You said “those who hold that it is exceptional in some way as a great power tend to resist the exercise unless it is one of contrasts or unless it is to emphasise the republican nature of the US. whereas critics of American empire tend to focus on the Roman empire as a warning about America’s imperial character.”

Given these choices, I suppose I hold an amalgamated view of the two. On the one hand, I think that it is historically and empirically true (not just that I “hold” such a view in the sense that it is a matter merely of emotional nationalism that seems in such disfavor in our so very enlightened “post-modern” world) that the United States has many exceptional attributes and accomplishments during its relatively short existence (I recognize that what these are and their relative “rank” is to some extent a matter of debate but nevertheless I think any objective assessment of the last 250-odd years will include at least a few examples of American exceptionalism).

On the other, I think comparisons to the Roman experience (setting aside the “empire” aspect that I also think breaks down in large part when trying to argue that the US has pursued “empire” building in a fashion similar to the Romans) are apt in the sense that the ascendancy and dominance of Rome (and some other civilizations for that matter) were the function of a certain synergistic combination of various positive societal attributes (representative governance, sense of civic responsibility, social cohesion and the like) that are taken for granted at the peril of a people. If these qualities are not continually nurtured and reaffirmed individually and corporately (as sadly has eventually been the case in every previous example),the civilization eventually fails. It is this cautionary tale that is of great value in the study of the Roman experience IF sufficient numbers of Americans know of and understand its significance.

This brings us back to where we are of course in that our “post modern” sophistication carries with it a rejection of higher values and fosters self absorption and a lack of personal responsibility with a concomitant increased expectation that the government will provide for our every need. In such an environment, any lessons from ancient Rome, with the exception perhaps of those who inhabit places like the KOW blog, are overwhelmed by the cacophony of more entertaining fare such as the ever-increasing number and inanity of “reality” television.

its doubly interesting with America, because those who hold that it is exceptional in some way as a great power tend to resist the exercise unless it is one of contrasts or unless it is to emphasise the republican nature of the US. whereas critics of American empire tend to focus on the Roman empire as a warning about America’s imperial character.

On the one hand, it’s entirely possible to overthink and overtheorize the issue, and depending on the case study(ies) in question and the quality of the historical material that’s available, perhaps not entirely necessary or useful…

On the other, I think analog heuristics (ie. analogies in their most straightforward sense, coupled with notions of metaphor, artefact, frames, etc.) offer some intriguing leverage for understanding like/unlike phenomena (ie. cross-cutting modes of warfare in relation to cross-cutting domains and sites of conflict (ie. states, urban environments, the web).

The disconnects have been plaguing scholars and practitioners for the better part of two decades now. I’ve probably meandered way off topic, so just sayin’… anything that addresses problems of isomorphism in war has its place.

yes indeed, the Rome analogy is a powerful one because it often ties in the ‘values’ question, which is pretty hard to keep out of the loaded notion of imperial decline.

Grant,

I agree. its a very resilient mythology, and you are absolutely right on point with the original empire thing.

Hey Mike,

actually in the book itself, he doesn’t get into too much explicit comparison of America Rome (though I haven’t read the whole thing yet), and no, there isn’t much in the way of theories of analogical reasoning (such as ‘Analogies at War’, etc).

You see that everywhere. Literally everywhere. I recall some post on the Small Wars Journal blog arguing that somehow Tao or something of the sort contributed to a Chinese expertise at asymmetric war, this despite the fact that China’s been building up a conventional military for decades.

More to the point, I notice not many people take notice of the empire building habits of the original Roman empire well before it split in two. Auxiliaries from the conquered (which is where we get the word), a unified way of building settlements, unified laws, roads. I would think that this should be of at least equal interest in the current world as strategic thinking.

“… What’s kind of interesting, and something I’m trying to research, is the whole history of the Rome-America analogy in the realm of strategic ideas. Luttwak is right that we have over-privileged the experience of the western empire in the debate. …”

I hope you keep as a backdrop to your research what I consider an integral but oft ignored context for considering strategic or otherwise military-related issues in comparing and contrasting the (late) western-Roman experience with contemporary geo-political realities, especially of the US.

This context is the social/ethical/spiritual/political developments (whether characterized as advancements or declines by differing perspectives) during the same periods both within and external to the respective “empires”. It seems to me that much of the “strategic” landscape is very much affected by these parallel aspects but regrettably much of the study of the former has been in vacuo.
I very much look forward to the results of your research.