Apart from lasting 400 years and dominating the known world, the Roman Empire was obviously a failure, right?

Apparently in 2002 the Pentagon commissioned a study (which I've not read yet) of imperial power entitled the "Military Advantage in History," with a view to appreciating what the United States could learn from previous imperial adventures. Since the US is an imperial power, that's not too daft a project.

More on this later, perhaps. But for now I was struck by Dana Goldstein's response:

It's fascinating that although Roman history can be read as a cautionary anti-imperial tale, the ONA [Office of Net Assessment] report lauds Rome as the foremost example for an American empire, without even nodding toward Rome's failures or fall. But it's not too surprising that a history report written by military contractors -- not historians -- lacks complexity and was drafted to fit the pro-war preconceptions of its intended readers. One thing I hope we can look forward to under the next administration is, of course, a return of real, credentialed experts to their rightful place as government advisers.

I suppose you could see Roman history as "a cautionary anti-imperial tale" though I'm not sure what the point of doing so would be. Given that the Roman Empire* endured for 400 years it might, therefore, be considered such a success (in its own terms) as to make any comparisons with the United States - whether celebratory or condemnatory - almost entirely useless. As for "nodding toward Rome's failures or fall", this too would seem to be missing the point by an all but impossibly wide margin.

Anyway, full story on the report is in Mother Jones, here.

UPDATE: the western Empire anyway. Mr Worstall, in the comments, is right.

Comments

[Tim Worstall]

"Given that the Roman Empire endured for 400 years it"

Eh? 1400 old bean....not read your Gibbon?

[Matt Zeitlin]

Gaaa Worstall, you've totally made my post on this irrelevant. Thanks.

[David Margolies]

Well, a more nuanced view might point out that the Roman's never solved the problem of a non-dictatorship ruling an empire. The republic was unable to rule without destroying itself. The imperial system was essentially a military dictatorship. It had horrible problems dealing with succession and equally horrible problems when a bad (broadly defined) emperor rose to power. It does tell us that a well organized military dictatorship can hold together an empire when it boundaries (with the exception of one in the east) are water, deserts, or poorly organized tribes and that the empire was united for 200 of the 400 years (at least) is impressive. But its lessons for the US? Do not know. How do you feel about a military dictatorship?