I don't think the Roman empire increased its belligerence as it declined. Rather the reverse, I think.
There's room for questioning definitions of terms here but generally post quitting Britain might well be 'decline' ? Didn't it merely morph slowly into something else from then? The Byzantine?
And Spain, Ottoman, Mongol... ?
It seems to me this 'empire' has no capability of further belligerence in any case.
Militarily.
And the 'economic' or financial belligerence demonstrated by Trump is actually hurting the usa more than anyone else, isn't it? All sums up to 'get deeper in debt' at the same time as 'refusing' to trade with the world, so to speak by making the world's goods more expensive for americans - who will buy them anyway! With the dubious quid pro quo that american goods will be import duty free at the other end - american goods that remain notoriously expensive anyway!
It has one shot left is all, isn't it? Nuclear weapons. i.e. the ultimate suicide bombing. I am sure there are many rational people in the usa though all well hidden up to and including today. They will surely step out of the shadows to prevent that ultimate insanity?
And a battleground, politically, awaiting. America will paralyse its own government as soon as it can.
It appears a spent force, to me The truth is that america is 350 million effete, lazy, unhealthy people in a run down country facing 8 billion lean, hungry, dynamic people in the world all busy growing up, up, up.
350 million people can do untold. Yes. Look at what half that number in Russia are doing. But it requires resources, efficient management, clear will, friends and the machinery of production.
America has none of them.
Let it 'get with the strength' and it could quickly acquire. Relatively quickly, one might suppose, though it wouldn't be any overnight thing. However we have seen what Russia has done since '14 as a measure of possibilities.
But that means friendship and cooperation. America will have none of that.
They are inimical to America. America apparently cannot conceive of synergy whereby we all profit and grow together. Childish, naive, spoilt, stupid america believes the only way america can grow into the sun is not by growing taller but by cutting down all the plants around it.
Our business now is to start doing the measuring, the describing, the quantifying and assessing.
In a world without the dead hand of America what will pertain? What flows of goods and enterprise, capital and expertise will become possible? How will this manifest at State level, how at 'street' level, with the people?
What restrictions can we identify now that will be removed, what constraints crippling that will be banished?
What sort of world when free of this crippling monstrous evil that perverts everything from trade to speech?
We should be looking carefully, clearly and properly at the future. Planning it, preparing for it. The past has gone. Today is going. America is history. The future is the World. Let's get busy planning and preparing for it, looking forward to it.
As always, Arthur, your comment is penetrating, but I disagree with its ooopening statement, that, "I don't think the Roman empire increased its belligerence as it declined. Rather the reverse, I think." Here is why (by Kennedy Mmari, on 16 July 2024:
Picture Rome in its prime, the epitome of power and civilisation. Now imagine it crumbling, not overnight, but through a slow, painful descent. As it began to lose its grip, the Roman Empire increasingly resorted to military aggression to maintain control over its territories and stave off external threats.
In its declining years, Rome’s diplomatic efforts faltered. Once skilled in negotiating alliances and absorbing diverse cultures, the empire turned to brute force. The invasions of Germany and the campaigns against the Sassanid Empire were marked by their ferocity and the sheer desperation to reassert dominance.
Rome’s declining ability to manage its vast territories through diplomacy led to an era of relentless military campaigns, spreading violence and instability.
Well I think he misrepresents the situation. He has his timelines wrong perhaps.
Germany and the Sassanids were at the time of full strength expanding empire and the later episodes were defensive. According to my understanding. But I'm no great scholar.
I believe the offensive violence ceased about mid 2nd C CE and from then on it was decline marked by defensive fighting.
Like what we could say is "put the boot on the other foot": the declining empire saw a marked increase in violence from subject peoples and those beyond the borders.
I just asked Google AI "Did the roman empire become more aggressive toward its end?" and got this:
"Did the roman empire become more aggressive toward its end?"
Yes, the late Roman Empire became more aggressively militarized. ... The military became more dominant, with the army doubled in size but with decreasing effectiveness.
AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE: In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the empire, particularly in the West, relied on frequent, violent, and often punitive campaigns against Germanic tribes and the Sassanid Empire to maintain control, rather than sustainable diplomacy or fortification.
FAILED SECURITY STRATEGY: As borders became harder to defend, the empire moved from preventing invasions to "active defense," attempting to repel invaders with local forces, which proved costly and inefficient.
INTERNAL CHAOS AND BRUTALITY: The late Empire was characterized by civil wars and frequent coups, where armies fought each other for the throne.
Economic Collapse: This constant, desperate fighting, combined with the need to pay off large standing armies, severely crippled the economy.
Are you assuming that Trump shouldn't have appointed a new head of the BLS when he entered office on 20 January? That he should have kept on the head of the agency that when he was campaigning in 2024 he was constantly blaming for fudged statistics? That he should have figured "She did what the President wanted her to do, so she will be serving ME now?"
I don't think the Roman empire increased its belligerence as it declined. Rather the reverse, I think.
There's room for questioning definitions of terms here but generally post quitting Britain might well be 'decline' ? Didn't it merely morph slowly into something else from then? The Byzantine?
And Spain, Ottoman, Mongol... ?
It seems to me this 'empire' has no capability of further belligerence in any case.
Militarily.
And the 'economic' or financial belligerence demonstrated by Trump is actually hurting the usa more than anyone else, isn't it? All sums up to 'get deeper in debt' at the same time as 'refusing' to trade with the world, so to speak by making the world's goods more expensive for americans - who will buy them anyway! With the dubious quid pro quo that american goods will be import duty free at the other end - american goods that remain notoriously expensive anyway!
It has one shot left is all, isn't it? Nuclear weapons. i.e. the ultimate suicide bombing. I am sure there are many rational people in the usa though all well hidden up to and including today. They will surely step out of the shadows to prevent that ultimate insanity?
And a battleground, politically, awaiting. America will paralyse its own government as soon as it can.
It appears a spent force, to me The truth is that america is 350 million effete, lazy, unhealthy people in a run down country facing 8 billion lean, hungry, dynamic people in the world all busy growing up, up, up.
350 million people can do untold. Yes. Look at what half that number in Russia are doing. But it requires resources, efficient management, clear will, friends and the machinery of production.
America has none of them.
Let it 'get with the strength' and it could quickly acquire. Relatively quickly, one might suppose, though it wouldn't be any overnight thing. However we have seen what Russia has done since '14 as a measure of possibilities.
But that means friendship and cooperation. America will have none of that.
They are inimical to America. America apparently cannot conceive of synergy whereby we all profit and grow together. Childish, naive, spoilt, stupid america believes the only way america can grow into the sun is not by growing taller but by cutting down all the plants around it.
Our business now is to start doing the measuring, the describing, the quantifying and assessing.
In a world without the dead hand of America what will pertain? What flows of goods and enterprise, capital and expertise will become possible? How will this manifest at State level, how at 'street' level, with the people?
What restrictions can we identify now that will be removed, what constraints crippling that will be banished?
What sort of world when free of this crippling monstrous evil that perverts everything from trade to speech?
We should be looking carefully, clearly and properly at the future. Planning it, preparing for it. The past has gone. Today is going. America is history. The future is the World. Let's get busy planning and preparing for it, looking forward to it.
As always, Arthur, your comment is penetrating, but I disagree with its ooopening statement, that, "I don't think the Roman empire increased its belligerence as it declined. Rather the reverse, I think." Here is why (by Kennedy Mmari, on 16 July 2024:
https://archive.ph/IXSpK#selection-1399.0-1411.157
The Roman Empire: From diplomacy to conquest
Picture Rome in its prime, the epitome of power and civilisation. Now imagine it crumbling, not overnight, but through a slow, painful descent. As it began to lose its grip, the Roman Empire increasingly resorted to military aggression to maintain control over its territories and stave off external threats.
In its declining years, Rome’s diplomatic efforts faltered. Once skilled in negotiating alliances and absorbing diverse cultures, the empire turned to brute force. The invasions of Germany and the campaigns against the Sassanid Empire were marked by their ferocity and the sheer desperation to reassert dominance.
Rome’s declining ability to manage its vast territories through diplomacy led to an era of relentless military campaigns, spreading violence and instability.
Well I think he misrepresents the situation. He has his timelines wrong perhaps.
Germany and the Sassanids were at the time of full strength expanding empire and the later episodes were defensive. According to my understanding. But I'm no great scholar.
I believe the offensive violence ceased about mid 2nd C CE and from then on it was decline marked by defensive fighting.
Like what we could say is "put the boot on the other foot": the declining empire saw a marked increase in violence from subject peoples and those beyond the borders.
I just asked Google AI "Did the roman empire become more aggressive toward its end?" and got this:
"Did the roman empire become more aggressive toward its end?"
Yes, the late Roman Empire became more aggressively militarized. ... The military became more dominant, with the army doubled in size but with decreasing effectiveness.
AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE: In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the empire, particularly in the West, relied on frequent, violent, and often punitive campaigns against Germanic tribes and the Sassanid Empire to maintain control, rather than sustainable diplomacy or fortification.
FAILED SECURITY STRATEGY: As borders became harder to defend, the empire moved from preventing invasions to "active defense," attempting to repel invaders with local forces, which proved costly and inefficient.
INTERNAL CHAOS AND BRUTALITY: The late Empire was characterized by civil wars and frequent coups, where armies fought each other for the throne.
Economic Collapse: This constant, desperate fighting, combined with the need to pay off large standing armies, severely crippled the economy.
I think that that is a fair and accurate summary.
We may already be doomed!
We believe the BLS, and swallow their numbers unquestioningly.
None of the dials on the government dashboards are off, tricked or falsified. That could never happen.
It’s important to proclaim everything in terms of black or white terms, it keeps one from falling into the ranges of grey of nuanced thinking.
This isn't about "nuance"; it is only about honesty.
Yes. No nuance. It’s good we have the honesty of BLS to rely on.
Are you assuming that Trump shouldn't have appointed a new head of the BLS when he entered office on 20 January? That he should have kept on the head of the agency that when he was campaigning in 2024 he was constantly blaming for fudged statistics? That he should have figured "She did what the President wanted her to do, so she will be serving ME now?"
No assumptions. It’s good the BLS is not a clown show and everything is Trump‘s fault.
https://youtu.be/O-LtsTnXg-Y?si=74kO_scx8AJj33fp