The Roman Empire was already falling since the assassination of Severus Alexander. It just took a really long time. Saying Constantine is to blame implies that the empire would have pieced itself back together if it remained pagan, but all the evidence indicates that that wasn't true.
People like Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine, and Theodosius were powerful personalities who held the empire together, but nobody was able to reverse the decline. As soon as the reigning badass died the empire would just revert into another civil war, Christian or not.
Every single one of the emperors who have stories of crazy incest, brutality, madness, etc, and who were not deified, are all the same ones who tried to curtail the senatorial classes' power. The ones that didn't and even reversed these changes, all went down as literal gods.
Now guess who wrote the histories of these Emperors.
Whatever list you make, do not ignore great emperors from the Crisis of the Third Century. There were some based ones there, like Gallienus, who basically saved the Empire from collapse, Probus and Aurelian, who reunified it after it was divided in three.
There never was a scheme. The previous emperors weren't getting laid but Marcus was. Commodus was sane and healthy as far as anyone could tell. For Marcus to have adopted a successor would have been ludicrous.
>>17691 he is only popular because he is famous, literally a meme.
If you studied him you would know he was neither a brilliant administrator nor a brilliant tactician, but someone who ruined the treasury so excellently accumulated by Anastasius, who made a lot of false predictions while invading africa and italy (thinking the province would pay for themselves) and was a coward who tried to flee nika riots and never commanded soldiers on the battlefield.
Anastasius, even Heracilus is a better emperor, for all that land loss he literally saved empire from the point of utter destruction and personally lead armies deep into persia, Justinian just overspend the cash that was gathered by his predecessor while sitting on his ass in Constantinople
>>19468 It is so goddamn irrelevant compared to the mass disasters that had been afflicting Rome for hundreds of years prior Paul even setting foot in Italy. The idea that Rome was torn apart by a civil war between Christians and Pagans is so goddamn false that the idea can be dismissed by greentext.
>>19539 >The idea that Rome was torn apart by a civil war between Christians and Pagans is so goddamn false that the idea can be dismissed by greentext. That's a bit of a strawman isn't it? I think any massive institutional/cultural change in a large country is indicitive of a crisis at the very least, and I would be very interested in reading an argument which posits that it wouldn't contribute to a certain extent to said crisis.
While I agree, there is probably some level of truth, just not nearly as bad as they say.
In the end of the day Nero was loved by the common people but hated by the aristocracy and senators, because he was trying to marginalize their power. According to Seneca the guy was extremely paranoid so he probably thought everyone was out to get him. Which inadvertently he caused that to happen.
>>19876 The Western Roman Empire, as Rome had been split by Imperial Decree, was laid low by a toxic mixture of centuries long corruption which was compounded by: The mass migration of barbarians caused by climate change, ineffectual governance as the empire had grown too large to manage. The military which had to manage this mess incorporated more mercenaries and barbarians who had no patriotic loyalty to Rome, and when mistreated caused frequent rebellions and sackings which demonstrated the weakness of the city-state. The title of Emperor was literally sold by the Praetorian so weak and vulnerable was the fucking head office of the entire empire, with the few successful personalities only maintaining this mess until they died then succession wars would immediately undo everything done. The rise of Christianity came at the time of the Western Roman Empires fall, but they had not a jot to do with eachother.
>>20207 Borders aren't an indication of stability, the Empires large areas arguably caused its inability to defend itself. Hell look at the Mongols, largest empire in the world yet gone in a page of history,
Of course the nature of the Marius Reforms meant that it was incredibly difficult not to wage a military campaign because of the terrible unemployment of well-trained soldiers who demand more land as promised.
>>20125 The Pax Romana was a period of peace unprecedented in the Roman Empire, but you can't say it was the height, that was a long period of stagnation because Rome's "conquer for more resources" method was always how the Empire kept healthy.
Territory-wise, it would be under Trajan. Influence-wise, it would be right around the time of Constantine where Rome was so influential China was dimly aware of it's existence halfway across the world. Society-wise, probably right around the founding of the Empire at Augustus Military-wise it would probably be around the fall of Macedon where Rome's legions were so militarily far ahead of everyone else that only the Parthians and co. could fight Rome with horse archers, even then they still got their shit rocked later on.
>>20840 Good answer, loosely related but are there any decent strategies or counters to horse archers? It just seems interesting how the Mongols mastery of this one troop type made them indestructible in war.
>>20341 All empires start to degrade and crumble once their institutions stop functioning as they are supposed to, and external factors can obviously exacerbate this (or cause unrelated crisesof course). Anything that worsens the institutions or changes them sufficiently rapidly will destabilise the empire, and a shock of sufficient magnitude will lead to its decline and end. These factors are interrelated and feedback into each other. The switch from polytheism and the change of christianity from illegal to mandatory in rome is definitely indicative of contemporary institutional weakness, and as a modifier of the religious institution and people's way of life at a very rapid pace, it most definitely contributed to general instability.
Now I agree with the fact that the roman empire had it coming for a while, but I don't think that the rise of christianity is free from blame here.
horse archers are useless in sieges. you can pillage all you want around it, but you don't dare move past it until it's fallen because then you'll have an army behind you that wants to stick a sword in your shitter
>>21036 >essential checks and balances after his egotistical coup like Sulla did.
All Sulla was murder three fourths of his opposition and then not have any oversight while his subordinates from the war proscribed hundreds of innocents for cash and petty grudges. Then Sulla got bored, returned everything to the old and corrupt, fucked off and died.
The minute he died popularii senators started to gain support again. Caesar's agrarian reforms were absolutely imperative to stop more social war scenarios. His assassination was a tragedy.
>I the proud defender of the Gaulic peoples must defend my peoples from the encroaching Latin threat. >And I shall do this by burning all the Aquitani villages from Bouges to what will eventually be known as Lyons
>>19157 It's not a lie that Latins were acting like niggers. Venetians and Genoans from Constantinople used to chimp against each other quite often, essentially damaging Byzantine property in the process.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.