What factors contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire?
>Rise of the Sassanians as a comparable military power
>Bloated bureaucracy needed to sustain bloated bureaucracy of military and tax collecting, which were necessary
>Corruption ate away at surpluses, causing taxes to have to be raised even more
>On top of all of this, Germannia was developing while Rome was stagnating
>Huns arriving causes massive migrations initially seeking Roman territory for safety (reasoning that only Rome could stop the Huns)
>Romans antagonize barbarians inside borders
>Romans now have angry barbarians inside their borders
>Have to get the army away from borders to deal with it
>This causes further penetrations into Imperial territory
Also:
>Motherfuckers killed Aetius
What were the factors for it lasting so long?
>>425382
the goths and others adopted their military technology
>>425382
Currency debasement
>>425382
Loss of north africa
>>425382
Motherfucking barbarians, son
foreigners
emancipation of women (thus welfare state, loss of tradition, and lowered birth rates)
Here's the list: https://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html
My favorite:
>Immoderate greatness
Overly intensive agriculture.
Lead in the wine and water of elites.
No reliably peaceful means of transferring executive power.
A military dependent on further conquests for pay.
No public school system to brainwash the masses on the edge of the empire.
>>425382
a)internal instability caused by complete lack of a strong succession system for emperors leading to devastating civil wars
b)economic crisis due to the cost of mantaining a standing professional army rocketing while running out of rich places to plunder and lands to grant to soldiers, decaying commerce in the east having a stake in this as well
c)administrative bloating to the point of almost complete ineffectiveness due to distance to the reaches of the empire
d)flawed taxation system which often led to abusive practices and slowly made people leave the cities for rich people's villas, creating the first forms of feudalism
e)eastern tribes migrating forcefully at a scale the empire was not ready to administrate, social frictions with germans inciting to violence and unrest among them
f)cultural change that diminished the strong ambitious character of early romans
>>425490
>d)flawed taxation system which often led to abusive practices and slowly made people leave the cities for rich people's villas, creating the first forms of feudalism
I don't see that as a bad thing. Every city back then was a death trap. Urban death rates due to fire and disease were higher than birth rates. Rome was a meat grinder. Humans go in, meat comes out.
>>425531
can't tax them though
i should add:
g)caracalla edict and other imperial laws giving citizenship to literally everyone for the sake of dat tax money but having no regard for the actual social differences, the strain in the justice system or the posibility of large migrations trashing the system
h)does this wine taste funny to you?
Bane?
>>425628
Excuse me, it appears you are on the same ride as myself. Do you happen to know how to get off?
>>425382
Wait a minute...
That rock....
>>425539
A public school system would have solved all their problems, but the elites didn't want the plebeians challenging them.
Elites would allow humanity to go extinct if it meant they could hold on to their relative power a little longer.
>>425628
If you're referring to contemporary America, not really. The only one I see that could kind of apply is the flawed tax system, although it's not really at a point where it'a causing a crisis, and isn't close to that stage. I guess illegal immigration as well, although again it's hardly at crisis levels and isn't going in that direction.
I suppose you could also argue for cultural change, but that's subjective.
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>425765
>A public school system would have solved all their problems, but the elites didn't want the plebeians challenging them.
>im-fucking-plying
plebians were rich assholes too you know, you're thinking of slaves.
>>425406
>What were the factors for it lasting so long?
Anyone could be a Roman.
>>425794
Incorrect. There were the rich protecting their riches from the poor and there were the rich trying to get more rich by exploiting the anger of the poor.
It would have been the rich and powerful of Rome that would have kept a public education system from ever happening. They didn't want the rabble getting any more power than their pitchforks.
>>425811
what kind of revisionist nonsense are you fucking talking about? there was no class warfare in Rome by the time of it's decline.
the decline of Rome happened PRECISELY because the state was losing the allegiance of the masses to powerful individuals who could protect and feed them better
>>425382
Excessive Cheese consumption
>>425787
i was referring to the situation in europe
of course you cant transfer the points 1:1, but in regard of different times and circumstances, its easily comparable
>>425790
>western rome collapsed somewhere between 475 and 554
>hre coming in existing 800/962
sure was the reichs fault
>>425733
OP's picture is the penultimate of the series you fucking mong
>>425382
I get an erection just thining about raping and pillaging Rome.
I would insist on removing every single piece of stone from that city and dumping it into the sea, where it belongs, down in the abyss.
>>425819
>what kind of revisionist nonsense are you fucking talking about? there was no class warfare in Rome by the time of it's decline.
Who said anything about class warfare? You don't have to have a theoretical conception of class conflict to play your part in the powerful trying to stay powerful by keeping the weak weak. Giving education to the poor would have challenged the power of the rich and well educated so obviously they would have never considered it. Knowledge has long been something that was horded. That's why the library of Alexandria was burned down. Only a select few benefited from it so the mob that burned it down didn't give a single shit about the loss of knowledge.
Public schools could have saved Rome. They are the single most important thing to maintain a national identity, the lack of which playing a significant part in the collapse of Rome.
>>425910
Christ, did your father make you swear a blood oath against Rome or something?
Christianity
>>425486
>Lead in the wine and water of elites.
When will this meme end ? The Romans used lead containers for hundreds of years before Rome fell.
>>425917
>Maintain a national identity
There was a national identity that remained for a long time aligned with Rome, even among non-Romans.
The thing is, when calling the Plebs poor, you seem to be forgetting the concept of Empire. The city of Rome (and its citizens) were enriched massively at cost of the rest of the Empire, which was originally non-Roman, and was largely considered non-Roman by the Romans even after citizenship was granted.
Also, part of Rome's national identity was having the senatorial class.
>>425422
People never realize how important this was. The Arabs fucked the west by taking north Africa. With the bread basket of the west gone, mass migration, multiple wars, and poor harvests, the population of the Roman Empire alone was doomed to a massive downward spiral for years.
>>425931
Useful for crash of the Roman Empire and restoring the Judea kingdom. But ancient philosophers of Elláda gnawed the base of a traditional Hellenic religion.
The Roman state, government, and bureaucracy outlasted the fall of the city of Rome itself by 1000 years from Constantinople, so the roman state and framework in itself is not to blame, but yeah there was a lot of issues that led to the fall of the West Empire.
>dwindling professional army
Western Rome couldn't afford a professional military anymore, and relied on German mercenaries to do the bulk of the fighting while the legions didn't receive the training they once enjoyed in previous centuries. Once the mercenaries didn't receive pay, their loyalty shifted against Rome and now the undertrained legions had to fight them along with the hordes.
>the East/West division
The Eastern Empire ran away with Rome's richest and most productive provinces in Greece, Egypt, and Anatolia, with West Rome only receiving the Italian peninsula and Carthage as a real money maker, with only 2 wealthy regions to support the comparatively poorer regions of Gaul and Iberia, West Rome's economic power was nothing compared to East Rome's riches.
>indefensible Eastern borders
the Rhine river is a good border, but a piss poor barrier to any sizable invasion force. With only mercenary bands to patrol the borders, it was an easy task for the Germanic tribes to cross over and start wrecking havoc, East Rome had a tough time defending the Danube as well, losing a critical battle at Adrainople in 378 to the Goths.
>grossly incompetent political elite
West Rome's leaders were more concerned with remaining in their palaces and public baths than maintaining the Empire's strength, and were close to outright negligent in defending the Western Empire in its final years, but it's also argue that there really was nothing they could do to save it by that time.
>>425435
Is this even accurate? I keep seeing this meme posted on every Roman empire thread.
Whatever I don't like about the world. The fall of the Roman empire is basically just a Rorschach test.
>>425422
That's what fucked the West. The East didn't start to shit the bed until Egypt was lost to Islam
>>425765
>A public school system would have solved all their problems
>by keeping the underclass mentally weak and suggestible
Do you even know what the purpose of public education is? Brotip: it's not about education
>>427442
It's 100% bait, those were symptoms of the decline and only really added to the dogpile of issues the empire faced.
>>427449
That's actually a great way of describing it, thanks man
>>425466
Was just about to post this, pretty great list. Pisses of social conservatives, which is always a bonus.
>>427488
so what makes you think these are only symptons, and not the cause?
>>425933
Yes, and it contributed to Roman elites making bad decisions for hundreds of years. The neurological effects lead has on the human mind are undeniable and the amount Romans were putting into their bodies was significant.
the Edict of Caracalla
>>425933
Why don't you conduct a study of consuming lead to prove them wrong?
>>427523
Because mass amounts of Foreigners weren't made into Roman citizens until well after the likes of Commodus and his successors fucked everything.
The Treasury was bankrupt so in a desperate attempt to salvage the situation one of them Emperors (The Heir of Severus I think?) Declared that everyone who lived in Roman provinces was a citizen of Rome and so had to pay taxes to Rome.
As for the emancipation of women, that's a tricky one, probably getting my facts wrong again but Augustus was worried about low Birth Rates in his time, his thought being the Rome would not recover if there were another Cannae.
This is a fair point but to say it had anything to do with the emancipation of women is kind of ridiculous, they believed the problem stemmed from Adultery and tried to outlaw it but no one took that seriously.
As for the "welfare state" Rome had a lot bigger issues like the fact that the Legions had been given exorbitant bonuses under Severus Septimius and his son, and as uneducated non-fiscal minded soldiers do they came to expect more and more of these bonuses which was the largest strain on the treasury.
>>425733
All the paintings in the series by Thomas Cole have that rock in them, because they're all the same city.
Cole is a based painter
>>425910
Are you a barbarian?
>>427555
Seems as though he already did
>>425405
>talk about Aetius
>ignore Stilcho
>>427568
>As for the "welfare state" Rome had a lot bigger issues like the fact that the Legions had been given exorbitant bonuses under Severus Septimius and his son, and as uneducated non-fiscal minded soldiers do they came to expect more and more of these bonuses which was the largest strain on the treasury.
Generally speaking, it can be said that Rome (or rather the Roman state) suffered from gross mismanagement and utter ignorance of basic economics.
This guy wrote a lot on the subject, see his article on grain funds and the bit about the Antioch famine in particular:
http://ccny-cuny.academia.edu/MorrisSilver
>>425382
They stopped expanding
>>425382
>Edward Gibbon
It all started with Commodus.
>>426046
Except North Africa was lost to the Vandals, and the population of the Western empire declined since the 5th century up until the 7th, after which it not only stabilized but began to grow equaling or surpassing its 5th century population by the 11th century.
>>425382
The gradual economic stagnation and collapse of the trading and transportation networks holding the empire together. The increasing debasing of the currency for short-term fundraising created an increasing lack of trust in Roman currency and the system, decreasing interprovincial trade and depriving the Empire of much-needed growth.
This is evidenced by not only through the direct evidence of debasing across all denominations of Roman currency, but also by the sharply decreasing number of shipwrecks across the Mediterranean after the reign of Trajan, determined by carbon dating methods. Corroborating evidence is also found in the lack of sustained and lasting public works projects after the first century.
Combine this with increasing reliance on foederati, the high potential for catastrophic mismanagement by the centralization of the Principate, and the death blow that was the Crisis of the Third Century, and you have a situation where the Roman Empire couldn't continue on without major reforms. Reforms took on the form that Diocletian, Constantine, and Justinian chose, and the increased migration pressures of the eastern European peoples meant that the Western Empire was fucked.
The amusing thing is that it often feels unfair to ascribe particular blame on any one emperor, as even the good emperors all instituted one or two reforms that went on to exacerbate the fall of the Empire a century or two later.
The economic basis slowly eroded away andall the shit followed from it, reforms that only gave temporary breath but worsened the situation (foederati), inability to upkeep a large standing army, legions rebelling, forcing to hire foreigners, et cetera.
Specifically Rome lost much gold and silver in its trade with the East in exchange for perishable luxury goods.
They balanced this with debasing but all historical examples show this never led to good, gradually trade network broke down, provinces impoverished, treasury incomes decreased.
Succession crises fucked the Empire up so bad it was done for the second it was established.
>>431351
Yeah, the distribution of the wealth between The Roman elite and the populace and the City of Rome and Roman provinces Abroad was abysmal, among other things.
Thanks for the link.
>>425382
Depends on whatever idology the speaker is trying to push.
The empire "Fell" over a period of time longer than the united states of america has existed. And different parts of it fell at different times (The Catholic church could be considered to be the roman empire still standing and stronger than ever)
Anybody who has an explanation for how it fell, is trying to sell you something.
>>427442
IDK about the rest, but Roman lasted longer as a welfare state that admitted foreigners than most modern nations. "Bread and Circuses" was an official policy for longer than 600 years. It's a very effective social policy which keeps the plebs happy, and lets the patricians do what they want without having to deal with the problems an unhappy populace causes.
>>425382
I might sound cocky, but the BIGGEST reason by FAR were the Roman civil wars.
If you go a step further you can just blame the succession system. The republic was dead, nobody was bringing back that shit despite emperor's having a tendency to die there sure was a long line of pretenders.
They kept the senate and consuls around though, for tradition. Augustus was considered "the first man" in Rome, not an Emperor (king) officially. That would come during Diocletian's time. Though during the 2nd century crisis everyone knew their republic was a joke anyway and nobody believed it was "Senate and people of Rome". More like "Imperator and people of Rome".
>>432254
>Anybody who has an explanation for how it fell, is trying to sell you something.
Do you think it's funny to act this stupid?
>>425406
The continued devaluation of currency (sound familiar?) allowed them to delay the inevitable. That, combined with the huge spread of troops in occupied territory (also sound familiar?) lead to a slow and painful death.
>>425910
Hannibal pls go
>>432607
>356
>being this byzantine
>>426076
>Western Rome couldn't afford a professional military anymore, and relied on German mercenaries to do the bulk of the fighting while the legions didn't receive the training they once enjoyed in previous centuries. Once the mercenaries didn't receive pay, their loyalty shifted against Rome and now the undertrained legions had to fight them along with the hordes.
The field legions were just as capable as they'd always been. The problem is they had a huge frontier to cover, and there weren't enough of them. That and the officers often went rogue and took their armies with them.
>>425382
Dank Memes
t. undergrad in classics m.a. in ancient history, ongoing phd in history (thesis will be about Hunnic-Western Roman relations)
>>425787
>Not really
>Except for half of the things
>>425382
stagnation
power struggles
mass migrations from the east
food shortage
last but not least it was just to big to defend
also the eastern roman empire lasted for aloooooong time after the fall of the western
>>427555
Look at this retard
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/roman-aqueducts.html
>What do you think of the theory that the Roman Empire collapsed because the Romans suffered from lead poisoning?
Not much. The Romans did use lead in their pipes. However, two things about the Roman water supply mitigated the unhealthy effects of lead. The first is that the water in the Roman aqueducts rarely stopped running. They had shut-off valves, but they didn't use them much. The water was meant to move. It would flow into a fountain or a basin. Overflow would pour into the gutter and then flush the city.
Today, if you have lead pipes, they tell you to let the water run for awhile before you drink it. That prevents water from sitting in the lead pipes and becoming contaminated. That flushing out happened naturally in the Roman system.
Secondly, a lot of the water, especially in Rome, was hard water. It had lots of minerals in it that would coat their pipes. We often use filtration systems to take some of the minerals out. The Romans didn't have that, so these minerals would encrust and coat the inside of the pipe. That layer of minerals served as a buffer. In fact, the aqueduct channels would gradually accumulate these deposits. Periodically, they would have to chip out all the encrustations.
>>425406
Machiavelli explains the very well in his Discourses and in The Prince. You should read it, don't fall for the le satire meme either.
Attila was a dick, he lost and then he went around and fucking burned the city
>>425466
Page not found
>>436453
what about their use of lead as sweetener in wine and food though?
and in paint?
>>439434
they were into heavy metal
>>439464
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxyj-jQW54
>>439434
I'm too lazy to go in depth.
One also may cite references in Columella and Pliny that might suggest a Roman preference for lead vessels, especially as they prepared their favored grape syrup called sapa, but one needs to read these texts carefully which mention a “preference” for lead over bronze to realize that the Romans most often used bronze cauldrons (copper and tin alloy), not those of lead. The sapa was used to lengthen the life of the stored wine, and even though it can be argued that lead absorbed in the boiling down of the grape syrup (if a lead vessel were used) would act as an enzyme inhibitor, it is much more likely that the increased concentration of grape sugars added to the “sweet life” of the wine before eventually turned into vinegar (474).
So to sum up: the ancient Romans knew about lead poisoning, they didn’t use lead vessels if they could avoid it, and we have no reason to believe acute lead poisoning was endemic among them, let alone a cause for the fall of the empire. Or, as >Scarborough puts it:
>This book [Nriagu’s] should have been carefully edited, judiciously pruned, and checked meticulously by various specialists in the eras covered. As it stands, Lead and Lead Poisoning is so full of false evidence, miscitations, typographical errors, and a blatant flippancy regarding primary sources that the reader cannot trust the basic arguments (473).
R/askhistorians had a great thread on this here :https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_cosmos_neil_degrassetyson_said_some_historians/?
>>439483
that's pretty interesting, thanks
i knew Roman medicine was way more advanced than people give credit so it made me doubtful that they just ate this weird dust up like nothing.
>>425435
exactly what is happening in the west right now. The.Exact.Same.Thing.
>>439837
>implying the economical problems, the only thing that matter, have anything to do at all
>>436499
Machiavelli is concerned primarily and exclusively with the political circumstances of the late Republic. He does so quite well but his perspective is very limited. Gibbon is actually a fine read on this, it's old but not aged.
>>439837
History doesn't repeat itself.
I want to say some things about the foreigners meme
The problem is not "foreigners", but "overreliance on foreigners". In other words, the polity isn't sufficiently self-sufficient, which is not only bad in terms of human resources, but all resources. Reliance breeds dependency and dependency breeds (opposite) power, and foreigners are naturally not as loyal to Rome as purebred Romans. The point is that the real problem comes before the foreigners themselves.
Social issues are also bound to increase with an increased reliance of foreigners which hurts the stability of the realm.
