47 replies to this topic

[adriantc]

dre, on Apr 2 2008, 01:40 AM, said:

A house built with crap will fall even faster. Sort of like the US, but silly me, it's not an empire...

Now I would go that far... USA is some kind of a modern empire as long as they can do whatever they like on Earth... They said down with Afghanistan - no one protested most supported; then came Iraq - most protested, no one did anything... And I guess that sooner or later we will see the same story being played all over again with Iran or North Korea. I would be surprised if it wouldn't happen... So the USA is an empire; but not an empire like the British Empire was; or like the Roman Empire for that matter. The main difference is that the USA does not want territory, but wealth (can be read as "oil"). Because it is know that however controls the oil flow controls the world!

[Joshua]

adriantc, on Aug 14 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

It has been two weeks since I returned from a trip to Rome (among other cities). It was one of my dreams to visit the eternal city of Rome, the city that was once the center of the civilized world. Many of my friends didn't like Rome, because, as they said: "there are only a bunch of stones to be seen". I totally disagree with them. It's hard to express what I felt when I saw the Colosseum, the Imperial forums or Trajan's Column, so much history and power in a single city. It is amazing to think that I stood on the same spot where, 2000 years ago, stood the emperors of the world. It was also hard for me to understand, seeing today's italians, how they managed to conquer most of the known world.
In recent years I started having a passion for history. For my history is made up of 3 parts: Alexander The Great (considered one of the most successful military commanders in history and the world's biggest empire builder), The Roman Empire (the world's biggest empire and the most important of them all) and The Third Reich (Drittes Reich, Tausendjähriges Reich "Thousand-Year Empire").
As I stood among the ruins of ancient Rome I started thinking... how could the italians conquer the world since they are like my own people, the romanians (we are half latin) - very lazy and uncivilized (at least compared to some other countries). But the roman 2000 years ago couldn't have been lazy or uncivilized, they were the flower of menkind.
What follows is my very own opinion... it is not to be considered professional or 100% true. It is just my opinion!

There are a bunch of reasons why the Roman Empire fell. I will discuss them in the order of their importance:

1. Tyranny - When Julius Caesar killed the too corrupt Republic he had replaced a form of bad government with one, which at that time, seemed good. On the short run (~180 years) the empire was better then the old republic, but on the long run it was to be the core of the rotten empire. A long series of emperors had nothing to do with the well-beeing of the empire, they only saw their own interests and vices. Internal crisis weakend the imperial army which was no longer capable of defending the empire.
2. No more practice of virtues. In the time of the republic the romans built the empire step by step, discipline was a common word, law and order reigned everywhere. The barbarians where not (yet) afraid of the mighy legions. When the republic turned into the empire, it was near its peak. Pace came and there was no more need for a well disciplined army or brillliant generals; people mixed and the roman blood was no longer pure (it is strongly related to the difference I wazs talking about: ancient roman- modern italian). The barbarians where now afraid even when they heard the name of the Roman Empire. So on the base of peace and prosperity (the Pax Romana) the empire started to slide downwards. Soon the barbarians started to realise that the mighty roman army was not what it used to be. While they were attacking the boders of the empire the internal crisis decimated the flower of the roman army. And the fall was only at the beginning. Diocletian was the last good emperor to realise that the empire could no longer be governed by one person... At this point there was no turning back...
3. Christianity - some may not agree with me but I (and other people way smarter then me) think that Christianity is one of the most importnat reasons of the decline of the Roman Empire. Christianity told people that the life on earth is, for the most part useless. The material world is only temporary, so people no longer practiced the virtues and simply waited for the kingdom of heaven. The army was no longer considered a priority, because God will not reward the brave man of the legions. As I see it Christianity corroded the very pilars of the Roman society. As there was no more wish to fight, the end was no longer a problem of if, but of when.

I should state that I have been impressed (and probably heavly influenced) by Edward Gibbon's (arguably the most influential historian to write in English) History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a book which I strongly suggest reading to all those interested in this topic.

Hope you had the patience to read my long post. I would be happy if you would post you're own theories or even theoriesthat you have heard and agree with. Criticism is also welcome!

Ooh, history stuff! I like some of the points, but for different reasons than what you give.

For example, I think the decline of morals led to the fall of the empire not because it weakened the army, but because it led people to rise up against Rome. With Rome they'd feed people to lions and stick heads on stakes and kill anyone who got in their way. With some of those insane emperors, there was simply no justice to be seen. Rome's dictators could be as bloodthirsty as any English monarch and that resulted in a lot of people wanting to see the empire changed or else crumble.

With Christianity, that's a related issue. The people saw their friends and neighbors being killed peacefully for what they believed, that couldn't have influenced patriotism for Rome. Also, I would suggest that God actually destroyed the Roman empire for playing a part in the killing of His Son and persecuting His people. If you read Daniel 9, it actually predicts the Romans would destroy the temple of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) after Jesus (the Messiah) came. If God punished the Jewish leaders for killing their Messiah, how much more the pagan nation who participated?

Also, I would propose an interesting theory of mine... what if Rome didn't die? What if it just changed? Roman Catholicism is essentially a merger of the two forces that killed Jesus, Jewish Pharasaism and the Roman Empire.

I don't buy that Rome's empire suddenly adopted Christianity. The Christianity adopted was a warfaring religion with nothing in common to that of Jesus' where we're called to love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. Rather than distancing from idol worship the way Paul and the early Christians, it embraced paganism wholeheartedly.

I believe Roman Catholicism was a fake Christianity. Rome couldn't defeat Christianity by killing all the Christians because more kept coming to Christ. So instead it made a fake Christianity that it then used to declare as heretics all the real Christians. If you look at the early history of Roman Catholicism in destroying 'heretics', it's very similar to how the Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians.

Edited by Joshua, 12 April 2008 - 04:03 PM.

[Kraiser X Astral]

its really hard to control an empire and you cant make things perfect in organizing that kind of thng

[adriantc]

Joshua, on Apr 12 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

Ooh, history stuff! I like some of the points, but for different reasons than what you give.

For example, I think the decline of morals led to the fall of the empire not because it weakened the army, but because it led people to rise up against Rome. With Rome they'd feed people to lions and stick heads on stakes and kill anyone who got in their way. With some of those insane emperors, there was simply no justice to be seen. Rome's dictators could be as bloodthirsty as any English monarch and that resulted in a lot of people wanting to see the empire changed or else crumble.

With Christianity, that's a related issue. The people saw their friends and neighbors being killed peacefully for what they believed, that couldn't have influenced patriotism for Rome. Also, I would suggest that God actually destroyed the Roman empire for playing a part in the killing of His Son and persecuting His people. If you read Daniel 9, it actually predicts the Romans would destroy the temple of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) after Jesus (the Messiah) came. If God punished the Jewish leaders for killing their Messiah, how much more the pagan nation who participated?

Also, I would propose an interesting theory of mine... what if Rome didn't die? What if it just changed? Roman Catholicism is essentially a merger of the two forces that killed Jesus, Jewish Pharasaism and the Roman Empire.

I don't buy that Rome's empire suddenly adopted Christianity. The Christianity adopted was a warfaring religion with nothing in common to that of Jesus' where we're called to love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. Rather than distancing from idol worship the way Paul and the early Christians, it embraced paganism wholeheartedly.

I believe Roman Catholicism was a fake Christianity. Rome couldn't defeat Christianity by killing all the Christians because more kept coming to Christ. So instead it made a fake Christianity that it then used to declare as heretics all the real Christians. If you look at the early history of Roman Catholicism in destroying 'heretics', it's very similar to how the Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians.

I can't say I agree with you... I'm an atheist so by nature I like to put the blame on the church... For some time I believed that Christianity was something, if not invented, but at leased sanctioned by Rome to empower it further, since it is a known fact that religion is the easiest way to control the masses. But it wasn't the time to control because the romans were, for better or for worse, pretty intellectual, a big part of them alphabetized (knew to read). At least in Rome's golden time. A people aware of themselves would be very hard to control. It was shown during the Dark Ages when lack of culture meant a much powerful church. So the fortunes of the church are strongly related to the (un)fortunes of the people. That's why Christianity wasn't something planned... although a few centuries later it was used for the first time by the emperor Constantine who was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers. But by that time the empire was already weakened.

As for your theory - it is worth discussing... It's actually a pretty common theory. Many historians think that the Roman Empire was never entirely destroyed, or at least that it did only centuries later then the official date. I have a book discussing this theory - it's called The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins. In the book he uses archiological evidence to show that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a tragically event for all of it's inhabitants. What he finds shocking is the collapse of complexity of the Roman society. Most of the things the Romans took for granted dissapared completely after the fall of the Roman Empire. One thing was so shocking I remember it even today... The scientists too ice samples from the poles and from the ice they measured the amount of CO2 in the air. What the amount of CO2 shows how developed was the industry. What they found out after the measurements was that the industry never reached the same level as the Roman Empire period until the industrial revolution - some more then 1000 years after! Basically what that means is that because of the fall of the Roman Empire the European world (and most of the rest of the world) stagnated for over 1000 years. The trade levels of that period, compared with ones from other periods also suggest the same conclusion. The decline of the quality of life was so big, so fast that only a destruction could explain. What do you think about that?

[iGuest]

opinion on fall of the roman empire.Why Did The Roman Empire Fall?

I don't believe for a moment the blame was in the hands of Julius Caesar, he was just being a strong leader and if you want controll you need to take out the competition which is still done today all the time, he had obviously studied his Machiavelli, I believe the fall was because of christianity, the soldiers and the people lost hope and reason to fight because it was said there was not place for them in heaven. You cannot lead an empire without the heart, the courage, and the bravery of your people.

-reply by iceGT

 

[georgebaileyster]

Well, this is certainly a refreshing post, a few more like it please....

Now just a few comments. Firstly, I noticed the reference to Hitler and the third Reich, it should, however, be clearly understood that this all stemmed from the first Reich of the 1860's with particular reference to Namibia and the first death camps. Hitler was indoctrinated by the generals of this period in his youth which is how the later atrocities came into being. In the interim, the Germans had re-written their history books to hide these earlier times of which they were ashammed.

I cannot see the theory of the rise and fall of empires on a proportionate time scale to be correct as I can't think of any other which would match. The British Empire which was purely based upon economics and business in that developing the nations of the empire drove the industry at home as well as world markets in staple products such as tea, rubber and sugar. It only took less than fifty years to collapse due to the two world wars.....

I am, however curios as to WHY the technology of ancient empires always died along side the empire itself though... Does anyone have theories as to why this is? After all, does ot make sense that the next civilisation doesn't need the same level of sanitation or water for instance?

[networker]

I don't think the Roman empire fell.I think it just
slowly crumbled away as other powers grew.
Not only that but where there is power, there is
corruption.Rome probably became really corrupt
as well with it's leaders very self serving.
This helped to slowly rot it away as it
crumbled.

[jaychant]

georgebaileyster, on Mar 27 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

I am, however curios as to WHY the technology of ancient empires always died along side the empire itself though... Does anyone have theories as to why this is? After all, does ot make sense that the next civilisation doesn't need the same level of sanitation or water for instance?

When a single government controls advanced technology and bloody war causes it to collapse, especially when that war was with uncivilized barbarians, the technology is lost because the knowledge of that technology is never passed to someone else. Because of this, whenever a war causes a dramatic change in power, human civilization effectively gets blasted back hundreds of years in development.

[Alex Cicala]

I think the Roman Empire was a fad for the big boys of politics and Law. (Also I think Poli is latin is Evil, and tics is Blood Sucking Creatures )
Anyway the Romans got bored of the fad, and this is when the Empire broke down. It's like how other countries and empire ruled. Same thing happened there. Now it's Obama has control over alot of things, eventually this US over the World thing will stop soon, next country might be North Korea :/

[iGuest]

I don't really AGREE THAT Rome fell because of Christianity...Come on.Most likely it fell because of the greed of roman citizens and their emperors.I also think that it had something to do with Rome getting poorer and poorer...Therefore, not being able to provide work for the poor. The poor then started rebelling. They were the most likely cause to why the Rpman Empire fell. 

-reply by Lola D