What went wrong??

It was the biggest empire the world has ever seen at it's height.

Attached: Rome_Empire.jpg (1346x883, 798K)

Dysgenics

Cr*saders

Over extension
Sometimes an empire reaches the height of it's borders and can't expand anymore they where surronded by shit eating fuck wits on all sides and their war based economy couldn't hold up with nothing to conquer
Attila was just the straw that broke the horses back

Shitty climate
Snowniggers
Sandniggers
Steppeniggers
Emperors become puppets/weak rulers
Disease

not even top 10

>war based economy couldn't hold up with nothing to conquer
This is a lie. The army mobilized resources for the economy, but the economic power of the Roman Empire was incredibly self sufficient. They were content with raiding and tricking other barbarians into fighting each other since at least the 1st century, so they can focus on collecting tax revenues. That was a problem of the middle-late Republic.

Crisis of the Third Century took the legs out of the Western Empire, and their economy and infrastructure never recovered. They couldn't afford to pay for their army and couldn't fend off their rivals. Empires are expensive.

God decided that they were too powerful and sent disease upon them to weaken them.

Unironically this!

splitting the empire weakened the western portion, slow decline from there.

A series of child emperors destroyed the ability of the state to function coherently.

>splitting the empire weakened the western portion, slow decline from there.

I keep hearing that the Tetrarchy prolonged the empire. But it does seem the Western half ended up impoverished them, dooming them to collapse.

>Rome was great, then a couple of child emperors, whoops everything went to shit.

Rome was bad long before then.

Christianity
Obviously

>Byantine's were Christians and continued until the 15th Century.

This faggot getting stangled in his bath.

Attached: commodus-1.jpg (900x750, 70K)

Fucking devs nerfing good shit.

T*rks

G*rmans

H**ans

********

B A S E D

Incompetent millitary, incompetent emperors and c*ristianity eroding roman culture.

>Jeez guys, I'm so glad that Constantine never converted to Christianity, otherwise the traditions that kept our great empire together would've vanished!

>Oh yeah, I'm also glad that we managed to fight back the Slavic invasions of the 9th century

>Oh and that the plague of 1314, despite wiping out 2/3rds of our population, didn't also disrupt the long-term stability of our massive contiguous empire

>Also I'm super glad the Minerva zealouts of the 1600s were crushed by the ruling Temples

>And that the Industrial Revolution of the 1720s didn't uproot our agriculture-based economy

>And that we could transition to communism peacefully in 1874

>Yep, now that it's 2018 and we're colonizing Titan and the Han empire are our allies, the continued existence of the Roman Empire sure looks bright!

Where does the stigma of Rome as a heavily militarized state come from? I mean, the Pretorian Guard had a great deal of power but overall Rome was surprisingly civilian compared to its neighbors and I believe only 2% of its population served in the military, though its been a while since I saw that figure.

>It was the biggest empire the world has ever seen at it's height.

Attached: brainlet4.jpg (588x823, 109K)

Moral degeneration...

>biggest empire
Not even close. The largest empire by land area was the British Empire followed by the Mongol Empire.

>Where does the stigma of Rome as a heavily militarized state come from?
Because it had the largest standing army and proportion of soldiers in Europe. The Roman Republican was very much a militarized State (ie you had to serve in the army in order to even get a chance at running for office), and in the early imperial age Conquests were a requirement because the Julio Claudian lines were functionally warlords (Emperor is derived from imperator, a literal military command) bbut the mid-late imperial age had less militarized citizens relative to the Republican period and conquering new provinces became impractical. As long as Rome controlled the med and the barbarians just fucked off, they were content with using the soldiers for engineering projects and frontier incursions.

>Rome was bad long before then.

Rome was doomed to fall when they exiled Tarquinius Superbus.

Rome was doomed as soon as they forsook their Trojan homelands

Wrong. A Jew burned the capital in AD 68, setting off the year of the Three Emperors, and another Hebrew gave all the inhabitants of the Empire citizenship and set off the crisis of the Third Century. Both were Emperors.

Thanks Jews.

Nero was a Jewish convert and Caracalla was Punic.

The Huns were actually proto-Khazars, who had converted to Judaism in the early 400s and specifically declared war on Rome for Constantine's conversion to Christianity

>those trips

Attached: 1464452159695.jpg (255x287, 11K)

Literally everything, it was a miracle that it survived for so long and not collapsed from the day one when so many problems were stacked against it.

Attached: Chart (47).png (1095x1498, 65K)

You forgot Britain

That's a very complex question, with a multifaceted answer.

>political stagnation
the imperial apparatus by the 5th century was a corroded, rusted shadow of its former self, dysfunctional, bloated, and completely ineffectual. Child emperors sat on the throne while women and bureaucrats ran things from behind the scenes. Very little could actually get accomplished and usurpers were an endemic, never ending problem

>economic fracturing
The constant civil wars and Germanic invasions caused the intercontinental trade routes to break down. The civil wars were sparked by an economic crisis in the 3rd century, as their economy had come to rely on conquest booty to act as an economic stimulant, but in the aftermath of the Dacian conquests there simply wasn't anybody left that was worth conquering, sending them on a deflationary spiral. So they turned that bloated military-industrial complex on their last remaining mortal enemy: their creditors, e.i. each other. Various emperors tried to fix the problem, but more often made the problem worse, causing the currency to hyperinflate, taxing people to the point where they had to revolt or starve, or setting price control edicts would would largely go ignored.

>grossly unfair monetary policy
When Constantine stabilized the currency, he only stabilized gold. Because gold was only used for the largest transactions, copper and silver currencies that the normal people used suffered from the presence of "bad money", and now found their savings rendered worthless while the rich made out like bandits. In the end, most of them had to sell themselves into bondage just to put a roof over their head and food in their stomach, setting off a deflationary spiral as the population and GDP shrank to a small fraction of its original size, shrinking the tax base too small to support such a complex society. Most wealthy individuals were finding ways of getting out of paying their taxes anyway, often because they were absurdly high.

Attached: 11late roman infantry.jpg (500x386, 52K)

2

>out of control military
The military had a habit of murdering any emperor who didn't completely toe their line and bulk up their already bloated salaries. Soldiers were loyal to their general, rather than their government, as it was their general who would secure for them the best possible quality of life for them after their term of service was up. Many good emperors met untimely deaths at the hands of the praetorian guard.

>dissolution of social unity
For centuries Rome had been a place where anyone could migrate too and find it to be a land of opportunity. Romanization happened all over Europe, with Roman style towns with Roman amenities springing up from Spain to the Levant, with Novus homo being someone who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. On more than one occasion Rome was bailed out by one of its satellite peoples, such as the Illyrian generals who held Rome together during the Crisis of the third century. Nobody questioned their "Romanness", but all that changed with the Germanics. Unscrupulous Roman power brokers wanted to keep them as permanently disenfranchised 2nd class citizens and disposable toy soldiers, permanently unable to acquire citizenship. The 5th century was more a story of great Germanic generals winning battles for their ineffectual child emperors when it should have been the Germanic, on the throne, issuing orders. Because the Germanics were excluded from greater Roman society they retained their clan traditions and didn't assimilate. This was compounded by the incredibly stupid decision to allow federated allies to field their own officers, rather than submit to Roman officers, and this made them even less inclined to care about a system that doesn't care about them

>environmental breakdown
Temperatures plummeted dramatically during these times, resulting both in lower crop yields (bad news for an agrarian civilization) and mass migrations on a scale never before seen.

Attached: 1508296672709.gif (720x381, 15K)

>the fact that it took this long for somebody to bring it up
I'm not mad, just disappointed.

Fuck communism

nah that was british empire or russian empire

good times create shit people

interesting, so you be saying that dem romans only needed to keep conquering pepo to keep everything nice and cool?

>Dude what if we, like, had two emperors to make the empire easier to manage and the two constantly bickered and refused to help each other