IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Tags
This content has not been tagged yet
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic

Why Did The Roman Empire Fall?

, The reasons for its decline and fall

happy_cube
no avatar
Newbie
*
Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 8-November 07
Member No.: 52,653



Post #21 post Nov 8 2007, 09:50 PM
My reasons are the following

1. The empire was overwhelmed by barbaric European tribes

2. The empire grew too large and there where not enough soldiers to protect it.

3. The soldiers where loyal to the local area and not to Rome

4. Over time the empire became a bit more peaceful and they where overwhelmed by more powerful enemies.

5. Mistakes and foolish emperors weakened the empire and/or the government.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Skyfalling
no avatar
Newbie [Level 1]
*
Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 21-April 07
From: Canada
Member No.: 41,989



Post #22 post Nov 8 2007, 10:13 PM
From what I know, the empire ended at Romulus Augustus (ironic, seeing as Romulus was the founder of Rome and Augustus considered one of the best emperors). I thought it was something like Romulus Augustus gave up the crown to Odovacer, the barbarian warlord of the time. Also, I do agree with the army beginning to fall apart. Since a certain emperor (I forget who) allowed non-Romans to become citizens, then the non-Romans joined the army. Because they were not originally from Rome they wouldn't be as faithful as previous generations of that beautiful army (like during the Punic Wars).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyon2
no avatar
The Ethical Hacker
***********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 1,235
Joined: 27-May 05
From: Portugal (Europe)
Member No.: 7,566
myCENT:76.38



Post #23 post Nov 12 2007, 07:38 PM
Can you explain a bit more your theory adriantc?

How and why exactly you think that happens to an empire?

Lets say there is an empire that was built in 10 years, lets call it the trap17 empire for instance, is it correct that the time the trap17 empire will take to completely fall, if it will in fact, it will take also 10 years or how much time to fall?

Exaplin a bit more if you please, so that i could give you my opinion on it, and correctly. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Lyon2: Nov 12 2007, 07:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
adriantc
no avatar
Privileged Member
*********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 541
Joined: 31-January 05
From: Bucharest, Romania
Member No.: 3,516
myCENT:76.28



Post #24 post Apr 1 2008, 12:35 PM
QUOTE(Lyon2 @ Nov 12 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]356598[/snapback]
Can you explain a bit more your theory adriantc?

How and why exactly you think that happens to an empire?

Lets say there is an empire that was built in 10 years, lets call it the trap17 empire for instance, is it correct that the time the trap17 empire will take to completely fall, if it will in fact, it will take also 10 years or how much time to fall?

Exaplin a bit more if you please, so that i could give you my opinion on it, and correctly. Thanks.


Yes... that is my theory and it has been verified for many empires... the Roman Empire, the Third Reich... right now I can't think of other examples that contradict my theory. Think of an empire like a house. A house built fast, with prefabricated parts, will crumble just as fast as it built. Of course on the larger scale of an empire the building materials are the citizens, the institutions and the army. The strength of an empire and it's institutions come from the process of trial and error. A strong empire must grow exactly like and organism... it must have an infancy, before growing to become adult. The Roman empire grow from virtually nothing to almost everything.
First of all an empire in it's infancy conquers (historically it is military conquest, recently economic conquest) and the basis of it's power are the citizens - without their support it doesn't stand a chance. A conquered nation cannot provide that support since at first it will oppose the conquerers. It's citizens won't join the army since it's not their fight... Beside that, a conquered nation may not have the same institutions so it requires time to adapt. Before committing to the goal of the conquering empire it's citizens must feel part of the empire and that too requires time... It's all about cohesion! And that cohesion can only be archived by developing the conquered nations not only by using up all their resources.
The Third Reich never stood a chance because it employed a "terror" strategy. The Nazis, with their stupid theory that they where the master race ignored the conquered nations, using them as slaves. Maybe the Germans are smarter (my own opinion) and they deserve to rule us all, but not like master vs. slave, but equals sharing the same goal.
I think my theory can be applied to the current ruler of the world... the "American Empire". It was built very fast, on the basis of two world wars. Maybe they don't admit it, but their fortunes represented the death and horror of millions. If there weren't for the 2 World Wars America would not rule the world this days. It is as simple as that. The "American Empire" is not focused on people, but rather on money. It doesn't control the world military, but financially - a fact that makes it weaker. It was built in 50 years, it shall end just as fast. And, as another personal opinion, it's downfall has started some years ago...

This post has been edited by adriantc: Apr 1 2008, 12:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dre
no avatar
Super Member
*********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 435
Joined: 3-January 07
From: The West Side
Member No.: 36,424



Post #25 post Apr 1 2008, 10:40 PM
QUOTE
A house built fast, with prefabricated parts, will crumble just as fast as it built.

A house built with crap will fall even faster. Sort of like the US, but silly me, it's not an empire...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
adriantc
no avatar
Privileged Member
*********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 541
Joined: 31-January 05
From: Bucharest, Romania
Member No.: 3,516
myCENT:76.28



Post #26 post Apr 11 2008, 07:53 PM
QUOTE(dre @ Apr 2 2008, 01:40 AM) [snapback]382651[/snapback]
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!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joshua
no avatar
Joshua
*********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 606
Joined: 23-June 05
From: Illinois
Member No.: 8,571



Post #27 post Apr 12 2008, 03:57 PM
QUOTE(adriantc @ Aug 14 2006, 10:33 AM) [snapback]273962[/snapback]
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! wink.gif


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.

This post has been edited by Joshua: Apr 12 2008, 04:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kraiser X Astral
no avatar
Newbie [Level 2]
**
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 11-April 08
Member No.: 60,652



Post #28 post Apr 13 2008, 03:44 AM
its really hard to control an empire and you cant make things perfect in organizing that kind of thng
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
adriantc
no avatar
Privileged Member
*********
Group: [HOSTED]
Posts: 541
Joined: 31-January 05
From: Bucharest, Romania
Member No.: 3,516
myCENT:76.28



Post #29 post Apr 23 2008, 09:49 AM
QUOTE(Joshua @ Apr 12 2008, 06:57 PM) [snapback]384684[/snapback]
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?


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic

Collapse

> Similar Topics

    Topic Title Replies Topic Starter Views Last Action
No New Posts   5 Echo_of_thunder 98 23rd November 2008 - 03:02 PM
Last post by: snowisawsome
No New Posts   2 Society 493 21st June 2006 - 06:29 AM
Last post by: adriantc
No New Posts   7 synderoxide 484 2nd November 2004 - 09:10 PM
Last post by: badinfluence
No New Posts   0 Saint_Michael 282 29th June 2006 - 02:08 PM
Last post by: Saint_Michael
No New Posts   5 xboxrulz 989 26th March 2005 - 09:14 PM
Last post by: xboxrulz
No New Posts   0 -Caranmellon- 401 16th March 2005 - 07:30 PM
Last post by: -Caranmellon-
No New Posts   1 -Krock6400- 602 16th December 2004 - 01:49 AM
Last post by: -fusethemusic-
No New Posts   12 -djbungle- 952 21st January 2005 - 08:09 AM
Last post by: -sandman-
No New Posts   1 -djbungle- 341 14th March 2005 - 11:42 PM
Last post by: -DarthBob-
No New Posts   0 lordofthesabbath 980 1st May 2005 - 03:19 AM
Last post by: lordofthesabbath