Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America Is Building--a New World

by Thomas F. Madden

A tale of two superpowers unique in the history of the world, offering a totally original comparison of the United States and ancient Rome: celebrating similarities and delivering urgent insights into America’s current crises.

Does America face the same destiny endured by ancient Rome? Is the U.S. military overextended? Does the separation of church and state strengthen or weaken a geopolitical powerhouse? Is the United States just another Empire of Conquest being corrupted by its own power? Of late, it is not only historians who have been asking these questions. Thomas Madden, an award-winning professor of history, now shows almost everything we thought we knew about Rome to be wrong, and revolutionizes our understanding of what a good world empire can be.

Taking readers on a dramatic tour of the Roman Republic, a golden era before the depravities of the Caesars and late Empire, Madden uncovers a peaceful, retiring people who above all wanted to be left alone to enjoy their own families and communities, maintaining the rural traditions of their forebears. But external threats required them to establish security, which they did by creating superlative military forces and transforming defeated enemies into friends. Trust, not brutality, was the key ingredient. All other empires since have been Empires of Conquest—until now.

Beginning with a Roman story strikingly parallel to the American Abu Ghraib scandal, Madden provides a much needed historical context to our burning contemporary debates. The United States can be an empire of trust, and Madden is on a mission to get pundits, candidates, and other election-year spectators—which means all of us—to recognize this profound duty.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Ancient History, American, World History

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Thomas F. Madden (born 1960) is an American historian, the Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

He is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States. He has frequently appeared in the media, as a consultant for various programs on the History Channel and National Public Radio.

In 2007, he was awarded the Haskins Medal from the Medieval Academy of America, for his book Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice, which was also a "Book of the Month" selection by the BBC History magazine.

Reviews

[Howard Olsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!" We all know what that means: decadent, oppressive, imperial, hegemonic, and doomed to "fall." of course, by drawing the US = Rome analogy, the amateur historian is betraying his ignorance. Rome's empire lasted, in one form or another, for 2,000 years. Its last outpost fell in 1453, just 39 years before Columbus set sail for the new "Rome." Indeed, Rome did not fall, so much as it was replaced in the West by the Catholic Church and in the East by the Ottoman Empire. And unlike Troy, Babylon, and other fallen cities, you can go to Rome today and find a bustling modern city.

This book is an excellent riposte to the US = Rome crowd. Madden does not deny the parallels. However, he actually looks at the historic record to find the areas where the US and Rome really were similar, namely the centuries when Rome was a republic slowly stretching its boundaries. Madden's basic theory is that the US and Rome are empires, not because of conquest; but because their values, as expressed in their systems of law caused the people who came under the sway of these Empires of Trust to believe that life would be better under the Roman/US system than apart. Madden develops his themes well. He is a classics scholar, and has an appropriately encyclopedic well off knowledge to draw from. When he spends several enlightening pages discussing the Jurgurthine Wars, you will know you are in good hands. Madden wrote this in 2008, so the parallels he draws are very contemporary.

This is a very well written book. Madden knows his topic well, and tells his stories from Roman history with verve. He does not try to get too cute or forced in his analogies. If something is an inexact fit, he says so. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what history can and can't say about the US.

[Thomas Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before this book, I had many uninformed notions on Rome based on the movies and TV shows that only served to expand my ignorance. This book changed all that. I am amazed at the similarities between the first several hundred years of Rome, when it was a republic, and the United States up to this point. I am surprised at the changes (not always good) that come with an overall peace, and I was greatly interested at the relationship between Rome and Greece (much like our relationship -or obsession- with Western Europe).

As one who does not practice western religion, I found his coverage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be very even handed... That is to say that this book will make them all either have a hard and logical internal look at themselves (not likely), or to have a purely emotional response and write the book off as tripe because it hurts their sensibilities (yeah, probably this).

It also weighs in against conservatives and liberals fairly equally. I am a relatively conservative person and had to take several moments to step back and digest the point of the discussion without letting my personal biases get in the way. Then the book was incredibly informative.

The writer writes in a very conversational tone that is easy to digest because it really connects with the listener. And the narrator fits the content perfectly.

Whoever you are, parts of this book are going to upset you. But if you can get past that and look at the information presented objectively, this is an excellent choice.

[Jan Rice · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of my friends who lean to the political right may be delighted I read a book that turns out to be an offering of the Conservative Book Club. How did I come to read it? Well, it's by Thomas Madden who does Modern Scholar lecture series. About three years ago I listened to "From Jesus to Constantine," the first in a series on the history of Christianity. At the time I thought he was factually based although whether I would hear it the same now I can't say. But that's why I got this book when Audible put it on sale (and anyway I don't read only what I expect to agree with), but I didn't know the author's bent ahead of time. His thesis is that we now have a Pax Americana, like the Pax Romana of yore. There is some reality here, and moreover after 9/11 Madden apparently has at times put his expertise at the service of the government. When I heard a recent speech by President Obama, it sounded to as though he (Obama) had bought in to aspects of this. But then by forcing Rome (and the U.S.) into a mold of always being in the right and representing what is good, the author ventures from seeking the truth into supporting a belief system he has already adopted and wants the reader to adopt also. As you can imagine he really got my goat by insisting that Jews were the terrorists of the ancient world, and that they were motivated purely by religious fanaticism and desire to get rid of everyone in the Roman Empire who were not Jews. Madden does this because of wishing to say what Islam is today and also because of his usual tack that Rome (and America) never took a wrong course so when things like this happen it is all the fault of the Jews (Muslims). He does pierce his own hypothesis to a certain extent when he writes the following throwaway line toward the end of his terrorism chapter: “It was when they (the Romans) cracked down on all Jews, friend and foe alike, that they exacerbated their problems.” If you are interested, you can find my short review of the book focusing on that section on Audible.com. Some people who reviewed this book apparently had read only one historian ever and thought they were being offered the final word on "what happened." An alternative and very different view of the Jewish wars in ancient Rome is offered in the book Rome and Jerusalem, by Martin Goodman. If you have read Empires of Trust I hope you'll comment on this or other aspects of the author's thesis.

Addendum, May 27, 2013: Wow, what a *glob* of a review I knocked out when I was a Goodreads infant! I am upping the rating from two to three stars, because even though the author seemed biased (or I thought was pandering to a certain audience) at points where he was forcing the facts to fit his thesis, I did learn a lot from his general history and discussion.

More on the analogy the author draws between Islam now and Jews then: I think it's generally accepted that Islam was expansionist when in the 7th century it came roaring out of Arabia. I have never yet come across anyone else besides Madden who teaches or writes that Jews in the 1st and 2nd century wanted to get rid of everybody else in the Roman Empire who wasn't a Jew, or to take over the known world. Yes, the radicals wanted to kick the Romans out of Judea and environs and had the messianic stars in their eyes to think they could do it. Yes, Jews did proselytize back in those days. Before the Jewish Wars, at least, synagogues were popular as meeting places in the Roman Empire. The religion did hold forth that one day the nations would all turn their eyes to the one God. I think it was Christianity, though, that turned that into a command to make everybody converts, not Judaism. It was Paul who saw the meaning of Jesus in that light, or at least he became the most famous messenger of that. One can always speculate about what would have happened had Constantine converted to Judaism instead of Christianity, but, on the other hand, maybe he chose the latter while intuiting its potential for empire.

My review on the Audible site is at http://www.audible.com/listener/A340O... This is my sole review over there.

[Andrew Watt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow.

For twenty years, I've been fascinated by the Romans. I always knew that they were more like the Americans than anyone cared to admit, but I couldn't put my finger on what was so similar. I also always had the sneaking suspicion that the Romans were not the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or even Alexander the Great. There was a startling difference at work, and I could never figure out what.

Thomas Madden had the answer. His book, Empires of Trust , explains why the Romans and the Americans are such different empire-builders: they don't want empires at all.

Madden opens with the story of the Locrians. It was the second century BC, and Hannibal was tearing up central and southern Italy. Cities deserted the Roman alliance with abandon, and went over to the Carthaginian general. One city, Locri, opened its gates to Hannibal, and welcomed him happily.

Then Scipio (not yet Africanus, that would come later) arrived, took Locri, and established a Roman garrison in the city before heading south for the harbors and Africa. His appointed deputy ruled harshly, and eventually the Locrians got fed up. They sent a messenger to Rome, an ambassador, who got right in the Senate's face: "your man and your garrison are behaving badly towards us; they've raped our women, stolen the city treasury, robbed our temples, and treat us with disdain, as if we were a conquered city." The Senate recalled the garrison and the commander, and installed a token force in Locri, and sent a large amount of gold to re-fill the civic treasury and repair the damage.

The thing is, Locri was a conquered city. It was also a traitor; it was part of the Roman alliance and it went over to Hannibal like an uncommonly sluttish whore. Didn't it deserve to be treated like a captured city, with all the death, destruction and horror that entailed? But the Romans didn't treat Locri that way. They respected its ambassadors (apparently the same guy who had convinced the Locrians to go over to Carthage in the first place). They restored the treasury and the temple, and paid restitution to violated families.

Doesn't this change your viewpoint of the Romans? Shouldn't the legions be in there, hauling down the stones from the walls and breaking the citizens on the rack, and selling the women and kiddies into slavery? Doesn't that match your picture of how the Romans behaved?

But no. The most common six words in any contemporary history of Rome are, "They appealed to Rome for assistance." They're even in the Apocrypha of the Bible, where the Jews hear of the value of friendship with the Romans, and promptly make a treaty of mutual aid and assistance. When the Seleucid Empire under Antiochus IV learns of the treaty, the Empire packs up its army and goes home.

Contrast this with America. Sure. We've all been told about KGB gulag prisons in Siberia, and there's all sorts of rumors about Chinese prison hospitals where Westerners get fixed up with 'spare' kidneys taken from executed political dissidents. We complain about the human rights violations, etc. But when the scandal about Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq broke, what was the response? We rounded up the apparently appropriate people, punished them, and got to work straightening the place out.

The Romans were not nice folks, particularly not the Senators nor the consuls. They were indubitably racist, and like their American counterparts, you were unlikely to get a square deal from them if you belonged to an indigenous tribe with a hunter-gatherer or nomadic lifestyle. But Rome — like America — runs its empire on the basis of trust: If you're France, or South Korea, or Mexico, and someone attacks you... we will come to help you. If you're Kuwait, we will kick the ass of an invading Iraqi army — and you will be surprised that we will not take down Saddam Hussein the first time. If you're a Vietnamese refugee, you may well be aware of how agonized American foreign policy is, and how divided the nation is, about our failures there.

And that's sort of the point. Empires both ancient and modern are empires of conquest. March in with an army, never leave, install your own governors, try to crush the populace's will to fight, and keep control. Recognize that the place will fight you as soon as they possibly can, possibly sooner. Empires of Commerce, like the British Empire, are similar: use merchants and missionaries to establish a beachhead, buy everything for cheap, eliminate industries that compete with the motherland, and sell everything dear. Use the transport network to make everyone else pay through the nose while enriching home.

Empires of Trust are different. Someone would have - should have - taken the US down by now, if we were an empire of conquest. Truth is that they just don't last very long. They can't last longer than their military commanders survive and remain focused. Yet we've been sea to shining sea for more than a hundred years now, we've been far overseas for more than fifty. And nobody's really touched us much — not the burning of Washington DC in 1812, nor the attacks on New York and DC in 2001. There's not a single army in the world that can really touch us or really invade us — and no one really wants to build such an army, nor let anyone else build such an army.

Sure, we get criticized. So did the Romans. But no one really expects the Chinese or the Russians or the Syrians to stop torturing people just because some ugly pictures make it into a magazine. It's hardly news that people disappeared for decades in Chile and Peru with official government sanction. But when people complain about American human rights violations, they INSIST that something change. "It's not characteristic Roman... er... American... behavior," they splutter. And they'd be right — mostly. Because people understand that we're a nation that takes its alliances seriously, and takes its responsibilities seriously. If we pledge to support some country, we do — and our lapses (invading places we promised not to, and not defending places we promised to) cause us tremendous angst and distress. We've invaded Europe twice: during World War I, and World War II. Is anyone claiming that the American army occupied Europe under General John Pershing? No. How about Eisenhower? No. The Romans rarely occupied anywhere, either. It wasn't in their nature to do so. Even maps of the Roman "empire" are misleading, because all the Romans did was invite states into their network of alliances — sometimes by treaty, and sometimes by changing the government after an enemy state attacked a Roman ally about three times too often. (The Romans conquered Macedonia three times, and left each time. Is that the behavior of a conqueror?). Consider the Powell Doctrine: "If you break a country, you've bought it. You have to fix it." The Romans didn't just restore Locri — they rebuilt city after city after city that they themselves had destroyed.

Osama bin Ladin's ultimatum of 1998 said something like, "America must convert to Islam or be destroyed." The Jews said something similar to the Romans in about 66 AD. Rome's response was to try diplomatic solutions first, and then fight a series of wars with the Jews that lasted almost a century. Each time a war ended, except the last, the Roman Senate showed leniency and goodwill to the Jews, who responded with assassinations, rebellions and city-ravaging sabotage. Finally, the Romans leveled Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the newly-constituted province of Palestine. The Romans finally 'got' that every time they showed leniency and goodwill, the Jews took it as a sign that God was fighting for them and their cause. Then they showed no mercy whatsoever, and lined the roads with crucifixions for hundreds of miles. It's to be hoped that America will be able to find a lenient solution to the problem of radical Islam. But Islam is going to have to be the changed thing here, not America. That's because the rest of the world doesn't trust Islam, and does — despite our failures — trust the United States. Even now, even after eight years of some of the worst government we've ever had.

The thing that amazes me about this book is that it's helped me understand the current conflict we're waging, and it helps me understand why I've felt so conflicted about it — largely by using arguments that are two thousand years old. I didn't really want to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I wanted to stay the course once we began. I didn't want the surge to go forward, but now that it's begun I want to see it finished right. Like the Romans, we Americans like to finish the things that we start, and finish them well. There's no other nation on earth that I'd trust to handle world affairs as well as we have, even considering how badly we've botched it this last decade. China? India? USEurope? I don't think so.

Stars: 5 of 5

[Aardman · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a provisional review as I had only finished the prologue and have started into Chapter 1 but I find the author to be willfully disingenuous about his description of the ancient Roman republic as a reluctant empire builder. In particular, he casts Rome as an object of Carthaginian aggression, pointing to Hannibal's invasion of the Italian peninsula during the Second Punic War as an act of unprovoked naked aggression, conveniently concealing from the reader that prior to and after this war, Rome basically pursued a policy of provocation against Carthage including invading Carthage's territories in Corsica and Sicily that by treaty, the Romans agreed not to attack. (These territories include the city of Syracuse in Sicily where during the Roman assault, Archimedes, arguably the greatest mathematician and scientist of antiquity, was killed by a Roman soldier.) In fact, the Third Punic War ended in the total destruction of the city of Carthage, the scattering of the surviving Carthaginians, and the disappearance of Carthaginian civilization from history.

The best historical assessment of Carthage is that it was primarily a maritime trading empire and a rising Roman republic sought to destroy it because its very existence thwarted Rome's ambitions. Across the three Punic wars, enterprising Romans of rank and privilege constantly and noisily agitated for a Roman advance against Carthage to the point that the phrase "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) which the senator and famed orator Cato the Elder inserted in all his speeches, no matter the topic in hand, has echoed through the millennia to the present day.

I am not saying that the Punic Wars pitted an angelic Carthage against Roman devilry, but the characterization of Rome as an empire reluctantly built is hogwash. Like any other empire, Rome wanted wealth and power; they may have gone about their expansion using a smarter, less violent and coercive method but they certainly were not "reluctant".

I rated the book only one star because of deception. By the author's concealment early on of historical events that would belie his thesis, it is pretty obvious that the book is an apology for Roman and consequently, American, hegemonism, which makes the book no different from the propagandistic screeds that the author decried.

If I find that my initial impression of the book has changed, I promise to revisit this review when I have finished the volume.

[Jalen Sowell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise, to the point, and simple to read. Worth reading for anyone curious about how American influence on the world compares historically to the other great power of the West - Rome.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I have had an increasing interest in the classical world that don't have a background in, I had high expectations for a book that promised to give an introduction to the Roman world and draw useful parallels to our own. With some knowledge of Prof. Madden from his audio lectures, my expectations were even higher. They were not disappointed. He stripped away my assumptions about indulged Romans that have to do with the Empire in decline and showed how it got to this powerful position, along with the resistance the Empire based from more established powers. The parallels with America's situation are genuine, and Madden does a good job not simply stretching them to fit his thesis. Seeing the Greeks in the position of old Europe looking down on the new power was enlightening, and seeing the parallels between the Israelis diehards the Romans dealt with and Muslims in our current day was eye-opening.

[Maynard Handley · Rating 1 out of 5]

The worst history is history written to further an agenda; and, sadly, this is what Madden has done here. This book is only ten years old, and I would hope (if Madden has the slightest professional pride) that he's already deeply ashamed of how much he got wrong, how different is the behavior of Trump's America from what Madden claimed to be the American Way.

The conceit of the book is that Rome grew through a series of beneficent and wise decisions, and likewise for the US. The problem is that to make this conceit work, both histories have to be extraordinarily filtered.
The case of the US is obvious -- it's easy (for someone who doesn't care) to tell a good story about WW2, NATO, US alliances, hegemon, blah blah. But to rend this as a story of a kind-hearted good-willed US means ignoring so much foreign intervention starting from Greece and Italy right after the war through Guatemala and Iran through the Congo through ... Small wonder that Madden prefer to talk about pre-WW1 America, though it's not clear quite what relevance that has to anything.

But far worse is the Roman story. In particular Madden glosses over the entire end of the Republic. Sure, Carthage is conquered, and then what? Then what indeed! Whether it's Mithridates, the Social War, or a plutocrat-driven collapse of the government , there's an awful lot there that's exceptionally close to America today. But unfortunately the parallels all speak rather badly (for both Rome and America) so, in the tradition of the best apologists, Madden ignores the whole issue.

There are many books out there about the history of Rome. (Even if one limits oneself to the more interesting, pre-empire, first half of the story.) It's hard to believe than a randomly chosen one of them would be worse than this effort.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Empires of Trust: How Rome Built and America is Building a New World by Thomas Madden is an interesting book. Madden contrasts empires that are brought about by trust and reputation in the fair dealing of the hegemon from those that are brought about by plain and simple conquest (a la most empires) or commercial empires (Britain, some small European colonial states). I buy some of this argument, but mostly for the early expansion of the Republic. Once we get to Julius Caesar, this has broken down. Desire for conquest at that point lived in tension with the overall schema of trust and reputation. Some of the sweeping statements are a bit off, and some of the parallels with the US appear forced, but you can probably overlook that to an extent. Its also a fair bit dated, coming out during the Bush II years.

But still, its an interesting book.

[Pea J · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting view of the similarities between the Roman Empire and the United States. I'd never really studied the Roman Empire, I just thought it sounded interesting and read it; I'm glad I did.

[ALL · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was expecting the comparisons between the republics, but I was surprised at his comparison of how Rome reacted to Jewish terrorism and his argument of the importance of American Soft Power. An extremely well written comparative political science text for a medievalist.

[Ivan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think the US is much like ancient Rome. Let's go through history and neatly pick out stuff that affirms my theory. We should ignore everything else.

What an apologetic mess.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wouldn't recommend unless you're really into ancient world history.

[Rocky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book.

Madden is so undervalued.

[John Bartley · Rating 4 out of 5]

American Empire of Trust

A great history class which was interesting, factual, and not boring. Hoping this great country can continue for another thousand years

[Aaron Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rome, like America, was pulled reluctantly into an empire. Empires were based on trust—trust of allies and trust of protection. The goal is to protect and liberate rather than expand territorially.

The Roman and American presence in the world resulted in more peace and more freedom.

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now I really wish I had learned Latin! I'm learning what I missed by not having a classical education, and how our country is suffering from this lack. This is perfect for my upcoming school year, and I loved the first part so much that I typed some of it up for myself and copied it here:

Reporters remind me very much of my undergraduates. Like most Americans they tend to have limited exposure to history before the last century. And what they do know comes disproportionately from television and movies. Many reporters that I talked to (after 9/11) swallowed whole the terrorists’ contention that the Crusades marked the beginning of the West’s long war against Islam—a war that continues to this day. They are genuinely surprised to learn that the Crusades had nothing at all to do with modern events in the Middle East or the development of Islamist extremism. I have seen more than one incredulous face stare at me in amazement as I explained that the Crusades began as a RESPONSE to Muslim attacks on Christians. That’s not what they had heard.
During those years (after 9/11) I learned about the importance of “ancient history.” Simply put, ignorance of the past is dangerous. We are in large part defined by our culture and our civilization. If we fail to learn its history, then we have no defense against those who would warp it or corrupt it. In other words we leave to others, including our enemies, the task of defining us.
Ignorance of the past is dangerous in another way too. It is natural for human beings to look to the past in order to make decisions about the future. We do it all the time in our personal lives. But because so many Americans consider modern, (and therefore relevant), history to begin with World War II, we are drastically reducing the lessons and experiences that we can draw from when charting our future course.
American school children today are not trained in Latin or Greek or the Classics or even the history of the medieval world. Instead, they get a smattering of U.S. history sprinkled over the top of a relatively vapid social studies curriculum. Naturally enough when they grow up and begin making important descisions, they will not look to Plato, Cicero or Dante for guidance. Instead every challenge will be forcibly jammed into the mold of the last century’s events.

[Clayton Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was not sure what to expect from this book. After the first few pages I was hooked. Madden has a contemporary way of writing which is important when discussing a topic like ancient history that most people would assume is dry and boring. Written in 2007, before the election of Obama, Madden draws parallels between the ancient Roman empire and the United States. When Americans think about how much this country has changed in the last four years, it is not hard to imagine that Madden could easily add a couple more chapters. This book is that relevant.

The long list of similarities between the two Empires of Trust are striking. It is true that there have been many empires in this world but the Roman and American empires were truly unique from all the rest especially when one considers that neither empire wanted or asked to be an empire.

This book is also an excellent source for understanding what was going on in the world between the last three centuries before the time of Christ and through around 300AD. Reading this book during a presidential election cycle was especially apropos by helping me to understand more clearly America's foreign policy and how she is uniquely qualified to keep the peace.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts with an intriguing thesis: that the contemporary United States has inherited the mantle of the Roman Empire in the sense of being an internationally trustworthy superpower, and one that has earned its place as the leader of the world. I recall having discussions on this and similar subjects in college, but the argument doesn't work as well as a book. I found that the author often has to make logical leaps that would be fine in an undergraduate discussion but that leave a scholarly book with a less polished feel. I also felt that the author does not really consider the negatives of either ancient Rome or the contemporary United States. While he does a service by providing a counter-narrative to much anti-U.S. rhetoric, he never takes any of the counter-arguments seriously, which weakens his overall thesis. Also, the past three years of financial crash and fiscal problems undermines his argument about continued U.S. dominance for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the author approaches a difficult topic with creativity and a solid sense of the history, making the book worthwhile overall.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book very much. The author's insights are very pertinent to the current global political climate. I would guess that many people, here in the U.S. and abroad, will take offense at the author's comparison of the U.S. to Rome without that analogy being intended as criticism. It puts much of the developed world in a category which must appear degrading. The author addresses such views in a balanced way. What is disarming about this work is the parallels between criticism of the U.S. today and criticism of Rome in Antiquity.
I feel that Madden intends to bring clarity to the discussion of America's role in the world, with healthy insights for right and left sides of the political spectrum. His comparison of modern Islamic terrorism with ancient Jewish terrorism offers hope to what seems a hopeless situation today.

[Russ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a real positive suprise. Most of my education on Rome painted it as "imperial" in a conquering sense, not in a trust sense. I found myself checking some of the details in the book out of disbelief, only to find evidence that this book was indeed accurate.

In the end, I believe if just the examples of our own US history were used to demonstrate that the US is an empire of trust, this book would still be compelling and convincing, but with those analogies to Rome--it is one of the most compelling books I've read in a while.

A well written and thoroughly reasoned perspective that supports the well-meaning US foreign policy. In the end, it is just nice to hear some optimism about the future of the US. So many Americans today assume we are in our descendency, but few if any have the depth of historical knowledge of Thomas F Madden.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who wants to consider what the American Empire is needs to read this book. It shows how America has gained many allies through peaceful and responsible foreign policy, much the way the small state of Rome gained many allies to become a world power. It also explains how during these two empires, there is a state of relative peace throughout the world. It can't be argued that the United States has always acted justly in its foreign wars, but these are details in an otherwise very good tract record. What this book does is zoom you out from the details and makes you look at the American empire from a much broader view, this is what I really appreciated about this book.

[Alma · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's rare and wonderful when I discover an author who can make my perception of the world change with the flick of a turning page. For one, I'll never think of Romans, Jews, and Americans in the same way again! Madden takes the past and lays it out in a comprehensible and highly engaging manner...almost tangible. He shows how the past provides insight into to current events that affect us all - like terrorism and the war in Iraq. It seems quite the du jour past time to trash America ---Madden not only refrains he does quite the opposite. I felt enervated by his view of our country ... hopeful.

[Samuel Wells · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much has been written comparing America with ancient Rome - especially on the theme of decline and decadence. Madden's book puts this in perspective. American expansion is not the same species as the empire building of most past and present nations-which are based on conquest. Only Rome and America have built empires by request even as they tried to avoid expanding. The simple fact that other nations sought alliances with these two powers for their own safety and protection inevitably leads to expansion - but an expansion based on trust not conquest. This is an important book for anyone wishing to get a more balanced perspective on what America actually means to a post 9/11 world.

[Lion · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a really neat book, which makes a lot of interesting, unusual points. The stuff about ancient rome is very well-presented and I even re-read it some years later just to remember the details, but I found myself skipping some parts about the US, even though I find that his arguments are plausible.
As others have reviewed, the book has a bit the tone of a personal thesis, and the reader is inclined to think of it as hyperbolic. But that may just be his writing style. Some points may be made too strongly to provide a clear counterpoint to the prevailing narrative.
All in all it's almost a 5-star book.
Edit: My current perspective is that the interpretation in this book is highly flawed.

[Christopher O'malley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I tend to shy away from the America/Rome comparisons, primarily because they tend to be horribly inaccurate. Madden, however, has a pretty narrow thesis that he supports with what is obviously a wide range of knowledge concerning the ancient world.

It's a quick and easy read, focusing almost exclusively on the history of the Roman republic, with just enough American history to make his parallel work. As a student of the Romans, Madden's narrative was both refreshing and interesting, regardless of the argument that he makes. Check it out if this kind of thing is your cup of tea.

[Kory Klimoski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat tedious at times this book compares and contrasts the Roman and American Empires. I do see some of the similarities that he brings to light in the book and pray that his final conclusions are correct. He does a great job of comparing past present and future of the American empire to the Roman empire. However, I would really like to see an update to the book to bring in to light the current America, so much has changed since the book was published that it would be interesting to know what he thinks.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Madden's little gem of a book, a manageable 300 pager, seeks to draw out comparisons between the Roman Republic's Empire of Trust, built on alliances and not conquest, and today's Pax Americana. Some of the similarities are just uncanny but I put my faith in this seasoned historian of our ancient forbears. My only complaint - the chapter on terrorism and analysis of that wrought by the Jews of 1st century Palestine erred on the side of way too much detail.

[Juanita Pryor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Madden offers a compelling comparison of America and Rome and how they were/are not empires of conquest who were out to rule the world. Instead, they are empires of trust, who /didn't/don't desire to build an empire, but are rulers by virtue of their position, money, and trust that others put in them. It was interesting. The only negative is that madden repeats himself often, which can make the book drag on.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I appreciated the honest look at Rome and the US and his honesty that we can't know everything. I also appreciated his optimism that we aren't Rome and the US has it's own future to write. Madden also has his lectures for this topic available on CDs by Modern Scholar. If you are going to listen to it on audio, Modern Scholar is a little bit shorter and covers all the same material.