Are We Rome By Cullen Murphy: Summary

Rome was both a city and an empire built on the values of a city, thus unlike anything in the American experience. Yet Americans in the new republic identified with Rome in a number of significant ways.

Public consensus, similar to politics, varies greatly when it comes to American history, especially as it pertains to the classroom. Views about the content and historical interpretation included in history texts have reached a heightened polarization in recent years. This can be seen in the vast differences between the diatribes of Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s, A Patriot’s History of the United States. While both books, prescribed by this introductory course into American History, cover many of the same topics, they clearly paint different pictures. I feel that any text seeking to represent a responsible survey of a

1. Each author had their own objective in writing each of the books. Both books tell the tale of history much like any other textbook. However, each book leaves out certain events creating a noticeable bias between the two. In The People’s History of the United States, the liberal author Howard Zinn writes about American history in a particularly unconventional way to convince the reader that there is another side to the history of the United States, one that does not necessarily invoke a feeling of patriotism, but rather showcases several flaws. On the other hand, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write about American history in a very patriotic way in A Patriot’s History of the United States to persuade the reader that one should feel a sense of pride in the history of the United States. Although they bear many similarities due to history not changing, the differences between The People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States are very pronounced due to the bias of each author.

The Flames of Rome by Paul Maier is a documentary-fiction that has not only brought to life the evolution of Christianity in Rome but has also painted a clear picture of what it was like to live in Rome at the time. Understanding the Roman’s way of life and reasoning behind their actions plays a major role in the reasoning for Maier writing this book. The Flames of Rome is equivalent to reading a textbook but Maier makes it much more enjoyable and intriguing by adding plausible details of his own. Maier’s portrayal of the death of Claudius Caesar, in chapter nine of the novel, closely follows the primary sources of Tacitus and Suetonius but also loosely follows that of the secondary sources. It is important to compare Maier’s version to other

The fall of the Roman Empire is one of the most important and world-shaping events in history, but it provides more than just an interesting study of the past, it also holds many important lessons for Americans and the western world today.

Rome was once a great beautiful kingdom. Ruled by many emperors and has taken bold and great actions. But following up with those actions lead to big problems. This made Rome get weaker and weaker, causing Rome to have a great downfall ending their history. But Rome’s great accomplishments and failures are still looked upon

There are quite a few reasons to study Rome. First we should study Rome because their law system influenced ours. Also, Rome had a very similar government system to our present-day one. The most important reason to study TRome is that America is extremely similar to Rome, almost identical. It is important to know what went wrong in other places and empires because it could help Americans learn what problems we need to fix, or the USA will be no more. If Americans could experience the quote “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem,” then they would have a huge wake-up call. This would be that you cannot rely on others to fix your problems, you need to fix them on your own. Additionally, if our current government is corrupt and crooked, then why doesn’t America fall like Rome did, when the US has the EXACT SAME

As for the similarities in the lifestyles of Romans and Americans, there is quite a list. Romans loved their sports, and Americans certainly love their sports. The Romans are famous for their blood lust in sports, exemplified by the gladiators and other Colosseum events, whereas Americans seem to prefer football and wrestling. However, the basics are the same. When it comes time for the event, the crowds flock to the stadiums, filling the stands, and watch on with great enthusiasm and the players are heralded as heroes in their prime. The stadiums themselves are almost the same in design, even to the retractable roof. People are saying that with time, Americans are needing more and more stimulus, which is why baseball has been overcome by football as the sport of choice, and why in more recent years so-called extreme sports are on the rise. It is no doubt that in time, Americans may revert to Roman tendencies and use death and violence as entertainment. Entertainment is central to both cultures. Rome had its theaters, whereas America has Hollywood and Broadway.

There are a lot of similarities, differences of Rome and the U.S. and there are some things that the U.S. should stay away from too. We all know the rise and fall the Roman Empire and how they dominated their area and expanded over most of Europe, but there were a lot of things they did to rise like having the largest military, and the most technologically advanced for their time like the U.S. is to today. They also had things that brought them down like a lot of incest between rulers and their sisters. There are things the U.S. should do to stay away from falling like Rome did.

In the dialogue between Bryan Ward-Perkins and Peter Heather “The Fall of Rome” the two historians answer a few questions that relate to the fall of Rome. The one specific time the two authors both agree is when Ward-Perkins mentions “disappointingly (perhaps) I basically agree with Peter here – neither of us have much time for the theory that the empire was quietly ‘transformed’, by the peaceful ‘accommodation’ into it of some Germanic barbarians. We both believe in invasions that were violent and unpleasant” (Heather, Peter, and Bryan Ward-Perkins). This is the only time presently written that both historians agreed on a given point. Peter’s statement that Ward-Perkins followed up with the agreement is “I am entirely convinced by all the evidence that shows that the late Empire was not being torn apart by irrevocable processes of decline by the fourth century” (Heather, Peter, and Bryan Ward-Perkins). The two authors are convinced that the transition was not peaceful, and from the information provided from the different wars there would have had to have been violence and not peace.

This can be done by looking at both the main title and the preface. McCormick’s work ‘America’s half century’ is the easiest to distinguish. From the title we know that Mccormick is going to focus his book on the actions of America. While he may look at some soviet actions to balance out his argument it is clear from the title that he is mainly focusing on the US. The preface also confirms this with the first sentence being ‘this is a book about the evolution and devolution of American hegemony.’ which tells us that he wrote this book with the purpose of interpreting American actions to increase it’s world dominance. Gaddi’s title ‘we now know’ also helps us determine the purpose of this book, which is to put his and other historian’s arguments into perspective with new found evidence that has been released. This, therefore, explains why he spends a large amount of the book evaluating the credibility of the other arguments as well as providing his own insight. Schlesinger’s title ‘oregins of the cold war’ is not so specific and a rather broad title. His title is not restricted to a certain aspect of the oregins of the cold war. Additonally, as this is an article, there is not preface in which we can reference from. As a result, we need to look at other clues in order to attempt to explain his

The Ancient Romans were selected by the also successful civilization of the Ancient Greeks for a variety of reasons. The main reason stemmed from “a republic governed by a mixed constitution and led by a natural aristocracy on the Roman model seemed ideal to many Americans, an Athenian-styled democracy seemed as good as the rule of the mob.” Not only did the Romans have a successful civilization, but they did not remind the Americans of their rulers in Great Britain. The Romans were able to lead a successful civilization without stomping on the rights of their people. After fighting for independence from the British, the Americans hoped they could create the perfect nation; one that would be strong and powerful but also one that worked for the citizens. Due to the work and research from Thomas Jefferson, they were able to find an example in history where this occurred. The Romans were “the foundation of such virtue, which lay at the core of a republican society, was the ancients’ love of liberty and hatred of tyranny” and this is what the Americans hoped to be. The Romans exemplified what it meant to be a free nation where people exercised their rights. Thomas Jefferson was willing to develop the government, if it meant it would uphold those same fundamentals. He wanted the government to be unique but he also wanted it to function

Rome is known for its’ empire (The Roman Empire). Rome started out small and ended up becoming this huge and undefeatable force of nature. Rome received their success by either attacking other nearby towns/neighbors or granting them treaties or citizenships. E. Badien, the author who created an article called, The Organization Of Italy, explains how Rome organized Italy, and got their neighboring cities and nations to join them and turn ancient Italy into a leading state of power. In Badien’s observations, he finds that granting citizenship and the Latin’s helped Rome to become powerful and assisting Italy to be more structured.

Despite the apparent connection between the fate of Rome and the future of the United States, some people still claim that we aren’t in a state of decline, but rather our government is better and therefore we can’t commit the same mistakes as the Ancient Romans. This is a faulty argument due to its very nature because it’s a non sequitur, as the conclusion “we can’t repeat the same mistakes” does not logically follow from “America is better than Rome”. However, if their intent is to say that Rome was less democratic because it had an aristocratic senate, then the critic has failed to evaluate the Roman political system. During the Roman Republic, the citizens directly elected two tribunes, who had vast amounts of power and whose only purpose

When comparing and contrasting the kingdom of God versus Rome they both share common similarities, but also have many differences that set them apart from each other. The kingdoms show how something may seem so alike, but be drastically different in many areas. People can learn from these two kingdoms and know what not to do.