nun

Well the seat of Roman power moved east after 330AD and that of the Anglo-Saxons moved westward after 1900.

civilservant

Quite an appropriate analogy, since the fall of Rome concluded the breakup of an Empire.

nun

I was more thinking that the empire continued, but moved to another place and left the remain of the old empire to decay.

robin1234

Isn't the conventional western view of Byzantium that it was decadent, Asiatic, and autocratic, in contrast to Rome which was based on ideals of citizenship, public & military service etc. So the US self concept has always been more Roman than Byzantine.

I can't seem to find the reference now, but wasn't it either Harold Macmillan or Eden who said, in the post WWII period, that US=Rome and UK=Greece; that is, Britain, while no longer a military power, would provide the philosophers and brain power behind the US empire ...

WEBlue

Perhaps somewhat true in the days of MacMillan and Eden, but now? Not so sure.

MostlyYank

The UK still provides a great deal of support to the US internationally.

Heck the UK seems to be able to support an outsized roll in world politics overall.

I like the Greece/Roman thing! Though Rome wasn't very democratic, and what democracy it had didn't last long on the march to bread and circuses. Wait a second...

Pete

robin1234

Exactly! Hunger Games, anyone?

robin1234

Well, what about all us BE knowledge workers? Without us the US would still be a republic of farmers!

nun

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but its an interesting perspective to think of the US as a continuation of the British Empire. I justify that because the US Republic was basically formed by Anglo-Saxon guys with close links to Britain or its other colonies.

MostlyYank

The vast majority of colonials were British citizens, until they weren't

Pete

WEBlue

Granted there is some help there in the brain power department as you mentioned, but I'm thinking the US is far from an empire these days, so it all seems a tad futile....

The progress of power is already changing: Byzantium to Rome to London to Wash DC to ... Beijing?

Tarkak9

... and throw the middle east into the mix - obviously dont' have Pontius but rather POTUS Pilate ... and the likes of BL/SH/Mahmoud as the defiant ones, sorta like JC was to Pilate and Rome back in the day....

WEBlue

Mixed up the first two, apologies. Should read: Rome to Byzantium to London to Wash DC & so on ...

MostlyYank

Justinian was the last emperor to speak Latin as his first tongue - I wonder if the 'Rome' Romans thought he butchered it like English/American

China is waxing. I saw a great interview with a historian on PBS last year (wish I could remember the name!) that mentioned there was never a single time a waxing great power didn't fight with the waning one. Chilling.

Pete

robin1234

Interesting thought ... We know how Latin developed through the centuries, for instance, Byzantine or Medieval Latin is full of Greek vocabulary, such as basileus instead of imperator for emperor. Presumably the folks back in Rome still kept up their more classical usage and declined to use the new Greek words ...

?? The US didn't fight with Britain in the twentieth century. I wouldn't count the War of 1812 in this context, as that was actually at the beginning of the period of Britain's greatest power.