Does anyone know where I can find a detailed account of the Fall of the Roman Empire? Online?
Printable View
Does anyone know where I can find a detailed account of the Fall of the Roman Empire? Online?
Wikipedia,probably. That's where I go when I need to find anything like that.
At least they will have reliable sources :beam: :cheers:
I think it's in public domain now. Check out
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline/
or a recorded version:
http://librivox.org/the-decline-and-...edward-gibbon/
This has vols 1 - III only
http://www.cca.org/cm/rome/index.html
I got these sites from simply Google'ing "public domain - fall of the roman empire.
Rick
Thanks, yes it is in the public domain. Thanks
I've read somewhere that one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire (a process that took centuries) was this: Roman nobilities, during their parties (orgies or otherwise) would have their wine boiled in lead vessels. Lead contaminates the wine, thus making the drinkers grow more and more stupid (aside from the other physical effects of lead poisoning). And they also used lead plumbing. That, plus their dearth of moral values, was what catalyzed the Fall. Of course, plus other factors like Rome's over-dependence on grain imports, over-dependence on slaves, arena events, and so forth. The Empire rotted from the top going down. And don't forget the barbarian hordes who had the opinion that Rome was a nice prize--financially and egoistically. Bye-bye dears. See you again. Soon.
Lol. I bet you never studied history at the Univ. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by puklo
I agree with everything there except the lead thing. huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by puklo
Actually, there is something to the lead thing, although you'd have to Google the subject to get all the medical ramifications on it.
I visited the Roman Baths, in Bath, England. The entire pool was lined in lead. Even up to the 20ths Century they were still using lead as a waterproof sealant.
Rick
I understand lead was used in many things but lead to be a cause of the fall of the roman empire?
"Lead poisoning killed the Romans" is probably the world's oldest Urban Myth... no doubt lead is a health hazard, but lead plumbing was also used in plenty of other times and places without societal collapse. I'd put a lot more trust in imperial over-extension, decadence, barbarians/migrations and internal political instability :2cents:
our huh? Are you a Roman?
Now here's is a fine site to brush up on Rome's history
link
Well,I don't know about the lead poisoning or morality issues,but one reason Rome fell was that the empire grew too big for the Roman army to police. Splitting the empire was somewhat of a partial cure,as the Eastern Roman Empire lived on for another millenium or so.
Major reasons were overextension, political infighting, morality and decadence, and barbarian tribes running west from the 'Scourge of God' among others.
Pretty much I agree with Rufus.
Wha a link that is Upxl
Not good?
I found it very informing.
Yes, good. "what a link" is a compliment
Mores: Allow me to reiterate--I've read that ONE of the reasons for the fall of Rome was because of the ruling personages' ingestion of lead--plumbum--a poison. I never said it was the ONLY reason for the degeneration. The fall of an empire is a long process, a process that has perhaps hundreds of contributing factors--allow me to point that out. And what I implied was (let me state this to you in simple terms) lead made people stupid and their lives shorter. And if you have stupid emperors, advisers, and senators, where do you think the Imperium would be headed for? You have brilliant generals, sure, but soldiers are expected to follow what (stupid) orders the Imperator et al would dish out. And because many emperors were pickle-brained, the most notable of the generals stage revolts and become emperors themselves (go ahead, look up in your history references, see how many generals helped themselves to the purple, starting from after Nero).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mores
Next time, Mores, try to understand first all of what people are saying before making any half-cocked comment.
Study history in the university? I am LIVING in a university! I participate in these fora to relax after my hours in the classroom, to engage in some light talk, sort of take a vacation from the pressures of research and serious deliberations, a place where I could have an exchange of pleasant words with amiable people. And if you don't think lead poisoning is one cause (among the so many other contributory factors) of Rome's deterioration from the top, then you're entitled to your own views. After all, albeit many of us who contribute here have read up on a few or so references, this IS an exchange of opinions--opinions concerning issues, heed, not opinions about the participants.
University? Baby, the university is all around me right now!!
Good day.
Are you going to give away your location?
Ah, yes, Rick--Gibbon's voluminous account of the Fall. This should be the first destination for people who want to delve into the Fall. However, just one word of caution: there are some authorities who say that Gibbon's account should not be taken as THE total source--it should be compared with the accounts of other sources. Just like Herodotus--his Greek History should not be taken totally as we moderns recognize history, as he includes some hearsays, myths, and legends (I think, Thucydides the Father of Modern History should be taken more seriously, as he bases his writings on first-hand accounts. Or Xenophon too.) Likewise with the tales of Josephus regarding the Jewish Wars--some of his accounts are hearsays. But, at any rate, I still consider Gibbon's work as monumental, despite everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Yo, Upxl: great stuff you have given us here, man. I take my hat off to you.
Hawooh.
Oh I c.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom0
Thought it was meant to be sarcastic.
A known problem on forums.
anyway, glad you liked it. :2thumbsup:
Personally I look at the lead poisoning argument like the alcohol argument.
People who drink alcohol (unless they only drink a tiny cup of wine a day, which helps, but then I doubt they drank so little) becomes more stupid because they're drunk and their minds aren't clear and lives shorter lives.
You don't see me arguing that alcohol caused the fall of empires. I mean the nomads all drink a lot, and so did Uesugi Kenshin and many, many other conquerors, Alexander for one. They still conquered lots of territory.
Of course since you're in a University. Maybe you can go dig up so books or papers showing the higher-than-normal content of lead in the bones dug up from Roman times.
If I was to say what reason contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire the most, I would say civil strife "tribes fighting tribes instead of banding together in one arm of force. As long as we fight, in this room, seeking petty victories, and acting on personal revenges Rome will remain SMALL." - Julius Caesar {the movie}
Ah, yes, Parallel Pain. "Tribes fighting tribes" indeed. We tend to look at Rome as "Romans," but overlook the fact that in the dawn of their history (the legend of Romulus, the wolf-stepmother, etc.), they were different tribes, each on top of their own hill of the Seven, squabbling over grazing rights, water access, what have you. And they do indeed have their animosities towards each other. Then, later, it was Latins vs. Sabines, Etruscans, (Italic) Greeks, and so forth. Then the Gauls, then . . . Warfare is a tribal thing. When they were on the road to expanding their empire (to give us a hint as to why the Empire began to fall), one excuse the Romans had was to make a preemptive war on her neighbor--to have a buffer territory between Roman land and their imagined enemy "just over the next hill." Then take the next neighboring land as the next "buffer territory" and so on. With such expansionism, of course the Empire would have many peoples, many tribal sentiments, . . . many dieties . . . As Gaius Curio and macsen rufus say above, political infighting, internal pressures simultaneous with external threats from the barbarians (remember I said Rome was both a delicious prize both for its riches as well as adding glory to the personal pride of the conquering warlord?) were contributory. The thing about lead poisoning that I suggested was just one -a minor one at that- of the hundreds of factors that lead to the demise of the Empire. Maybe I could also suggest Christianity as one of the contributors: as a Christian you are taught to love your enemies; to trust in heavenly powers (a popular legend says Constantine saw a vision of the cross, the reason why he was victorious in that battle at that bridge) instead of the strength of your sword-arm to defeat one's foes, etc. It takes plenty of forces and stresses to kill an empire--compare this with the "fading" of the British Empire, or the Spanish Empire, or even the Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Persian, Egyptian . . . empires. Spot the similarities of why they fell (or faded). What we touch in this forum--this thread--are only a few of those factors. But we do have a fun discussion here, and it DOES fuel us to do research and interact with one another, and that's good.
Bye-bye, noble friend--till the next time, take good care of yourself and yours.
Sorry guys, but I definitely don't agree with the initial statement of this thread. After all, Rome still exists and it's still there in all its glory. The city never fell. We can certainly say that Rome and the Empire transformed, but there was no decline in my opinion.
Regards
Even though the population of Europe dropped from 60million+ at the empire's height to ~10 million when it fell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guildenstern
I think the significant decrease in population can be considered an important element in the process of adaptation and transformation of the Roman Empire. Transformation, not decline.
Right so remind me why Italy don't call itself the Roman Republic
And I guess loosing every single part of the empire to someone else (even Italy, where it was back and forth) is just transformation too.
By the same reasoning I can say the Bagdad Caliphate never fell because Bagdad's still around, or any great empire who's mother city is still around.
I have no problem admitting that the military and economic power of the Roman Empire fell. But what about its immense culture? Undoubtedly it's still today the most important background of the whole Western Society. Just think about the fields of jurisprudence, engineering, art, literature, language, architecture, road network and city planning. All these elements didn't fall but adapted and were inherited by the following generations. I don't think the Baghdad Caliphate had similar influences on modern society.
And actually I believe Italy should call itself the Roman Republic, considering that a great amount of the national wealth comes from foreign tourists visiting the artistic cities, especially Rome. Moreover, there must be a reason thousands of people from all over the world visit the Eternal City every year. I think they all are eager to enrich themselves culturally and spiritually, thanks to the emotions the ancient Roman monuments can still convey to them. In this way, they can complete both their culture and their souls.
Can you really call it decline? I think you can't.
Regards
Fall of the Roman Empire, though I may be pokeing at a fire, was not the over-expansion, not the over-dependance, but in fact the lack of leadership, withdrawl of military expansion, and most importantly, Christianity.
Christianity, made state religeon by Emporer Constantine, eliminated all ancient moral beliefs of Rome that made it great. The games were seen as too brutal, which in actuality were an ancient tradition that made sure the people were happy. Military expansion was seen as unnecesary, due to God and peace. Other religeons were looked down upon, causing much more unrest then previously; Whereas all Gods were seen to exist. The movement of the Capital to Constantine, though some see as intelligent, was acually hazardous. Rome was not only the capital of the Empire, but it was the Empire. When it was changed, the perspective of "Romans" must've changed.
IMO, Constantine "the Great" was actually Constantine ", killer of the greatest Empire in history all becuase of his own selfishness."
If Rome had stayed a Republic, who knows...it might even be here today.
By that reasoning the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties are still around. They aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guildenstern
Yes but they DON'T. And yes I can call it decline. In fact I don't just call it decline, I call it fall. And for the simple reason that from the Dark Ages until the Renaissance the culture of Europe was Gothic and not Classical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guildenstern
And don't forget many goes to Italy to see the Renaissance artist, who worked in Greek Style (naked) and not Roman. Even the people going to Rome, a large percentage of which goes to see the Vatican.
"The beliefs that had made Rome great" - like that war was always justifiable, one way or the other? That slavery was a great thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by TruePraetorian
The games made "the people" happy, true, but as such they were about as important for Rome's power as television is for the power of modern nations. I dare say that the US would not suddenly lose much of its power because TV was turned off.
Military expansion was seen as unnecessary under many earlier rulers as well, Hadrian for example. While there were Christian rulers who expanded quite ruthlessly.
I would like to see prove for more unrest due to persecution of other religions. I never heard of anything pointing to this being a major issue.
Actually, to say that the capital was moved to Constantinople is an oversimplification. The empire was divided into smaller, more manageable regions. There were several "capitals", actually.
Rome had long ceased to be the empire at the time the capital was moved. It was a degenerate city of spoilt parasites.
And why was the Roman Empire, in your opinion, the greatest in history? It can't be because of its extent, so why?
As for Rome staying a Republic - we DID see how well THAT worked in the centuries before Augustus. It was simply not possible.
Sorry that my first post here may appear so... well, hostile. Actually, I am a nice guy. No, really. ;)
No hostilitys taken!
You have some valid points. But slavery and war, which were a part of the romans daily lives, were also what kept the empire strong. Slaves benifited the economy in various ways, being a major export of newly conquered regions. War not only secured the borders, but it created Romes standing among nations. Rome never had trouble with foriegn powers until the decline of expansion, and when the trouble did happen Rome itself was sacked.
The decline in a mobilized military greatly affected Rome as a state, as it would any country. Try to take the military from the US, and then see who declares them a superpower. Also, the conversion of the military into a barbarian based military was hazardous. It ran down the economy, which provided Rome with less funds, which is not good for anyone.
As for unrest caused by new religeon, of course there is nohing to back it up! But you tell me, when the crusaders invaded the holy land, that there was not immediate unrest in Jeruesalem. With the changing of a state religeon dies the standards of the old culture, and we can all see the Republic was the flourishing-period of Rome.
Now, i am not agaisnt Christianity...i am one myself. But the fact of the matter is when you have a culture such as Rome which was founded on ancient traditions of killing, slavery, and the like, which made it great, and you introduce a new radical idea (religeon in this case) the culture is bound to fall apart. The ideas of Rome and the ideas of Christianity were nearly opposites, and when Rome switched everything about her changed.
Welcome to the Org. ~:cheers: