Emperor Hadrian insufficiently pro-Invade/Invite World
Thumb sailer
July 10, 2013, 01:43 AM
Print Friendly and PDF
From The Atlantic:
The Great Wall of Texas: How the U.S. Is Repeating One of History`s Great Blunders

Today`s immigration debate has an eerie precedent in the mistakes that brought down great empires from Rome to Britain.


Before their empire fell, the Romans built walls.

They began by erecting barriers along the border following the death of the Emperor Trajan in 117 A.D., notably Hadrian`s Wall, which belted Britain. 

Okay, so Hadrian`s Wall was finished around 128 A.D., and the Romans held England until the legions were recalled in 410 A.D. 410 - 128 = a mere 282 years. (In fact, local troops apparently continued to find Hadrian`s Wall useful enough to man for a few generations after 410.) By my calculations, 282 years from now would be 2295 A.D.

... Despite the cautionary tale of Rome, building walls, both literal and figurative, has remained a habit of great powers in decline — the fateful course taken not only by Ming China, but also Soviet Russia, and even Great Britain.

Sadly, many Americans are all too eager to repeat history.



The last thing we need is a wall. 


So, indeed Rome was "in decline" in the second century A.D. under the "five good emperors"—an era that Gibbon claimed in 1776 was the happiest in human history—in the sense that Rome wasn`t out waging war in, say, the Scottish Highlands or Russia or Chad or the Empty Quarter of Arabia.



But Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, knows better than Gibbon: the Roman emperors of the second century weren`t invading the world and inviting the world enough. The Emperor Hadrian was insufficiently imperialist to satisfy modern economists` lust for centralized power and dominion.

By the way, here`s Columbia B-School dean Hubbard being interviewed in Inside Job about his numerous financial conflicts of interest: