cogent book, attempts to lay the foundation for a new world order based not on unilateral decrees and legal officiousness, but rather shared values and aspirations. Unfortunately, when rigid fundamentalists--religious, ideological, or otherwise--hold sway in opposing camps, common ground becomes an ever-widening gap. We must depend, therefore, on thoughtful, rational and reasonable moderates and progressives from both sides to represent not fundamentalist views but fundamental values, and proceed from there.

9 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Glosses over the Iraq war and its effects on the American economy, April 8, 2007

By 

M. Carmody "Davincispb" (Cornwall, NY, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Roman Predicament: How the Rules of International Order Create the Politics of Empire (Hardcover)

While the author wrote a cogent synopsis of Gibbon's study of the end of the Roman empire and told those who didn't already know that Adam Smith's works consisted of more than the "invisible hand," he writes of the effects of globalization on economies as though the war in Iraq is just an aside.

When comparing the economic consquences of past wars he rightly states that the Gulf War of 1991 was too short-lived to have any significant effect on the economy in terms of inflationary/deflationary effects. However, he then states that the same holds true for the 2003 war.

Hunh? This book was written in 2006 after three disastrous years of a failed policy, or lack thereof, in Iraq. In mentioning Iraq he states: "Moreover, it is possible to envisage more attention being paid in advance to the management of post-conflict situations in a manner that in the Iraq case was made impossible by the rush of events." (91)

First of all, the war in Iraq was a war of choice engineered by lies and a rush to judgement before anyone had a chance to point out that the people leading the charge had no hard evidence for their casus belli. Secondly, there was no plan for post-war Iraq. International law makes it incumbent on the occupying force to restore infrastructure and care for the non-combatants. The Bush administration made no plans for the occupation. In fact, in order to escape its responsibilities in that area, as in so many others, the administration installed Bremer as a sort of pro-counsel who, legally it is claimed, was not a part of the US government. So the Coalition Provisional Authority could not be held liable under international law for the failures of the war planners to fail to plan for the aftermath of the war.

Got it?

They then rushed elections with people of their own choosing standing for office, another violation of international law. Elections held under the auspices of an occupying force are by definition not free elections. However, here stands the CPA again as a buffer between the US government and the nebulous Iraqi candidates, and the machinery entity that resulted from the orgy of purple fingers is supposed to be a legitimate governing body.

The book, as a whole, is interesting to those already familiar with international relations and the events of the last thirty years. However, Professor James and his publisher did a great marketing job by placing George W. Bush in a laurel wreath on the cover and then eliding over the deficiencies and outright fiscal irresponsibilities perpetrated on the American way of life by this current group in Washington.

There are better places to get an overview of American empire and militarism, specifically Chalmers Johnson's trilogy and Andrew Bacevich's The New Militarism. Niall Ferguson's books provided a counter point to Mr. Johnson's works.

Professor James could have done a much better job; instead of disingenuously marketing this book using Bush's image while absolving him of any responsibility for the crimes committed against the American system of government, he could have compared the end of the Roman empire to where we find ourselves today.

Gibbon: "Such is the constitution of civil society, that, whilst a few persons are distinguished by riches, by honours, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to obscurity, ignorance, and poverty." James writes: "Inequality was the social problem that provoked the rise of what he saw as the ideology that would undermine the Roman empire." (86)

Instead of giving George W. Bush a pass and referring to "the rush of events" in Iraq, the author would have served his readers better by assigning the blame for that rush where it squarely belongs.