What caused the fall of Rome and what lessons can we learn from this?

Too big, too rich, too unwieldly to rule from Rome using the system they had, without major modifications. There was also too much inequality leading to instability. If the Republic had made major land redistributation, it would have resulted in more stability. Figures like Caesar would have not had anywhere near the support they did.

>if only we sucked on the senates forty dicks

Bloated military
Internal political division between hard conservatism and liberalism
Rise of adversaries
Adoption of desert religion called Christianity

...

>hes not jewish
yasheem get the scissors and the dog tags

What are you on about, brainlet ?

if you're not jewish you're cattle. OR worse.

Too many unlanded plebeians, free bread became a solution for Rome over the poor. Over time this population would always be problematic when Rome couldn't have out the free bread. They could have made better use of them.

>What caused the fall of Rome and what lessons can we learn from this?
Besides the gazillion other reasons that everyone is familiar with, I feel they were just really unlucky. There were so many chances to turn it around and they kept getting fucked over by fate.

BOREDOM

Not genociding the P*gan aristocracy

don't trust the germans

t.brainlet

That's the opposite of what he said you moron.

>The roman state in the west lasted for +1200 years.
>They were unlucky.

Constant warfare resulting in the loss of too many free roman landholders which resulted in the amassing of land by the rich which nescessitated the gracchi land reforms and the Marian reforms which finally shifted the armies' loyalties from Rome to the generals.
If you're in the mood you can try to figure out the one person who's assassination might've prevented that. Maybe killing Cato would've prevented Rome from destroying Carthage and thus from overreaching with their conquests. But in the end I don't think that would have worked out much better. All empires fall.

If the British empire had pulled its head out of its ass and told the yanks to go fuck themselves could it have attained a Rome status?

The Marian reforms created armies that were loyal to their generals rather then to the city of Rome. This led Rome to fall to Sulla in his march on Rome, because his troops where loyal to him and not to the city. The march on Rome was repeated by Caesar.

One consequence of this was that the most important thing was not the city but rather where the military dictator was. Already the third emperor, Caligula unsuccessfully tried to change the capital to Alexandria. But the city held on anyways. By the time Gallienus moved the capital to Mediolanum the city was already in significant decline. Finally, Constantine managed to move the capital to Constantinople. Well the concept of imperium didn't fall, the city of Rome did lose the importance it had under the republic.

I'll tell you what, it was the SNOWNIGGERS

Over reliance on slaves, depriving citizens of work and making them dependent on public bread
Personally funded legions being more loyal to their generals than the state
The Senate ultimately losing all power to despots
Loss of technological advantage
Various natural disasters
Despite excellent infrastructure for the time, the technology was not there to maintain a centralized state
Inflows of East and Central Asian refugees who did not identify as Roman
Later on, using said people as soldiers

Some of this is specific to Rome, and some can be applied more generally

You're missing famines, plagues, governmental mismanagement, a state made to serve the army, corruption, increasingly sophisticated neighbors that eventually came to rival the romans in military capacity, inflation and a nobility that abandoned its duties.

But we already did that, what do we do now?

There are no lessons to be learned

Things will run their course soon enough...

Let the nobility lynch him and throw the mangled carcass in the Tiber, obviously.

Unironically this.

Don't get the plague.

there arent really any lessons applicable to the current system that would be useful

there are already laws against corruption

our money system is far better

the courts arent completely corrupt leading to people extending their office so they dont get sued

Do you have preatorian guard?

Rome was doomed after the Republic died. They had a chance with Caesar to address the crippling problems with the Republic, but instead the aristocracy found it easier to follow an autocrat, believing it was in their own best interest, and the end result was a doubling down on the self-destructive policies of the later Republic. The endless, aggressive expansion which on the surface seemed to make Rome extravagantly wealthy, but which in reality only starved the city of people and resources as the borders of the Empire grew ever more distant from the capital, until eventually the city of Rome ceased to be relevant as all the industry, wealth, and government was carried out elsewhere. By losing that centralization of power, economic activity, and administration, they lost identity and cohesion. It is not a surprise that the later empire became inundated with barbarians who owed no allegiance to Rome. Because what was Rome by that point? A dilapidated corpse of a city, a collection of ideals that had been more or less dead since the last years of the Republic? Rome fell centuries before the empire finally collapsed, those years of conquest were the shambling of a dead culture struggling vainly to survive.

> What caused the fall of Rome

Having a semi-republic and electable position of emperor.

So literally any random fuck could claim to be emperor and have legitimacy, utterly idiotic system that caused over a hundred usurptions.

They should have either returned to full republic or go full monarchy, not stroll the middle ground like imbeciles.

There was no notion of absolutist monarchy in the ancient world, nobody gave a fuck who was your daddy, because your deeds needed to proved by actions and not just descent. As an example we have Alexander IV of Macedon and Caesarion getting killed in the crib by more powerful and ambitious men and nobody giving a fuck about it.

> There was no notion of absolutist monarchy in the ancient world

I was not talking about an absolutist monarchy.

> nobody gave a fuck who was your daddy, because your deeds needed to proved by actions and not just descent

Yeah, that is complete bullshit, as proven by most states at the time having dynasties instead of elected rulers.

> As an example we have Alexander IV of Macedon and Caesarion getting killed in the crib by more powerful and ambitious men and nobody giving a fuck about it.

Yeah, and that is basically one of the few examples in total.

For fucks sake your own example then includes a formation of several dynasties whose bloodline continued to rule over generations over each section they took control over.

The Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Antigonid dynasty etc.

How the fuck are you this retarded?

Don't give the aristocracy uninhibited power and wealth

A stable line of leadership is neccesary.

Over extension is not a meme

Raising taxes on poor people when you have no money makes things worse, not better

Reforms are needed to keep a wealth gap from growing.

^This but utterly and sincerely unironically.

>be commies
>get shot in the back of the head

>Romans were all white Aryan gods before the fall of Rome
So this is what Americunts actually believe?

whiter than germscum shit

Correlation does not equal causation

>He honestly is afraid of demographic shifts and ideological diversity

lol, what kinda bitchfaggot attitude is that to go around in life with?

Be careful not to cut urself on all that edge son

the kind that is supported by the white man's burden?

>t.Republicuck

what the fuck is going on in this thread, do i actually share a board with these people?

I agree with Cicero.

FUCKING GREEKS AND THEIR PLAYS AND HOMOSEXUALITY MAKE MEN WEAK AND DOCILE.

Outsourced to China, failing economy, indebted themselves to China couldn't pay it back, couldn't pay military, people on horses shit on the outskirts of rome, couldn't keep up with the rest of the world technically (ie. Horseshoe compass), cultural clash as so many people were Romans but wanted to do things their own way, spending too much on luxuries.. sound familiar

don't get coup'd over and over

In honesty: the fall of Rome began with the final Roman/Sassanian War. Had the empire not been so utterly crippled by that war (and the same with the Sassanians) the Arabs don't conquer Persia and the Egypt, North Africa, and Syrio-Palestine, not to mention Persia.

Had that not happened they may very well have been able to regain their lost territories; in the reign of Justinian alone they retook most of Italy, the important part of Spain, and North Africa, given time and the given the factural nature of the migration period kingdoms Rome would have been able to largely recover. Also, the Roman/Sassanian war meant that soldiers were paid considerably less, treatment of soldiers/veterans is important for any Empire as the soldiers/veterans are the backbone of any empire

So basically America needs to not spend a catastrophic amount on a conflict which has zero geo-political/economic gain, and needs to treat their soldiers/veterans better.

So far they've been pretty alright with the former, but the latter could easily kill them as since World War II they've been absolutely terrible with the treatment of soldiers/veterans.

>could it have attained a Rome status?

No, Rome worked hard to make the people it conquered Romans. Britain didn't even let their colonies (with British citizens in them) be "British". The success of Rome was that they turned Celts, Phoenicians, Numidians, Greeks, and everyone else become "Romans" while still leaving their innate culture largely in tact.

Plus an incredibly successful army which they treated well, until Heraclius.

If Rome was "doomed" at the fall of the Republic then basically any other culture or civilization, and especially "empire" would be happy to be so "doomed". 1400 years is no joke.

>There was no notion of absolutist monarchy in the ancient world

The PERSIAN EMPIRE tells you you're a fucking idiot.

>What caused the fall of Rome and what lessons can we learn from this?

Exactly one single thing caused the fall of the Roman Empire, and it just so happens that one single thing is what my contemporary political opponents are doing in the USA, so we should murder them.

t. everyone in this thread

>Graph cutoffs are all at seven years ago because seeing the scary trends level off and begin to reverse won't foster panic
Fuck off with that weak shit.

WTF? are you retarded? you are not worried about the millions of muslims taking over whole parts of europe? you think living under sharia would bring forth the same amount of scientific and moral developement as the secular christian society?

absolute imbecile

your christian mom has not raised you well kiddo...

it lies beyond my comprehension why anyone would want the US to succeed with their war mongering money machinery

I'm not arguing about want; I'm arguing about whether it can and how.

I don't like empires, and view imperialism as innately bad. But that doesn't mean all empires are created equally as far as success is concerned. Personally I want the US to fall, as I want Russia to fall as well, and other current empires.

The Jews

>implying the next generation of European leaders will tolerate muzzies
>implying the surge of support for nationalistic parties is not because """moderates""" refuse to moderate muslims