More than sin needed to topple an empire
In the letter “Learn from past, America” (Feb. 12), Joyce Bubash says “there is no debating history” and that various empires throughout history failed due to immorality. I disagree.
We must not oversimplify history by blaming the end of empires on some real or imagined immoralities. Empires don't perish simply due to immorality.
Empires historically overextend themselves. In the process, they make lots of enemies. So, they suffer constant external attacks by barbarians, rebels, terrorists, etc. Add to that civil wars, epidemics, famines, floods, earthquakes and exhausted natural resources.
Edward Gibbon, in his epilogue to “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” cites four factors that, over a thousand years, caused the ruin of Rome: 1. Injuries of time and nature; 2. Hostile attacks of barbarians and Christians; 3. The use and abuse of materials; 4. The internal squabbles.
This American empire is a mere 200 years old. We've got a long way to go to measure up to the accomplishments of past empires. We must survive natural disasters, internal and external attacks, and misusing or just running out of resources and we must avoid religious wars.
The writer is a Mt. Pleasant native.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- Care for our children first
- Corbett better choice
- Getting bad advice
- Obama’s VA
- Expanding their options
- UMW’s silence
- Stop the idiocy
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Anything but ‘e-fairness’
- Overlooked by PUC