>>56518 barbar migration overwhelming the legions, religious turmoil, mercury poisoning in the nobility, great distances from centers of administration to the borders with no technology to compensate, hunnic, vandal, gothic, and sassanid invasions weakening both the east and west
>empire sucked compared to republic >having large cities in a time before epidemiology is just begging for massive plagues >economy largely dependent on loot began to suffer severe setbacks when all the easy pickings were gone or they ran into an enemy that cost more to fight than you gained in booty (See: Parthians) >without the moderating force of the Senate, the military is so dominant in politics that it becomes impossible to cut military spending without getting killed >the burden of supporting the same level of military spending with a decreased tax base causes over-taxation >over-taxation causes ordinary Roman citizens to do whatever they can to avoid any representative of government, as the Roman government now costs them more than it's worth >amid the crisis of the Third Century, Diocletian goes full commie >nomadic raiders on horseback are very hard to deal with using an army of infantry
These last few factors led to the villa system becoming the manorial system of the medieval era, the Diocletian laws becoming serfdom, and the creation of a feudal nobility to meet the demands of cavalry warfare.
>>56518 Their borders were too large to justify expanding their military, many institutes/organisations either expand or they collapse (just the way things go). This could be further explained by the Roman empire's Christianisation (which has a pacifying effect) and/or its effect domination of all European trade that really mattered. All these factors had the effect of making the Roman people soft.
An increase of population in north Germany (Saxony), southern Sweden (Skane) and northern Poland (Greater Gotaland/Pomerania, depending if you ask the Goths or Slavs), caused mass southern migration. Furthermore, after the Turkic invasion of Ukraine/present day Romania, where many Germanic people had settled, these people went westward to flee the Turkic tribes.
The schism between the west and east deepened and widened, to the point that the east effectively had its own antipope (the ecumenical patriarch) and effectively created the orthodox church. This culminated with Pope Leo crowning Charlemagne the western Roman empire, something that pretty much negated all authority/de jure presence of the Byzantine empire in Italy and Illyria.
So by 476, Euric held Spain and western France as the "Visigothic kingdom" and placed his brother on the throne of the Kingdom of Italy (which included modern day Slovenia and a fair bit of the Balkans). By this stage, there was exactly nothing Roman about the authority in Rome and so you can succinctly say: there was no western Roman empire by 476.
>>56518 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.
>>56518 plenty of reasons mentioned but my favorite factor is something called "peak wood"
basically every economic activity in the Empire required lumber in one form or another, and the Romans had basically stripped the easily acsessable land along the mediterranian coastlines fairly early on.
from then on they had to go further and further away just to ship in the wood they needed in quantity as well as quality.
land based travel was obscenely expensive at the time, especially shipping goods (pic related) so most things were shipped by water when possible, this effectively limited the Roman borders to the Rhine and Danube more or less.
as time went on shipping to Rome itself began to cost more and more, especially when it came to massive building projects. in this respect Byzantium in Thrace offered the perfect location because it was far closer to the primarily Easter lumber sources, as well as easily assessed by a number of river systems across the Empire and beyond.
so while costs continued to rise in Rome itself, Constantinople reaped the benefits of far more lucrative shipping and the majority of building projects.
pic again related, the difference is staggering between land and sea travel.
Western Rome was, despite actually having Rome, poor and unpopulated. When compared to Eastern Rome.
Eastern Rome paid off the Germans and the Huns.
Western Rome eventually became Germanic because of migration. The military was mostly Germanic formations instead of Roman Legions. Some of the later Emperors were Germans. Romans started wearing pants. Eventually the Germans decided they wanted what Rome had but not to be Roman. So they carved out their various kingdoms from Western clay.
>>57471 Empires are created by gangs who originally united when resources were scarce and there was a mutual benefit for cooperation. Once the 'empire' reaches its peak, meaning that it can acquire resources at little effort, the original codes and culture that defined it begin to unravel. Social/political degeneracy occurs and the empire becomes vulnerable and eventually unravels. So yes, they all die, or become so very different from their origins that they can no longer be called an empire
The Plague hollowed out their native population. Combine with easy living, and a lack of campaigns of conquest (ie zero loot) and they couldn't get enough actual Romans to be soldiers.
Instead they had to bring in tons of German mercenaries. With their economy going to the shitter as >>57452 described, they paid them with places to settle. Basically gave up their land to them. When your military is full of mercs, you don't have a loyal military. As their money dried up, their allies would turn on them regularly.
Xeno managed to skillfully avoid getting overthrown by his German military commanders and basically ensured the continued existence of the empire in the East. In the west the emperors just couldn't do it.
After the crisis of the third century, the Romans raised taxes a lot, while people conquered by barbarians didn't have to pay all that much, so they weren't as bothered by it as they might otherwise have been.
>>56518 the roman treasury relied on plunder from conquests. The senatorial class became rich of this plunder, became decadent and stopped having kids. This lack of kids became a lack of legionaries, which ultimately forced the emperor to hire mercenaries for for the military Eventually the cost of the mercenaries and lack of targets for conquest caused the imperial treasury to decline, cutting of mos of the states ability to fund public works. Thus the emperor had to pay out of his own pocket to maintain Rome. Nobody wanted to be emperor i they had to pay so all the later emperors were shitty af. Rome was poorly managed for a couple hundred years and just collapsed under the slightest pressure from the barbarians. Also, extensive slavery reduced technological innovation and centralized economic power away from middle and lower classes.
>>56518 I assume you mean the western part. Too many reasons to count. The west had always been the poorer and unsettled part of the empire, with the exception of Italy and parts of North Africa.
Climate change in the east coupled with Attila the Hun's conquests forced Germanic tribes westwards, and the western empire was already stretched thin as it is. Military careers had become less and less popular among native romans and was outsourced to germanics who were paid in land. The crux of the matter is that the newly arrived tribes also wanted land. So they got hired as feoderati soldiers to defend against other barbarians, even their own people sometimes. This heavy reliance on foreign mercenaries who were only paid in land led to a massive surge in barbarian influence since many of these foreign elements were more loyal to their own tribe rather than to the Roman state. It also inevitably led to the barbarization of the roman army.
The last emperors with the exception of Nepos and Majorian were puppets of powerful germanic chieftains who deposed of uppity emperors at their leisure. And since the senate had been stripped of all real power there wasn't any safety net for the roman state. Control the emperor and you control the empire.
It didn't help that the eastern empire simply bribed tribes who had invaded their territory, to go west. They also paid off any Huns who came their way and directed them into the west.
Every single empire has fallen, and every single empire will fall.
There comes a time in an empire's life when it grows weak and decadent. When it no longer has the power to survive. That is when outside powers take over, and integrate the Empire's knowledge into it's own.
Not necessarily. The empires of antiquity and the empires of the colonial era were built on a false understanding of what it means to be an empire. In the modern era, if any empire were to come into existence and view itself from a completely statist position and embrace the realist of realpolitik, there's no reason it couldn't craft its policies in such a way that it would survive indefinitely. Such a state would need to be absolutely brutal and ruthless in its foreign policy, but it could happen.
>>62071 I doubt ISIS has a proper understanding of realpolitik. The central role of religion in their societal organization is a weakness as it was in Christian Byzantium and the caliphates of the past.
The Roman empire suffered a disastrous economic collapse during the third century. Civil war destroyed resources, driving up prices; and barbarian invaders were increasingly bought off, which led to a major debasing of the silver coinage. The population was increasingly poverty stricken, while paradoxically the new Church rapidly grew fabulously wealthy and powerful as it attracted the Roman elites.
The establishment of the Christian Church witnessed a massive transfer of wealth from the lower to the upper classes, coupled with an aggressive centralization of political power: much like what is going on in our world today. This is why Gibbon describes the advent of Christianity as an "awful scene".
I would say that feminism has something to do with it.
TL:DR >Feminism made marriage and realtionships more than worthless for men >Men don't marry women anymore >people don't reproduce anymore >empire weakens and get violently conquered
It was a form of "behavioral sink". And it looks like no one learned this side of history, because we're doing it again. Take a look at the herbivore male in Japan, I dare you to tell me it's not a consequense of feminism.
And it's happening in the "first world" as well, it's just hidden by immigration
>>56518 Germans were getting wealthier and better at agriculture from interaction with the romans.
As they got wealthier, more numerous, and access to better metal-working they became more of a threat and they were able to fight the romans on equal footing. A few decades of misrule then weakened the empire enough to allow them to begin to take over.
>>64441 Do you have any sources that indicate a rise of "feminism" in the Roman Empire?
The only thing I can really think of that even resembled that was Anna Commene, which at best can be described "yeah okay I'm a woman, but I was a woman who was BORN IN THE PURPLE so I'm an exception".
>>56518 >Extremely inefficient bureaucracy for its size. Communicating and cooperating was extremely hard. >Shitty culture full of people that put ambition over political stability. >Military interference in politics became normalized. Strength of Roman neighbors grew to the point where they were a constant and significant threat.
Ultimately, the Empire was divided into two. The West couldn't endure itself without the wealth and manpower of the East, and the East was chipped away by eroding powers over the next millennium.
>>64697 >>64726 Most of these are hilariously bad, they have zero peer review and are just some random amateur historian mouthing off his poorly cited pet opinion.
The first one is okay, it cites fairly well, but it makes some weird leaps of logic and assumptions that are more than a bit questionable. Men were discriminated against by Roman Civic law in marriages? What? Women were considered borderline property in almost all cases. If anything, the Franks were more "feminist" than the Romans, the Sallic law had massive fines for calling a woman a whore.
>>64888 You made the claim brosef. Support it. Bring in some primary sources that express a sincere interest in the Roman Empire in expanding the rights and privileges of women to a degree that could even vaguely be described as "feminism".
>>65027 The first source is pretty good, but at lot of these are garbage and you obviously put these here just to fill out space.
>Alimenta >sign of "feminism"
All your sources more or less indicate the same thing. Women had SOME rights (very few) and were still considered clearly subordinate to their Patriarch. Arguing that this constitutes "feminism' is a bit sketchy at best. Your claim that THIS is a major reason as to why the Roman empire fell is also more than a bit sketchy. Esepcially considering it doesn't factor into many other far more important reasons as to why the Roman empire fell. I.E growth of Germanic wealth, misrule, overextension, civil disorder.
Furthermore, many of these laws existed in Germanic groups as well, the Sallic law of the Franks had numerous protections for women, and stiff fines for those who harmed them that exceeded the fines prescribed for the same crime against men.
>>64621 >Ultimately, the Empire was divided into two. The West couldn't endure itself without the wealth and manpower of the East, and the East was chipped away by eroding powers over the next millennium. The empire was divided long ago in more than 2 parts to protect the borders and to appease local interests. The west suffered more because it was richer, and its riches and manpower was depleted, which made the east look richer.
The "east had more peoiple and was richer" is just a meme. Yes, after centuries of hardship, sackings and wars in the west they lost all their power. The empire fell and the greek slaves, now freed, started calling themselves "roman"
>>62053 >there's no reason it couldn't craft its policies in such a way that it would survive indefinitely Which would require studies of historical empires and an observation of why they rose to power and why they eventually declined, and we all know that we never learn from history.
>>57520>>57593 That's...wow, that's a new one that I haven't heard of before, but that makes sense.
>>61982 You can't just die of being old, though. There's always a cause - liver failure, heart failure, immune system too weak to fight off a disease, etc. - systems weakened to the point where they don't work anymore. The point is that there's an actual *thing* that causes you to die, not simply the state of being old.
And it's the same with empires. The Roman Empire didn't die simply because it was old, it died because of some failure that resulted from its age. Or multiple failures, as the case may be.
>>56518 Hard times breed hard men, hard men create good times, good times breed soft men.
After their rise to power the quality of the people degenerated over the generations - sons were born in the luxury, comfort and wealth that their hard-working fathers had created for them through blood and sweat. Compare it to the WW1/WW2 generations who later on paved way for the baby boomers.
>>65576 It was concentrated in italy though the tributes the provinces had to pay. Which is why the whole "the east was richer" is a huge lie. But of course, it all needed an initial investment or wealth to do the conquering.
>>65563 As you can see, wealth of trade flowed through Egypt rather than the ME. And I'd rather believe in a map made by Angus Maddison than a random fuck who doesn't even know the situation in 14AD.
>having large cities in a time before epidemiology is just begging for massive plagues
>economy largely dependent on loot began to suffer severe setbacks when all the easy pickings were gone or they ran into an enemy that cost more to fight than you gained in booty (See: Parthians)
>without the moderating force of the Senate, the military is so dominant in politics that it becomes impossible to cut military spending without getting killed
Technically true, but not a factor at all.
>the burden of supporting the same level of military spending with a decreased tax base causes over-taxation
True, but you haven't specified what caused said tax decline.
>over-taxation causes ordinary Roman citizens to do whatever they can to avoid any representative of government, as the Roman government now costs them more than it's worth
Sort of true, but incredibly simplistic. Read some Roman edicts.
>amid the crisis of the Third Century, Diocletian goes full commie
Literally what the fuck?
>nomadic raiders on horseback are very hard to deal with using an army of infantry
Rome barely fought any horseback using nomadic raiders, and plus they're not that difficult to deal with when your army has a shit ton of artillery, huge stone walled forts and is primarily armed with spears.
>These last few factors led to the villa system becoming the manorial system of the medieval era, the Diocletian laws becoming serfdom, and the creation of a feudal nobility to meet the demands of cavalry warfare.
Either you've skimmed wikipedia to reach some conclusions based on the longue duree of history or have read an author who genuinely knows fuck all.
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.