DOC Dream of the Dog (Oberon Modern Plays) by Craig Higginson in Arts-Photography

Review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Well described alleged fall of two powerhouses.By BrelliottFrankly; I was pleasantly surprised to learn how well written this book is. Joey Aquilino; author; did his research thoroughly and he was very candid about how the political; socio-economic; geographical; religious and educational impacts affected both the Roman Empire throughout the years of climbing to be the #1 powerhouse of the world and how America reflected many similarities that hugely impacted the rise and possible fall of America. America actually turned toward following some of the ways the Romans grew to such grandeur over the years. But the fall of the Romans; can also tell you a story of how America can and is; in some ways; falling from grace throughout the world.An interesting read except for the statistical information which bores me to death but likely served as an asset to other readers. I give Mr. Aquilino high grades for his thorough presentation in The Roman Empire vs. America.2 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Entertainment Value; but WRONGBy Steve(3rd Revised review)Aquilino exhibits complete naïveté and ignorance on both American and Roman societies. Roman Empire vs. America is harmful to society because of the historical falsehoods; misleading information; and erroneous conclusions which are prevalent throughout the text.Aquilino would have the reader believe that unlike "militaristic Rome"; that we Americans are somehow nicer and kinder. Nothing could be further from historical reality. Aquilino says; "Rome expanded through war; whereas; America expanded west through the use of the economy and political advances. Americans had to protect the homeland; such as in the battle of `the Alamo; against the Mexicans; but they never expanded or advanced through aggressive means. Rome conquered and took over weak countries and territories surrounding them. Therefore Rome built their huge empire based on aggressive means" (Aquilino; page 55). American doctrine in the 1800s promoted the idea that the expansion of the United States "from sea to shining sea" was both justified and inevitable. This belief and propaganda was called Manifest Destiny. Through military conquest and the slaughtering of the buffalo; the Native American tribes west of the Mississippi River were systematically subjugated. In more than one occasion blankets taken from small pox infirmaries were given to the Natives to spread the disease and kill off families and bands. Scalping was a "white mans" means of counting the number of casualties inflicted upon the "enemy". The Natives quickly adopted the practice of scalping; for the value of the trophy among their own people. The American Indian would certainly disagree with Aquilinos assertion that that "America expanded west through the use of the economy and political advances" and "they never expanded or advanced through aggressive means". Julius Caesars conquest of Gaul was brutal in much the same way. Im sure the native-Americans living west of the Mississippi saw "Manifest Destiny" much the same way the Gauls saw Julius Caesars conquest of their homeland; namely aggressive conquest and expansionism. Contrary to Roman Empire vs. America; the Mexican-American war was plainly an unprovoked military conquest and expansion. President Polks stated purpose for the Mexican-American War was a "border dispute" (See President James K. Polk; address to Congress calling for a declaration of war against Mexico - Washington; May 11; 1846). In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 which ended the Mexican-American War; Mexico handed over 915;000 square miles to the United States. This represents an area of 14.9% of the total area of the current United States today. America was militant and was a conquering oppressor; just like Caesars conquests. Aquilino is simply wrong; Again!Aquilino would have the reader believe that Rome was made of seven small civilizations or territories. Aquilino states; "America started out with vast land along the East Coast; whereas; Rome had seven small civilizations or territories (Aquilino; Page 38)." It is true that the city of Rome was built upon seven hills; but the early Roman Republic; was comprised of three main peoples; namely the Etruscans; the Latin League; and ethnic Greeks. As far as Rome being comprised of seven actual territories or districts this is simply wrong.Aquilino would have the reader believe that military geographical expansion leads directly to industrial growth. Aquilino states; "because of [Americas Westward] expansion; Western America became more powerful in industry; agriculture; trade; economics and politics" (Aquilino; Page 42). If Aquilinos premise were true the Islamic Caliphate following Mohammads death (June 8; 632 AD) would have lead to "powerful in industry; agriculture; trade; economics and politics". That is not the case; just as it was not the case for the empire of Genghis Kahn or the Russian Czars.Aquilino would have the reader believe that Roman emperors were either exclusively good or evil. Furthermore; the reader would lead to believe that no good could come from the so-called evil Emperor; and that no people could come from a so-called good Emperor. Aquilino states; "Romes emperors were noted throughout history as either good or evil (Aquilino; Page 65)." Just for the sake of illustrating the naïveté of the statement one could point out that some folks might call an American president good while others would call him evil. Examples of this point could include President Andrew Jackson; President Abraham Lincoln; President Ulysses S Grant; President Woodrow Wilson; President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; President Ronald Reagan; and President Bill Clinton. Aquilino states; "What are the characteristics of a good ruler? A well-rounded ruler should be eloquent; speaks [sic] fluently and communicate with the people without letting their egos rule their minds. A good ruler should be an intellectual and expresses [sic] opinions without harm against oppressors. A good ruler is a philosopher and a person who could think and theorize. A good ruler is one who thinks of new ideas to help a society and as one who has vast knowledge" (Aquilino; Page 65). By this definition of a so-called good ruler we could add Fidel Castro and Benito Mussolini to the list of good leaders. Both Castro and Mussolini met all of Aquilinos standards for a good leader. Again; Aquilino exhibits his naïveté and ignorance.Aquilinos facts are wrong and in many cases lack citation. Among the citations; there is a lack of credibility. Entire sections of the book are plagiarized without citation; sections from Gibbons for example. Aquilinos citations include such web site as Wikipedia; the accuracy of which is dubious. There are many inaccuracies on almost every page and virtually every paragraph. Irrelevant information such as the heights of mountains in the Andes; for example; makes the book hard to take seriously.Any undergraduate English 101 professor would give Roman Empire vs. America a failing grade just on grammar alone; not to mention the poorly worded sentences make the book seem unedited; and certainly hard to follow. Aquilino communicates incoherently and fails even stay on a single thesis or topic even within one paragraph.Unsupported and sweeping assertions without foundation are made by Aquilino throughout the book. No serious historian could/should consider reading this book.Roman Empire vs. America is a liberal/leftist commentary which basically claims that the Roman Empire fell because; among other reasons; that Rome wasnt liberal/socialistic enough. The suggestion is that America should adapt more liberal tax-and-spend policies.Roman Empire vs. America is harmful to society because of the historical falsehoods which are prevalent throughout the text. This book is misleading seemingly deliberately. Aquilino gives the reader fundamental misunderstandings and falsehoods about the subject matter. The book reads like a tangent made by someone who is uninformed.On the other hand; if taken as comic relief historians will enjoy a good laugh.4 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Very IntrestingBy Author Deeann Elizabeth PavlickHere is a book for enjoyment on history. How shocking are the critics in life; pros on writing; wrote books of there own ? To much time on their hands. Old Cliché; with nothing positive to say; say nothing at all. This is a gentleman who took months to do research. May god help you with such a negative response to purposely hurt others. God Bless you Steve; I hope you can be helped for your negative nature.