Rome, the end of it all

[Horatius]

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.

[Megas Methuselah]

Great events in history can rarely be attributed to one particular event.

Btw, I hate your signature; it stinks of hypocrisy.

[Fragony]

It didn't really die, it was just sacked a few times.

Love your signature by the way.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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 It slowly became forgotten, superseded.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.

[Dodge_272]

Btw, I hate your signature; it stinks of hypocrisy.

Just like the UK then, especially in the foreign policy area.

Oh, and 1453. ;)

[Horatius]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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?

[Horatius]

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?

Did I say that?

Oh yes that's right I didn't.

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.


So? There are plenty of stupid famous people.

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.

[Subotan]

Btw, I hate your signature; it stinks of hypocrisy.

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.

Sorry if that makes me a rascist, but with Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy, Andrew Lloyd Webber

So? There are plenty of stupid famous people.

[The Wizard]

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

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)

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[The Wizard]

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.

[Fragony]

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