8 ms·

Napoleon’s Vision for a New Imperial Rome

65 points by ecliptik 7y ago

blowski 7y ago
Side note, and I'm far from the first to say it, but I miss designs like this - it had personality and made sites look different from each other. Now everything looks like Bootstrap or Material UI.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  Yes, but could have been a little wider, or offering some sort of 'print' view.
mikece 7y ago
Why the fascination with Rome? I ask this having studied Latin and ancient cultures both in high school, college, and since (check out the excellent “history of Rome” podcast). Rome is the city where it all started but as an imperial seat Milan and Constantinople made far more sense as seats of government. It seems “because that’s what we’ve always done” is the logic and reasoning for Rome to have been the seat of empire and the antiquarian ideal of reestablishing that empire is why modern conquerors have placed so much emphasis on Rome as well. To me it doesn’t make sense.
- gerikson 7y ago
  Are you asking HN or Napoleon? Edit for me, the fascination with Rome is almost more what came after it lost its central place in the Empire - the slow decline; the almost complete depopulation in the 500s; the rise of the Church; the power struggles between France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Roman nobility; the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation; the age of Revolutions; and finally its place in a united Italy. Each generation has its own view of Rome, and they reflect and refract off each other. Edit 2 if you have a chance to visit, do! It's a lovely tourist destination.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  I've heard people compare the Roman Empire with the United States (implying an eventual, similar downfall). What are your thoughts to such a comparison?
  - mikece 7y ago
    Will be a longer trip for the Barbarians.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    The Roman Empire was a true empire in that it comprised many very dissonant places and cultures under one umbrella. For the time, logistically, the scope was absurd and power was very weak or yielded in many areas. It was bound to fail for this reason alone. There were kingdoms within who sometimes battled Rome, installed antipopes or just ignored Rome altogether. It was remarkably loose and the reason Germanic kingdoms were able to consolidate so (relatively) quickly was because they basically already operated as a German kingdom. The British Empire is a far better analog but on a shorter timeframe. American imperialism was curbed early on and assimilation was done largely by force. Beyond that it grew at a time of great communication improvements and radical methods for building nationalism via mass communication.
  - adventured 7y ago
    The comparison empires such as the Roman or British, contract physically and decline, literally. One of the obvious flaws in comparing them to the US, is that the US power emanates outward from its epic domestic economy, which has been the world's largest since shortly after the Civil War. The US economy didn't require the present size of the US military or its global positioning to get so large - nor did modern Japan, Germany or China (#3, #4, #2) require epic global militaries to do what they've done economically. What would the downfall be? The US is going to contract physically and lose its overseas land holdings? It has few. It has a massive size core land holding that is the country itself, including all of its resources. The Roman Empire had no such thing, nor did the British Empire, for two prominent examples; their land holdings were largely conquered, foreign cultures. One would have to project the US shattering into state regions, multiple countries. It's very unlikely to be allowed by the Federal Government. It will be forced to pull in its military and close 100 overseas bases? That will be a benefit, its people will be healthier and wealthier if $250 billion were presently diverted from the military to infrastructure, healthcare or almost anything else domestic. The dollar will lose its position? The US economy was by far the world's largest prior to the USD reserve standard. If you roll the economy forward 30 or 50 years into a theoretical downfall time, then chop 1/3 off its GDP per capita to represent the downfall -- with 380 million people it would still have the world's #1 or #2 largest economy and still have one of its highest output per capita figures. The Eurozone, Japan and China do not require any unusual global military superpower positioning to have powerful currencies, there's absolutely no reason to think the US does (other than in cases of fantasy US collapse projection); they require large economic output to support and make relevant the currencies in question (Euro, Yen, Yuan). Right now you can combine Spain and Italy's GDP per capita figures and you are still below where the US is at ($65k). So how far does the US have to fall economically, while having a future ~380 million people, to no longer be a global superpower compared to everyone not named China? For the US to implode as a global superpower, its economy has to shrink by around 50% to 65% or more. For example here's a % comparison on GDP to other nations over the decades: In 1980 France had an economy 25% as large as the US; now it's 12.5% as large approximately. Was the US not a superpower in 1980? In 1980 Italy had an economy 16.6% as large as the US; now it's 9.3% as large. In 1980 the UK had an economy 19.7% as large as the US; now it's 12.7% as large. In 1990 and 2000 Japan had an economy 50% as large as the US. Now it's about 24%. So how far would the US have to fall economically (the base of its military power is its economic output, the ability to tax & fund it), compared to where it was at in 1980 versus other powerful nations, to no longer be considered a global superpower? I think these figures put it into perspective, you'd somehow need the US to massively collapse economically. What would cause that? Federal debt? It can deal with that for a long time yet and ultimately very slowly debase its enormous dollar wealth to deal with it (basically debase the $130 trillion in wealth at 1% per year, so if you're still growing at all it might end up as a net wash or close to it, until you erode the debt enough to flip the scenario).
- empath75 7y ago
  Well — the Turks and Russians put a lot of emphasis on Constantinople because it was closer to them, and ‘Rome’ meant the empire and not the city to them.
shrubble 7y ago
Interesting factoid... many cities with imperial ambitions were built on areas with seven hills , as Rome is/was. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be... many capital cities in the above list, including Constantinople, capital of Byzantium and Moscow, Russia which considers itself the heir of Byzantium. Plus Albany NY, Seattle WA, San Francisco (not a capital but an important city in CA).
- empath75 7y ago
  I’d probably question that given how many cities want to be a new rome and how famous Rome’s seven hills are. It’s easy to pick any collection of seven hills in a city that has more hills than that and say they’re ‘the’ seven hills of the city.
  - Rerarom 7y ago
    The trick is to do it with less than seven hills.
    - reroute1 7y ago
      "But that last hill is just a landfill"
      - abrowne 7y ago
        This at least would not be out of character for Rome: Monte Testaccio is an artificial mound in Rome composed almost entirely of testae (Italian: cocci), fragments of broken ancient Roman pottery, nearly all discarded amphorae dating from the time of the Roman Empire[.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio

65 points by ecliptik 7y ago

Side note, and I'm far from the first to say it, but I miss designs like this - it had personality and made sites look different from each other. Now everything looks like Bootstrap or Material UI.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
Yes, but could have been a little wider, or offering some sort of 'print' view.

mikece 7y ago

Why the fascination with Rome? I ask this having studied Latin and ancient cultures both in high school, college, and since (check out the excellent “history of Rome” podcast). Rome is the city where it all started but as an imperial seat Milan and Constantinople made far more sense as seats of government. It seems “because that’s what we’ve always done” is the logic and reasoning for Rome to have been the seat of empire and the antiquarian ideal of reestablishing that empire is why modern conquerors have placed so much emphasis on Rome as well. To me it doesn’t make sense.

gerikson 7y ago
Are you asking HN or Napoleon? Edit for me, the fascination with Rome is almost more what came after it lost its central place in the Empire - the slow decline; the almost complete depopulation in the 500s; the rise of the Church; the power struggles between France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Roman nobility; the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation; the age of Revolutions; and finally its place in a united Italy. Each generation has its own view of Rome, and they reflect and refract off each other. Edit 2 if you have a chance to visit, do! It's a lovely tourist destination.
RandomBacon 7y ago
I've heard people compare the Roman Empire with the United States (implying an eventual, similar downfall). What are your thoughts to such a comparison?
- mikece 7y ago
  Will be a longer trip for the Barbarians.
- nkozyra 7y ago
  The Roman Empire was a true empire in that it comprised many very dissonant places and cultures under one umbrella. For the time, logistically, the scope was absurd and power was very weak or yielded in many areas. It was bound to fail for this reason alone. There were kingdoms within who sometimes battled Rome, installed antipopes or just ignored Rome altogether. It was remarkably loose and the reason Germanic kingdoms were able to consolidate so (relatively) quickly was because they basically already operated as a German kingdom. The British Empire is a far better analog but on a shorter timeframe. American imperialism was curbed early on and assimilation was done largely by force. Beyond that it grew at a time of great communication improvements and radical methods for building nationalism via mass communication.
- adventured 7y ago
  The comparison empires such as the Roman or British, contract physically and decline, literally. One of the obvious flaws in comparing them to the US, is that the US power emanates outward from its epic domestic economy, which has been the world's largest since shortly after the Civil War. The US economy didn't require the present size of the US military or its global positioning to get so large - nor did modern Japan, Germany or China (#3, #4, #2) require epic global militaries to do what they've done economically. What would the downfall be? The US is going to contract physically and lose its overseas land holdings? It has few. It has a massive size core land holding that is the country itself, including all of its resources. The Roman Empire had no such thing, nor did the British Empire, for two prominent examples; their land holdings were largely conquered, foreign cultures. One would have to project the US shattering into state regions, multiple countries. It's very unlikely to be allowed by the Federal Government. It will be forced to pull in its military and close 100 overseas bases? That will be a benefit, its people will be healthier and wealthier if $250 billion were presently diverted from the military to infrastructure, healthcare or almost anything else domestic. The dollar will lose its position? The US economy was by far the world's largest prior to the USD reserve standard. If you roll the economy forward 30 or 50 years into a theoretical downfall time, then chop 1/3 off its GDP per capita to represent the downfall -- with 380 million people it would still have the world's #1 or #2 largest economy and still have one of its highest output per capita figures. The Eurozone, Japan and China do not require any unusual global military superpower positioning to have powerful currencies, there's absolutely no reason to think the US does (other than in cases of fantasy US collapse projection); they require large economic output to support and make relevant the currencies in question (Euro, Yen, Yuan). Right now you can combine Spain and Italy's GDP per capita figures and you are still below where the US is at ($65k). So how far does the US have to fall economically, while having a future ~380 million people, to no longer be a global superpower compared to everyone not named China? For the US to implode as a global superpower, its economy has to shrink by around 50% to 65% or more. For example here's a % comparison on GDP to other nations over the decades: In 1980 France had an economy 25% as large as the US; now it's 12.5% as large approximately. Was the US not a superpower in 1980? In 1980 Italy had an economy 16.6% as large as the US; now it's 9.3% as large. In 1980 the UK had an economy 19.7% as large as the US; now it's 12.7% as large. In 1990 and 2000 Japan had an economy 50% as large as the US. Now it's about 24%. So how far would the US have to fall economically (the base of its military power is its economic output, the ability to tax & fund it), compared to where it was at in 1980 versus other powerful nations, to no longer be considered a global superpower? I think these figures put it into perspective, you'd somehow need the US to massively collapse economically. What would cause that? Federal debt? It can deal with that for a long time yet and ultimately very slowly debase its enormous dollar wealth to deal with it (basically debase the $130 trillion in wealth at 1% per year, so if you're still growing at all it might end up as a net wash or close to it, until you erode the debt enough to flip the scenario).
empath75 7y ago
Well — the Turks and Russians put a lot of emphasis on Constantinople because it was closer to them, and ‘Rome’ meant the empire and not the city to them.

shrubble 7y ago

Interesting factoid... many cities with imperial ambitions were built on areas with seven hills , as Rome is/was. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be... many capital cities in the above list, including Constantinople, capital of Byzantium and Moscow, Russia which considers itself the heir of Byzantium. Plus Albany NY, Seattle WA, San Francisco (not a capital but an important city in CA).

empath75 7y ago
I’d probably question that given how many cities want to be a new rome and how famous Rome’s seven hills are. It’s easy to pick any collection of seven hills in a city that has more hills than that and say they’re ‘the’ seven hills of the city.
- Rerarom 7y ago
  The trick is to do it with less than seven hills.
  - reroute1 7y ago
    "But that last hill is just a landfill"
    - abrowne 7y ago
      This at least would not be out of character for Rome: Monte Testaccio is an artificial mound in Rome composed almost entirely of testae (Italian: cocci), fragments of broken ancient Roman pottery, nearly all discarded amphorae dating from the time of the Roman Empire[.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio