So tell me Veeky Forums, how did Rome really fall?

Look at the differences between east and west
West - Small urban tradition, based around army garrisons, lack of trade + tax. Civil war between Generals. Attempts to remove barbarian commanders (not barbarians in general) comes too late. Has too many enemies and not much 'safe space' to breath in. Administration is corrupt as shit.

>high population that depended on global trade to be fed and satisfied, one disruption boom
>middle class dead as the 1% took all the land with the roman city population prevented from rebellion by literal gibsmedat (bread and circuses)
>expensive wars in the middle east and the balkans
>god-emperor powerless to change course as he must bend reforms to appease generals and rich bureaucratic senate
>unintegrated populations chimping out at the slightest opportunity
>germans

Have i missed anything?

...

you know how I know you're from /pol/?

endless civil wars leading to the army being to weak to actually defend the empire

The Pax Romana was more like the stagnatae romana. Trade peaked around 0AD, plateaued, and collapsed after the 2nd century AD. Same with the population of Rome and net resource extraction totals for the empire.

Rome was the summation and zenith of the mediterranean economic system built up over centuries by the Phoenicians and Archaic Greece. Mediterranean trade would not reach such volume again until 19th century imperialism.

Yeah after 0AD Roman sesterii inflated to hell as its silver content kept going lower and lower.

Christ brought an end to the evil empire.

you forgot the lead lined aquaducts my man

...

...

...

...

like this,

reeeeeeeoowweeecrashhhhhhhh pshhhhhh!!

>middle class

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post.

>one disruption boom

Have you even heard of the Crisis of the Third Century you stupid nignog?

this

>Rome is eternal

Palgues, wars and fanimes killed a shit ton of people in the core areas of the Roman Empire during the 3rd century. The population recovered during the 4th century but the recovery was uneven favoring in the west Iberian and North Africa and in the east what was is now day Albania, Bulgaria, and north eastern Turkey. This changed the balance of power inside the empire and made the geographic center of the empire, Italy, less important and less influential. Trade started to be more regional and less transregional in nature. This more or less undid the glue that hend the empire together.

However few people like to talk about that because that is not a political or cultural cause. There is no failing to be picked at.

The Romans collapsed because Romans liked nothing more then killing other Romans. More roman emperors died at the hands of other Romans than all other causes combined

I just counted it out. 48 emperors died at the hands of other romans, this includes suicides to avoid capture by Romans. 38 emperors died natural deaths (some deaths, like tiberius' death are suspiscious though and could be poison but I rank them non-roman anyway) but also deaths on the battlefield fighting non romans.

germanic "citizens" who werent really loyal

>Huge wealth inequality
>Succession problems
>Cultural changes
>Bloated government

The reasons are honestly quite numerous. I personally would say that cultural changes were a big thing. As Rome grew rich from conquests, it's people changed and became decadent. They lost that rich military tradition that brought them the wealth in the first place. Combine this with the fact that they didnt give a shit about the people they conquered. For example, When Barbarians started sacking the balkans, the locals often joined their attacks on the Romans as they wanted in on the wealth. In the waning day of the Western empire, Rome taxed the remaining citizens/peasants rather than tax the rich. And as the sacking of Rome right before it's fall aught to prove that they had plenty of wealth. They basically became wealthy and decadent, losing the societal traditions that brought them the wealth in the first place.

Then of course succession problems. Lack of stable succession guaranteed civil wars, and those don't help nations.

As well as the government became bloated to an inefficient to a degree. As time went on, more emperors just stopped giving a shit about the nation.

climate changed reducing grain production
neighbors adopted new military practices

that's it

Maybe they just had shittier boats.

this

really the question is "how did Rome survive as long as it did?"

western world was made by Roman LARPers

Did they really fall? They are still there? Could we not say the same for any place that was once huge, and now way smaller in comparison to other places?

I Think they fell because of religious ununity,
east has catholicism and west has orthodox so you probably know that because of this the whole Roman Empire splitted to 2 countries, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire.

Constantinople was more important than Rome, which became less and less relevant.

Also Justinian being the most catastrophic emperor in European history, losing the Western empire for good and introducing bubonic plague to Europe. gg Justinian, gg.

It was violated by Visigoths, raped and laid bare by Vandals, but Greeks and Ostrogoths had the liberty of dancing over its grave.

Rome didn't truly fall until the Greeks and Ostrogoths danced over its grave.

you don't have a fucking clue about anything you're talking about you absolute idiot

the religious schism between orthodoxy and catholicism manifested itself literally centuries after the division of the roman empire

fucking idiot

>Orthodoxy

>Western

>Existing in the 4-5th centuries

You are a fucking idiot.

roman empire needed to conquer stuff to get money and slaves

conquering additional stuff became too difficult