Why the Roman Empire Fell. ONCE AND FOR ALL.

We have MANY things in common with the Roman Empire before its demise.

:romanempire:

The roman empire of german nation officially existed until 1806.

The vatican is not the roman empire, it never was.

Homosexuality was not common, what was common was Bisexuality

ROMAN RED!!

WACKY WEED!!

Actually that was way later but not how you described it.

The Greeks long after Rome got humiliated made a truce with the Gauls, eventually there were troubles between the two.

During the war the Greeks were getting smacked around and then they got drunk and forgot how to communicate because they were a group of tribes, they weren't a civilization.

This is where the word panic came from, the Greeks believed that Pan came and confused them with magic so the Greeks could win.

The Gauls then went back to the North and yes Rome did eventually gain control over them because they were weakened, but the Norse came and started fucking shit up around that time.

Then a Danish dude by the name of Canute came and was like bitch I'm a Viking Prince I challenge for this land.

The leader of the Vikings who were fucking shit up just so happened to be his cousin and he was like "Well fuck I guess I gotta fight you".

Canute slaughtered him so badly that the rest said fuck that noise and dipped back to Iceland or wherever the fuck they came.

Canute was like fuck it I divide this land and Rome was like we can be friends right and Canute was like sure.

Moreover homosexuality had nothing to do with Rome's fall. The OP has some good points. Really Roman leadership was arrogant, over confident, completely detached from reality and often mentally retarded (literally).

I'm pretty sure the teeming hordes of invading Visigoths had something to do with it.

Correct! But claiming that a society which accepted homosexuality from the beginning fell because of homosexuality is asinine, is it not? :)

Like I said before the Catholic Church is not the Roman Empire or an extension of the Roman Empire, but has been operated by descendants of those who were Roman Citizens. Roman ideology remains strong with the Church simply because of their ancestry, their parents and their parents were all taught Roman values because that's all they knew.

I'm not going to say it's asinine, but the truth is that the fall of Rome had nothing to do with who was schtooping who.

Also I forgot to say Julius Caesar was born 500 years after the Gauls came and kicked the shit out of Rome and around 250 years before the Visigoths even existed.

First, it's not quite correct to say that the 'Roman Empire' fell, because only the Western half did. The Eastern Empire persisted, in various forms, until 1453. Of course, you can note that the division of the Empire into East and West was itself part of the problem (at other times into three or four parts), but, in fact, that division probably allowed the Empire to persist for longer than it otherwise would have. This is simply because, without that division, defense would have been almost impossible to coordinate. But this point is debatable.

I’ll divide your 10 points into internal and external problems:

External

#3 Loss of major income from expansionism/imperialism
The Empire wasn’t very expansionist, and in contrast to the Republic hardly gained any income from its expansionism. Imperial wealth came from peace, trade, and farming – from internal factors. Republican wealth primarily came from the conquest of the ancient powers (Greece, Macedon, Carthage, Egypt, Seleucia, etc) and tribute. So there wasn’t much income of this sort of loss.

#7 Barbaric Invasion
This was definitely a major cause. But it’s also a secondary cause. The invasions weren’t the responsibility of the Roman people: the Huns left Asia and caused the domino effect of fleeing peoples. However, many of those people sought asylum in the Empire and were refused or exploited. The most famous example was that of the Goths in the Eastern Empire, which resulted in the death of Valens.

But I say this is a secondary cause because a) if the Empire had been internally strong it would have been able to fend off the invasions, and b) if the Empire had responded humanly to the tribes, and allowed them entry and land (much of which, remember, was uninhabited and wild), there would have been no cause for war.

Internal

#1 Massive deflation
This isn’t a problem. The West witnessed massive deflation throughout the 19th century, during its period of greatest economic growth. Deflation is normal where an economy uses real money.

#2 Massive welfare state
Agreed. Major problem.

#4 Huge army maintenance
Again, agreed.

#5 Most of the army were non-Roman mercenaries
A huge problem. The army was wedded to money and power, not to the spirit of the Empire. But this problem had existed, after a fashion, since at least the time of Caesar, if not before in the time of Marius and Sulla. I think that, pretty much, the army fell apart after the Third Carthaginian War. But at all times the reason the army took this form was that commanders knew they could rely on non-Romans to aid them in the pursuit of power. This problem, then, reduces to political corruption.

#6 Massive debt
Yup, and linked to inflation. The Empire monetized its debt. See below.

#8 Political Corruption
A problem since Rome expanded beyond Latium. Its particular form in the Empire was civil war. It wasn’t (usually) as destructive as the civil wars of the 1st century BC, but it had the effect of destroying the Empire’s command structure.

#9 Economic disparity
Multi-layered. E.g. slavery existed, which hurt the economy. The main problem was always oligarchy, but for the most part the Empire had a free trade system. The people were wealthy by the standards of the time. The big problem was a) increasing legal enforcement of privilege, and b) lack of mass production. Lower class poverty wasn’t solved until the 19th century.

#10 Massive Entertainment/Performances subsidized by massive taxes which undermined the society
True, but these steadily disappeared into the late Empire due to Christianity.

Now, you leave out a number of important factors.

A) Inflation. The Emperors massively increased the money supply through debasement of the currency. There were a number of periodic inflationary bouts, and the effect was the destruction of the financial system. In particular, inflation was used to pay for vast government expenditures, such as on wars and imperial works. This inflation contributed to depopulation, the emptying of the cities, the failure of agriculture, and other economic problems.

B) As the army was deployed in civil wars, and filled with mercenaries who had no attachment to the spirit of the Empire, crime ran rampant and trade routes broke down. Thus, the primary source of wealth in the Empire – trade – became increasingly difficult. Couple this with inflation, and the entire economic system collapsed in stages. The result of this economic collapse was the gradual localization of the Empire: local populations became increasingly focused on their locality rather than the Empire as a whole; local warlords emerged (duces) who, in conjunction with their private armies (comitates), came to dominate this new local culture owing to their ability to protect the people. This was the birth of feudalism.

C) Christianity, according to Edward Gibbon. His argument is that it eroded the martial spirit of the Roman people. This is debatable in my opinion. The Christian Empire was just as violent as the pagan Empire.

So I’d sum up with this. The Empire fell primarily for the following reasons:

α) An elite few were able to gain control of the power of the state, and use that power for their own gain at the expense of all. The pursuit of this power led to: the corruption of the army, deficit spending (debt), inflation to monetize the debt, and massively expensive welfare to manipulate the masses.

β) This internal instability, located originally at the top, and spreading throughout the increasing imperial bureaucracy, weakened the Empire, rendering it unable to respond to the various problems it faced. For instance, poor foreign policy with the tribes, unable to respond militarily to the tribes and to the increase in crime/piracy, and the new phenomenon of religious intolerance and religious conflict.

γ) A people too weak in mind to seize their nation back. But this is unsurprising, because the populist sentiment in Rome was always statist. The liberty-movement in Rome was, ironically, the aristocracy of the Ciceronean variety. And this movement virtually died with the end of the Republic. Those few who remained were either quiet senators or careful philosophers. The only new populist sentiment was Christian, which, at the time, taught subservience to government on the principle of give to Caesar what is his (hence why the only Christian agitation at the time was for more government control of religion, to eradicate paganism).

The republic never transitioned into a democracy. It went from a more democratic republic to an oligarchy by the time of Caesar, to a monarchy under Augustus and his successors. Democracy was only known among the Greeks. The classical authors, when they praised Rome, praised it as a republic, not as a democracy. They weren't interested in democracy.

The catholic church is the true church of christ. It does not teach roman ideology but christian values.

Same mother fuckers who hired Assassins to kill anyone with differing faiths.

Sounds like True Christians.

Multiculturalism, but it wasn't really... there was the emperor cult...

I like your addendum, the reason I split the two is because following the treaty of Nicea and the following schism of the eastern and Western churches and the identification of the Byzantine and Roman empires with their respective faiths, I consider them two different entities following the sack of Rome in 400s.

Remember that the Roman empire fed of expansion and the absorption of tribute resources and people into the empire. This includes slaves gold and relics and a culture's wealth. The stopping of expansion cause a shortage of these cheap wealth and a focus on development and fostering of wealth which is arguably more time consuming and expensive.

I should validate that when I say deflation I mean deflation of the price of the coin issued by the Roman government so YES it is technically Inflation forgive me.

Thanks for the additions!

Nah! Study those things more deeply!

The first paragraph describes inflation, not deflation. Even if gold was cut (deflating the currency at the time), the state compensated by increasing the money supply through inflationary means. This caused rising prices.

Yes, they are.

Peter founded the catholic church. Even the bible comes from the catholic church.

So Christ was poor and humble, but the Church, like Rome, is one of the wealthiest empires on the planet.

Christ taught acceptance and tolerance, but the Church is exclusive and is roughly as warmongering as the Roman empire ever was.

I didn't say Christ had Roman values, I said the Church had Roman values.

To quote a famous man, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor an empire, nor Roman.

having actually READ rise and fall of the roman empire , my conclusion is the same as edward gibbons- uncontrolled immigration of the lower classes.

Debauchery, Tyranny, overreaching beyond capabilities *wars, etc*, diversity *To many conflicting cultures*, on and on.

Look at America today and our dear leader Nero.

Rome fell apart after it adopted christianity and hordes of blond blue eyed illegal immigrants rampaged across the border.

Peter also was batshit crazy and a purveyor of Amanita Muscaria.

yes, those blond blue eyed savages were the worst!

Sure it was an empire.

Ugh. Rome is in Europe dumbshit. Italians have both fair skinned types and dark skinned types, dark eyes and light eyes.
In fact the dark complected types are the end result of the Empires fucking the mud races.

Try again troll. The Romans were not Mexicans as much as those mixed muttlies like to think so.
Also... Fuck the Vatican!

You wouldn't want the church of christ to be rich so it can spread the gospel?