Pagan Rome

You forget:
>Pagan Rome
Degenerate shithole without national unity
Also if pagans were so good why only greeks and romans produced anything and the nordics/slavics/celts not

Pagan Rome = finate Kingdom

How did Rome stay alive?

Christian Rome = Pagan Rome

>christianity created unity

right so all that roman culture and crap cane after christianity right?

>Veeky Forums with actual discussion
Has amazing threads with quality
>Veeky Forums with OP
Faggots, faggots everywhere.

>Rome was never sacked while the altar of victory stood in the Senate
>Its removed because muh Christianity
>Rome gets sacked twice

What did Jesus ever do for Rome?

>Pagan Rome would have indefinitely continued until the ends of time
"I don't know how history works."
-You

Christian Rome lasted until the 15th century

Amen

No.

The Empire lasted until 1453 when they got conquered by Muslims.

Which makes Islam confirmed best religion.... Oh wait.

Reminder that Hellenes LARPed as Romans for a thousand years and sucked at it every second.

>

>Who is Brennus?

Christianity was the cause or a factor in of several of those political, social and military issues.

>christians won't take office
>christians cause major religious unrest, arian and pelagian heresies mutual vicious persecutions by pagans and christians
>christians take less interest in public affairs because they think the end is right around the corner
>christians put no confidence in Empires ancient, traditional, Pagan institutions (the senate)
>christians aren't loyal to the state, they are loyal to God and only God, patriotism/nationalism declines partly due to this
>christian teaching prohibits them from serving in the army, they refuse to serve, non-romans have to be recruited instead

I think that point is more about the peoples confidence in the empire.

BASED RABBI YESHUA THE NON-WHITE MIZRAHI SEMITIC JEWISH MAN

HE MADE EUROPE GREAT

BASED JEWS

it was agnostic like prussia's hayday

religion, collectivism as an excuse and mentality seems to sink empires. much like what is used as "justification" for a lot of todays acts

Fuck off Gibbon.

I think the crisis of the 3rd century may have been just a bit more crippling to the empire, than a fucking religion. If you wanna blame anyone for the fall of Rome, blame Alexander Severus's assasins.

>Pagan Gaul
Gets conquered by southern Penninsulaniggers
>Christian Gaul
Becomes one of Europe's premier powers for centuries.

Only because everybody are reduced to shithole

they had weak internalities and as blunders like varus etc occured they were forced to confront those internalities and we began to see the core was rotten from non-amalgamation with new ideas, drugs, & tech out of the east (and west) much like niall fergusson describes in his west vs rest series of ming china doing the same thing when they had a go at it in the 16th

>Pagan Germans
>Bunch of savages that only ruin Europe
>Christian Germans
>Bunch of savages that only ruin Europe
Some things just don't change

List ten of them or shut up

>Political office is seen as a burden
Sounds like something a Christian would say. "Let God govern your lives"

>Civil war and unrest
Christians constantly disrupted social life and multiple civil conflicts were from Christians

>Decline in interest of public affairs
Same as seeing political office as a burden

>Low confidence in empire
Again, sounds like something a Christian would say. "Those Romans are oppressing us and their culture is built on heathery!"

>Disloyalty, lack of patriotism, corruption
A Christian would put more faith in God then their country

>Contrast between the rich and the poor
Christianity and charity are essentially socialism which is what causes a gap in society and agitates it

>No more war plunder
Caused by peace loving Christian rhetoric. A worshipper of Mars will go to war while a worshipper of Jesus Christ will kiss a persons toes

>Crushing tax burden
A tax that the church conveniently didn't have to pay.

>Problems recruiting Roman soldiers
More Christian peace loving rhetoric is to blame

>Decline of patriotism and loyalty among soldiers
Because Romans had become peace loving Christians

You see an underlying theme here?

>>Political office is seen as a burden

Nah this is still considered a very important cause of the decline and fall by modern scholars. It isn't tied to any decrease in patriotism caused by Christianity, it's the obligations forced on town decurions (councillors) that became increasingly ridiculous.

>Christians constantly disrupted social life and multiple civil conflicts were from Christians

Civil war was mostly between the reigning emperor and various usurpers. Christianity had fuck all to do with it.

>Same as seeing political office as a burden

Nope. A different issue.

>Again, sounds like something a Christian would say. "Those Romans are oppressing us and their culture is built on heathery!"

Nobody would say that. Rome became Christian.

>A Christian would put more faith in God then their country

Not true, a very Gibbonian and outdated argument. Rome and the Kingdom of God were seen almost as one and the same. There had never been a time when the Roman Empire had not existed during Christianity's existence.

>Christianity and charity are essentially socialism which is what causes a gap in society and agitates it

Idiot.

>Caused by peace loving Christian rhetoric. A worshipper of Mars will go to war while a worshipper of Jesus Christ will kiss a persons toes

War plunder ceased because all of the surrounding powerful civilisations bar one had been conquered.

>A tax that the church conveniently didn't have to pay.

That was a medieval phenomenon I believe. The "Church" of antiquity was a very different beast. Bishops were often heavily taxed local noblemen.

>Pagan Rome
>Becomes the largest empire know to man at the time.
No it didn't. The Achaemenid Empire was significantly larger.

>Christians dindu nuffin day saved Rome n shiet
>go away gibbon ur dumb

Christians of the period despised Rome. The city of Rome itself was seen as a metaphor for the whore of Babylon.

In land area, but if you include the Mediterranean sea which was Rome's personal pond it was much larger.

Huge swathes of the first Persian Empire were desert and steppe devoid of any significant populations. Might as well claim Rome's territory included the entire Mediterranean too.

>were desert
Nope.
>and steppe devoid of any significant population
Nope.
In total population as well: 44% to 46% of the total human population and urban centers were in the Near East in the Levant, Mesopotamia, Iranian Plateau, and North Africa. Try again.

Huge swathes of Spain, Iberia, Lusitania/Portugal, Gaul and Germania were uninhabited or sparely populated. You don't get to play it that way, Rome never controlled as large a proportion of the human population as the Persians did and physically it was smaller as well.

>include the entire Meditarranean too
I guess we can include the Urals, and all of Eurasia for the Persians if you want to play it that way since even Scythian and Sarmatian kingdoms had to recognize Persian suzerainty. Also what the fuck are you even babbling about, Central Asia had a huge sedentary population in the Greater Khorasan area of cities, towns, and villages. Why do you think Samarkand was such a vital and major area of wealthy and prestige?

The Achaemenid empire was larger then Rome but not by much. Rome was 5 million square kilometers and the Achaemenid empire was 5.5 million square kilometers. The Han empire for example controlled 6 million square kilometers.

>huge swathes of the first Persian Empire were desert and steppe
The Steppes were heavily populated, I really hope this isn't some /stormfront/ kneejerk retarded response. Because the areas of Central Asia that Cyrus the Great annxed were already prospering, urbanized, and sedentary and unless you think thousands of cities, towns, hamlets, and village popped up magically in the course of a few decades of the foundation of the Achaemenid Empire, that really isn't cutting it.

Wouldn't Rome have a higher population? Like a million people lived in the city itself and a temperate biome bordering the ocean should support more life then mountains and plains.

and sucked every year of those centuries

No. There are a shit ton villages, cities, towns and what not thanks to the Elamites, the Medes added more in northern and western Iran, the Persians founded and colonized more in western and southern Iran, and the rest were settled by other semi-nomadic and pastoral/sedentary Iranian people all over what would constitute Iran proper, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and most of Central and Western Eurasia. One of the reasons why the various pre-islamic Persian and Iranian empires were so powerful and rich was because they were settled and controlled the Silk Road as the middle men between India and China to the East and Rome and Greece to the West.

Also Iranian plateau has a huge variety of environments, you had mountainous areas, forest areas, temperate zones, access to the Caspian sea, and so on in the North and East of the country. Also: the Sassanid Empire had something like 24% of the population under its aegis, the East was richer and more populated for a reason.

>Achaemenid Empire size: 6,950,000 km2
>Roman Empire size: 5,000,000 km2

Persian Empire at its greatest extent was basically 7 million kilometers, Rome's with Trajan's temporary conquest was 5 million. That's a third again larger.

Dunno where your getting those numbers but whoever wrote them for either empire can't into scaling or arithmetic apparently.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Yeah, like I said: maximum extent of Achaemenid Persia:
>6,950,000 square kilometers
>maximum extent of Rome (Trajan)
>5,000,000 square kilometers
Its wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
books.google.com/?id=A0llBlzF6UgC

Source I'm looking at says Persia's maximum size when Darius the Great and Xerxes the Great invaded Europe and took Thrace, Macedonia, and parts of the Balkans and Northern Greece estimates between 6.5 and 8 million kilometers.

That wikiapedia article is wrong.

Christians were literally the SJWs of the 4th and 5th centuries.

>"what do you mean you want to close the borders to German tribes, do you even know how BIGOTED you are? we are all one under our lord Jesus Christ, these unwashed german savages are just like you and me, nothing will go wrong if we invite them to live alongside us."
>"Wow, just wow, I can't even, do people really still cling to old traditions like sacrifices and interpreting auguries that link Imperial Rome to centuries of tradition and reinforce social cohesion? I mean, it's 416!"

...

Agricultural societies were literally the SJWs of Prehistory.

>Christian Gaul
>Becomes one of Europe's premier powers for centuries.
>Get conquered by the franks and get breed out of existaence

What a great end

Kek

>Franks
>breeding out Romano-Gaulics
Nice bullshit.

Sure

And arabs and niggers aren't breeding out of existence europeans

Go back to re*dit

Sure

And mexicans aren't breeding out of existence americans

Go back to re*dit

I'm not denying that nigger

It's you who denied that the Franks bred out existence the Gauls and thus denied the natural process of a conquest/colonization.

Also not true.

Considering that primitive hunter-gatherer societies tended to be matriarchal, while agricultural societies became patriarchal, it's actually the opposite.

Neolithic Revolution was the original beta uprising.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

>fell to barbarians
Who totally weren't christians

oh wait

reminder that the Roman army sacked Rome, lead by Roman generals.

the decline of Rome started in the Republic as smallholders were graduially pushed out of their land due to the burdeon of the state and replace with large plantations owned by the wealthy and worked on by poor proto-serfs.

these huge manors paid little to no tax and while they allowed their owners to move on freely (becoming the feudal lords of latter eras as the hired warriors and then knights to defend their private lands) Western Rome was full of these while the East was far more urban and had a higher taxable income.

the West collapsed because the wealthy were greedy as saw better deals with up and coming Warlords as opposed to a weak cash strapped Senate/Imperial office.

>The city of Rome itself was seen as a metaphor for the whore of Babylon.

Every Roman for a thousand years was rose tinted goggles to fuck, thinking their own period was degenerate and awful and earlier Romans were all pious and excellent men. This cultural topos was followed even by the Christians. It was never a particularly Christian thing to look down on the Empire of the day.

Christians did not despise Rome, you haven't the faintest god damn idea of what you're going on about. You probably think writers like Salvianus weren't just being rhetorical. Shit, I doubt you even know who that even is.

Christianity and the secular state was closely intertwined until the ascendancy of the Pope centuries after the fall of Rome.

If they did it for a thousand years they must have been pretty good at it.

>Christian Britain creates greatest civilization and empire in human history
>Atheist Britain makes them lose all their lands

>atheist Britian
>1950s
try again

>>Pagan Rome
>Becomes the largest empire known to man at the time
>>Christian Rome
>Corrupt and fell to barbarians

Correlation does not imply causation, Fuck off shitposter.

>conveniently forgets the same thing happened to Greece without Christianity

reminder that Christian Rome lasted longer than Pagan Rome

where's your rip-off gods now?

>Eastern Greek Kingdom
>Rome

>Christian Roman
310 AD to 476 AD isn't that long.
Also
>implying Constantinople is Rome
>implying Greeks are Roman
>implying ERE was actually Rome

>German barbarians mad that their "Roman Emperors" weren't connected to the imperial line

>Paganism
>Religion
>Using the term pagan to describe pre-Christian beliefs

u mad pagan?

Anything important was made by Pagan Rome, you christian barbarian

:^)

Greeks and Romans got on top while they were pagans dumbass.

At that point there was nothing Gaulic about them.

cringe

Except that's wrong. Modern French has more Celtic/Gaulic words (at least 300) still retained in it despite Latinization, which is far more then Modern English does (which happens to have over 15,000 French words in its regular vernacular), there is not a single archaelogical or anthropological piece of evidence or proof that Frankish settlers ever outnumbered or outbreed the native Romanized/Romano-Gaulics who were living in what is France and the Gaulic provinces.

This is akin to the retardation /stromfront/ and /pol/ fags claiming a few ten thousand Arabs out breed native Persians at the time of the fall of the Sassanid Empire.

Why should modern English have Gaulic words in it?
While I agree that there was absolutely a level of syncretism in play, the French people have absolutely transitioned from a Celtic society to a Latin one, especially since the fall of the western Roman empire.

Gaulic is Celtic, silly. And Germanic admixture is not dominant in the modern ethnic French.

Gaulic is Celtic, you're right, but English has inhabited former Brythonic lands. Also Celts, but different Celts.

Ethnicity has more to do with culture than it does with genetics. I totally believe that "Frankish" genetics, even "Roman" genetics are minimal, but all those Gauls started living like Latins and it's only done so more intensely as the centuries go by.
Highland Scots and Rural Irishman live as Celts, not the modern French (outside of Brittany I guess).

French are descendents of the Gaulics who were Romanized starting in the mid-1st century BC and continued being one of the most prosperous, populated and important recruitment grounds as well as colonies of the Romans along side Hispania for the next five or six centuries after that. My point was, the Romans might've Romanized/Latinized their new subjects but they didn't outbreed them, same with the Franks because it was the same sort of situation in Gaul/France as it was in the British Isles with the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes taking over the Romano-British.

Culture has a lot to do with language and it makes up a critical core of that when it comes to describing a person's ethnicity. The French have still retained a small but significant portion of Gaulic words even after Vulgar Latin turned into French in the few hundred years following the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Franks building their state there.

Also with Brittany is more closely related to pre-Norman Celtic islanders of the British Isles then mainsland/Gaulic Celtics to begin with, so that's not really surprising.

I certainly agree that modern Frenchmen are the descendants of the ancient Gauls, but they have undergone ethnic transition since then.

Vocabulary is interesting, but it isn't what makes the language. Your statement seems to recognize this, so I'm not all that concerned.