Daily reminder that rome at the peak of it's decadence and declive was still strong enough to BTFO the huns

You know what I meant, horse niggers don't into the mountains.

Idiot, the Empire moved East, and took a new bride for Christ.

>took a new bride for Christ.

Fuck off with your delusions, Christcuck.

Not an argument.

No meme points for you today.

The Eastern Roman Empire was neither Roman nor and empire.

>BTFO the huns
The army that did that was almost entirely composed of Visigoths, Salian Franks, Burgundians, Saxons, Armoricans and Alans, most of them mercenaries.

It was not Roman in anything but name.
And Attila still managed to recover for that and raid Northern Italy, raiding entire cities like Aquileia to the ground.

Rome was only saved from the same fate by the intervention of Pope Leo I, who convinced Attila to desist of his campaign. Nobody knows exactly what he said to him, but Attila ordered his troops back across the Alps, returned to the Hunnic lands past the Danube, and never bothered the Romans again.

The Byzantines never came close to the level of development, comfort and living standards Classic Rome had during its peak.

Most Byzantines were illiterate serfs living a shit life.

And you think spouting LARPer shit is an argument?

>"they became the Bride of Christ!"

Whatever that's supposed to mean, you sound batshit insane.

>Most Byzantines were illiterate serfs living a shit life.
Oh, and I suppose most Western Romans were literate and lived a glamorous life in comparison, right? What kind of fucking argument is that?

>I suppose most Western Romans were literate and lived a glamorous life in comparison
No, but they had aqueducts, adequate hygiene conditions, and the upper class had more of a say in government, even during the Imperial era.

I thought the Ottoman empire was Islamic.

Also, the remains of Pompeii show ordinary Romans did live a pretty comfy life, more-so than anywhere in Europe during the Dark Ages

Neither of those two are mutually exclusive causes of the fall of the empire, but are rather one of many causes all happening together or in relatively rapid succession compounding upon each other. The Roman empire was indeed in decline by the time it attempted to adopt Christianity, and indeed is was rife with degeneracy. It does not mean either of these things were the sole reasons for the decline, too many things were happening.

You're attempting to shift the blame to the Christianization of Rome as a primary reason of the decline by arguing like a Jew and saying that because degeneracy was happening, but also Christianization was happening, it most certainly seems to be the fault of Christianity, because it's such a coincidence that it began to fall when it adopted Christianity. I see through your slimy fucking tactics Jew.

>Most Byzantines were illiterate serfs living a shit life
>serfs

Feudalism never became a thing in the Byzantine Empire. It's one of the reasons the Latin Empire struggled so much to consolidate, because the Greeks were not used to that strange system and their institutions weren't at all compatible.

>Buzzwords: the post

What the fuck do you even mean by "degeneracy", Stormblr? Can you quantify something such as that?

>The army that did that was almost entirely composed of Visigoths, Salian Franks, Burgundians, Saxons, Armoricans and Alans
Common misconception. To be fair it was a misconception from about 200 years after the battle but anyway.

People thought this for ages because Aetius was only in command of a very small vexillatio of raw recruits when he arrived in Gaul, but we know now that he assumed command of a Roman army that was in Gaul already.

Also a lot of writers commentating on the battle after the fact were part of or hosted by the various Germanic peoples that played some part there. So you've got a lot of propaganda that bigs up the presence of these Germanic peoples at the expense of the Romans.

It's a little disappointing to see people still parroting 1300 year old propaganda.

Sounds like a Jew that got found out. You know damn well what is meant by degeneracy, don't play fucking dumb. Typical kike.

>The Byzantines never came close to the level of development, comfort and living standards Classic Rome had during its peak.

They exceeded it. It was five hundred years later, retard.

>hurf durf muh dark ages collapse hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Why do libs and socialists try to force this meme?

Also it shouldn't come ad any surprise that the Romans managed to beat the Huns. The Roman Army was still considered to be the absolute peak of martial ability in Europe.

People still hold onto this ridiculous 19th notion that it got less effective with time for some reason, but the records don't lie.

>You know damn well what is meant by degeneracy

No, I don't, especially in the given context. What exactly was so "degenerate" about the Roman Empire during the years of the Dominate before the rise of the Constantian dynasty? And how were they any more "degenerate" than anything that came after? I'm waiting.

>"muh kikes! da Jooz!"

Really? Can you be any more of a tool?

Not him, but what would your reaction be if user turned out to not actually be Jewish at all?

Never 5get

Friendly advice user : if your only rebutal to any argument is to call people Jew and use buzzword it's time to stop browsing /pol/ and time to go outside.

Both the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire became strong because they had healthy values and morals keeping their society together. Once the empire grew, those values were discarded in favor of political corruption, massive sexual immorality (I know you're probably going to say this isn't degenerate, it is you Jew), and the degeneration of the family unit, the smallest yet most important aspect of any functional society.

You should know damn well that a society grows strong and great by following good values and morals and instilling them into the people, and that once these values and morals are ignored in favor of degeneracy, the society fails and eventually collapses.

I don't know what the fuck you're trying to argue by saying "how were they any more "degenerate" than anything that came after". There were ups and downs of every society and was not exclusive to the Romans. It's a universal principle that good morals and values breed strength and the abandoning of those morals and values breeds collapse.

But none of those things happened in the late empire. Sexual impropriety was practically unheard of, the family unit was stronger than ever, and Roman politicians were often simple military men just trying to make it in the world.

Give me a source, a reliable source (i.e. not a blog post), and I will rescind my argument then.

Ikka Syvänne - Military History of Late Rome for the more military and political side of things

Basically anything by Peter Heather but in particular his excellent article "State, Lordship and Community in the West (c.AD 400-600)"

Asterix´s village?

Can someone PLEASE show me 3 primary sources indicating widespread orgies in Rome? It's fucking "Everyone thought the earth was flat" tier

>le roman orgies meme

That's just Chrisrltian propaganda m8. There is no reliable source of such things being rampant in ancient Rone.

Pagan Romans were almost as prudish about sexuality as Christians. Case on point: Elogabalus who was universally despised and considered unfit by Pagans too because of his sexual perversity. Also, it was early Christian evangelists who associatef Roman paganism with sexual debauchery while Pagans were still the majority. Do you think that would have been an effective tactic against them if orgies were commonly accepted? No, it was an effective shaming tactic because most people were already quite prudish and didn't want to be accused of being sexual deviants.

>destruction of the family unit
Where did you get this from? I think you mas be projecting some modern tendencies to ancient Rome.

I really meant something more accessible for the purposes of the duration of this thread. That or post links to ebooks or whatever.

...

>accessible

Maybe something like Adrian Goldsworthy's Fall of the Roman Superpower. If you only want populist shite though, then this may be the wrong board for you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom

>By the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting as tenant farmers, (instead of on slaves) to provide labour. The status of these tenant farmers, eventually known as coloni, steadily eroded. Because the tax system implemented by Diocletian (reigned 284-305) assessed taxes based both on land and on the inhabitants of that land, it became administratively inconvenient for peasants to leave the land where the census counted them.

>In 332 AD Emperor Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the rights of the coloni and tied them to the land. Some see these laws as the beginning of medieval serfdom in Europe.

>They exceeded it. It was five hundred years later, retard.
You are gonna have to prove that claim.

>Why do libs and socialists try to force this meme?
I'm not a left-winger.
Try again or fuck off back to /pol/

No, I meant like a link, not just the title. I'm not going to spend money on a book I'm going to read maybe one or two chapters on just for the purpose of this thread.

Why are you spouting bullshit about Late Roman history if you've never read a book on it?

Wtf? Where did that come from? I'm telling YOU to give me a link to a source that I can read a portion of FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD.

Also I'm currently reading The Inheritance of Rome by Wickham right now. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the topic, I'm just trying to learn, hence why I'm asking for a (reliable) source and debating.

>By the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting as tenant farmers, (instead of on slaves) to provide labour. The status of these tenant farmers, eventually known as coloni, steadily eroded. Because the tax system implemented by Diocletian (reigned 284-305) assessed taxes based both on land and on the inhabitants of that land, it became administratively inconvenient for peasants to leave the land where the census counted them.

I remember reading this, and these laws had most effect on the Western provinces of the Empire, rather than the East, because the East still retained a large trade network, whereas the West was relatively more rural and harder to get around in.

Still, the Byzantine Empire never became feudal.

>I'm not claiming to be an expert on the topic

Oh really? Just now you were telling everyone how it was definitively DEGENERACY that destroyed the Roman Empire, and that everyone who disagreed must be a Jew.

And now you're acting like a little bitch when you get told by everyone you're wrong. Damn, it feels good to watch /pol/-tards get schooled.

Nice strawman, I didn't say the Byzantine Empire was feudal, I said most of its citizens were in a situation of serfdom, tied to the land.

Feudalism is the whole social system, while serfdom is a specific aspect of it, which was very present on the Byzantine Empire.

You fucking moron, and you claim I have poor reading comprehension? Reread this post I never said it was ONLY degeneracy that lead to the downfall, it was YOU who attempted to shift the blame to the Christianization of Rome rather than recognizing it was both of those and many other factors that lead to the downfall. Then you asked me to "define" degeneracy, which I did. Now you're trying your slimy tactics again claiming that I CLAIMED that it was ONLY degeneracy that lead to the downfall of the empire.

Get fucked. I was pointing out your slimy bait, not claiming to be an expert in the field. I'm not giving you anymore (you)'s.

If you have access to JSTOR you'll probably be able to find Heather's article on there. It's in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume xiv, Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425-600

But I'm just trying to make the point: where did you get this idea of "degeneracy" from in the first place? Since there's no evidence for it in contemporary or modern literature about Late Rome

At it's ""peak"" it couldn't even conquer Germania. Fucking Hannibal should have ended those degenerates.

I may have taken the the actions of some emperors like Nero and Commodus after the reign of the "Five Good Emperors" and extended it among public sentiment and action. This was just my immediate knowledge, but if that knowledge is incorrect, I'm entirely willing to correct it, given reliable sources of course.

>Nero and Commodus
Dude that's like 300 years before the time period everyone else is talking about

It'd be like if I started complaining that people in 2017 are wearing too many powdered wigs

>Late Rome
>Nero
>Commodus
What the h*ck

I know, they were just examples.

Well, have a think about it this way. Nero and Commodus wouldn't have been recorded the way they were if their behaviour hadn't disgusted the Roman people.

I'm struggling to think of any late Emperors who were comparable to Nero or Commodus. Actually the worst of them had the opposite problem, with Emperors like Olybrius being too bookish and pious to rule effectively.

Pompeii has nothing to do with the rome that was around when atilla was alive, you faggot.

>I didn't say the Byzantine Empire was feudal, I said most of its citizens were in a situation of serfdom, tied to the land.
And tyet the biggest issue facing anatolia was the flight of peasants and smallholders westward to get away from danger, depopulating the regions and leaving the taxbase and manpower pool dry. Which also meant the theme system no longer worked, because the most volatile frontiers had no soldier-farmers in them. Other than that, the closest you get to "feudal" are proina grants, which were non-heritable, and which the proinars might not ever actually fucking see.

It's almost like you don't know a fucking thing.

You're an idiot then, and should not be posting.

You may as well use information on the training and arming of hasaiti to comment on knights.

Wasn't Constans a massive asshole

>Attila
Go back to my original post or fuck off, idiot.
Don't jump in the middle of a discussion if you don't know what we are arguing about.

See >The Byzantines never came close to the level of development, comfort and living standards Classic Rome had during its peak.
>during its peak.
>during its peak.
>during its peak.

>And tyet the biggest issue facing anatolia was the flight of peasants and smallholders westward to get away from danger
That's when the Empire had virtually collapse to crusaders and Turks, we are comparing both societies at their peaks.

Coloni were basically serfs, no matter how much you try to skirt around that. The Roman Empire at its peak was a wealthier, more developed, better place to live than the Byzantine Empire at its peak, this is a fact.

the Roman regulars were handily defeated by the goths on multiple occasions.

see: adrianople

>It's another "THIS is why Rome fell" thread

ffs Veeky Forums it's getting old

Yeah him and Honorius are the two actively worst emperors from that period imo but not because they were "degenerates" like that guy said (Constans arguably was I guess).

This board is basically just a diffusion of /pol/ memes. Hence why 80% of the content is WW2 or Rome.

>That's when the Empire had virtually collapse to crusaders and Turks, we are comparing both societies at their peaks.
Except that's fucking wrong. The depopulation of the Anatolian frontier zone took place over centuries and had already fucking happened before the crusades began.

>The Roman Empire at its peak was a wealthier, more developed, better place to live than the Byzantine Empire at its peak, this is a fact.
And yet, that doesn't make a bunch of people who plainly had freedom of movement serfs.

>Anatolian frontier zone
So first your argument encompassed all of Anatolia, now it's only the frontier zone?
Sneaky.

>And yet, that doesn't make a bunch of people who plainly had freedom of movement serfs.
They did not had "freedom of movement", the town councils they owed their taxes to were wiped out by Arab and Turk invasions. Obviously people are going to escape from a fucking warzone.

Doesn't mean they had freedom of movement when the government system was functioning.

Atheists are scum, they don't belong in a forum discussing history of peoples who reverently believed in God.

Atheists project their godless views onto everything, in their perfect world they would claim that ancient peoples were actually atheists like them.

Fuck off you useless pieces of garbage. You contribute nothing, you project endlessly, and water down real discussion that brings about a greater understanding of culture and history.

You're literally arguing people who voluntarily held non-heritable plots of land they they profited off-and could flee from- of in exchange for military service are equivalent to serfs, who inherited their condition, received nothing for their work, couldn't legally leave, and often couldn't be armed.

You are a fucking moron, and have no idea what you are talking about.

>So first your argument encompassed all of Anatolia, now it's only the frontier zone
I was not aware that you were too unintelligent to infer that border raids and skirmishes would in fact only affect the places actually near the hostile power.

Should I draw you a a picture with the crayons you're so fond of eating next time?

>Byzantine
>serfs
Pinbacle of Veeky Forums education ladies and mentlegen

Also, I can't believe I missed this
>the town councils they owed their taxes to
I love that you think this is how that worked. It isn't. Taxation was centralized and the taxmen were specific people who traveled the fuck around.

you seriously underestimate byzantine administrative prowess, it remains one of their most impressive traits and has always been held in high regard by most scholars.

meant for

>According to the sixth-century historian Jordanes, the fighting began at midday with a clash between pro-Roman Visigoths and Huns.

>Now Attila was forced to launch a full frontal assault. On his orders, the Hun cavalry clashed with the pro-Roman Alans in the center of the battlefield. The Visigoths counterattacked, beat back the Huns, and forced Attila to withdraw.

What information do you have to dispel 1300 year old propaganda?

Modern historiography? Jordanes was an ethnic Goth and he was working for a Gothic chieftain whose ancestors fought at the Catalaunian Plains.

So there were only a few hundred romans at the battle and they won it?

no you dumb idiot that's not what i'm saying at all

Traditionally it was assumed that Flavius Aetius only brought a small vexillatio of fresh troops to the battle, but now we know that there was a substantial Roman garrison in Gaul already, which he assumed command of when he arrived.

So the numbers are still the same but a greater proportion of the army fighting the Huns was made up of Roman soldiers than people first assumed.

>there was a substantial Roman garrison in Gaul already
Not substantial at all,it was run down from lack of funds.

It would've been comprised of Gauls anyway.

More like it wasn't worth launching a military campaign into deep wooded snownigger territory. Same reason they never conquered modern day Scotland. Why bother when there's nothing of value.

Also Varus PTSD

Gauls had been pretty thoroughly romanised by the middle of the 5th century.

There were a couple of Celtic enclaves in the very west of Gaul who did participate in the battle but it was maybe a couple hundred people by that point.

Stupid faggot, the Romans in the battle would conscript from the region. The Roman garrison would've been comprised of mainly Gauls.

Fucking piece of shit.

Yeah but they wouldn't be the moustachio'd, torc'd, Carnyx-blowing Gauls of the 1st century BC is all I'm saying, they'd be pretty indistinguishable from Romans living in Italy.

The Britons you could say this about also.

THREAD THEME

youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8_KZwfC_g

>the moustachio'd, torc'd, Carnyx-blowing Gauls of the 1st century BC

...

...

...

Pompeii was a very wealthy seaside resort town for the Roman elite. It's like using Puerto Banus or Malibu as examples of what life for the average person is.

If you don't think Romans and Gauls were the same thing by the 5th century AD you are as mad as a march hare.

This idea of a bunch of Italians from the Latium region conquering and ruling an empire is centuries out of date. Even 5 centuries earlier it had stopped being true. It was a multi-ethnic empire.

To add to user a lot of Campania was the home of the wealthy elite. Stabiae is another good example.