Is Christianity the cause of the fall in Rome, if it is wrong then why?

No, germanics were.

Are you the retard who hates Diocletian and constantly posts anime characters

The Ottomans were the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire. The decline of Roman rule in Western Europe is simply because those lands were relatively poor but incredibly expensive to maintain due to barbarian uprisings, the necessity of building out infrastructure to maintain control, and the general inhospitality of the land relative to the Near East.

Christianity was the first stepping stone for the annihilation of the cultural unity one of the factors that kept the empire together

Rome was Christianized long after the rot set in and long before it collapsed.

It was slow economic decay, combined with political instability and foreign invasions that collapsed the western empire

Diocletian was undeniably an asshole, but he could grow a mean cabbage.

>fourh crusade
>mfw Christianity was at fault for the downfall of the Roman empire

The Fall of Rome was ordained the moment Praetorians realized how much power they held. Imperator was literally auctioned off in the Empire's later years.

>it
I don't hate Diocletian, I just think that after his reforms the West had no chance of survival. I will admit that he did do Byzantium some amount of good by giving it a less retarded government than the whole of the Roman Empire ever had.

The whole Empire itself was just a giant mess, and it's a miracle it existed as long as it did.

That's a pretty extreme statement, given that Praetorians first went rogue in 43 AD and Rome long-outlived that date. The real culprit is the Huns. Attila and his hordes created a domino effect which pushed the Germanic tribes into Roman territory. No army is a fiercer than one which has no avenue for retreat, and the Germanics couldn't go back because they knew the Huns were behind them.

Rome died with Sulla's march on Rome. The Empire was like a super nova, it was huge, impressive, and made a lot of stuff in its passing, but it was still, ultimately, a process of dying.

Rome was doomed after the second Punic war desu

Lucius Junius Brutus damned Rome when he overthrew the monarchy

Romulus ruined Rome by allowing it to exist

If you're talking purely about the Republic, then maybe, but Sulla wasn't even the end of the Republic. He was like a hurricane that came in, killed some people, then left. He was a dark omen of things to come, but he wasn't the end.

Odysseus ruined Rome by felling Troy

Sulla made marching on Rome a viable option, which laid out a blueprint for Caesar and many Emperors.
For most of its history, the worst enemy of Rome was its legions who would rather force their general to play Emperor, often at risk of death, in order to get a donative, than do their job.
Marius made that specific kind of loyalty possible with his reforms, and Sulla made the model of marching on Rome. Their actions set the model for the entire Roman Empire.

Again, that's a preceding event, not the actual death of the Republic. The Romans themselves tended to see the First Triumvirate as the real death of the Republic whenever they wrote about their own history, although the secretive nature of the alliance makes it hard to pin an exact date on it. But if I had to pick a specific event that signifies the death of the Republic better than any other, it would be the death of Cato. Either that, or the death of Cicero.

Yeah, but it's what killed it. Dying by Caesar is just dying by complications of Sulla and Marius.
It's like saying getting stabbed didn't kill you, blood loss did

Spirit of rome died togather with cartage. It was just husk bound to dissappears to ANALS of time.

It's more like you get stabbed once, you survive and then a few years later somebody else comes along and stabs you, this time with fatal results. The first stabbing didn't kill you, but it was an omen of things to come.

No, that first stabbing pretty much did it. Sulla did not right the ship, despite appearances, and it pretty concertedly broke down. Consider the time between Sulla's death and Caesar the bleeding out.

>Consider the time between Sulla's death and Caesar the bleeding out.

That's over 30 years, user.

You mean were it not for christianity. Byzantine empire got fucked by Crusaders, Turks just whiped the floor with the left overs.

Existing is hardly a measure for success. That's like saying the decline of Athens didn't start during the Peloponnesian War because the city-state existed more or less as a city-state for another 800ish years. The Empire waxed and waned on its downward slope but make no mistake that it was on a downward slope after Augustus kicked the bucket.

>Byzantine empire got fucked by Crusaders

That, and the Black Death.

I don't know what your point is. Any historian worth their salt agrees that Sulla opened a pandora's box with his shenanigans which started the clock on the Republic's end.

It's only about 18 years from Sulla's death to the First Triumvirate, by which time the machinations behind the actual death of the republic were already in full swing. For that kind event to occur, the environment has to be rotten in the first place.

The way I see it is that the fault lies at the feet of Sulla, because the death of the Republic occurred immediately after his death. There were no post Sullan prosperities before the Caesarian fall.

The figures active during the Death of the Republic were Sulla's younger contemporaries, so the events directly follow his rule.

In fact, one could go so far as to say the Republic died the second Sulla became dictator in perpetuity.

The barbarians at some point were just too advanced to easily fend them off. A lot of the barbarians even already spoke latin. They basically became as well equipped and as well-trained as the roman soldiers, and against such an advance enemy it was only a matter of time until the huge roman border fell and barbarians poured in and did as they pleased. Most of the barbarians though would eventually WE WUZ the roman identity, so rome argueably never truly fell.

You're not making a big enough distinction between "Decline" and "Fall." Also saying that Empire peaked with Augustus is silly because he was literally the first emperor, It's like saying that the decline of America started after the death of George Washington. No, the Roman Empire reached its peak during the reign of Trajan in 117 AD. The decline starts during 3rd century AD and then the actual "Fall of Rome" doesn't occur until the 5th century AD.

I'm not disagreeing that the Sulla-Marius debacle damaged the Republic. I'm simply saying that it wasn't a fatal injury. The actual killing blow was the First Triumvirate, and then death of Cato the Younger in 46 BC marks the moment when the Republic is really, truly dead.

Rome didn't ever had any real opponent during most of its reign. Primitive barbarians to north, a weakened Persia in the east, and Carthage to the south, which almost BTFO rome.

Rome alwas was corrupt and decadent as fuck. But that was not so much of a problem because they had no real opponent. That changed from 300 onwards, Persia again became a powerful empire and attacked Rome from the east, while the barbarians caught up with rome technologically and also fielded large armies. The roman Methode to solve evety problem with its military might eventually stopped working, because the opponents became too strong. Had the opponents remained weak, rome probably wouldn't have collapsed.

>so rome argueably never truly fell
why do you think?
it was latin people who made rome, if latin stopped existing then rome

christianity was attempt to unify the country through religion, but ultimately its hard to do that when you have political entity that is infested with problems like plagues, barbarians, inefficient bureaucracy, dysfunctional economy, civil wars on common basis and hundreds of years of wars due to pretenders and other ambitious assholes

America didn't peak after Washington because Washington wasn't (immediately) followed by incompetents. America continued to grow culturally. It's system of government was built upon and utilized rather than existing as method of bragging rights. America's military continued to advance rather than wane. And America grew from its civil war rather than immediately started brewing another after the chief of staff died/was killed.

Trajan made the empire the biggest it was but his immediate successor knew that Augustus' plans for the empire were the safest they could reach and he also knew that Rome was no longer the greatest city in the world. Augustus' reign and plans for the empire were its peak.

You seem to be implying that somehow Roman culture was completely static after Augustus died, which is frankly impossible. It's true that the government didn't go through much structural change after Augustus but that could just as easily be cited as a marker of relative stability. In objective terms, Rome was most powerful during the 2nd century AD. This is also the period of the Five Good Emperors, which is often considered to be the Empire's golden age. The decline began during the 3rd century AD. The 3rd Century AD was a time of almost continuous crisis for Rome, during which the Empire was ravaged by invasions, plagues, civil wars, and economic depressions.

Sula has only marched a second time throught rome because Cina was the one in power. He needed to do that, otherwise the popularis dictatorship would had been earlier. As we know, he wasn't so uninterested in power that he decided to abadon it after sometime.

It doesn't really matter. The only thing that mattered is that he marched into Rome, made himself King, let us not mince words here, and was the undisputed Dictator of Rome, for an unlimited time.

Of course, Sulla apparently did just want to make everything fine and gave up power, but he opened gates that couldn't be closed ever again.

Sulla wasnt good boy you think is. He killed lots romans by putting bounty hunts. He even put one on ceaser pretty much.

ayyy yo, avars made us do it.

Globalization is the cause of the fall of Rome. The ideals of rome, nationalism, citizenship, military tradition, technology, leaks out to the surrounding peoples, they take advantage, and the first movers are overwhelmed. The region goes into shock as the world attempts to adjust to the new paradigm, Charlemagne comes along and ushers in the new era.

Is that slang for his pubic hair?

That's not how you spell Crusades

No he quit being emperor and decided to grow cabbages.

Rome's founding myth was two warring tribes putting aside their differences because the women threw themselves between their battle lines and begged for peace.

Throughout their entire history Rome was a process of yesterday's defeated foes becoming today's servants and freedmen, and tomorrow's citizens and legionaries. It was only when that process broke down, and they kept Germanics as permanent second class citizens, that Germanics were stripped of any cultural incentive to preserve the state once they took over. That was far from the first time that Rome had to be bailed out by one of its satellite peoples