Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--And America Is Building--A New World

Most Americans don't like the idea of empires, myself included. But not all empires were of the purely conquest type. Madden offers a fresh look at how Rome grew to become the empire it did and how America is dealing with its own superpower status. He admits that the two are not similar in every way, but there are some similarities and common patterns that stand out. While I may not find what he has to offer as necessarily comforting, he does make some solid points. Rome, as Madden argues, did not acquire an empire out of a desire to rule over other territories or to exploit their lands. Madden argues that Rome was merely interested in guaranteeing its own peace and security, which necessarily led to its expanding realm. It wanted allies, not enemies, and as a result Rome became a trusted power and was depended on by other states to safeguard their own security and their own way of life. Only in cases where Rome's adversaries posed ongoing threats did Rome find it necessary to destroy its rivals, such as Carthage, for example. America also had and has a history of isolationist sentiment and has had to accept its role in the world, especially when its own security was threatened as in World War II. America became and remains a trusted power that doesn't seek to deprive other nations of their freedoms, as we ourselves cherish our own. This doesn't mean that other nations love us. To the contrary, because other nations expect us to act in a just fashion, do they feel they can verbally abuse us. If they thought we would deprive them of their sovereignty and destroy their way of life, do you think they would heap this verbal abuse on us? Most likely not. I agree with Madden on this point. Madden uses the Greeks behavior towards the Romans as an example. Rome did not remain a republic throughout its history. It eventually did come under the rule of emperors, but there were customs and traditions that had been established that even an emperor had to acknowledge. While it is true that all powers do fall, Madden ably argues that those saying America is ready to collapse is a bit premature. Several of the Greek and Roman historians said the same thing about Rome, centuries before it ultimately fell. Madden also delves into modern day issues such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the War on Terror. He does get into a certain amount of political discourse, but I don't think its obsessively partisan. While readers may have some differing viewpoints on America's role in the world, and I don't always agree with the author, I find his historical knowledge gives his book weight and is important for what lessons it has to offer. An insightful book and certainly worth reading.

What a truly interesting and gripping book to read. From page one until the last, I couldn't wait each night to dive in and had a difficult time putting the book down. The fact the Romans never wanted an empire but got one anyway is a great parallel to our own history. His premise that Rome and the U.S. were similar not in their rise and fall but in their compassion and wish to live in peace within their own borders is brought home in fascinating stories and anecdotes. This is a book that should be read by all.

Any citizen who considers himself reasonably historically literate must read this book. It offers the most encouraging perspective on current American conflicts.

The US is often compared to historical empires, yet the comparison usually rings hollow. If we are an empire and we conquered a country that produces oil, how come fuel is so expensive? If we are truly imperialistic, why did our troops leave Germany after conquering it in WWI? Why give Japan back its independence after WWII? In this book, Thomas F. Madden compares the US to Rome. Rome is considered the quintessential empire in the west because it ruled so much and survived for so long. Thomas F. Madden shows the differences between Rome and other empires in history. He makes the case that during the time when the Romans conquered their empire (until about 140 BCE): 1. They did not want an empire. 2. They wanted safety, which required allies in a dangerous world. 3. Keeping those alliances required them to fight their allies' enemies. 4. Having conquered their enemies, the Romans often attempted to turn them into allies, rather than conquered territories. 5. By 140 BC they had implicit control of the entire Mediterranean area, yet still insisted on keeping up the charade of their relationships with other polities being alliances between equals. This, by itself, would make this book worthy reading for anybody interested in the history of western civilization. But Thomas Madden goes further than that. He shows the parallels between Rome and the US, and the world Rome inhabited (Greeks and Jews) and the one the US inhabits (West Europeans and Muslims).

Classicist Thomas F Madden has seen the light. He realized after 9-11 that academics have a larger role to play in society than ivory tower occupiers. Since 9-11 he has consciously striven to help people understand the past and how it can help us determine the context in which we make some monumental decision in the present. While he still writes and publishes for academics, he has included the lay person and politician in his circle and has tried to make ancient history relevant. Such is the foundation of Empires of Trust--ancient history made accessible. After having taken two years of College Latin and Roman history my understanding of that great civilization was changed forever after finishing Madden's work. He wrote the book mainly out of the misunderstanding of Rome and its empire, which has been used by a flood of writers of late to compare what they see as the decline of the United States' Empire with the corruption and decline of the Roman Empire. For starters, he points out that all comparisons of the US with the late Roman Empire is somewhat of a stretch and much of the material written is absurd. For instance whatever one's feelings about President Bush the comparisons to him and the Roman Caesars is laughable: "Claiming that President Bush or any other American president is a new Pompey or Augustus is simply the kind of frivolousness to be expected in a time of pax. It sells books and makes for good talk show fodder, but it is historically absurd. The men who overturned the Roman Republic did so by wielding raw military power against their own government. Sending the armed forces to Iraq(after a supporting congressional resolution) is one thing, sending them to Washington DC, is quite another. (p.125)" Instead Madden argues that the empire the Romans had under the Republic before the Caesars offers better insight into the current American condition. He argues that both Rome and the US possessed and possesses an "Empire of Trust," and empire built on security and protection, not conquest. Contrary to popular myth, the Roman Republic gained an empire first because they did not want one and secondly to secure their "horizon." Because the Romans were distrustful of empire, their conquered enemies, which often became allies did so because they trusted Rome to wield such power responsibly. As they made alliances with people inside and just outside their sphere of influence they pledged to protect them. Thus when an ally was attacked, the Romans fought and further expanded their empire. The US is much the same way: distrustful of concentrated power and empire, but steps into the fray when their allies are threatened or national security warrants it. For the most part, the world has trusted the Untied States with that power. This is why the bulk of NATO's power and might comes from the US and why many nations feel they don't need to build up any armed forces at all, because they trust the US to protect them from any enemies and will not tole