Of all the reasons for the death of the Roman Empire which do people here find the most persuasive and why?
I personally like to use an all of the above explanation.
Printable View
Of all the reasons for the death of the Roman Empire which do people here find the most persuasive and why?
I personally like to use an all of the above explanation.
Great events in history can rarely be attributed to one particular event.
Btw, I hate your signature; it stinks of hypocrisy.
It didn't really die, it was just sacked a few times.
Love your signature by the way.
The political entity that was the Roman Empire does not exist anymore. You can stick your own preferred date(s) for its "fall," but fall it did. Obviously, it is still culturally alive and kicking.
Fragony, tell your invasive brothers over here about how great Europe is. Hopefully they'll sail back.
If I would set a date it would be the tetrarchy, that is when Rome really ceased existing. But to say it fell, it was just a letter from the germanic kingdoms that they didn't need an emperor anymore, and that was that, the western empire was done for.
Rome didn't fell in one day, because of one event. It slowly became forgotten, superseded. The capital had moved, the Empire split, it's peoples replaced.
I like un-PC explanations:
- Mass immigration, which changed the nature of the Roman Empire and its perception of itself.
- Roman Catholicism. Rome was eaten from within. The worldy hierarchy crumbled, the Roman religious hierarchy took over. It is very much alive and kicking, and has been more powerful in the last two centuries then ever.
476 is not a historical turning point, nor an end of an era. A state was replaced by a civilization. This civilization has been quite succesful ever after 476. The Roman language, Roman law, Roman religion, and Rome as a symbol happily lived on, each one becoming bigger and more powerful than they had ever been before the political fall of Rome.
The other half of Rome lived on for another thousand years, until 1453, just a few decades before the discovery of America.
In the west, the idea of a universal Empire lived on until Napoleon disbanded the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.
I like the signature too.
At the risk of this getting Backroomy, I dislike the sig, but take comfort from the fact that any biggot with those ideas would be hounded out of anywhere with real decision making power.
You spelled bigot wrong.
As for the Romans, coming over here, taking our women and jobs. Bastards. :laugh4:
Indeed, what on earth did they ever do for us... cue Python.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Luigi is becoming naughty, I like. Mass immigration was really political integration, when Aistuf sacked Rome he was only trying to enforce previous demands for passage, or settlement, not sure which nobody is, he had been there for a while being chased by the huns.
A lot of people actually had a pretty long list of grievances they could recite in response to that, on account of Roman colonial management long having the tendency to be a wee bit exploitative... which is an understatement on the order of describing the Sahara as "somewhat lacking in refreshements".Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Let's just say there's some good reasons why Mithridates the Great had no real difficulties persuading most of Asia Minor to do their part in the Asian Vespers...
I like the OPsig too; primarily for the typos.
More then one in it :laugh4:
It was overextended, because it stopped growing.
As long as it was actively subjegating other kingdoms and cities, there was a regular influx of loot and slaves. That stopped once they abandoned their efforts to conquer Germania (wich wouldn't have been a cash cow, anyway)
Plus with the east-west divide, the majority of truly "rich" regions became Constantinople's realm.
Plus, the rapid growth of the Germanian populations wich caused their migrations.
Technically, Franz Joseph disbanded it himself. Napoleon did push him to do it, most probably because he wanted to be Europe's "new" emperor and thus needed to get rid of that old relic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
As for universality, it was called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. As an institution it was even less relevant than the western Roman empire in 475.
Technically, I myself handed over my wallet to that guy with a knife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
'German Nation' was added after the Middle Ages, when the idea of universality of the Empire had been abandoned.
The idea that one still lived in the age of, or even directly in, the Roman Empire, was strong in the Middle Ages. Not until the Renaissance did the idea fully develop that one was living in a new era, after Rome.
You mean it's wrong to tell people who support people attacking your country that they should leave? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
That and the huns on their tails, Aistuff didn't want to conquer Rome he wanted passage/settlement and wanted to make a point. By the time Rome was sacked the senate already consisted for a huge part out of barbarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Even more technically, there have been many scholars who have argued that Franz Joseph was not legally competent to disband the HRE, so it has never been formally dissolved :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Wich was a considerable time before Napoleon did not disband the HRE, thanks for proving yourself wrong ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Barbarians in the the senate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes, 1/3 of the senate or so by the time Rome was sackedQuote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Just like the UK then, especially in the foreign policy area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Oh, and 1453. ;)
One thing I find interesting about the fall of the Roman Empire is just how much more successful the Principate then the Dominate at tackling all of the same issues.
Being in the Senatorial Order also meant nothing in the later empire, Equites who despite technically being in a "lower" order would be just as rich as any senator (the ones getting important positions anyway) got every important job, supposedly because they would be loyal, but Dominate Emperors had a very high rate of death by friends and trusted apointees.
To avoid conspiracies for restoring the republic that rarely happened emperors enabled conspiracy for the throne to happen constantly.
About the signature I am all for imigration of deserving people of all types, but I have actually spoken with immigrants who think the 7/7 and 9/11 bombers are HEROES, people like that should not be allowed in. I'm sorry if that makes me rascist, but every immigrant processed means a different immigrant was not processed because the quota was filled by somebody else, the quotas therefore should be used on people who do not hold terrorists in great esteem. Sorry if that makes me a rascist, but with Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy, Andrew Lloyd Webber etc etc I am in good company.
Yeah, screw Al Lemagne. Those bastards should never be allowed into our borders. What do they do anyway, except kill innocent civilians and try to destroy our culture?
Truth. The very notion of "Londinistan" indicates a pathetic fail on OP's part, as "Stan" just means "Land" in Indo-Aryan/Iranian languages, similar to how "-ia" means "land" in Latin, meaning you are saying "London-land". Considering that many Indo-Aryans are not Muslim, and that Islam is a religion with Semitic roots (Just like Christianity and Judaism; you could only use "-Stan" if we were being flooded by Zoroastrians//Mithras, which we were once), this shows a total lack of understanding of Islam and Muslims in general by the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
So? There are plenty of stupid famous people.Quote:
Sorry if that makes me a rascist, but with Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy, Andrew Lloyd Webber
Did I say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Oh yes that's right I didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Strawmen are the arguments of people who don't have a good case
EVERY and repeat ten times EVERY immigrant who gets into Britain means ANOTHER immigrant DID NOT get into Britain.
Why the hell should immigrants who think the 7/7 bombers and 9/11 bombers are heroes get in?
The answer is they shouldn't, and your calling me a rascist and using strawmen to enforce your argument indicates either a lack of intellect, or an absolute degree of elitism.
I apologize that a signature that I spent a couple of seconds on isn't entirely correct linguistically.
I do understand Islam and Muslims in general. I understand obscure things about it to. I understand there is even a book of Heraclius in some forms of Islam, and that the Ottoman Empire was the great power of it's day. More importantly I understand that most muslims want to get away from nuts like Qaradawi, not see them endorsed by former mayors.
The fact still stands there are immigrants who believe in the cause of the terrorists, and they should not be allowed to take the place of honest immigrants.
If you love Islam you will stop equating supporters of terrorism with it.
However I think you just love pretending to be a hero and you desperately wish you were fighting world war two and will make a nazi out of everyone you can, wether it's a post office that requires literacy in it's workers, the Prime Minister, or a random person on the internet you never met.
You love Islam? Ok, then let the Muslims who aren't a negative stereotype into Britain, instead of extremists.
If I'm banned for this uncivil post goodbye the org, but I take being called a rascist seriously considering in Britain today being tarred with the rascist Brush is equivalent to being tarred with the Communist Brush in Mccarthyism (sp).
Anyway if you want people who think the 7/7 bombers are heroes to take the place of moderate muslims, or africans escaping Zimbabwe Famine, or Chinese Muslims escaping persecution, or well all sorts of disadvantaged groups explain one reason why.
Before being called a rascist I was considering changing the sig, but now that I have been called one because of it the sig stays, sorry.
You won't be banned, because all of the mods here are sensible enough to see that there is absolutely no way that anything is racist. Really, I have no idea how saying that people who wish your country harm should not be allowed in is racist. Sensible policy, more like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius
Being the moderator here I would prefer if the discussion focused on the topic and not about a signature.
CBR
Looks like the backroom is going to heat up again next year :beam:
I hold to Goldsworthy: Rome ended Rome with its incessant infighting, civil wars and praetorian shenanigans. Though when Rome ended is up for debate... I mean, one could easily argue it ended in 1453. Even then one could hold the winning side of that (in)famous year as successor state...
/threadomancy
Horribly outdated cliché theory. Rome's internal trade generated a lot more mulah every month than anything the Romans ever looted. It was once this trade was disrupted by endless civil wars and plagues that Rome began declining. Even then, it took two centuries for the western half to be extinguished, and twelve hundred years for the eastern half to die off. In any case, the barbarian invasions of Late Antiquity were more byproducts of Roman infighting rather than causes of Rome's fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Bit of both, (western) Rome real end was rather unspectacular, forget about the invasions they aren't that important, it weren't really invasions but people on the move. It ended with a letter from barbarian kings that they simply didn't need an emperor anymore, and that was that. By that time about 1/3 of the senate already consisted of barbarians who were elevated from their slave status.
Migrations really weren't that impressive in the pre-modern era. Without giant steam-powered ships, trains, and eventually large jet aircraft, it's just plain difficult to move a lot of people over large distances (and pretty damn dangerous = expensive = unattractive for those people to move themselves). So the influx of new people was comparatively small, despite the claims of ancient historians.
You do have a point, though. As I mentioned, the civil wars that wracked Rome from the third century onwards gave the army vast power. Soldiers could no longer be controlled the way they were before. And when most of the army began to be composed not of Italians, as in the Republic and the early Principate, but of various barbarian peoples, it wasn't long until one of the leaders of said soldiers (= barbarians) no longer felt he needed to keep up the charade of an emperor in the West.
There were actually major population swifts, but it is a slow process, people think of it a as a huge popular undertaking but it were small groups, taken as a whole they are certainly impressive, it's a shame my old computer broke down I had a great animation showing migrations on it :shame: