In your opinion what were the greatest factors that contributed to Rome's eventual downfall?
IMO I believe it began with the Edict of Caracalla which preceded the Crisis of the Third Century by several decades, which even though it pre-dated it by over a century, caused long lasting problems. Diocletian's system of having multiple emperors (Two Augustus' & Two Caesars) was a disaster waiting to happen and of course you've got civil war, plagues and religious conflicts within the empire.
Gibbon-tier "muh degeneracy" arguments not accepted.
>In your opinion what were the greatest factors that contributed to Rome's eventual downfall?
Endemic civil war, with the twin major cause of
A) Not really having a theory of political legitimacy beyond naked force.
B) Gradual decline in trade leading to economic self sufficiency in amny parts of the empire. IT was economically feasible to split apart, so it became politically feasible to rule over a chunk instead of the whole, promoting division.
Blake Butler
Christianity
Ethan Fisher
Break down of infrastructure.
Poor leadership from shit emperors.
Times changed, people didn't want to be ruled by Romans and eventually rome lost control of the barbs.
Lucas Walker
>IT was economically feasible to split apart, so it became politically feasible to rule over a chunk instead of the whole, I think splitting Rome only prolonged its death in the west by a century but it did allow its continuation in the east. Rome had been suffering from economic issues which pre-date the and lasted out the 3rd Century crisis and into Rome's delcine.
>people didn't want to be ruled by Romans I'm not sure I agree with this. Rome's continuations, both legitimate and illegitimate, serve as evidence to the contrary.
Kayden Jackson
I know this seems like a contrarian meme that gets spouted quite often here but does any truth lay in the statement that Christianity contributed to Rome's fall?
Brody Bell
Knowing how deeply religion was embedded into Roman society and how it was viewed, specifically in the Mediterranean world throughout Antiquity, I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that it would be destructive for Roman culture.
Plus religion served the state and I believe that change would completely change Roman politics. I mean, after all, the Eastern Roman Senate defied the very ancient religious laws of the "Pomerium" where no Senate meetings could be held 1 mile out of the sacred religious boundaries of Rome.
Christianity doesn't quite work in the same way, though it's been used in that manner (for control), but for example of how Roman politics could've changed, Octavian Caesar benefited from the fact that his adopted father Julius Caesar was declared a God by the Senate and became known as the son of a God. That type of treatment would be blasphemous under Christianity.
I think the division and the human fuelled hatred between religions would be more impactful though.
This is a good explanation of how closely tied religion was to peoples lives in Romes, part of the extras of the TV show Rome.
Now imagine completely erasing that and replacing it with monotheist God who teaches forgiveness and love. It's a meme sprouted by people who know nothing about Roman history but anybody who outright denies it is wrong IMO.
Christopher Johnson
>people didn't want to be ruled by Romans
When the hell did I say this? What the fuck are you talking about?
Jack Baker
I meant to quote for the bottom paragraph
Owen Miller
This, more roman emperors were killed by other romans than all other reasons of death combined.
Brayden Turner
You asked what people's opinions are on the downfall of Rome, my opinion is that the their strength, infrastructure and wealth started to crumble and eventually barbarians took back their land and new empires rose.
It all started going down hill after Augustus died though, and by the time the empire split in two it was not the same force.
Hudson Jones
I did but I added my own say too as is the nature of a discussion. I also think there were many capable emperors who ruled over Rome through good and bad times after Augustus.
Mason Mitchell
I think this might be the most misunderstood period in history and I find it strange that people often look to the solutions of problems as the reason the empire fell. The biggest one is blaming Diocletian for dividing the emporers. This wrong on several accounts and I will list them. >1 Diocletian was not the first person to divide the Empire. It has been divided among emporers several times before and it most certainly would be divided again after him regardless of his reforms. Diocletian's system had the advantage of regulating this succession in a controlled Manor. And I think we all agree that succession was one of the biggest issues with the Roman empire. >2 Diocletians system barely survived Diocletian himself. So to blame it for anything following Constantine is a reach for me. >3 The Empire was already increasingly pulling itself apart. There was a dangerous trend near the end of the third century where imperial urserpors didn't try and taken over the whole empire but rather they took their local chunk of it. There was at one point an "emporer" in Gaul, Italy, the Danube and Syria. So the reforms of Diocletian were an attempt to turn this regionalism into a regulated and harmonios system. >4 Multiple emporers was the best system for Rome post crisis of the third century. The issue with late Rome was that any successful general could very easily be proclaimed emporer by their troops. This necessitated the emporer always being with the army. This had obvious consequences of the emporer being only one man and only being able to be in one place.at one time. Again it was better to have multiple emporers who could be at multiple places and deal with three issues simultaneously. So having these emporers as allies was much better than having them as rivals and going through civil war.
Robert Smith
Not even saying you are strictly wrong but realize this process wasn't happening in a bublender. The Rome of 300 was a very different place than the Rome 100. Christianity and many other eastern religions became popular in many parts of Rome. Also especially in the east Christianity once Christianity became powerful it was very much intermixed with the power structures of Rome. There was a very good quote from a book I read "Christianity became roman before Rome became Christian."
Jeremiah Adams
the full list
Eli Butler
It went downhill 500 years before it fell
Anthony Parker
The Plague of Cyprian
Logan Hernandez
Meme
Justin Wood
I hope you die soon.
Jack Powell
It literally lists "racial suicide" as a reason for Rome's Fall. Where the fuck do people pick this sort of garbage up?
Nathan Nguyen
Decline in patriotic and social sense of duty (if there was any) should be considered backseat to the endless civil wars and migrations hammering the empire at the time.
Christians beating each other to death in the streets of Antioch isn't going to harm the empire as much as thousands of barbarians demanding lands for refuge while several of your generals are beginning to revolt.
Also everyone shits on Gibbon because he placed a lot of blame on Christianity, but I don't think he deserved to have his name "dragged through the mud" as much as it is now. He wrote a solid collection of books on a politically touchy subject, all while aiming to use first hand sources for information. It's not perfect, and the secular/anti-clerical bias of his time leaks into the work, but he did the best he could with the historical information available in the 18th century.
People may mock Thucydides, Herodotus, and Gibbon for getting major parts of the historical record wrong, but they still wrote much better works about their period of study than most people could today; despite only having a fraction of the information that's available to us.
It's easy to beat up on the dead.
Carson Anderson
>Bolshevization >mfw Rome was the pre-USSR >mfw Russia is the true Roman Empire
Ian Mitchell
I do agree with your assessment on Gibson it's hard for us to even imagine what it would be like trying to piece together what happened in those eras with the information he had.
Jonathan Wood
By the 300's a lot of Roman's were already running around worshiping the sun god as the supreme deity and ignoring the traditional Roman pantheon.
You might have a point that changes in Roman religion hurt the empire but the changes were already well underway long before Christianity made its way into Roman government.
Zachary Miller
>Byzantimism THE ROMAN EMPIRE EXISTED ANOTHER 1000 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF ITS WESTERN HALF REEEEEEEE
Benjamin Reyes
>Public Baths Rome had that from the beginning. As did Greece in a way. This list is awful.
Cooper Kelly
Also the religious practices of the monarchy, republic, Principate, and Dominate all differed greatly; all before Christianity took power.
All religions change overtime, emphasizing/de-emphasizing certain rituals and beliefs in reaction to the external pressures it's put under. This is especially true for religions that aren't based on a "founding scripture".
