Minichan

Their damn lists.

It tripped on a rock.

Barbarians twatted them without mercy. Also Black Plague, which could've been cured with some strong Tesco Value Cider.

they spent all the money and then carried on conquering and pissing off thier neighbors with nothing to back it up

They went nomadic. They're still around.

Fucking Cyrodil and gates to Oblivion; did real roman empire fight demons?

Syntax claims to have brought down the Roman Empire by leaving a banana peel in the path of Marcus Aurelius.

@previous (Meta)
Fuck Mehrunes Dagon!

personally i see the fall of Rome as more of a logistic problem than anything else. For their size they lacked the ability to quickly respond to problems with force and also lacked the communication required to secure such a large domain. And it fell more than once, split apart and all that, and finally dissolved once power became too distributed and imbalanced.

people will say it was barbarians or fiscal insolvency, but those are just symptoms of a much larger logistical nightmare they just weren't able to overcome.

edit: i may be totally wrong, by the way, i'm no kind of historian and my knowledge of Rome is superficial. sure sounds good though.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

*Western Roman Empire

@538,610 (Green)
Yes, they were called germans at that time.

@previous (C)
R u fuckin havin a cheeky Asda m8? Omg I feel well good, thank you Tesco init

I summon Jehovah!

the jews invented Christianity and that fucked it eventually

my girlfriend studied this a while ago at university

iirc historians now agree that there was no fall of the roman empire, its a myth

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
The Roman empire is a myth? Sounds like a case for the Mythbusters!

There has been a trend lately that the western empire did not fall, but transformed peacefully into the medieval kingdoms of germanic tribes and such. This is mostly bullshit. TL;DR version: Early 5th century: A huge, diversified economy became severely disrupted by germanic intrusions into Gaul, italic peninsula and later Africa. These intrusions were not peaceful. This affected tax income and military spending power. This also affected emperors prestige, leading provinces/standing forces to proclaim competing emperor candidates. Loads of resources, already dwindling, went into civil wars rather than defending against germanics.
Economy and central authority collapsed. Evidence: Written sources, find them. Common high quality goods widely distributed across all social strata disappeared (pottery, tiles). Minting of coins dramatically reduced. Population levels reduced.
Dark ages began.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Based on the current state of the Euro

All of Europe is falling.

@538,860 (M)
> leading provinces/standing forces to proclaim competing emperor candidates.
The book I read about the Roman Empire certainly agrees. Towards the end, it felt like every few pages some upstart legion or province was proclaiming their leader the new Emperor.

@538,860 (M)
> There has been a trend lately that the western empire did not fall, but transformed peacefully into the medieval kingdoms of germanic tribes and such. This is mostly bullshit.

Seems to a trend with not just with the roman empire. historians these days have a fetish for saying that every demographic replacement and political change change in the past was peaceful, even when there is massive evidence to the contrary. the homo sapiens expeditions into neanderthal territory were peaceful. the indo-european invasions in Old Europe were peaceful. anglo-saxon invasion of britain was peaceful. give it some time and these fuckers will that the mongol empire expansion and the conquest of america was peaceful too.

Internal corruption, centuries of civil war, incessant hostility of subject populations, decline of law making assemblies, incompetent management, catastrophic famines, barbarians on the doorstep, and a general exodus to the East to avoid all of the above.

Syntax was advising their enemies

@previous (Q)
I fucking lol'd.

Yeah, he was a fucking Goth chieften. Led their armies to perfect victories over Rome with his mastery of military tactics.

@538,883 (Q)
Syntax was Atilla's personal advisor.

@538,860 (M)
> There has been a trend lately that the western empire did not fall, but transformed peacefully into the medieval kingdoms of germanic tribes and such. This is mostly bullshit. TL;DR version: Early 5th century: A huge, diversified economy became severely disrupted by germanic intrusions into Gaul, italic peninsula and later Africa. These intrusions were not peaceful. This affected tax income and military spending power. This also affected emperors prestige, leading provinces/standing forces to proclaim competing emperor candidates. Loads of resources, already dwindling, went into civil wars rather than defending against germanics.
> Economy and central authority collapsed. Evidence: Written sources, find them. Common high quality goods widely distributed across all social strata disappeared (pottery, tiles). Minting of coins dramatically reduced. Population levels reduced.
> Dark ages began.

Well actually what a lot of people don’t realise and what you’re not putting across in your explanation is that by the 5th century the barbarians were extensively Romanised and were one and the same. Barbarians were often accepted as a facet of Roman culture. They had citizenships, held lands and were influential in Roman politics. The term “barbarian” is meaningless except as an umbrella term for “assimilated culture Romans” rather than “core empire Romans”

It’s important to realise that at this point in time, the Western Empire was seen as less critical in the eyes of the Roman authorities than Byzantium, which was by that point in time their main economic and political base – it wasn’t until the age of Justinian the Great that the Byzantine Empire felt a revived interest in regaining the lands of the West, which is why he is considered a “true” Roman emperor.
It was with the protection of the East in mind that the authorities made agreements with the Western barbarians; in return for peace and stability, the barbarians were granted lands. There is no archaeological evidence that the barbarians came in an invading tide and in fact there is more evidence of barbarian settlement, indicating that whilst violent overthrows of local governments did occur, it was not as common as voluntary agreements made with the Romans and in my opinion if there’s archaeological evidence of something then that’s more reliable than the chronicles made in the time period which were often unreliable and biased.
No modern historian claims or believes that this is a “peaceful transformation into the medieval kingdoms”. That is not the argument being made. The argument being made is that the centre of the Roman Empire moved from the city of Rome to the city of Byzantium, which then became the main social, cultural and political focus of the empire. It’s accepted that in reality, there were tensions about these land agreements made with the barbarians, and towns were at times subject to looting. However, the Romans had a vested interest in keeping the barbarians happy and offering deals good enough that this violence wasn’t the status quo, because they obviously desired a stable society and putting a halt to a problem that could negatively affect other facets of Roman society.

The barbarians were part of the Roman military. They were not some foreign force that the Romans didn’t know about. To imply that the Roman Empire fell or was even in a state of decline is just an exaggeration. It’s more ideological than literal. Even Odoacer was a Roman citizen. His murder of Romulus Augustus was more of an inner coup than a barbarian overthrow because he was, regardless of his origins, a trusted member of the imperial bodyguard who wanted the power for himself.

Now, ‘’’Rome’’’ was invaded and sacked by barbarians, which led to a population decline as you describe. After Rome was sacked in 410, people no longer relied on it as a main population centre. People just didn’t feel safe there anymore, because it had just been sacked! This is the main cause of the decline of the city of Rome. Documents show, however, that this was a gradual process, not a ‘sudden sharp shock’. None of this means, in any sense, that the Roman Empire was dissolved. Rome was not the Empire. After Rome withered, Constantinople replaced it.

It’s true what you say that there were competing Roman Emperors in the Western Roman Empire during times of tension. However I would not go as far as to call them “civil wars” because that implies more technicality than actually existed. It was more like it was feudalism at its best – whoever is the strongest is the leader and might makes right. This was not always the case. If you look at the lineages of the Western and Eastern emperors, you will see that there are often instances where they are both run by the same individual.

Your descriptions of pottery and tile manufactory diminishing sounds more like the situation in Britannia than on the continent. They did experience a diminishing in Roman culture because they were not well supported even at the best of times. Most of the native soldiers in Britannia, born and raised in Britannia and descended from the original invading armies, saw themselves more Briton than Roman. This was exacerbated by Honorius’s edict in 410 “Look to your own defences” after he withdrew the garrisoned troops to defend Italy and didn’t send them back.

As far as the Roman Empire at large goes, the economy wasn’t suffering that badly. Industry continued. Even in Britain they continued to build fortifications. Britain was not in the Roman sphere of influence; it was a backwater. So if the economy was that bad, why would they stay? Why would they build? They had an active administration and standing army which continued after the Roman garrisons left Britannia. The economy was not great but still good.

You hold the orthodox view established by Gibbon in the 18th Century. However, Gibbon based his knowledge off of very traditional sources, and these sources are some of the most biased ones we have available to us. In addition, Gibbon was very idealistic in his depiction of Antiquity. Today it’s more common to view the history with a critical eye than it was in Gibbon's time.

(Edited 39 seconds later.)

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
did your gf write this

@538,885 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
@538,947 (C)
Syntax in fact was the ghostwriter for Sun Tzu.

@539,068 (R)

no i asked her opinion when she came home and i remembered it and thats basically what she said

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
lol

@539,094 (Q)
Syntax is Legion.

@previous (C)
Does Syntax forgive and forget?

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Just look at poor Matt.

@539,201 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

> Does Syntax forgive and forget?

Depends

@539,065 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
That was a very good read

@previous (Syntax)
@539,065 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
It was.

@ The Owl
Thank you for a well written reply. My original post was admittedly short and oversimplified, but you found the core points I wished to make.
I agree that the germanics of 5th century most likely was more romanised than, say, the germanics who slaughtered the legions in Teutoburg forest. You will note that I don't use the word barbarian here, or in my last post. Still, they were not citizens unless they had prior service in the Roman army. They had a Germanic identity, were not Catholic (ie Roman) christians, and wore facial hair (see coins minted by Theodahad, Ostrogoth king in Italy around 420). But they did notice, and wanted to be a part of, the Roman society with all its wealth.

You mention that Rome was seen as less essential than Byzantium, which is true - the West Roman emperors hadn't ruled from Rome for a long time already, the Eastern empire had its natural centre in Byzantium all the way up to the Turk takeover many hundreds of years later. The Western empire authorities were most concerned with the Western empire nonetheless. Remember the split a few years earlier.

The Eastern Empire had become more important before the fall of the west, mainly because of its defensibility and lack of hostilities from potential enemies. The western empire had neither of those.

The population decline I mention is probable, but not certain. It is the lack of archaeological evidence for population levels equal to Imperial times which leads one to that theory, while at the same time this means that Roman construction techniques had more or less disappeared. What evidence remains points to a less sophisticated level of engineering. Much smaller buildings, of poorer quality. Concrete disappeared.

i don't think the sacking of Rome in 410 was terribly important in itself, as imperial administration and most other bigshots were elsewhere, but the symbolic effect must have been notable.

You're right - it is stretching it a bit too far to call the race between pretenders to the throne civil wars, but the effects were nevertheless devastating for the cohesion of the empire, and indirectly also for trade. Britain had already been in decline for some time, it is well known what status this particular province had. It was in no way central to anything. The disappearance of cheap, high-quality goods were not limited to Britain, however. The same applies to most all finds in all of the Western Empire. Not at the same time, but in the matter of decades. Even pigstyes in small Italian villages had tile roofs up to the 5th century. But not after.

Of course there was a civil administration, and standing forces in Britain after 410. There were still some trade, but nowhere near earlier levels. Hand-made pottery became the norm. The pottery factory at Oxford produced high quality merchandise during the 3rd and 4th century, but not later. (Incidentally, the early settlements of Saxons/Angles/Jutes in SE Britain - compare them to the likely borders of pre-Roman tribes...)They did not do very well on the whole.

But, yes, you are right. I do hold to the orthodox view that the empire did indeed fall, and fall hard. A lot of evidence points that way. A lot was lost, that we did not regain for 1000 years.
I won't go into all the "what ifs" because it is futile. If things were different they would be different. If my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle. That kind.

My apologies if I have overlooked any of your points, this format (a random chan) is not my favourite for this type of discussion.

Mass immigration.
The Huns invaded northern europe and all the people fled to the safety of the Roman Empire who couldn't handle all the people. The immigrants didn't fit in and revolved like with today's immigrant population in the 2011 London Riots. This happened over and over until Rome fell apart.

(Edited 30 seconds later.)

@previous (T)
That wasn't the cause of the London riot.

@previous (O)

The people who did the London riots were blacks who were either new immigrants or children of them. They weren't slaves brought in, they were immigrants or their children like Dianne Abbot. The barbarians of Rome also tended to live in Rome for over a generation before revolving.
Immigrants rioted a year or two really badly in Germany and Sweden too.
This is what happens when there's mass immigration instead of assimilation.

@previous (T)
No, that was not the main factor. It was chavs in general.

@539,490 (T)
Whom do you agree with? TheOwl or Anonymous M?

(Edited 6 minutes later.)

I agree with me

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/climate-change-ancient-rome-110113.htm

climate change may have had a hand on it