Topic: Why did the Roman Empire fall?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #108,577
You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates... Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Nero had a public wedding to a boy.
- Richard Nixon, historian
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #1,215,882
Ol' Tricky Dick was known for being a very well-rounded individual.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,886
Lady D !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,889
Something about armies and not enough legies?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,892
They didn't have enough video games.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,894
KL doesn't post here anymore, sorry.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,897
@previous (F)
Haha! It was me all along!
But no, Anonymous F, I have no idea what he means by the "last six" Roman Emperors. John V to Constantine XI, not gay, as far as I know. We don't know anything about Romulus Augustus, so that rules out the last six Western Emperors. He mentions Nero, but even if he means the first six, only two of them had historical sources allege homosexual activity, I think.
Most likely, Anonymous F, I think that Nixon has no idea what he was taking about, and was just another link in a long chain of modern-day idiots projecting their own biases onto ancient civilizations.
Haha! It was me all along!
But no, Anonymous F, I have no idea what he means by the "last six" Roman Emperors. John V to Constantine XI, not gay, as far as I know. We don't know anything about Romulus Augustus, so that rules out the last six Western Emperors. He mentions Nero, but even if he means the first six, only two of them had historical sources allege homosexual activity, I think.
Most likely, Anonymous F, I think that Nixon has no idea what he was taking about, and was just another link in a long chain of modern-day idiots projecting their own biases onto ancient civilizations.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,901
Because of multi-culturalism.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,904
@1,215,897 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> another link in a long chain of modern-day idiots projecting their own biases onto ancient civilizations
what’s crazy is another five hundred years people will be saying similar nonsense about us
> another link in a long chain of modern-day idiots projecting their own biases onto ancient civilizations
what’s crazy is another five hundred years people will be saying similar nonsense about us
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,908
@1,215,901 (G)
Anon, I'm sorry, but I do not agree with this. I am worried that you are projecting your own political ideas onto the Romans, a distant ancient culture. Because, in an empire of that size, multiculturalism is an inevitability They had Syrians, Brits, they had Spaniards, Africans, and Gauls too. Even back in the Republican era, there were Gallic senators. Trajan, who was proclaimed "the best Emperor", grew up in Spain. Not long after him, another relatively good Emperor, Septimius Severus, came from northern Africa. In general, the Romans were, notoriously, open to foreign religious and cultural ideas. That Christianity thing, back in the day, was just another Eastern cult that took off with them, you know.
You'd be a little more on-track if you'd talked about rebellious foederati armies in the 4th and 5th centuries, which may have been what you were thinking about here. But even they, I think, were a symptom of more fundamental problems of economic collapse and the Roman military becoming increasingly detached from Imperial control. The Empire only had to turn to foreign armies who weren't loyal to Rome, in the first place, because they'd been ravaged by disease and economic troubles and civil war, and could no longer produce the professional military that they had before.
@previous (H)
Absolutely. And you can see it happening now, arguably. I know it's a relatively small thing, but just think about how much ideas on "acceptable media" have changed. Today, in this decade, jokes from just a few decades ago are viewed as socially unacceptable. Imagine how much things could change given even more time.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, I think. Human culture changes over time, it's inevitable. I just wish that people wouldn't judge the past by their own modern standards.
Anon, I'm sorry, but I do not agree with this. I am worried that you are projecting your own political ideas onto the Romans, a distant ancient culture. Because, in an empire of that size, multiculturalism is an inevitability They had Syrians, Brits, they had Spaniards, Africans, and Gauls too. Even back in the Republican era, there were Gallic senators. Trajan, who was proclaimed "the best Emperor", grew up in Spain. Not long after him, another relatively good Emperor, Septimius Severus, came from northern Africa. In general, the Romans were, notoriously, open to foreign religious and cultural ideas. That Christianity thing, back in the day, was just another Eastern cult that took off with them, you know.
You'd be a little more on-track if you'd talked about rebellious foederati armies in the 4th and 5th centuries, which may have been what you were thinking about here. But even they, I think, were a symptom of more fundamental problems of economic collapse and the Roman military becoming increasingly detached from Imperial control. The Empire only had to turn to foreign armies who weren't loyal to Rome, in the first place, because they'd been ravaged by disease and economic troubles and civil war, and could no longer produce the professional military that they had before.
@previous (H)
Absolutely. And you can see it happening now, arguably. I know it's a relatively small thing, but just think about how much ideas on "acceptable media" have changed. Today, in this decade, jokes from just a few decades ago are viewed as socially unacceptable. Imagine how much things could change given even more time.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, I think. Human culture changes over time, it's inevitable. I just wish that people wouldn't judge the past by their own modern standards.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,909
Hey, here's a painting of Septimius Severus, the Roman Emperor from 193 to 211. He is an African man, with a Syrian wife, and two mixed-raced children who succeeded him as Emperors (don't worry about that one who had his faced erased, it was a minor family squabble).The Western Empire lasted for about 265 years after him, the Eastern Empire lasted for 977 more years after that. So no, I do not think that multiculturalism killed the Roman Empire.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,912
the Roman Catholic church, the Roman Empire as it is today, has captured the USA Supreme Court.
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,914
The Empire loves their damn lists!
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 55 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,918
@1,215,897 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
If it really was some obscure view only Nixon had, I'd agree. Do you think it's a coincidence every major successful civilization (East & West) ends up with the same conclusion?
Homosexuality is a way for women to avoid (heterosexual) marriage and a cope for men who have no way to form families.
When a certain % of men are disenfranchised from continuing on their line, they become destructive. It's a behavior that natural selection bred into human nature, and only societies that cultivated stable families did well long-term.
This is AnonF, and I still maintain this is some "Weekend at Bernie's" ploy so TTEH can cover up KLs early death.
If it really was some obscure view only Nixon had, I'd agree. Do you think it's a coincidence every major successful civilization (East & West) ends up with the same conclusion?
Homosexuality is a way for women to avoid (heterosexual) marriage and a cope for men who have no way to form families.
When a certain % of men are disenfranchised from continuing on their line, they become destructive. It's a behavior that natural selection bred into human nature, and only societies that cultivated stable families did well long-term.
This is AnonF, and I still maintain this is some "Weekend at Bernie's" ploy so TTEH can cover up KLs early death.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 3 years ago, 30 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,919
If history repeats itself, and it does, the first nation to legalize gay marriage is likely to be the first to fall into destitution, an unrecognizable chaos. As it happens, 22 years ago the first country did this and today the place looks like hell on earth.
America legalized gay marriage 8 years ago. That gives us a 14 year lag on the poor fools that did it first. If we had any brains, we would reverse that decision today.
America legalized gay marriage 8 years ago. That gives us a 14 year lag on the poor fools that did it first. If we had any brains, we would reverse that decision today.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 8 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,942
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,974
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,975
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,976
Why do you people hate gays so much?
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,985
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,987
@previous (O)
but The Netherlands were the first to legalize gay marriage and they are still loved and respected today.
but The Netherlands were the first to legalize gay marriage and they are still loved and respected today.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,988
Anonymous O replied with this 3 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,991
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,995
@1,215,918 (K)Hey, sorry, so far I've only participated in this conversation whilst inebriated. But I think it makes me more logical, so it raises the quality of discourse.
I actually don't think that that kind of view is obscure. Far from it, really, I think it's common for conservatively-inclined people to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on some sort of social or moral "degeneracy". I just don't think that this aligns with the historical evidence.
Like, right there, you are talking about homosexuality. The Empire actually started turning Christian around Constantine the Great, and shortly after him, laws against homosexuality started to follow. So you can't blame the collapse on that, the Romans became good homophobes well before they got truly fell.
> I still maintain this is some "Weekend at Bernie's" ploy so TTEH can cover up KLs early death.
I'm dead? Ugh, I bet he killed me. I always got a bad vibe from him when we met up...
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,215,997
What's actually quite cool about Roman views about homosexuality, though... Is that, for long time, they stuck to their pre-Christian views of only disliking bottoms. Even when they turned Christian, Roman law only persecuted bottoms! A Roman man could still sodomise other men, and still be completely fine! Only his partner would be killed! It was only under Justinian I, in the 6th century, that the Romans took on a fully biblical view of gayness, and started persecuting tops as well as bottoms.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,216,001
@1,215,995 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> > I still maintain this is some "Weekend at Bernie's" ploy so TTEH can cover up KLs early death.
> I'm dead? Ugh, I bet he killed me. I always got a bad vibe from him when we met up...
Another example of the dangers of homosexuality.
> > I still maintain this is some "Weekend at Bernie's" ploy so TTEH can cover up KLs early death.
> I'm dead? Ugh, I bet he killed me. I always got a bad vibe from him when we met up...
Another example of the dangers of homosexuality.
boof replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,216,002
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,216,007
@1,215,997 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> What's actually quite cool about Roman views about homosexuality, though... Is that, for long time, they stuck to their pre-Christian views of only disliking bottoms. Even when they turned Christian, Roman law only persecuted bottoms! A Roman man could still sodomise other men, and still be completely fine! Only his partner would be killed! It was only under Justinian I, in the 6th century, that the Romans took on a fully biblical view of gayness, and started persecuting tops as well as bottoms.
getting rid of bottoms would make anal sex impossible.
> What's actually quite cool about Roman views about homosexuality, though... Is that, for long time, they stuck to their pre-Christian views of only disliking bottoms. Even when they turned Christian, Roman law only persecuted bottoms! A Roman man could still sodomise other men, and still be completely fine! Only his partner would be killed! It was only under Justinian I, in the 6th century, that the Romans took on a fully biblical view of gayness, and started persecuting tops as well as bottoms.
getting rid of bottoms would make anal sex impossible.