Rome fell because of degeneracy

Ottomans if I recall correctly. Just look at the Fall of Constantinople as the last nail.

nah, the last nail was this guy

Wow how dare you question world changing revolutionary historical events

Mods, turn this user in immediately to the proper authorities

>implying it was big by that time
>implying it wasnt just a pile of gay men that had no battle experience preaching peace to a bunch of hungry homeless throat singing snowniggers

Their ravaging of the north instigated a migration that overburdened an already ailing Roman system.

Their empire was too large to be effectively led and if I recall, the poor public servant (governors and such) to civilian ratio didn't help.

Having a large military doesn't mean much when you've begun taking on auxiliaries rather than fighting your own battles, your leaders are too insulated by domestic concerns, and your emperor, assuming he's even competent, needed to juggle issues too geographically far for quick response.

If it were exclusively the Huns the Romans had to contend with, they'd probably be fine.

then how did Rome manage to exist for thousand years in the first place?

>Rome fell because of countless civil wars, freedom instead of subjugation of Germanic tribes, and the Elliot Rodgers of the dark ages aka. this fucker

The WRE only lasted about 507 years

They had much less to deal with as a continuous body of administration in their earlier days. Subduing the Italian peninsula is match different than competently administering an empire that spanned over a continent.

>Elliot Rodgers
*Anders Breivik

maybe the death toll is more Breivik, but it is a historical fact;

that Attila was a mixed raced (asian/caucasian(white)), little angry beta manlet

Finally, an explanation to all those violent Steppe Nomad tribes.

You cant call a majority of that time 'WRE'

Strong men breed good times
Good times breed weak men
Weak men breed hard times
Hard times breed strong men

Repeat

Over relying on slave labor, spreading yourself thin due to lack of discipline, which is a sign of greed, divisions because of greed as well....that's exactly what degeneracy is. Degeneracy itself is a loss of over all boundary.

Rome fell because of not enough degeneracy. Christianity removed the the integral Roman orgies and boy fucking that had served them well all through the republic and early empire.

>rome falling is the event not the hundred times it might just as easily have

>Rome fell

>Rome fell because of degeneracy

STILL a better explanation than all the "It just did" "insights" given by pseuds ITT

>societies and governments are by default perfectly stable, forever.

>france

Coincidently just found this youtu.be/qh7rdCYCQ_U

Anyone watched it?
>2h

>
>
>

Nothing lasts forever. You don't need a better explanation. Not everything is clear cut. There are a multitude upon multitude of reasons Rome fell.

If one were to give an actual explanation, it would be closer to just plain instability of systems of organization after long periods of time.

The reason Rome fell was because its entire economy was based on taking slaves and wealth from new conquests. The limits of technology (transportation, food preservation, communication, logistics, bureaucracy etc) in Roman times meant that Rome simply could not expand any further past roughly what they had under Trajan/Hadrian. They maybe could have expanded a little more on their eastern border but the roughly equally powerful Persian empires had already called dibs. Barbarians or not Rome's economic model had simply reached a point where it could no longer sustain itself.

still better than the greek empire

This is bollocks.

People who believe that the Roman Empire was destined to fall and that subsequently all empires are destined to fall are themselves falling into a stupid manner of viewing history.

There was nothing that meant that Rome couldn't have existed another millenium more. People are just unable to avoid seeing a teleology whereby Rome inevitably falls and everything contributes towards it happening. You need to get this idea of your minds.

not him, but I think the problem with Roman Empire was that all the wealth was sucked into Rome, so other territories had no desire to stay in the Roman Empire.
Such a system parasitic is bound to fall sooner or later

You have to factor in that Rome made enemies that didn't forget the acts of Rome and it's legion. I mean for how long were those barbarian neighbors used as human pin cushions before being able to catch Rome slipping?

Creating an enemy that doesn't forget? That's a product of being a degenerate among your neighbors. I mean you take any imperial force and you immediately begin a game of chess. Your enemies are always watching, learning, adjusting and eventually intend to make a move.

But this whole context can be broken down to a problem within the human condition if you really wanted to take the time to reduce it.

>actual explanation, it would be closer to just plain instability of systems of organization after long periods of time

This explains nothing

lmgtfy.com/?q=chaos theory

Overextension, inner splits, constant barbarian zerg rushes.

then learn my friend. Begin at the beginning:
thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/archives.html

someone tied rome's shoelaces together

no, but...

I hate it when people draw parallels to USA & the Roman Empire. If anything, the USA is still in the republic stage pre-gracchi brothers. not that the larger public knows jack or shit about the republic other than Caesar.

But they wore sandals user

but muh senate
muh marble columns
muh fasces

i meant that all you were listing symptons of any decaying empire.
You didn't mention any actual reason for the instability

>t. Hans von Butthurt

>Rome fell because of one single reason which is [thing I don't like]
- literally everyone with a political opinion, ever

>Why does x happen
>Because x happen
Wow you blew my mind

what about the hard men?

How doe it have to do with not being able to get women? Clearly it was about tribal superiority. You're just being ridiculous and relating to the fact he was part Asian. That's the only thing that matches.

>Rome fell because of lead poisoning

>If anything, the USA is still in the republic stage pre-gracchi brothers

this, a trillion times

>Rome fell

one thousands years of every kind of problem that an empire can face being thrown at it

>christianity
>not degeneracy

technically it did because it had degenerated massively as a state from its glory days.

Rome fell because it tripped.

my favorite is the "peak wood" theory.

there were lots of things but arguably the most important resource for Rome was usable timber, not only was it fuel for many of its industries (through charcoal) but its was extensively needed for ANY and EVERY building project. Rome grew fastest, and its cities blossomed when it had easy access to large amounts of timber from around the Mediterranean. eventually easily accessible woodland around the Mediterranean coast became scare or otherwise not useful for building/charcoal or other uses. Rome had rto push deeper inland for new ready, and most of all cheap sources.
shipping anything overland was an absolute nightmare, not to mention costly

look at the costs in this picture and you can see how staggering the difference is even given roman road systems.

Rome's empire was built on rivers, these rivers were the superhighways of the empire, with the Mediterranean sea (and Atlantic coastline) as well facilitating shipping. but as resources, especially timber easily acsessable from these rivers/coasts dried up Rome had to look further and further away just to sustain its growth, eventually costs rose so much that many building projects dried up.

in Rome especially this is a big reason whyt he Capitol was moved to Milan, which sits right on Italy's major rivers, and then onto Ravenna which sits on the coast and far closer to the East where many resources were being shipped from at that time.

again see this map, shipping to Ravenna (for example) from central Dacia was not only slightly cheaper (enough to make it worthwhile) but also meant sailors no longer had to cross the dangerous Sicilian straits.

the move to Constantinople was to fully take advantage of this eastern focus, as it had access to the entire black sea as well as its feeder rivers leading deep into the continent, into Germany and Russia.
the Russian river systems would play a major role in feeding Constantinople's lust for lumber during its heyday.

It would make some sense, however there is a problem with it While the Roman Empire was gigantic economic powers, it wasn't build from ground up. Different people lived and ruled Medditerrean and they traded, built, sailed and so on just like Romans did, however, they didn't collapse over and over again because they've ran out of timber at some point. And they were in even worse situation than Romans were since lack of RE infrastructure would made reaching "inland" sources of timber much, much harder.

they never built on the same scale as the Romans did, Rome had an urban population incomparable to any before or for centuries since.

also more and more frequent raids by barbarians, upsetting trade on the important frontier zones (which were often resource extraction hubs), destroying valuable infrastructure and blocking river travel made it all the more precarious.

For those of you that are actually interested, The Collapse of Complex Societies has the best explanation of the fall of the Roman empire that I've ever read, and it's available online as a pdf.

Speaking of
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

Rome fell because of thousands of reasons, there wasn't just one reason why everything went to shit. I personally believe Rome died after Caesar took control, so many emperors were shit tier and did nothing but bleed the empire slowly, rome became content and the good statesmen and generals would get purged time and time again by some 20 something cunt who was only in power because his great uncle or fucking dad or some shit was emperor.

if you're saying Julius Caesar rather than Augustus you might as well claim Marius or Sulla killed it then

Reminder Sulla did nothing wrong as he stepped down willingly and gave the republic back to the senate

Marius and Sulla both showed the danger in having armies that were only loyal to their commanders, and not to the Republic/Empire. Sulla may have stepped down willingly, but he was still the inspiration for the generation that followed him to collapse the Republic.

Caesar is too late. You could start at Scipio (yes yes le Scipio beat baby eaters - despite this he spearheaded the cult of personality type of thinking that dominated Rome after him)

Conservative Romans like Crassus often spoke of Rome losing it's "internal fabric", where the Roman nobility lost it's cohesion. After Carthage there were no major enemies to be defeated, that were a threat to Rome itself so powerful Roman men started infighting instead. Or this is how it is assumed how it went. But for some reason, after 2nd punic war Romans became more interested in infighting. Also stuff like the tribune of the plebs made populism (Caesar, Pompey, Gracchi brothers) really easy. Marian Reforms made armies loyal to the general.

Point being, it is useless to point Caesar. Someone seizing power was inevitable. Caesar just did it. It could have just as well been Pompey.

Soldiers following their generals was always a thing well into the empire as well. Soldiers should have always been paid by the state and not their generals

51 days?

Why the fuck did it take so long^

>4400-4500km
>tons of mountains
>calculating for cheapest journey
>shipping shit from frontier where there are shitloads of barbarians

I wonder why

>Crassus
meant Cato lol

because river/sea travel is cheaper as I said, much more so that crossing over Illyria

Rome fell because of faggots. Not literal faggots, barbarian faggots.

Politically, the position of emperor and manner if succession wasn't well, let's say sustainable
Militarily, the increased use mercenaries and decreased loyalty to Rome left it defenseless
Territorially it spread too thin and had too many rivals right on its borders
The adoption of Christianity and splitting of the Empire led to a deterioration of the IDEA of the Roman state. Rome became an aesthetic that everyone just wanted to copy, but no one was Roman anymore
Other stuff like Goths, Huns, inflation, and falling birthrates didn't help

Rome never fell..

this. absolutely this

>[fantasy race] are the [historical culture]

Genetic selection and democracy, the doom of worlds. As Rome , the genetics shifted from the hard-working, stoic, and gratification delaying of the founders to types of people who prosper in centralized empires (confidence trickster bluffers) and intermixing with the conquered peoples.

Romans became the fish people and the actual humans overran their fish colony but left the dark temple in place.