Hi, Gary--

Thank you for talking to me about this!

You nailed my source. :) Polybius, it's true, cast his lot in with the patricians (or had it cast for him while he was a hostage), but he did travel widely and wrote his history based on his observations as well as his sympathies. Of course, he thought the Spartans were pretty nifty too. Maybe durability meant more to him than inherent value, or maybe (maybe?) I'm projecting postmodern sensibilities onto a classical man.

I take exception to your appraisal of American expansion as a cakewalk. I will grant you that not even the Iroquois or the Sioux were anywhere near the Etruscans, and that the population density was lower in North America, but the territory absorbed and administered was huge, so it kind-of balances out in terms of effort. Also, "pacifying the odd band of hostile Indians" took place in a series of bloody engagements that lasted from 1610 until 1898, and resulted in the extermination of some tribes and the subjugation of the rest.

Mass immigration and the Civil War are two other issues that only fit into the comparison at a stretch. But I can see the Confederacy as a version of the Latin League, rebellious and defeated, to become a loyal part of the nation, can't you? ;)

Your remarks about the Athenians are yet another aspect of the perils of empire: principles can be exported, but they must be sold, not enforced, and to make a sale, there must be a buyer. The Athenians talked a better game than they played. I hadn't considered them

This is fun!

Regards--
Mary Anne