fall of the Roman Empire

**Guildenstern** · 02-28-2008, 16:56

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** · 02-28-2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by 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

Even though the population of Europe dropped from 60million+ at the empire's height to ~10 million when it fell?

**Guildenstern** · 02-29-2008, 16:24

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** · 02-29-2008, 17:47

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** · 03-01-2008, 19:10

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** · 03-01-2008, 19:24

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.

**Arakano** · 03-01-2008, 20:33

Originally Posted by TruePraetorian

1. 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.

"The beliefs that had made Rome great" - like that war was always justifiable, one way or the other? That slavery was a great thing?
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. ;)

**Parallel Pain** · 03-01-2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

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.