The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Cautionary Tale?
The comparison between the United States and the ancient Roman Empire is often made because both have been dominant global powers, shaping world affairs economically, militarily, and culturally. However, like Rome, the U.S. faces internal and external challenges that some argue threaten its long-term stability.
Some background re: the initial Roman Republic and what then became the Roman Empire:
- Governance: The Roman Republic was a democratic society with elected officials, while the Roman Empire was characterized by centralized imperial authority, with the emperor holding the most power.
- Political Structure: The Republic had a complex system of checks and balances, whereas the Empire was ruled by a single emperor, leading to a more autocratic form of governance.
- Military Engagement: The Republic was often in a state of war, expanding its territories, while the Empire experienced a relatively peaceful period known as the Pax Romana during its first 200 years.
- Time Period: The Roman Republic lasted from 509 BC to 27 BC, while the Roman Empire began in 27 BC and continued until the fall of the Western Empire in AD 476.
- Cultural Influence: The Republic laid the foundations of Roman law and governance, while the Empire expanded Roman culture and influence across Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia.
These differences highlight the significant changes in political structure, governance, and societal organization between the two periods.
The Roman Empire (27 BCE – 476 CE in the West) was one of the most powerful and influential civilizations in world history, known for its vast territorial reach, legal systems, architecture, military strength, and cultural legacy.
It was founded in 27 BCE, when Octavian (Augustus) became the first Emperor, ending the Roman Republic. At its peak (2nd century CE), it stretched from Britain to North Africa and from Spain to the Middle East.
Key features included a strong, professional military; advanced engineering: roads, aqueducts, and concrete buildings; a centralized legal system and governance; and a blend of Roman and local cultures.
Religion transitioned from pagan polytheism to Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Constantine (4th century CE).
The Fall of its Western Empire happened in 476 CE due to internal decay, economic troubles, military overstretch, and invasions by Germanic tribes. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) continued for another 1,000 years until 1453.
Similarities Between the Fall of Rome and Challenges Presently Facing the U.S.:
1. Internal Political Corruption & Institutional Erosion
- Rome: As Rome declined, political corruption, incompetence, and power struggles weakened the government. Leaders prioritized personal wealth and power over the needs of the people, often using populist rhetoric to gain control.
- U.S. (Trump Eras; 2016-2020; 2024-): Trump’s presidencies have seen increased distrust in democratic institutions, the spread of conspiracy theories, and efforts to delegitimize elections. His use of populist tactics—appealing to grievances while consolidating power—echoes the way Roman elites manipulated the masses.
2. Economic Decline & Wealth Inequality
- Rome: A widening gap between the rich and the poor led to economic stagnation. Corrupt elites hoarded wealth while ordinary citizens suffered from inflation and unemployment.
- U.S.: The Trump eras have deepened wealth inequality, with massive tax cuts favoring the wealthy while middle- and working-class Americans struggled with stagnant wages and rising costs. Economic instability, exacerbated by COVID-19, mirrored Rome’s economic weaknesses.
3. Overexpansion & Military Overreach
- Rome: The empire grew too large to govern effectively, requiring vast military expenditures to maintain control over distant territories. As Rome’s enemies gained strength, military campaigns became unsustainable.
- U.S.: America’s global military presence is costly, and endless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) drained resources without clear victories. Trump’s “America First” policy reduces global engagement, weakening alliances that once kept U.S. influence strong, similar to how Rome gradually lost its grip over its provinces.
4. Decline in Civic Engagement & Rise of Extremism
- Rome: As the empire crumbled, Roman citizens lost faith in their government. Political factions turned violent, and civil wars weakened unity. Extremist factions, including military dictators, sought control.
- U.S.: Polarization and extremism (e.g., white nationalist movements, QAnon conspiracy theories, the January 6th insurrection), and now the current Trump/Musk/DOGE regime reflect how civic trust is eroding. Many Americans are disengaging from politics or turning to authoritarian rhetoric.
5. Undermining of the Rule of Law
- Rome: Emperors disregarded laws, using military force or bribery to remain in power. Legal institutions became a tool for the ruling class rather than a system of justice.
- U.S.: Trump’s presidencies have seen challenges to the rule of law, including attempts to overturn democratic elections, appointing loyalists to judicial positions, and widespread attacking of the media, political opponents, and the judiciary.
Key Differences Between Rome’s Fall and U.S. Challenges:
Government Structure
- Rome: Autocracy (Emperor held ultimate power)
- U.S.: Democracy (Institutions, though weakening, still exist but eroding quickly). We seem to be heading to at minimum a constitutional crisis of many forms if not outright anti-democracy or autocracy, oligarchy, and fascism
External Threats
- Rome: Invading barbarian tribes (Visigoths, Vandals) contributed to collapse
- U.S.: No existential external military threat, but economic and cyber warfare (China, Russia) pose the most serious challenges
Technology & Economy
- Rome: Dependent on slavery, limited innovation
- U.S.: Advanced technology, global economy, financial institutions; however, being greatly impacted by Trump’s confusing tariff “policies”
Global Position
- Rome: Its fall led to fragmentation into smaller kingdoms
- U.S.: could decline but remain powerful, similar to Britain post-empire
Civic Identity
- Rome: Roman identity weakened as citizens lost connection to the state
- U.S.: still has strong national identity, though political divides threaten unity
Will the U.S. Collapse Like Rome?
While the U.S. faces serious internal issues, its institutions, economy, and military remain stronger than Rome’s at its breaking point. However, without reforms, the U.S. could experience a slow decline, losing global influence and facing greater domestic instability.
There were civil protests, uprisings, and social unrest that occurred before the fall of the Roman Empire. While Rome did not have modern-style protests, it experienced riots, strikes, and rebellions driven by economic inequality, political corruption, and social grievances.
These protests, uprisings, and revolts revealed deep systemic problems (economic collapse, corruption, class divisions). However, because Rome relied on military force to suppress dissent, it failed to solve these issues peacefully.
When Rome finally fell in 476 CE, it was not a sudden event—it had been weakened by centuries of unresolved civil unrest, poor leadership, and economic failure.
Note: adapted from various online sources.
For more on the Roman Empire, see the following Atlantic article:
‘The Roman Way to Trash a Republic– When you’re the emperor Augustus, they let you do it.’
By Michelle Berenfeld, April 2025
In about 80 years, roughly the same length of time between the end of World War II and now, the Roman Republic was transformed into a dictatorship. If you had told a Roman senator at the beginning of the first century B.C.E. that his grandchildren would willingly hand over governance to a monarch, he would not have believed you. Like the American one, the Roman Republic was founded on the rejection of a king. Rome had a representative government that, though flawed, was based on the rule of law, with freedom of speech and rights to legal recourse for its citizens.
The Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years, about twice as long as Americans have had theirs. As was surely true for the Romans, most Americans can hardly imagine that their system of self-government might break and be replaced by an imperial dynasty. That is why considering what undid the Roman Republic is useful today—if we can learn from the Romans’ mistakes.
Augustus was Rome’s first emperor. In so becoming, he dismantled the republic and founded a monarchy that would last for more than a millennium. In Rome, most aristocratic men were also senators and usually held that position for life. In the later republic, some of those men—notably, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus—grew so extraordinarily rich and influential that they began to ignore the constraints of the Senate and the law. In the first century B.C.E., decades of aristocratic overreach and the authoritarian violence of Augustus’s predecessors Sulla and Caesar brought Rome to the brink more than once, but Augustus pushed it over the edge.
He took control of the government gradually but completely, with the support of those wealthy aristocrats who valued fortune above principle and with the complaisance of a population exhausted by conflict and disillusioned by a system that favored the rich and connected. Perhaps most salient for us today, Augustus consolidated his power with the institutional blessing of the Senate.
At first, the Senate let Augustus bend rules and push boundaries. It allowed him to accumulate domestic powers and bring unqualified members of his family into government. The Senate stood by while Augustus removed enemies from his path, and supported him when he put a self-serving spin on recent actions. Even when elections were held under Augustus, he often handpicked state officials.
The senators never called him emperor in his own day, but as primus inter pares, or first among equals, Augustus was allowed to pretend he was part of the republican system even as he destroyed it. Those who praised Augustus and those who failed to fight back, despite their misgivings, created a king by another name. They may have believed they were securing their own positions by doing so, but their acquiescence to Augustus meant the practical end of their power, forever. In their defense, Rome’s senators legitimately feared death if they broke with him; Augustus certainly had a lot of people killed. Our American senators apparently have only primaries to fear—yet they and their congressional colleagues have shown little inclination to rein in their leader or assert their own constitutional powers.
An ambitious and ruthless political operator such as Augustus provides opponents with only so many chances to stop him. The Framers of our Constitution drew on ancient Greek and Roman history when they established our republic and sought to protect it from the inevitable threat of dictatorship. When they discussed ways to avoid despotism, the Romans served as a cautionary tale. The checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution look very much like those that were in place in Rome before Augustus. There were none after him.
All of this might raise a flag over the love for ancient Rome expressed by our contemporary elites. Mark Zuckerberg’s admiration of Augustus is famous. He recently gave up his “Caesar” haircut for young–Marcus Aurelius curls and wears big T-shirts printed with Latin slogans. Elon Musk has donated several million dollars to support the study and “appreciation of Greek-Roman culture.” Steve Bannon regularly cites Roman history, in a selective and idiosyncratic way, as a guide for modern politics. During Donald Trump’s first term, Bannon helped found a “gladiator school” at a former monastery near Rome, where students would be trained in a curriculum designed to save Western civilization.
Like the wealthy elites of ancient Rome who aligned themselves with a dictator so that they could increase their fortunes, the richest and most influential men in America seem willing to let our republic fall apart as long as they believe that its demise is in their interest. And they might prosper by it. Or not. That’s the thing about capricious one-man rule—no one, not even billionaires with spaceships, can be sure they won’t get on the bad side of the emperor and suffer as a result. Thanks to the Senate that enabled him, Augustus—and every Roman emperor who followed—was a brutal dictator.
Some might argue that the empire that rose from the ashes of the republic brought peace and stability to the world for centuries to come. But this ignores the costs. The Romans were nearly always at war; their celebrated expansion was achieved by military subjugation of foreign lands and harsh repression of those they conquered. Augustus alone ordered the extrajudicial killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of domestic enemies. The supposedly stable dynasty he founded gave Rome Caligula and Nero; the latter’s death was followed by a bloody civil war. More mayhem followed, and not until a century after Augustus did the Senate finally reassert itself—by appointing another emperor and initiating a new line of succession. Some emperors made sure the roads were safe and the water clean, but these more admired rulers—Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius—were nonetheless dictators. Even for the most privileged Romans, the empire could be a terrifying and unpredictable place in which a single man held absolute, arbitrary power.
The United States, too, may endure as a great power for centuries to come. The ultimate lesson of the Roman Republic’s fate is that once you’ve allowed one man to rule as a monarch, even if you pretend he doesn’t, you are past the point of no return. When Augustus died in his bed at a ripe old age, the Roman Senate made him a god. This seems an honor that even the most sycophantic U.S. senators would be unlikely to suggest for our president. But as they cede ever more of their power to him, our own era of Roman-style imperial rule may be drawing closer than we think. (emphasis mine)
