And Rome built and enlarged itself on the basis of opening full citizenship in its society to many of those it conquered, Rome thus defined not by the interests of some particular social group, but by the laws that an ever-expanding (and ultimately massive) Roman citizenry agreed to live by.  And thus it was that Rome became a truly great society.

But eventually political intrigue, which increasingly pitted various social classes against each other, led to the idea of “constitutional reform,” always along some new “rational” line of political thinking offered by one or another well-meaning “reformer.  But soon all political leaders, like clever lawyers, had their own “rational” ideas about how Rome was to be governed, principally “from above” now that the old Constitution was in essence being set aside.  At this point, Roman law was no longer fixed in bronze, but in human willfulness.

This threw confusion rather than clarity into Rome’s attempt to respond to rising political challenges, until matters were solved simply by military leaders (imperators) taking charge of Rome’s political dynamics, on the basis of their strong military position (backed by their legions of Roman warriors).  Thus it was that the Roman Republic, originally owned and governed by the Roman citizens themselves, became the Roman Empire, ruled by imperators (emperors), and their armies.

That sort of settled things for a while. But eventually poor imperial leadership, and constant fighting among these military leaders for the privilege of being emperor undercut deeply Rome’s moral foundations.  And the offering by these new emperors of public charity (“bread”) and cruel entertainment (“circuses”) to the now powerless Roman citizens, to gain their support, did not serve to rebuild Roman social power.

Eventually Rome was overrun by a relatively small number of Germanic troops, ones who had actually served in the Roman military, when it became clear how morally broken Rome was.

Consequently, it is extremely important for any society to continue to understand and value the moral system it inherited.  It has obviously proven itself in the way it has brought that society to success. It needs to be continued, to be passed on to future generations.

My own Four-Generations model of social dynamics.  Back in my days as a political science professor, I developed a story of four generations of a leading, guiding, governing family – and of the society they were supposed to be directing … and that society’s rise and fall across those four generations.  It is a model that I found, tragically enough, to be very accurate in describing what generally happens in history … and can happen to us if we do not learn from it.

The First or founding Generation is headed by a young man hungry for honor − and willing to work hard, possibly even die, to see that sense of honor put in place … a role he feels called to by the very divine powers that preside over all of life.  And he is able to recruit and bring under strong discipline a group of followers willing to join him in that very enterprise.  And their timing is awesome, because it takes place at the same time that a neighboring civilization – one they are bent on conquering – is undergoing deep social-moral decline.  And indeed, they succeed most gloriously in the task of conquering that very civilization.

The son of the Founding Father, Generation Two, grows up alongside his father, learning the art of war, although by the time he reaches adulthood, his task is more a matter of maintaining a new legal order that his father has just put in place than in gaining new territory.  His father has wisely seen that his son should also learn at an early age the ways of the higher civilization his family has just come to control (sort of like Alexander the Great being sent to study in Athens by his Macedonian father).  This serves greatly the father’s intentions to have his son eventually rule or administer the political order that is now his family’s responsibility … in conjunction with local dignitaries that will serve as highly respected assistants under this new social-moral order.

The Third Generation is actually not born and raised in the wilderness, but instead in a palace, from his early age a self-understood nobleman of the highest social order.  Politically speaking, there is not a lot to do by way of innovation and development … just the boring task of keeping the presiding moral order continuing on its usual basis. But a realm of opportunity can be found in further refining the artistic tastes of his realm: new palaces, new temples, fancier fortresses … all of which come at a great expense – which become very burdensome to the working class that derives little or no benefit from these artistic achievements.  This in fact gives a jealous cousin of the new royal family cause to try to take control by stirring the discontented masses to join him in full revolt. The revolt is crushed, the cousin killed, but the discontent continues to simmer.

The Fourth Generation is simply a social-moral degenerate of the first order … bored, listless, and into every form of self-indulgence that seems to offer a brief reprieve from his boredom.  He surrounds himself with individuals who share this same sense of degeneracy … none of them quite sure of how to bring greater meaning to their lives.  Meanwhile, the larger society around them has completely lost all sense of affection for those who are supposed to bring such meaning to their collective lives … no great social causes, no higher purpose for the society’s existence itself.  Trouble thus brews, especially over the neighboring mountain range, on the part of a young and very ambitious warrior … who believes he has the calling to conquer that same society.  And thus the cycle soon repeats itself.

And I used to love to ask my students in which generation they saw America at the time.  It was the 1970s, and the general reply was “the Third Generation.”  Now if I were to pose that same question today, what do you suppose would be their answer?