PAX AMERICANA

Walter Hinteler
What choice do they have? Vote for me or vote for me.

For most of its life the Roman Empire involved nearly continuous warfare, either on the perimeters of the empire or within it in various struggles for power. After Augustus things were relatively quiet, at least for Roman citizens in Italy and near Gaul. Things were not nearly so quiet along the Balkan frontier, among the still independent German tribes, and in the east where a renascent Persia still threatened the empire. The cultures and economies that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire involved nearly as much slavery as did the Roman one for at least 500 years afterwards, and various forms of serfdom persisted for centuries after that. It would be hard to find even a century of peace in the history of Western Europe since then, except perhaps for the reign of Charlemagne and his immediate successors. My point is that the Pax wasn't all it is often made up to be, but what followed was worse for a long time afterwards.

One could make a case for the proposition that in general life in an empire just past its prime, after it has defeated its last deadly rival but before internal decay and external challenges have taken their toll is a bit better than in other times and places. However, I'm sure there are many exceptions.

It has become a cliche to say that the United States is utterly dominant in the world. The truth is our power is limited in many areas by many factors, both external and internal. Worldwide economic and banking conventions have established a growing body of supranational law which can be enforced by the international community acting through the WTO and other like organizations; the many UN sponsored international health, human rights, and like bodies each in their own ways infringe on the sovereignty of all nations, including the United States. Finally, as a law-abiding democracy we tend to take seriously the treaties we sign and ratify and to be bound by them in our actions.

THe United States has no overseas empire which we control. Almost any application of our political, economic, or even military power, anywhere in the world, requires the consent or even assistance of at least some of our allies or other nations. That is not to say that the power of the United States is not large compared to that of any single other nation: it is in some cases overwhelmingly large. Our practical ability to apply our power is quite limited compared to that of other past dominant powers.

Except, George, for the treaties we back out of. Then we have no obligation to honor them.

Pax, anyway, is relative.

I agree with some of what you say, but certainly the obvious intent of this administration is to rule unopposed. And that doesn't seem to have much pax in it, particularly when the vox populi seems to be totally ignored.

And just to bring another angle into this...and speaking as a female long past the age of cheerleader (which I was!).... I note the absence presently of any woman in this administration with any voice of authority. And please do not give me Rice. She seems to have a part in which she is conveniently trotted out for special occasions. So, since the men are in control here, and it is mostly men who play the war games, perhaps if the peace part could be extended to both genders of the human race, maybe there would be a little difference. And now I duck.

Women more "Peaceful" than men? I dunno, mj. Elizabeth I, Maggie Thatcher, and Golda Maiere were not known for their decorating skills.



timber

mamajuana,

"Except, George, for the treaties we back out of". What does that mean? The Kyoto treaty was signed by president Clinton, despite a 97-0 Senate resolution rejecting a treaty so constituted. He then just sat on it, without any attempt to seek ratification for over a year. After the Bush election there was still no likelihood that the Senate would ever ratify this treaty. Bush expressed his opposition and his intent never to submit it for ratification. Is that "backing out"? A very similar tale could be told about the ICC treaty. Again Clinton unilaterally signed it in the last weeks of his administration, despite his failure to get provisions that had long been at the heart of the U.S. negotiating position accepted by the mostly European main actors in this drama. Again there was virtually no possibility that the Senate would have ratified it. Was that "backing out"? A treaty, after all is not binding by this or any nation unless it is ratified in accordance with the laws of that nation. In both cases we were never in, so there is no question of backing out.

I believe most observers would not agree with your characterization of condolleza Rice's role in this administration. Evidently you would prefer Madeline Allbright who often lamented about her frustrations with a military that resisted that administration's proclivity to use it frequently in impulsive single shot, mostly theatrical gestures.

Well, I said I'd duck. And I did say mostly men. We don't all stand in the kitchen making meatloaf, you know.

Sorry, George, I am not a Rice fan. And I don't think she's that influential, nor that knowledgeable. Rove would never allow that. I wasn't an Albright fan either. And for treaties - well, I have yet to see any that Bush liked. He's played the cowboy role right up to the no exit strategy.

I'd take issue with that. Although there was certainly violence continually on the periphery of the empire, for nearly a thousand years, commerce proceded more or less unmolested in the core of the empire. And, with the final collapse of administration in the west (there was no separate "Western Roman Empire") after the Lombard take over, there was certainly widespread strife--and i would be wary of historical PR jobs, Charlemagne spent most of his reign trying to exterminate the Saxons, killing them by tens of thousands. However, for those of the serf class, life in fact, did improve somewhat. The disappearance of the latifundia gave the small businessman (craftsman, tradesman, market gardener) some measure of relief--and serfs had certain rights in the land which slaves had never had. By and large, the Pax Romana should be used to refer to most of the history of the empire from the fall of Corinth, after the Third Punic War, to the end of the Severi. Septimius Severus pushed the borders of the empire to their greatest extent (c. 200 CE), but, as is so often the case with military emperors, his successors were not as competent. The decay on the frontiers could reasonably be said to have speeded up when the military again declined after the end of the Severi. Constantine re-established a great measure of stability in the empire, and his system to two Augusti and two Caesars administering the empire in two capitals--Constantinople and Ravenna--probably prolonged the life of the empire by a great deal.

All of which has little to do with the thorny issue of a Pax Americana. As i've written here and elsewhere, so many times, comparisons of the Roman empire to the American empire are not valid. I'm greatly enjoying everyone's posts, so please keep up the good work, goys and birls.

I believe the assertion that there was not a century of peace in Europe from the fifth to the 20th century is largely accurate, but concede the point about Charlemagne's reign.

From its founding through the end of the Punic Wars, Rome was almost continuously at war with external enemies. Following that there was nearly continuous war to extend the Gallic and Iberian frontiers and later to maintain it in the face of Germanic and Dacian assaults, as well civil wars involving the first & second triumvirates. I believe it was Diocletian, not Constantine, who decreed the division of the empire into two parts, each governed by an "Augustus" and a "Caesar". This ignited another period of internal struggles for succession and between the two parts of the Empire, which continued until Constantine moved his capitol to the East. Trade flourished throughout most of this period and the Gallic part of the empire enjoyed prolonged periods of peace after the second century - however there was no shortage of war in the empire.

Yes, certainly, there has never been a shortage of bloodshed. What colors my views of the the Principiate empire is the fact of the decline, the marginalization of the class of Plebs. The civil wars which preceded Caesar, most notably, that which was ended by the Dictator Sulla, had their origins in the demagogery of members of the class of Patres, who sought to exploit the resentment of "commoners" to the distribution of public lands, for which they or their fellows had fought an bled. After Sulla's victory--the smallholder and artisan declined, and the latifundia assured the decline of "small business." No amount of violence on the frontier could worsen, nor ameliorate the situation of the "common man." My point was not about peace, but, rather, that the "dark ages," or Gothic period, were not as bad as painted. It is also useful to remember that the histories of this era which have survived are from religious chroniclers, who considered any time in which any region was without the enlightenment of christianity as a bad time and place. My final analysis of the Roman Empire, and the polities which succeeded it in western and central Europe is that they were all doomed to sudden or eventual failure due to being totally clueless about economics.

Ah, hell. Blame The Diadochi. If their internecine squabbles had not bankrupted the account Alexander established, we'd be spending very different coin today.



timber

AU:

Many a woman has married a policeman. Many of them make darn good husbands. Sexy as all get out too!

I disagree that American power is quite limited compared with that of other empires. It all depends on how you define American power. If you include the global reach of American capital plus the world financial institutions we control like the IMF and the World Bank, I would say we have greater economic hegemony than even the British did at their imperial zenith. Then add in the network of over 190 military bases, NATO, and the US military presence on every continent. Is this really an inferior imperial power? That would come as news to the people of Saudi Arabia, who are irate at the huge American bases being so near to the Muslim Holy Places, placed there to prop up the corrupt House of Saud.

Good point, Larry ... and it could be expanded to accomodate most of the Pro-US Middle East. The potential for widespread instability and expanding violence is most troubling. There are in fact already disturbing rumbles from that quarter.

The events of the next few weeks will significantly direct affairs preoccupying the pundits, diplomats and politicians of the next generation. I don't imagine the military folks will have cause to feel at all left out, either.



timber

Just to interject a note here, sort of in the line of throwing fuel on the fire: It was once the proud boast of a man Civis Romanus sum--so, when outside the US, is it wise, is it likely, that a man or woman would say, proudly, "I'm an American citizen"--your thoughts?

I once got into trouble with the customs officials in Russia when I was leaving St. Petersburg in 2000, and let me tell you, saying I was an American citizen didn't help one bit!

Civis Americanus sum... would probably be ok
I'm from Brooklyn...probably would not

There's a very real problem with the first post in this thread that I don't understand.

That is the correlation of "Pax Americana" to "Pax Romana". A correlation brought about by Liberals nearly 40 years ago, 50 years ago maybe, and liberals aren't known to be too bright.

Pax Romana was simply the Augustine peace that Augustus had brought to Rome, for before his ascent to Emperor Rome was filled with Civil War.

Augustus ended this civil war and called it "Pax Romana" or "Roman Peace." A peace for Rome...

...it hadnothing to do with policing the rest of the known world or conquering new lands to make them more "orderly"...it was simply, a Rome that wasn't fighting itself.

I'm not sure why translating Pax Romana literally has become so popular now, for in the older history books and encyclopedias it is not such.

I smell a little "New Speak" going on here.

Historians call the period 27 B. C. - 180 A. D. "the Pax Romana":
from the reign of Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) to that of Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180).

During this time, the empire protected and governed individual provinces, permitting each to make and administer its own laws while accepting Roman taxation and military control.

This is the reason, why historians and political scientists refer to that synonym.

According to Winnat:

"There were two key factors to Augustus' success as a ruler. They were his use of the army, which was under his complete control, and the Republican institutions, which he never did away with. When Augustus came to power, he had a completely loyal army supporting him and any actions he chose to take. Learning from the last one hundred years of history, he decided not to take the route that others before him, such as Sulla, and even that of Julius Caesar had taken. Instead, he chose to create the illusion that peace had been restored to the Republic and that the Republic was once again intact. That fact alone is why the institutions of the Republic were never done away with, but made superficial to the actual running of the government.

Walter even with that definition Pax Americana seems to be an unfair term.

We are not taxing foreign nations, nor do we force them to swear a "fealty" to us.