fall of the Roman Empire

[puklo]

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.

[Guildenstern]

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

[Parallel Pain]

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?

[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.

[Parallel Pain]

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.

[Guildenstern]

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

[TruePraetorian]

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.

[Parallel Pain]

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.

By that reasoning the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties are still around. They aren't.

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.

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.

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.