What are the consequences of an Classical Roman Imperial type of Foreign policy?

Stretching military, economic restraints on a de facto empire, raising economic debt due to foriegn policy.

What are the consequences of an Classical Roman Imperial type of Foreign policy?
While maybe you can't draw an accurate picture between Rome as an empire and the modern U.S. You can draw such a picture between Rome as a republic and the modern U.S. The late Roman republic had such a corrupt system of patronage that by the time Julius Ceaser put in his bid for dictator votes were for all practical purposes purchased. While the U.S. does not allow slavery any more we do have the situation where the illegal immigrants (whether from europe, the middle east, or latin america) are in a position of having to work for almost nothing and essentially being slave labor. Don't get me wrong I am not racist. If all the really good jobs were in Mexico and the U.S. economy was in ruins I would probably sell my own mother to get there. The connection with the Old Roman Republic is that Outside of the main cities such as Rome all labor including that of tradesmen (carpenters, stonemasons, blacksmiths ect.) was filled by slaves. And within the main cities of the Republic labor was being filled by non-citizen freemen. (Guest worker program anyone?) These were people who had been freed from slavery but were not citizens of Rome and thus had no vote no right to demand fair wages and no access to the daily ration of grain citizens were given. As a result you had the Roman citizenry divided up into the Patrician class which profited from all the cheap labor and the Plebian class which essentially became a permant welfare class.
Reply:Depends largely on the era. Rome specifically, exacted tribute from its vassal states which strongly supported the military machine. Further, the initial conquest of new territory involved massive plunder and taking of slaves, both of which provide long term support for the 'Empire'...and payment for the soldiers. Empires tend to reach their outer limits when the ineffeciency of size overwhelm new plunder and supply of slaves. Typically such empire collapses after expansion ends, or when opposing empires overthrow it.





A consequence of empire in the Roman tradition appears to involve frequent civil wars and political instability. As political authority is largely established directlly through military conquest and strength, those who wished to gain political power often did so through direct military action against current leaders. This tradition was established very early, at the opening of the Roman Empire and the collapse of Roman Republic. Gaius Julius Ceasar, wanting to take control from Pompey Magnus, then the counsul of the Roman Senate, took up military arms against him.





However, we both know the purpose of your question: to establish an allegory to the US. The comparison, implied of otherwise, is inaccurate. The organiation of the military, its goals, methods of law enforcement, lack of slaves, lack of frequent civil wars, political instability, lack of political authority being derived directly from military power, lack of plunder, etc, invalidate any rational comparison.
Reply:I think this is a loaded question. Many have argued that there was never a consistent foreign policy in Rome. In fact, much of the evidence suggest that the Roman empire expanded due to an opportunistic policy of expansion. For example, when Carthage got involved in a dispute with the Greek city-states of eastern Sicily, Rome involved itself on flimsy grounds just to engage Carthage in war. This was the pattern for the next thousand years. There was never a coherent plan and there were many different opinions offered by senators and magistrates as to how Rome should expand and deal with its foreign possesions.





I guess the answer to your question is that the consequences depend on what time period in Roman history you are talking about.