So...why did it fall?

So...why did it fall?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-empire/causes-for-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME 250/210 Reasons.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=4TXzW4nF7fU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Turks.

m.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-empire/causes-for-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire.htm

Just a quick hijack of this thread. Who lived in what is today Austria in Roman times? What was the area called, and were there any Germanic folk living there?

Refugees

Just use Google. Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

they got tired

>Roman times

That is a long fucking time user.

Corrupt emporers , large amounts of political unrest , constant barbarian invasion/immigration , the fact the army didn't serve the state but there respective warlord. Honestly I don't know why rome fell

This thread is here all the time. Just trying to spice it up.

Western Roman Empire. Still too long? Idk I guess I am just curious as to when the Germans came in.

please do not take the lord's name in vain

A number of reasons.
The two most important being the failure to actually adopt the vital institutions that help keep monarchies stable and adopting Christianity.
I suppose that ultimately the fall of the empire could be put at the feet of both Augustus and the Galileans (including their disgusting puppets like Constantine).

A thousand and one reasons

how did christianity make it weaker

The Empire lasted longer Christian than it did pagan.

and it died while christian.

fuck off gibbon

Christianity is a proto-liberalism.

Just in case you’re too ADHD to use google, it was called Noricum/Pannonia, and yes some Germans lived there. However, it was also the heartland of the Celts prior to Roman annexation, and some Illyrians lived there if you go back far enough as well.

the roman hot bathwaters boiled the testicles of the average male roman, resulting in low fertility rates and mental disease due to birth defects. this resulted in every symptom of the late roman empire, from deranged emperors to undisciplined barbarians replacing the ranks of the once proud legions to a lack of martial will that was the glue holding the empire in times of crisis due to the feminization of the cosmopolitan roman

so... soyboys?

Too big to maintain

soy

surviving =/= thriving

>trees in arabia on the map
wut?

They were unable to devise a political system that would properly suit them.

>130 million people
Why use the absolute maximum number instead of the most realistic?

>why did it fall?
It was an overstretched shithole. Every third world country has a more effective and efficient government today, than Rome after it stopped being a city state, not to mention a more efficient and healthy economy. The only reason why it was even able to survive that long was a lack of competition.

you should get beaten for saying that kind of garbage

What are you gonna do, start the 50th civil war in 10 years? Or would you prefer to have my guard kill me?

>the entire roman empire fell after the imperial period and didnt last another 1000 years until Constantinople fell

>not until trebizond fell

>muh Byzantine

The byzantine empire was a sad and pitiful rump state that had not a tenth of the glory that the old polytheist rome did.

Lots of reasons. Damn, that is a sick map.

>my aunt fell into coma when she was hit by a bus at age of 20
>she didnt wake up but was still alive when the bus got crushed

I am not him and I am not saying Christianity caused the fall but it did give them a lot of quarreling sects hating each other over petty reason like the exact nature of Christ.

Seems like your aunt outlasted the bus. Good for her

>Overextension
>Shitty economy that debased its currency every 30 years
>Political scheming and corruption
>Giant army created by Severan Dynasty
>Giant army that drained all the tax money
>Giant army that wasn't loyal to the emperor or the empire but to it's military leader
>Giant army that revolted million of times
>Becoming less and less Roman
>Stupid succession line of leaders
>Stupid leaders
>Societal decadence, apathy and pacifism of the plebs
>Foreign ivasions
>Germans

>Germans
I think all the others were minor, this is the REAL reason. This is ALWAYS the reason.

An empire, after a certain extent, can be a bad thing.

>trees in Arabia

shitty/unclear succession system lead to civil wars which lead to plagues, depopulation, shit economy which lead to weak military and vulnerability to great migrators

Yes the harsh truth is that no outside barbarians conquered Rome. The Romans themselves transformed into barbarians. The truth is covered up to protect the hottub industry

during charlemagne's conquests

Because the m*Doid race grew in popularity and outnumbered Nordics.

Germans and corruption.

>It was an overstretched shithole. Every third world country has a more effective and efficient government today, than Rome after it stopped being a city state, not to mention a more efficient and healthy economy. The only reason why it was even able to survive that long was a lack of competition.

Exactly this. The Roman Empire felt because how shit it was.

user's question is far more interesting than the OP because we've discussed the fall of the Roman Empire hundreds of times already. Don't be a cunt.

The only real answer.

mises.org

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

in the next 2 centuries we will have megacities alone with 130 million people

>Parcelling out large allotments of land to nomads that cross into the empire
>Not fighting them off because that's too much effort
>They get land primarily in territory that Rome still has yet to fully assimilate into the provincial system

You tell me. But the idea of unassimilated migrants being a key factor in what destroyed a quintessential classical civilisation has too many uncomfortable implications for modern society.

Maybe when 100,000 armed migrants move in and attempt to annex, by force of arms, sections of nation states it'll be uncomfortable implications. Otherwise, the modern immigration crisis is very different.

I'm not saying they're the same, but if the modern narrative was that the goths ruined everything it'd probably make the public in general a bit more guarded on anything to do with foreigners.

It didn't.

>if historians told a partial view of a complicated issue that could be used to support my ideology my ideology would have wider support

Google?

Just because it's Everywhere and knows Everything doesn't make it God man.

courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME 250/210 Reasons.htm

>empire too big and diverse
>stop expanding
>less and less slaves (due to lack of expansion)
>corruption

The diversity of the empire was never a problem. Even into Byzantine times, ethnic groups weren't forming movements to rebel unless they were barbarians from beyond the empire to begin with. Too big, yes, too diverse? Seems a stretch.

A very large and complicated series of issues is what caused its fall.

Snowniggers

>Roman Empire
>Not even owning Rome or Italy
Russia is still roman Empire by this logic

Christianity

Diversity eats out the inside. When the core Roman nation was lost,when Romans were replaced with enough foreigners, it severely weakened their ability to defend themselves.

Why fight for a country you don't belong to? Why fight the Goths then you are a Goth?
The answer is money. And that eventually ran out.

This is quite silly. The Romans were outnumbered in their Empire the day they conquered three Italian cities, and remained so for the entire time. The core of the Roman army included, in large numbers, these Italians as auxiliaries even in the Punic War. The inability to rely on Romans as the core manpower for the military is what brought the Republics downfall (Marian reforms, etc). You've basically claimed the Empire was doomed from the start of being an Empire, which is absurd considering it lasted for almost five hundred years after that, and the Byzantines far longer.

Germans didn't exist during the time of the Western Roman Empire. Germanics predate Germans, not the other way around.

Romans came from Anatolia, not Italy.

The city of Rome stopped being important long before the fall of the Western Empire. And before the West finally did fall they sent the imperial regalia to the East, signifying the full transfer of imperial authority to the Eastern emperor. So yes, the Byzantine Empire was very much the Roman Empire in continuity.

huns the natives of central asia and southern siberia got a decent leader and started expanding into europe attacking the tribes and forcing them out of their land making them move into the closest safe space which is the roman empire, a few constant barbarian invasions later west rome collapsed since the byzantines paid the barbarians to avoid them.

>You've basically claimed the Empire was doomed from the start of being an Empire

Yes.
A nation becomes an empire. Empire expands. Empire expands further. Empire reach a height of expansion. There is a successful rebellion or split. Eventually the core founding stock of the empire is lost (in the case of Rome) or is conquered by an outer province or neighboring threat comes in, takes the capital and the empire falls.

Such is the life and death of empires.

youtube.com/watch?v=4TXzW4nF7fU

Notice how, so long as the founding stock remains, certain countries keep reemerging time after time?
If this founding stock is destroyed then they don't reemerge.
Which is why Rome never came back, even though it had been sacked before.

>Russia is still roman Empire by this logic
No it's not, you fucking idiot. Its situation is not and never has been anything like the Byzantine Empire's.

This isn't really a useful theory for explaining history. It amounts to all things fall. If Rome becomes an empire, it falls because it's an empire. If Rome doesn't become an empire, it falls because it was weaker than it's neighbors. There are far more of those countries who don't re-emerge time after time, because the victorious enemy choose to eliminate them more permanently. There's no lesson here, it's just 'nations fall', which is neither particularly interesting nor honestly particularly explanatory.

The useful historical thing in this scenario would be explaining why, specifically at that point, the 'inevitable' death by demographics felled Rome, at not back when it was Republic, or any other period.

This. The first point in particular. Rome didn't have a proper bureaucracy until far too late, it's legal system was a mess and there was no clearly defined system of succession in place.

>>blah blah founding stock blah blah
Dude, modern day Italians share some 98% of their genetics with classical Romans. Your theory is wrong.

Out of curiosity, does this include the north? Did the Lombards really leave that low of an impact on the population?

>Notice how, so long as the founding stock remains, certain countries keep reemerging time after time?
No, not really. The video doesn't establish at all that the "founding stock" remained the same (and in e.g. Babylon, it didn't - it kept falling from prominence and then returning, but it had a distinct culture and identity each time, with no clear continuity). You also haven't established that the "founding stock" of Rome was "destroyed." That's a very strange claim. It wasn't, even though the city was sacked.

The above post is also completely correct in saying that what you wrote about the fall of Rome really boils down to "no state lasts forever", which, while it might be true, is neither a novel or useful observation. And it is an observation, not an explanation.

Well, I can't find the article I got that from after several minutes of searching, but I do have something here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy

"The genetic history of the Italians is greatly influenced by geography and history. The ancestors of Italians are identified as Italic peoples (of which the most notable are the Latins/Romans but also Umbrians, Sabines and others) and it is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries the Fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter their gene pool because of the relatively small number of Germanic or other migrants compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy.[1]"

There's more in the link and the situation may be a little more complex then I described. But the consensus seems to be that most of the people in modern italy are descendants of the people who were there during roman times.