How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14423033
There is a difference between fighting wars and attacking military targets and hitting civlians and actually genociding civilians by sword and fire on sight you know, just saying. War is always brutal, but brutality definitely went down from pillage, rape and genocide to something a lot more civilized.

Tell that to the people of Dresden or Hamburg, Tokyo or Hiroshima.....
#14423034
World War 2 is an isolated and a unique case because it was Total war. Not to mention carpet bombing are not anything close to a genocide.
#14423036
At the end of the Third Punic War, Rome destroyed Carthage, massacring its entire civilian population. Nowadays, we would just have dropped a nuke on Cathage. Personally, I fail to see any moral difference. "Hiroshima delenda est...."
#14423247
Imperial tribute =/= trade.


This, stealing shit from people is not trade. If I break into someones house and steal their TV and sell it to my fence I am not suddenly a shop keeper.

There is a difference between fighting wars and attacking military targets and hitting civlians and actually genociding civilians by sword and fire on sight you know, just saying. War is always brutal, but brutality definitely went down from pillage, rape and genocide to something a lot more civilized.


True, the yanks have never been big fans of genocide.

Image
#14423276
If we take a look at what problems the Roman Empire had to deal with, it doesn't seem to be so much different from today's issues, even though they had slavery and we have capitalism.

history.com wrote:January 14, 2014
8 Reasons Why Rome Fell
By Evan Andrews


In the late fourth century, the Western Roman Empire crumbled after a nearly 500-year run as the world’s greatest superpower. Historians have blamed the collapse on hundreds of different factors ranging from military failures and crippling taxation to natural disasters and even climate change. Still others argue that the Roman Empire didn’t really fall in 476 A.D., since its eastern half continued for another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. While just how—and when—the Empire fell remains a subject of ongoing debate, certain theories have emerged as the most popular explanations for Western Rome’s decline and disintegration. Read on to discover eight reasons why one of history’s most legendary empires finally came crashing down.

Image

1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire’s borders. The Romans weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome. The Empire spent the next several decades under constant threat before “the Eternal City” was raided again in 455, this time by the Vandals. Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western Empire suffered its deathblow.

2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor. In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms. At the same time, the empire was rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy depended on slaves to till its fields and work as craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally provided a fresh influx of conquered peoples to put to work. But when expansion ground to a halt in the second century, Rome’s supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came in the fifth century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and agricultural production in decline, the Empire began to lose its grip on Europe.

3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
The fate of Western Rome was partially sealed in the late third century, when the Emperor Diocletian divided the Empire into two halves—the Western Empire seated in the city of Milan, and the Eastern Empire in Byzantium, later known as Constantinople. The division made the empire more easily governable in the short term, but over time the two halves drifted apart. East and West failed to adequately work together to combat outside threats, and the two often squabbled over resources and military aid. As the gulf widened, the largely Greek-speaking Eastern Empire grew in wealth while the Latin-speaking West descended into economic crisis. Most importantly, the strength of the Eastern Empire served to divert Barbarian invasions to the West. Emperors like Constantine ensured that the city of Constantinople was fortified and well guarded, but Italy and the city of Rome—which only had symbolic value for many in the East—were left vulnerable. The Western political structure would finally disintegrate in the fifth century, but the Eastern Empire endured in some form for another thousand years before being overwhelmed by the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s.

4. Overexpansion and military overspending
At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare. Even with their excellent road systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or effectively enough to manage their holdings. Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair.

5. Government corruption and political instability
If Rome’s sheer size made it difficult to govern, ineffective and inconsistent leadership only served to magnify the problem. Being the Roman emperor had always been a particularly dangerous job, but during the tumultuous second and third centuries it nearly became a death sentence. Civil war thrust the empire into chaos, and more than 20 men took the throne in the span of only 75 years, usually after the murder of their predecessor. The Praetorian Guard—the emperor’s personal bodyguards—assassinated and installed new sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the highest bidder. The political rot also extended to the Roman Senate, which failed to temper the excesses of the emperors due to its own widespread corruption and incompetence. As the situation worsened, civic pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.

6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
The Barbarian attacks on Rome partially stemmed from a mass migration caused by the Huns’ invasion of Europe in the late fourth century. When these Eurasian warriors rampaged through northern Europe, they drove many Germanic tribes to the borders of the Roman Empire. The Romans grudgingly allowed members of the Visigoth tribe to cross south of the Danube and into the safety of Roman territory, but they treated them with extreme cruelty. According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman officials even forced the starving Goths to trade their children into slavery in exchange for dog meat. In brutalizing the Goths, the Romans created a dangerous enemy within their own borders. When the oppression became too much to bear, the Goths rose up in revolt and eventually routed a Roman army and killed the Eastern Emperor Valens during the Battle of Adrianople in A.D. 378. The shocked Romans negotiated a flimsy peace with the barbarians, but the truce unraveled in 410, when the Goth King Alaric moved west and sacked Rome. With the Western Empire weakened, Germanic tribes like the Vandals and the Saxons were able to surge across its borders and occupy Britain, Spain and North Africa.

7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church eladers took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticized. While the spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors.

8. Weakening of the Roman legions
For most of its history, Rome’s military was the envy of the ancient world. But during the decline, the makeup of the once mighty legions began to change. Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies. The ranks of the legions eventually swelled with Germanic Goths and other barbarians, so much so that Romans began using the Latin word “barbarus” in place of “soldier.” While these Germanic soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their power-hungry officers often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked the city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while serving in the Roman legions.



Did You Know?

Some scholars believe that rampant lead poisoning may have contributed to Ancient Rome’s decline. Roman winemakers used lead pots to boil crushed grapes, the empire’s aqueducts carried water through lead pipes and many Roman foods were sweetened with lead acetate. Since lead is toxic, some historians have claimed that its use may have resulted in widespread cases of gout, low birth rates, anemia and aggressive and erratic behavior among the Roman citizenry.
#14423574
Potemkin wrote:At the end of the Third Punic War, Rome destroyed Carthage, massacring its entire civilian population.


If I remember Goldsworthy right, the truth was different from the narrative of Livy(?) who wrote of annihilation, to the point of the fields being plowed with salt.
#14423602
If I remember Goldsworthy right, the truth was different from the narrative of Livy(?) who wrote of annihilation, to the point of the fields being plowed with salt.

Actually, the whole "ploughing the fields with salt" thing was probably a purely symbolic act - a single furrow was probably ceremonially ploughed with salt to symbolise the Romans' determination to allow no future settlement to ever be built there again. Of course, given Carthage's strategic position, and the fact that north Africa was now a Roman colony, it wasn't long before they did build another city there. I believe it was Julius Caesar who founded a new Roman city on Carthage's former location. And it's very likely that many if not most of Carthage's population were sold into slavery rather than simply massacred. After all, a living slave is worth something, whereas a dead body is worth nothing; in fact, it's a health hazard.
#14423683
Beren wrote:1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes[/b]
The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire’s borders. The Romans weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome.


So did the celts in 390 BCE. Rome had always faced dangerous foreign invasions and always surmounted the threats, until the fifth century. The key problem was "pussyfication" --loss of the old resiliency.


Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis.


Says who? Not Heather, who wrote the empire was doing well economically down to about 400 CE. The worst financial crisis was during the third century when coinage became nearly worthless. Yet the empire survived and the value of coins improved.

In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms.


That wasn't a significant development until the fifth century; it was an effect not a cause of decline.


The division made the empire more easily governable in the short term, but over time the two halves drifted apart. East and West failed to adequately work together to combat outside threats,


The East did the best it could to try to stop the Vandals around 431 and to regain North Africa for the west in 440 and 468.


At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare. Even with their excellent road systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or effectively enough to manage their holdings. Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks,


The reign of Marcus Aurelius showed that even when weakened by plague, the Empire could master all internal and external threats in its far flung regions--in Egypt, along the euphrates, the danube etc.

and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair.


I dont think there was much technical innovation anyway and infrastructure was OK until the barbarians came.


The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity,


Bingo.

and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity.


Right. Essentially christianity undermined the ideological foundation of the system.

Meanwhile, popes and other church eladers took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most famous proponent of this theory. While the spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors.


Gibbon was basically right IMO, but I explain it differently. Essentially the christian triumph meant that Rome was taken over by people who were least able to relate to it. They may have provided some support like paying taxes but they could hardly be expected to fight like crazy to save the empire when necessary, which had been the key to survival for centuries. It's no coincidence that the West went down the drain so soon after the holy joes won out.


While these Germanic soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their power-hungry officers often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked the city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while serving in the Roman legions.


The empire became dependent on barbarians precisely because the new christian populace wouldn't fight or do so very hard. With nearly all the fighting power barbarians gradually seized the West for themselves. The East was also christian but was luckier in that the barbarians settled in the west, causing permanent loses of territory and revenue.
#14423701
I wouldn't put it this way, shipping that grain is a major feat of either Warfare(Logistics) or Civilian infrastructure(Civil works) or probably both. It wasn't also their fault in all honesty, back in the day more than a Million citizens lived in Rome alone, a feat never achived before and that wouldn't be achieved untill the 18th or the 19th century I think.


This, stealing shit from people is not trade. If I break into someones house and steal their TV and sell it to my fence I am not suddenly a shop keeper.


Organised theft is still theft. Those farmers broke their backs so that the lazy beggars in rome could live easy. It wasnt an especially productive city really from what I have read. Full of government/religion/corruption. It lived of subsidies from the conquered.

Certainly there was no shortage of war like places in the ancient world but its never going to be possible to be sure. Rome wrote the history after all. From what I understand the pre-sassanid persians and ancient greeks were more progressive and less militaristic. They also wrote their own history as well which helps in that perception I just shared
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]