Caractacus was the king of the Catuvellauni tribe in Britain when the Roman invasion took place during the reign of the Emperor Claudius.

After fighting the Romans for nine years he was finally captured and sent to Rome for execution. During the journey he studied Latin and when he appeared before Claudius and the Senate he said - "If all that Rome has to offer the world is the sword, then keep it sharp; keep it with you during the day and sleep with it by your side at night - you will need it!!"

The Senate rose as one and gave him the first recorded political standing ovation. He and his family were pardoned and given Roman citizenship.

If the American government carries on as it is doing, without involving the other countries of the world in its foreign affairs, the American people will need that sword; it will have to be kept sharp at unbelievable cost; and most important, how many young Americans will die wielding it?

King Caractacus had it right on - 2000 years ago.

heaven knows what you and the rest of Europe will think of us if we get it wrong in this election.

Seems like we also miss the fact that in the age of nuclear weapons, we are far from being an absolute power.

speaking as a person who loves your country, I think you've got a choice between a muppet and a cowboy, I've watched the 3 debates live at 3am and am convinced Kerry doesn't have a clue about leadership and Bush maybe a strong leader in he doesn't flinch after making decisions but he dragged your country and mine into an illegal war in Iraq with no evidence of WMD but just to get what his father couldn't get.

That's exactly what was going though my head when this war began (though I wasn't aware of the Caractacus story). If one were to study the decline of the great civilizations throughout the years, in most cases the turning point was when they tried to overextend their authority and military reach.

We've set a dangerous precedent with this pre-emptive war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Who's next? Iran? N. Korea?

The U.S has invaded two countries. One of which has recently held successful, free elections to form a new, sovereign government. The second country is currently on a difficult, but achievable, path to forming it's first ever, freely elected representative government.

Your post is nicely written and offers a good lesson for those that wish to create an empire. But there is no factual comparison between Rome and it's empire, and the current actions of the U.S..

RLTW


-- Modified on 10/15/2004 7:30:40 AM

No- look to athens after the persian wars.  Who will be Philip of Macedon, swoopnig in on the failed empire that tried to intimidate its allies and engaged in foolish and expensive wars for minor reasons?  

China waits.

Great post.  Keep this in mind, however...

There are a zillion opinions as to why Rome fell.  One of the most prevalent was reminds one of good ole Nicola Machiavelli: The Romans pillaged and plundered the economics of their empire, leaving the local populace with nothing.

To compare Rome to the US is fun but don't take the analogy too far.  The US's military strategy and that of the people we are fighting these days is alot driven by socio-economics.  The proliferation of Western culture and the desire for material goods among young arabs is what sends the fundamentalists flying off the handle and into planes.  They want these kids studying to be good moslem boys who wear traditional robes and pray five times a day, while the young people just want to play x-box and listen to 50 cent.  

Most experts on the middle east will say that if we can just get to young aspiring Moslems early in life and create opportunities for them, they will rise up against their fundamentalist friendly governments in the hope of joining the world economy. Holding free elections and supporting governments that are friendly to this agenda are key pieces of this puzzle.

Now, mind you, we're not doing this for the good of mankind.  Rather, its for our own national security and economics.  Either way, this couldn't be more different from Rome's view of the world.

"But there is no factual comparison between Rome and its empire, and the current actions of the U.S."

You're absolutely right. Not yet.

Correctumundo. And by all rational measures, we are not currently on the path to becoming an empire. Like I said earlier, it's a nicely written post but it's not an accurate analogy of current U.S. foreign policy.

RLTW

Don't place too much stress on the word 'Empire' folks. It's really just a figure of speech and not an accurate description of the world today.

Afghanistan and Iraq will undoubtedly be better places in the future, but how long is that future going to take and at what cost to the American people?

America has done the right thing but in the wrong way. The only practical ally that America has at the moment is Britain, and between us we cannot solve the problems of the Islamic countries. The UN, despite it's weaknesses, should have been brought in immediately the countries were secured. The blue beret is a powerful symbol, the bad guys never know for sure who they are about to attack, or what damage it may do to their cause.

I think that the writing is on the wall:
Since 9/11 over a million Islamic children have been named Osama.
Volunteers for suicide bombings outnumber the explosives and logistics available.
Religious conversion to Islam worldwide is at an all time high and is cutting across the usual age and political divide.

As a military political observer for several years from 1960 onwards I, and several colleagues in the US military, submitted reports to our respective governments of both political flavours. The essential message we gave was that the Soviets are not the problem, their communist system will implode as it is unsustainable. The problem will be the Islamic fundamentalists - they will end up with substantial amounts of oil revenue and if they use what they term 'the oil weapon', the west will experience an economic downturn of monumental proportions. I have to say nobody listened, we were regarded as cranky!

Rome thought that they could rule the known world by force and it failed. Can USA and Britain survive in our present state if a majority of the worlds peoples are against us? Our world is a lot bigger than the Roman world. There surely are differences between the USA and Rome, but the underlying principle is the same - some things cannot be done alone. At the present time government decisions both in Europe and USA are becoming more and more divisive.

It aint no way to run a railway!!

this would all be avoided if we'd have listened to Frank http://www.beecy.net/frank/