It could be a strange beginning to an idea - Julius Caesar was a military officer a general in the Roman army. His actions were based on political decisions made in the Roman Senate. Plans of for the conquest of specific territories were debated and finalised in the Roman Senate. The annexation of territories were planned and were given a specific time frame. Caesar captured Gaul on the orders of the Senate. The conquest of Egypt perhaps already was already in place. Though Caesar had carried out a coup and made the Senate subservient to his will, the mission to occupy Egypt had to be done because of a prior Senate decree.
But after the military took over the affairs of Rome, the Roman empire stopped expanding, because one military dictator after another, proclaiming themselves Caesars were not really interested in expanding the empire. If the Julius Caesar had not staged his coup and the military was never involved in politics – it could very well be that Romans would have been able to conquer Parthia ( Persia) and gone on further and captured India. Such things require political foresight and will. The problems faced by the military in defeating a specific empire, would have been resolved by seeking alliances – but generals are incompetent politicians and are totally incapable of making alliances. The Roman Senate controlled by the military stopped discussing issues of troop acquisition, weaponry. If the Roman Senate had remained under the control of the politicians they would have given the military to conduct missions. It would have been the job of the generals to obey the Senate. The Roman Empire’s expansion ended, became stagnant because the emperors were not interested in fighting wars, they were more comfortable living in Rome instead of being in the battlefield, The empire collapsed because of growing indifference. The soldiers who did not benefit from the military rule in Rome were frustrated, because officers were promoted because of nepotism - having links with the emperor was a good way to get a high rank, thus alienating the soldiers and officers who ought to have been promoted. The growing resentment in the Roman military led to mass defections and the enemies of Rome became increasingly powerful – eventually resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Step forward in time – the British made their empire by gaining trust of those whom they intended to conquer. This was not done through military force, but through trickery and treachery. They instigated treason this helped them establish their empire. But just when the empire was its peak, the British military intervened in order to ‘secure the empire’. This intervention was the beginning of the end. Everywhere the British army went it suffered one set-back after another. The situation was become more precarious with each passing day. What completely crippled the British were two very expensive and devastating ‘World Wars’, British soldiers had to be recalled from all over the empire to fight those wars. The British reliance on its own military to ‘secure the empire’ was transformed into a disaster. With limited presence of British soldiers in the empire, emboldened the people of the occupied countries to create problems for the British. The French Empire too was facing a similar problem.
The moral of the story is that generals do not know how to run countries, they do not know anything, they can never bring any improvement and progress because instead of doing their job, they would much rather surround themselves in luxuries. Just as was the case of the Roman Empire, once the soldiers take over, they never leave. Wherever there are military dictatorships, they will stay forever – there is no way unless some major calamity hits those countries.
But after the military took over the affairs of Rome, the Roman empire stopped expanding, because one military dictator after another, proclaiming themselves Caesars were not really interested in expanding the empire. If the Julius Caesar had not staged his coup and the military was never involved in politics – it could very well be that Romans would have been able to conquer Parthia ( Persia) and gone on further and captured India. Such things require political foresight and will. The problems faced by the military in defeating a specific empire, would have been resolved by seeking alliances – but generals are incompetent politicians and are totally incapable of making alliances. The Roman Senate controlled by the military stopped discussing issues of troop acquisition, weaponry. If the Roman Senate had remained under the control of the politicians they would have given the military to conduct missions. It would have been the job of the generals to obey the Senate. The Roman Empire’s expansion ended, became stagnant because the emperors were not interested in fighting wars, they were more comfortable living in Rome instead of being in the battlefield, The empire collapsed because of growing indifference. The soldiers who did not benefit from the military rule in Rome were frustrated, because officers were promoted because of nepotism - having links with the emperor was a good way to get a high rank, thus alienating the soldiers and officers who ought to have been promoted. The growing resentment in the Roman military led to mass defections and the enemies of Rome became increasingly powerful – eventually resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Step forward in time – the British made their empire by gaining trust of those whom they intended to conquer. This was not done through military force, but through trickery and treachery. They instigated treason this helped them establish their empire. But just when the empire was its peak, the British military intervened in order to ‘secure the empire’. This intervention was the beginning of the end. Everywhere the British army went it suffered one set-back after another. The situation was become more precarious with each passing day. What completely crippled the British were two very expensive and devastating ‘World Wars’, British soldiers had to be recalled from all over the empire to fight those wars. The British reliance on its own military to ‘secure the empire’ was transformed into a disaster. With limited presence of British soldiers in the empire, emboldened the people of the occupied countries to create problems for the British. The French Empire too was facing a similar problem.
The moral of the story is that generals do not know how to run countries, they do not know anything, they can never bring any improvement and progress because instead of doing their job, they would much rather surround themselves in luxuries. Just as was the case of the Roman Empire, once the soldiers take over, they never leave. Wherever there are military dictatorships, they will stay forever – there is no way unless some major calamity hits those countries.
Comments