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.