Where did it go wrong?

nd century
Don't you mean third?

no, the silver denaruis was getting badly devalued by the 170s
although it did continue until for a few centuries until the thing was worthless

Oh, I was thinking of the Antoninus or radiant coin.

It's weird how that thing just sort of faded away.There wasn't really and an abrupt stopping point. It simply dissolved into the mists of history.

Letting the barbarians in.

Arguably the sucession system was the one problem that plagued the empire from start to finish. Primogeniture may result in a shit king, but at least it kept the bloodshed down.

this

Too big to maintain

they were feared warriors

time passes
things fall apart
nothing is immortal
save for the spirit of France

>the titan-jaw Chad
I bet you were shivering while trying to solve captcha.

Romulus and Remus

This

They moved to France, Spain, and Portugal

Commodus

An abundance of weak men produced by good times and a soy-based diet

Why are you posting that image along with francophile nonsense in every thread?

He looks kinda like Sylvester Stallone

>nonsense
anglo pls

Why does this beautiful creature anger you ?

Teutoberg Forest

Three whole legions get fucking whacked, but more importantly, Germania remains outside of Rome's empire so that later Germanic tribes can overrun the empire.

>3rd Century
Empire was already fucked by the time it became Christian. Barbarian tribes just put the final nail in the coffin.

but many of the Germanic tribes like the goths came from places beyond Germania like the Huns.

wouldn't they have just made contact with these tribes earlier and have a much larger border with little defense?

I thought Germania was just the northern land inhabited by Germanics?
I thought Scandinavia was considered Germania?

Also i thought Huns were turkic and from out east?

So how exactly could they have solved the succession problem in a way that ensured stability?

this asshole

No single event was where it all went wrong. Some of the big ones were: the rise of the novus homo and greek influence and the shedding of traditional roman values, the styming of pleb dissent ans rise of mob politics with the death of the Gracchi, the rise of the professional army that had significantly less of a tie to the duty to their country and more of a tie toward loyalty to their commander, the rise of Sulla and Caesar, the rise of Sejanus and praetorian sway over rulers thus instituting systemic bribes and cutting the concept of meritocracy for princeps off at the knees, the death of Drusus and Gaius, the death of Brittanicus, no system to determine the princeps after Julio-Claudians end, Marcus Aurelius being a dumb nigger and giving the throne to Commodus, the precedent set by the rise of Maximinus Thrax, Battle of Abritus, Aurelian dying too soon, tax reforms incentivizing independent noble estates that formed basis of the feudal system, tax system that benefitted rich people defaulting regularly, the concept of inflation not being realized, Diocletian not just giving Maximian and Constantine the position of Caesar, Diocletian letting Galerius take over, Constantine being a gigantic faggot, Julian's campaign against the Sassonids, Julian the Apostate's death, FUCKING BARBARIAN SHITS REEE---, Adrianople and it's effect on barbarian migration into Roman territory seemingly being uncontestable, Stilcho's fall, Ricimer in his entirety though his biggest crime was probably sabotaging the East and West joint effort to expell the Vandals.

Just off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some. I'm not as well versed on 4th and 5th century Roman history.

Where did it go wrong?

When they forgot to nuke Germany

>maximian

That shouls be his son Maxentius. My mistake.

>Stilcho's fall

That asshole who ensured Rome would dominate Europe for six hundred years. Fuck him!

Made contact with more and increasingly barbaric tribes?
Yes
Had a larger border?
No
Look at the geography, if they took Germa is, a border from the Baltic to Black Sea would be much smaller, though less defensible.

>Sulla being egotistical maniacs who ruined the republic
>Crassus being a cuck and a failure at life
>Caesar being egotistical maniacs who ruined the republic
>Mark Antony being a degenerate bastard
>Failure at Teutoburg which stopped Roman Expansion to Germania and ensuring the end of germans and peace on 1000 year peace of the universe
>Death of Gaius, Germanicus, Drussus and Gemellus
>Nero being an inbred nigger and killing Britannicus, basically ending Julio-Claudian Dynasty
>Julio-Claudians being literally inbred fuckers who killed each other, ending a good chance of Rome becoming a trully roman dynastic monarchy
>Vespanian not reaching Immortality and becoming the Immortal Emperor of Rome
>Marcus Aurelius being autistic and naming Commodus as his heir
>Caracalla being a punic son of a syrian whore and issuing Constitutio Antoniniana making every brainlet able to become an Emperor
>Maximinus Thrax being a pathetic fucker and ruining everything
>Praetorians being cancer and assassinating Aurelian
>Diocletian being complete madman
>Constantine fucking EVERYTHING up
>Julian invading Sassanids and dying like a complete naked celtnigger
>Theodosius the Worst'est of the worst niggers who were ever born(Seriously tho FUCK THIS FUCKER AND HIS ENTIRE DYNASTY)
>Downlaff of Stilicho, Aetius and Majorian
>FUCKING KR*UT SCUM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Th*odosius I

My idea was that they become a Republic again, but give the executive more power and lee-way. They're elected by the Senate and serve for life.

>>Marcus Aurelius being autistic and naming Commodus as his heir

Edward Gibbon makes a nice narrative and implies that there was some kind of formal system when there wasn't. It was just a lucky accident that the last few Emperors were childless. Marcus could have continued that by consciously not having kids, but instead he had like 14, and Commodus was the only male that survived. Now, something obviously went wrong with Commodus somewhere. Something biological (likely given Marcus Aurelius' advanced age when he had Commodus) or upbringing or both. The most just thing to do, paradoxically would be to kill Commodus for the sake of the Empire. The guy was just unhinged retard and a complete manchild. He was the opposite of the Stoic ideals that Marcus Aurelius embodied. It's a deep parodix that the ideal servant of Rome, created a son who was the perfect example of excess.

Once Commodus is born, he has to be the next Emperor. Imagine the nice Marcus Aurelius sending Commodus away, and he chooses someone else. That someone else, even if he has no ill will towards Commodus, must murder him to ensure a stable rule. What if some General were to sieze Commodus, and ride into Rome using him as a puppet? He would have to die.

The entire idea of inherited executive power is completely idiotic. Augustus should have realized that and put a system in place to avoid that.

>literally forgetting the most based Emperor Aurelian
If he hadn't died so early Rome would have recovered.

The empire had a number of systemic issues since its very inception.
The role and powers of the senate and emperor, succession ect.

As such it is pretty much impossible to pinpoint one single moment that doomed the empire.
However the most correct answer is and .
Christianity was an upheaval that both shook the already fragile foundations of the empire and robbed it of its inherent Hellenic character.
Had Christianity remained a tiny persecuted foreign death cult and some capable ruler (such as Julian the Divine) finally sorted out some of the long standing governmental issues of the empire.
I'm quite convinced that the empire would still be around today.

Commodus was more a symptom of the empires problems then a cause.
Had a proper succession protocol been formalised centuries before, Commodus would have never gained control of the empire.

While not something that really contributed to the fall of the empire.
Teutoberg Forest did do long term harm to the empire, by stopping its expansion into Germania.
An Elbe (or even Oder) - Danube border would have been a much better one then the Rhine - Danube for starters.
Not to mention the economic boon that it would have been to have more direct connection to the Baltic amber traders.

>However the most correct answer is
>and .
>Christianity was an upheaval that both shook the already fragile foundations of the empire and robbed it of its inherent Hellenic character.

This is ALL bullshit, and a legacy of Gibbon's "Fall of the Roman Empire" narrative. The Eastern Empire continued just fine and was Christian. It didn't have the pressures of the Western Empire did to break.

>make christianity the official religion
>fight germanic heathens living in borders who you were once peaceful with
>shit goes south years later when fag splits the empire between his sons
>son in the west fucks up and rome falls
>east barely hangs on until it can become the Byzantine empire

>This is ALL bullshit
Not at all, Galilean.
While I will give you the fact the your vile ilk were not entirely responsible for the fall of the empire.
You do shoulder the majority of the blame.

>legacy of Gibbon's "Fall of the Roman Empire" narrative
There is a good reason why Gibbons masterpiece is still THE work on the fall of the empire centuries later.
The fact that it upsets you is a good thing, you should be upset over the crimes of the Galileans.

>The Eastern Empire continued just fine and was Christian
An effeminate, Galilean, Greek state in the east continued for a time, sure.
But it was most certainly not Roman.
The empire simply entered a prolonged interregnum in 363, an interregnum that has unfortunately yet to end.

They elected Drumpfius Tuscupius Orangicus

>There is a good reason why Gibbons masterpiece is still THE work on the fall of the empire centuries later.

No, it's romanticized simplistic nonsense. If you want to see the real cause of the collapse, it was economic, political, and military. The start was The Crisis of the Third Century.

The Roman Empire started really going down hill during the Roman-Sassanian war of the late 6th and early 7th century. Justinian had managed to recover a significant portion of the West and had Rome not been exhausted from the Roman-Sassanian War it may have been able to recover.

Also, had both Rome and the Sassanian not exhausted themselves in the conflict the Arabs probably wouldn't have been emboldened and would have meet pressure when they attacked both the Sassanian and Roman client Arab kingdoms.

As it was neither Rome or the Sassanians were able to stop the growing Arab problem which began to fill the power vacuum both had left behind through their exhaustion.

Why did Rome have to re-conquor their own territory?

>Mark Antony being a degenerate bastard
Shut up Cicero, you're drunk.

>Theodosius the Worst'est of the worst niggers who were ever born(Seriously tho FUCK THIS FUCKER AND HIS ENTIRE DYNASTY)
No argument from me.

>An effeminate, Galilean, Greek state in the east continued for a time, sure.
>Greek
>posted Julian

Are... How retarded are you? Julian was a massive Hellenophile, and he was a lot more Greek than he was Roman.

since it's foundation. augustus' greatest and most profound failing was pretending the empire was still a republic, and thus set no succession laws, culminating in the praetorians being able to dispose of anyone who didn't give them more bribes and laying the foundation for the third century crisis

augustus may have done a lot of things right, but by refusing to acknowledge that the republic was over, the roman empire was doomed from the start.

when they let the germans in

If you're going to correct him, at least admit that the social issue of religion and christianity was a major cause of Rome's downfall, alongside the economic, political, and military reasons. Otherwise you are without a doubt, a fucking moron

Because the western part of the empire collapsed.

It lasted for almost 1500 years. Modern countries fucking wish they were doomed like that.

There seems to be a tendency on this board to view the empire's timeline in a compressed format, as if it up and vanished soon after Augustus croaked or something, and not that it dominated Europe for 500 years and the Mediterranean for 700. That's an astounding amount of resilience. You think about how much the world changed from the French Revolution until today, that's the amount of time that Rome's golden age lasted. Rome, for all its internecine bullshit, was a miracle of stability.

Excess government. Women and barbaric invasion. Sort of like Europe today.