Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "America is the New Rome" video.

  1. No America is quite far removed. Even with mountains on the border there are far more who could come in. The difference between the Italian and American positions is that there is no land route to Europe, and that no-one can really invade the US through Canada or Mexico. Those are effectively choke points which cut it off completely in a way the Italian peninsula never could be.
    11
  2.  @neolithictransitrevolution427  The difference between the positions is that you wouldn't need a Triremes to invade Rome from the north.
    3
  3. I have a question: If Julius Caeser is closer in time to us than to the old kingdom of Egypt, what other time in history looked a lot like the Roman empire? If we have the strange parallels and history really does have this much in common, how about the actual origin of something like the late Roman Republic? I'd also very much like to add a few fair things here: Ireland and Scotland have had a shared history with England about as long as the Etruscans and Latins had with the Romans until the late Republic and together FORMED the British empire. So putting them as separate peoples and part of being "ethnically diverse" is honestly a bit silly. On top of that, Rome literally DID conquer Greece. It was independent, and Rome went and conquered it. It also conquered everyone else that it eventually assimilated into the Roman state. No large group of people went into the Roman state and simply became Roman by culture by choice. So with these HUGE caveats... I really do wonder how you actually justify this without actively just wanting to say that the USA is the new Roman empire for clout basically. Quote from another video: "Greece could no longer take care of its own problems and no-one called it colonization" You're right but they did call it conquest since that's what it was. Kings and Generals has an entire video series on it neatly put into one two hour video. Smaller Greek states formed an alliance to help against the larger states. But when they saw the way things were going (Rome going for direct control) they declared war to maintain independence which the Romans simply did not want. And then they lost, giving the situation where Rome annexed the territories by force. I also want to add something else I found at 8:17 : The Greek colonial states were initially helped by an outside power only to be conquered by Rome in the Punic wars. Why the Romans allied to the Southern Greek states isn't found anywhere, and on top of that, the comparison to the Americans falls flat again given that the Americans didn't care what happened to the western Europeans very much and instead had to be attacked, having war declared on it rather than declaring for themselves. The Achaen league was also not created by Rome. They asked to be allied with Rome later.
    2
  4. 15:51 What are you talking about? In the case of the classical world, it was ONE GUY who was just THAT GOOD, and the empire fell apart IMMEDIATELY. This was mirrored best by the conquests of Ghengis Khan rather than anything the West did. The reason this is important is because classical civilization didn't do this, ALEXANDER did that, which means that the trajectory had nothing to do with the state of the civilization but instead one man and thus the parallel is moot. It also means that the succeeding parallel is pretty weak too since the aftermath of Alexander's conquests would be more akin to French Indichina, the British Raj, and the Dutch East Indies fighting with each other vying for supremacy as the old nation's back in Europe simply fell apart. Or even better, the rest of the British Raj and British Africa, fighting the British isles for control over the whole of the empire.
    2
  5. I feel like it's mostly shoehorned. The devil is in the details, and those details basically completely recontextualize the stories that are laid out here. For one: the leveraging of the Americans massive population to overpower their enemy. It simply didn't happen. The Anglo-American alliance put a maximum of 4.6 million men in Europe at war's end to a maximum loss of the coalition at roughly 1 million spread across the entirety of the British commonwealth, Isles, and USA. USA and Britain both only lost 400k men, and that 4 million figure is basically only once they break into Germany proper as beforehand they were at about 2 million together in France until the border. (this is in comparison to the Germans who had roughly 3 million men in the field at any one time and took almost 6 million dead in losses) And that's one example out of basically all of them.
    1
  6. 30:21 Better Generalship? Silly. Honestly. Also, this parallel also kind of falls flat given how the Americans lost basically no-one in both of those wars and didn't leverage its massive population really given how little it actually committed. You want to see leveraging a massive population? You go to the eastern front, not the western.
    1