曾经的罗马帝国能与如今的美国相提并论吗？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：cyber power------------



Was the Roman Empire comparable to the U.S. today?

曾经的罗马帝国能与如今的美国相提并论吗？

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：翻译加工厂 转载请注明出处

-------------译者：cyber power-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Johnfrancis (John) Evans former this and that. at DHSS/DSS/BA/DWP (1980-2005)
Answered Sep 3
While I agree with Ernest W. Adams’ answer I wonder whether the question relates to the ability to control or influence the behaviour of another State or States. If so then while not directly comparable there are similarities (in my mostly ignorant opinion)

然而我同意Ernest W. Adams的回答，我想知道这个问题是否涉及拥有控制或影响另一个国家或多个国家行为的能力。如果是这样的话，虽然不能直接比较，但其中有着相似之处（我的看法多半不太成熟）。

There are many countries around the World who modify their behaviours to avoid facing the wrath of the United States; as was the case in some respects of those that feared the might of ancient Rome.

当今世界上有很多国家他们为避免正面激怒美国而曲意逢迎。这种情形也出现在那些畏惧古罗马帝国的国家身上。

Similarly; there are nations who adopt Pro-American policies in order to encourage funding or financial/technological Aid from the U.S. This too was seen in some of the friendly States in or adjacent to the Roman areas of interest.

类似地;有些国家奉行亲美的政策，为的就是得到美国的资金或财政及技术上的援助，这在一些友好的国家或毗邻罗马的利益区内也是司空见惯的。

Rik Andino Proud American Former Sergeant US Marine Corps
Answered Sep 9
No not even close. Yes America (the US) does have many similarities to the Romans but that's because Americans have always tried to emulate the Romans (much like every other Western Nation that's risen up after Rome).

错，错得离谱。的确，美国与罗马人还真有很多相似之处，但那是因为美国人总是试图模仿罗马人(就像在罗马之后崛起的其他西方国家一样)。

The Roman Empire lasted for almost 500 years and that is if you just you look at it from the rise of Cesar to the fall of Rome. However if you count the Roman Republic from it's rise into an empire it's much closer to 800 years. And if you count the Eastern Roman Empire you can say that the Roman Empire lasted over 1500 years. That's impressive by any standards.

罗马帝国持续了差不多500年，如果你从凯撒的崛起到罗马的衰落算起的话。然而，如果你把罗马共和国到它掘起成为一个帝国计算在内，它就更接近800年了。如果你算上东罗马帝国你可以说罗马帝国持续了1500年。任何标准都让人印象深刻。

 -------------译者：蹊上桃李-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

The US by comparison has only been a Superpower for less 100 years. And an unrivaled Global power much more recently.

相比较而言美国成为超级大国的时间不到100年，而成为无可匹敌的全球力量的时间则更短。

While Rome actively sought to become the unrivaled World Power and was able to rise numerous times from devastating tragedies (like the Punic Wars the burning of Rome a plague etc...) to conquer much of the known World; the US pretty much became a Superpower by happenstance.

罗马是在积极地探寻中成为无敌的世界强权，它能在各种临近毁灭的节点中不断崛起（像布匿战争、燃烧的罗马、瘟疫等等），并且去征服大部分的已知世界。相比而言美国成为超级大国更像是一个偶然。

The US's rise to Global Dominance came about by being relatively independent and patient. They developed their resources relatively free from outside interference and by staying out of many of the disputes between European Powers they were able to maximize their power and energy projecting it when it was most useful. When the US finally entered WW1 they were able to claim victory by being fresh and bringing fresh ideas and tactics.

美国崛起成为一个全球统治者依赖于相对的独立和耐心。他们发展自己的资源，通过远离欧洲列强之间的纷争从而更少地受外界干预。这使他们能有效最大化其力量并保护这力量。当美国最终介入到一战时，他们通过采用、带来新思路和新战术来获得胜利。

As for WW2 the US was able to minimize the damage they incurred by keeping the fighting outside of their borders. Contrast this to the Soviets who had to rebuild their Empire from scratch after Germany savagely destroyed much of their infrastructure and ravaged their lands in much of Western Europe. The US on the other hand became very wealthy from both World Wars by selling weapons and assisting in the rebuilding process. And very unlike Rome they became a Superpower by letting their enemies defeat each other in massive Global Royal Rumbles with the US being the strongest man standing at the end.

到了二战，通过把战场控制在国界之外，美国能够最小化他们遭受的伤害。与此相反，苏联必须重建他们满目疮痍的帝国，在基础设施被德国野蛮地破坏，大部分欧洲土地被其劫掠之后。另一方面，通过贩卖武器和援助重建，美国在每次世界大战中都变得富有了。与罗马很大不同，美国让他们的敌人在全球大战中互相击败对方，而自己成为站到最后的胜利者。

Besides this the US best asset to becoming a Global power was being more amenable then their rivals. It has allowed them to gather allies who would rather be their friends than the friends of their enemies. The Romans by contrast were known for beaten their rivals to pulp and threatening and subjecting regions to their iron-fisted rule.

除此之外，美国成为全球强权最大的资本是比他们的对手更善于控制 。与其成为美国敌人的盟友，还不如成为美国的盟友，这让美国得到了许多盟友。而罗马则与之大相径庭，其手段是彻底击败他的对手，胁迫和命令各地区服从他们铁拳统治。

-------------译者：蹊上桃李-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

As for culture. The Roman people were much more resilient than Americans. They had a stronger warrior spirit and a much higher desire to dominate and rule the world. Americans by contrast love to brag about being the best Yet they have a dilemma with being involved in foreign affairs and they don't enjoy ruling other regions.

至于文化，罗马人比美国人更有活力。他们有更强的武士精神，有更高的野心去统治世界。相反，美国人喜欢自夸自己国家最好。但他们却常陷入其他国家的事务，而且他们并不喜欢统治其他地区。

Lastly America's Hegemony is waning. If you just look at the state of our foreign affairs in recent years you can clearly see a decline. That decline has in fact accelerated recently with the rise of a proto-isolationist Presidency. In the absence of US influence on the global stage other nations mainly our strongest rivals; China Russia and Iran have risen to challenge our power. This will be the most crucial dance to study in theGlobal Politics 21st Century. The fall of US Influence may be minor blip or an event of historical significance. The most important question for us (Americans) however is: can we behave like the Romans and rise back to power?

最后，美国的霸权是逐渐衰落的。如果你看看最近外交事务的声明，你能确切的看到这种衰落。事实上，随着原孤立主义总统的上任，这种衰落正在加速。当美国在全球舞台上缺席时，其他国家，主要是我们最强大的对手——中国、俄罗斯还有伊朗，已经崛起并且开始挑战我们（美国人）。这将会是学习21世纪全球政治最关键的舞曲。美国衰落的影响可能是一个历史意义的事件，或是一个小插曲。然而对我们而言最重要的问题是，我们能像罗马人一样重新崛起为强权吗？

I don't think Americans are like the Romans but perhaps we can evolve to become them. `

我不觉得美国人像罗马人，但或许我们能进化成为他们。

Presently there is no real comparison between Rome and the US. However maybe in the next few centuries the US will develop an Empire that rises and behaves like the Ancient Romans however currently that is not the case.

目前无法拿美国和罗马作真正的比较。然而或许在几个世纪后，美国将会建立起一个帝国，像古代罗马人一样崛起。但现在事实并非如此。

-------------译者：w7wx9xo0-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Jan Meyer studied History & English at University of Münster
Answered Jul 31
Yes and no.

是也不是。

Certain features in the political make-up jump to the fore like the strong oligarchic element in the political system a very strong executive patrician families with huge influence on the countries fortunes.

某些表面上的政治上特点，如行政体系中强大的寡头政治、对国家财政有巨大影响的强大而有权力的贵族家庭，都很相似。

There is also the element of including foreigners… to a point.

还有就是都接纳外国移民·····从某种程度上。

But the differences are just as many.

但是不同点也很多。

Rome was never self-sufficient in terms of ressources not even food the USA is.

罗马帝国就资源上来说从不是自给自足的，特别是食物。而美国可以。

The US does not fight wars of conquest but colonial and proxy wars.

美国不进行征服战争，但进行殖民和代理人战争。

etc.

等等。

Katherine Bailey Have Never Seen Bigfoot
Answered Aug 4
I’m no historian but I have read opinions that the USA like the Roman Empire relied too much on panem et circenses (bread and circuses) meaning that it appeased its citizenry with superficial entertainments and comforts to distract them from the fact that those at the top were not acting in the citizens’ interests.

我不是历史学家但是我的观点是美国和罗马帝国一样都极度依赖小恩小惠政策，这意味着他们用肤浅的娱乐和舒适来安抚国民并转移他们的注意力，使他们忽略掉上层人士并没有为国民们的利益服务的事实。

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

I would have to agree 200% on that one. Maybe 300%. We have an increasingly corrupt government that — particularly on the conservative side — panders to the voters on hot-button issues and then ignores those issues once elected whilst stuffing their own pockets. The fact that this works is abundantly shown by the election of Trump. He’s the dead opposite of what he told his fans he was isn’t even trying to hide it but they still love him. To be fair the Dems are only somewhat better. HRC would have been a very competent president with a better track record of advocacy for rights but unwilling to start to dismantle a corrupt system. Sanders was our best bet for that.

我200%认同这个观点。甚至可以说我300%同意。我们有个越来越腐败的政府——特别是保守党这派——在热点问题上谄媚迎合选民们，一旦竞选成功就立马忽视这些问题
同时努力填充自己的钱袋。这个事实在特朗普竞选的时候表现得淋漓尽致。他做的与他对支持他的选民们说的完全相反，他甚至都没有刻意去隐藏这点，但是支持他的选民们还是很拥护爱戴他。说句公道话，民主党也只是好一点。希拉里·克林顿（HRC）本可以成为一名出色有能力的总统，她拥有更好的维权倡导记录，但她却不愿意废除这个腐败的制度。桑德斯（Sanders）是我们的最佳选择了。

Alek Trajkov
Answered Sep 2
There are similarities. Nowadays you have to donate to certain politician’s fund in order to be viewed in a positive light and expect some benefit. Why do you think Hillary Clinton’s fund attracted so much attention (and donations) from various countries? USA is using its political cultural and technological weight to extract money from all over the world. As Silicon Valley execs claim - when you buy a product from them you are sending a fee to “the empire”. Read “The Industries of the Future “ by Alec Ross.

两者有相似之处。现如今，你必须给某个政客的基金会捐点款，才能以更正面的角度来看待并期待能得到点好处。你认为为什么希拉里·克林顿的基金会能够得到多个国家的关注（和捐款）呢？美国正利用其政治、文化和科技的分量从全世界榨敛钱财。就如硅谷经理人所言——当你从他们那里购买产品时，你就帮“帝国”赚了点小费。详情请参见亚力克·罗斯的作品《新一轮产业革命》。

John Dewar Gleissner Auburn & Vanderbilt graduate; lifelong student of history
Answered Aug 1
No. The Roman Empire had abandoned the republican system the USA still has still had slaves was not geographically isolated like the USA and was subject to barbarian attacks on a massive scale. The 50 United States preserve sovereignty over many aspects of life which provides more flexibility than the Roman Empire had. The Roman Empire had two capitals for many years Rome and Constantinople which kept the Empire divided.

不能相比，罗马帝国废除了共和制度，但是美国仍有奴隶，虽然他们没有像美国一样在地理上被隔绝，但却遭受到野蛮人的大规模袭击。美国的这50个国家在生活多方面上维护其主权，与罗马帝国相比更具灵活性。罗马帝国常年保有两个首都，罗马和君士坦丁堡，这在最后使帝国分裂。

-------------译者：jumpingiruka-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Mason Alexander Dencker Songwriter and history enthusiast
Answered Sep 4
Yes but but not quite the Roman Republic. (a multi-ethnic superpower republic) was more similar to America than any other civilization in history American government was largely based on Rome and it is arguable that America today is falling into many of the same traps Rome’s failing republic experienced.

是的，但罗马帝国并不是这样。（多种族超强共和国的罗马）在历史上比其他的文明更象美国。美国政府很大程度是以罗马帝国为基础，有争论说今天的美国落入了罗马帝国曾经历过的陷阱。

The reduction of the middle class to cheap overseas slave labor government corruption and political polarization between the aristocracy and masses resulting in populism. The loss of political compromise leading to acts of political violence.

中产阶级减少廉价的海外奴隶劳工，政府腐败和贵族和大众之间的政治分化，导致民粹主义。政治妥协的丧失导致政治暴力行为。

But perhaps the root cause of it all was their cultural decentralization from their rapidly expanding multi-ethnic population which allowed for aristocratic corruption to go unchecked. They absorbed more different people than the system could adequately handle political dialogue eroded and politicians exploited the confusion. Eventually culminating in Julius Caesar in a bloody civil war starting the empire. To say that any of that would be America’s fate would be a stretch but Rome’s republic took 100 years to fall.

但是，这一切的根本原因可能是他们的文化权力分散于他们迅速扩张的多民族人口中，他们允许贵族腐败不受控制。他们吸收了太多不同种族的人，以至于制度不能够妥善处理政治对话，政客们利用混乱。最终，Julius Caesar在血腥的内战中开创了帝国。要说，这一切都将是美国的命运，但罗马共和国花了100多年时间才衰落。

So no one really knows but I do know congress and its relation to big money is corrupt exploitative full of lies and the people can't stand it. Trump is perhaps the first big symptom of a period of drawn out political turmoil.

所以没人真正知道，但我知道国会与大财团之间勾结有着腐败的联系，并且满口谎言，人民已经无法忍受。特朗普可能是一段旷日持久的政治动乱时期的第一大征兆。

Mark Tygart works at RSM Equico
Answered Jul 31
No. The U.S. is a postindustrial modern nation-state republic with a mixed economy. Rome was a pre-modern slave economy oligarchy with a profoundly different culture than any in the modern world.

不，美国是一个后工业时代的现代民族国家的共和国，有着混合经济。罗马是一个前现代奴隶经济寡头，与任何在现代世界的文化完全不同。

 -------------译者：jumpingiruka-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Tim Brennan studied at Oswego High School
Answered Aug 31
No but I suspect more than a few presidents for a variety of reasons wish they were.
The ability to kill your opponents might be attractive to a few though I cant see any president wanting to have a garden party lit up by burning bodies it would put modern guests at ill ease.
The fact that just with your word you could kill a senator and take all his assets would be popular in any century . Then there were the orgies….bugger your opponents wife or daughter right in front of him is always a crowd pleaser.
One advantage a president has is he doesnt have to worry that a general will try to overthrow him or the secrete service kill him. Seriously there were good and wise emperors but that was due to who they were not any constraints placed on them .

不能相比，但我怀疑，由于种种原因，有几个总统希望他们也能做到这样。
拥有杀死对手的能力可能会吸引一些人，虽然我看不到任何总统想举办一个由燃烧的尸体点燃的游园会，这会让现代的客人感到不自在。
事实上用你的话来说，你可以杀死一个参议员，拿走他所有的财产，这一行为在任何一个世纪都会受到欢迎。还有疯狂的家伙，在对手的面前欺辱其老婆或女儿的这类人也是很受欢迎的。
总统有一个优势，那就是他不必担心将军会试图推翻他，或者担心会被暗杀。说真的是有好的和明智的皇帝，但这因人而异，而且对于皇帝，没有任何限制。

Michael Chaplan College English Teacher at Nihon University School of Law (1975-present)
Answered Sep 2
One thing that is comparable: the fact that both the Roman empire and the US are overextended. The US has bases in Europe and Asia. Those bases are not popular in those countries but they rarely disappear.

有一点可以相比：事实上，无论是罗马帝国还是美国都过度扩张。美国在欧洲和亚洲有基地。这些基地在这些国家并不受欢迎，但它们很少消失。

It costs the US money to keep those bases there…. and it cost the Romans to keep their bases where they were.

保留这些基地的花费美国大量钱财……而罗马人把他们的基地保留在他们罗马自已的地方。

The US is in debt. It would make some sense to remove the bases but that will never happen.

 美国负债了。移除基地的话是有意义的，但这永远不会发生。