Fall of the Roman Empire - Page 2 - 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.
#14759521
The above points to the historical battle between cities and small communities. The cities came to be considered decadent by smaller communities. This is a process I believe the world is in today and it does take hundreds of years to complete.

That's not decadence, One Degree, that's economic decline caused by the ruinous expense of defending the Empire against the incursions of the barbarian tribes. And it's not even an "historic battle between cities and small communities" - it was an historic battle between cities and barbarian tribes.
#14759523
You really need to define what you mean by your decadence thesis, otherwise it is a vague word that you are using without any apparent connection to your argument.

Once again, I did not post to argue a point. Decadence is indeed a vague term. It would be described differently be each person you ask based upon their own beliefs. The key point I already mentioned. Small communities viewed Rome as decadent and this caused them to pull away from Rome.
What you just quoted suggests that socio-economic forces related to de-urbanization prior to Diocletian's regime produced semi-feudal conditions.

What I quoted shows that Rome used drastic socio-economic measures to punish those who wanted to leave because they saw Rome as decadent. The base reason is therefore 'decadence' not 'socio-economic'.

Is that what you mean by your "decadence" thesis?
Basically yes.
#14759526
That's not decadence, One Degree, that's economic decline caused by the ruinous expense of defending the Empire against the incursions of the barbarian tribes. And it's not even an "historic battle between cities and small communities" - it was an historic battle between cities and barbarian tribes.


Don't we blame our economic decline on the decadence of our society? Are not the barbarian tribes and communities of the empire also the same thing?
Just curious as to your response rather then being totally argumentative for no reason. :D
User avatar
By MB.
#14759528
Your argument is completely circular. "Decadence" caused decline because the society became decadent. It's happening in the US now!

There's nothing here to say really. One can only speculate at what evidence led you to develop this theory, considering that you apparently have no evidence to support it, let alone depth of knowledge to reply to the many flaws that have been pointed to in your tautological thinking.

I can only imagine why you desperately want to believe that "decadence" caused the decline of the Roman Empire and therefore somehow also the decline of the United States.
#14759530
You keep ignoring the point I keep making. I was surprised what was once part of the reasons for the Fall of Rome was not mentioned in this thread. I don't disagree with any of the reasons mentioned. I am well aware they are valid. I was trying to verify decadence had been totally set aside. Google 'Rome decadence' and you will receive a lot of hits.
User avatar
By MB.
#14759533
Literally you are saying that because of the popularity of a google search you made you are convinced that decadence is a critical component of the collapse of the Roman Empire.
#14759538
Literally you are saying that because of the popularity of a google search you made you are convinced that decadence is a critical component of the collapse of the Roman Empire.


Literally not what I said at all.
#14759543
What I quoted shows that Rome used drastic socio-economic measures to punish those who wanted to leave because they saw Rome as decadent. The base reason is therefore 'decadence' not 'socio-economic'.

They wanted to leave to find better jobs and living conditions elsewhere, not in protest at any perceived 'decadence'. The ruinous expense of building walls around the cities to defend against barbarian incursions led to high taxes and reduced economic activity. This is a socio-economic cause for the depopulation of the cities, not a moral cause. Besides, the Roman Empire was at its most decadent in the 1st century AD, when it was at the height of its military and economic power. It only started declining centuries later. Decadence, however defined, clearly had little or nothing to do with the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire. It's just moralistic nonsense dreamed up by the 19th century Victorians.
#14759545
The Roman empire continued to exist as the Byzantine Empire up until that was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which forcibly converted or killed everyone to Islam some time after that and now it's Turkey.

The western Empire was ended largely by Germans, who later wanted to ally with the Byzantines, but they refused because they were still mad at them.
#14759546
They wanted to leave to find better jobs and living conditions elsewhere, not in protest at any perceived 'decadence'. The ruinous expense of building walls around the cities to defend against barbarian incursions led to high taxes and reduced economic activity. This is a socio-economic cause for the depopulation of the cities, not a moral cause. Besides, the Roman Empire was at its most decadent in the 1st century AD, when it was at the height of its military and economic power. It only started declining centuries later. Decadence, however defined, clearly had little or nothing to do with the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire. It's just moralistic nonsense dreamed up by the 19th century Victorians.


Thank you. I finally got a direct answer to my original question. ;)

Edit: @Potemkin It has been almost 50 years since I last had a need to review the fall of the Roman Empire. I guess that is getting close to the 19th century. :(
#14759568
Rome fell because of many factors: overextension, civil wars, loss of leadership, bad prior decisions that future emperors had no way/hard time to fix etc.

Expansion of the empire by Caesar and Augustus made the Empire more vulnrubale to attack due to geographical aspects of this expansion( The mediteranian sea was not protecting the territory, borders with Barbarians were expanded, Rome pushes in to the middle east and central Asia where it met organised resistance)

Markus Aurelius failed in a sense that he let Commodus inherit the throne. Usually the emperors were not succeeded through their bloodline but through adoption, merit, political games and machinations etc Future emperors usually were adopted by the ruling emperor or they had to fight their way through the ranks of the family and nobility.

Then come the civil wars, severance of bloodlines after Roman emperors turned away from the upper practice, fragmentation of the empire due to weak administration and central power etc
#14759574
Thank you. I finally got a direct answer to my original question. ;)

No problem, One Degree. :up:

Edit: @Potemkin It has been almost 50 years since I last had a need to review the fall of the Roman Empire. I guess that is getting close to the 19th century. :(

Ah, that would explain it then. Lol. Oh, and consider this: 50 years is about a 30th of the period of time since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. Scary thought, huh? ;)
#14759596
When (western) Rome started to fall apart, what did the invaders do to the people living in the cities, towns and farms?
Raiders often killed, but the various German and Iranians weren't raiding, they were conquering and establishing their own states. Did they kill off all/most of the population, or did the invaders replace the old ruling class? If its a replacement, were they better or worse then the old ruling class? If no worse, what would the people have to worry and go to arms over?

When the Justinian retook Italy, they did so with thousands of troops from outside Italy against the Goths who had tens of thousands of troops, many of whom where their own people (not Italians). During Justinian's second reconquest he had tens of thousands of troops - again from elsewhere. During the Punic wars a few hundred years earlier, the Romans suffered losses in the 100k range and still had the manpower and money within Italy to continue the war effort. That kind of money and manpower does not come from indifference. Seems to me that the people of Italy weren't willing to fight en mass for either side, which makes me think they no longer cared who the ruler was.

Seems like the basis of Roman Republic and early empire -the society of its peoples and its economy- had changed by the 5th C. and later. That changed society and state was, perhaps, viewed as something still great enough to covet but not great enough to fear and wish to integrate into. The West being easier to conquer and rule over rather than the East. I wonder if Western Rome was something the barbarian could look at as something akin to what they knew (agriculture, construction, society) while Eastern Rome was much more alien (luxury and technological crafts, commerce, different agriculture) making Western Rome all the more attractive as a place of settlement.
#14759605
Decadence itself does not cause decline. IMO, it is merely a symptom of a large problem in society.

The real problem is that people would rather find ways to live easier, to be free from stress and hard toil. People do not want to sweat or work hard to become better people. I always remember a quote from a Puritan writer about how it is lonely to travel on the right path, I forget the phrasing. It has always stuck with me and it motivates me to struggle on, no matter what others may say about me.

Modern conveniences or even conveniences back then made the people soft. They had house slaves to do all the chores and help them bathe. They got used to giving orders and receiving services. We have things like SmartTV that can be activated by voice so we can forget about lifting a finger to press a remote.
#14759609
Romans had house slaves during their ascendancy as well, not just during their 2000-year old descent.
#14759624
I know. I just could not think of better examples.

Or maybe I should mention the frog in the boiling pot example. At first the water is so scalding hot and the frog is alert and fights the heat. Gradually though, the frog gets acclimated to the temperature and the sensations and it begins to relax and enjoy it. Until of course at which point, the heat kills it. The hotness never goes away in the example I guess.
#14759687
MistyTiger wrote:The real problem is that people would rather find ways to live easier, to be free from stress and hard toil. People do not want to sweat or work hard to become better people.

What's wrong with an easier life, free from stress and hard toil? That's exactly what you'd like to enable for your descendants. There's nothing inherently "better" about sweating and working hard.

The boiled-frog myth

Here's the problem. It just isn't true. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will (unfortunately) be hurt pretty badly before it manages to get out -- if it can. And if you put it into a pot of tepid water and then turn on the heat, it will scramble out as soon as it gets uncomfortably warm.

How do I know? Let's just say that, as with global warming, the scientific evidence is all on one side of this one. Fast Company magazine did an admirable early myth-busting story on the topic in its very first issue, more than a decade ago. The best quote (of many good ones) in the article was from the Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians at the National Museum of Natural History, who when asked about the boiled-frog story said: "Well that's, may I say, bullshit." There is much more to the same effect, eg here. The most interesting scientific report is on Google Answers, in response to a request for a "biologically valid" example of animal behavior that would illustrate the same point.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... -now/7446/
#14759999
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:What's wrong with an easier life, free from stress and hard toil? That's exactly what you'd like to enable for your descendants. There's nothing inherently "better" about sweating and working hard.


Ever heard the saying, "Easy come, easy go"? Why did I decide to go back to school and study Accounting, instead of moving to Vegas to gamble all day long? I had a vision of working my way to the top to learn the ropes of business or possibly becoming an accountant. Which road is funner? It looks more glamorous to dress up nicely and frequent casinos and it feels good to collect all those chips. I do not like to study and work through nights struggling with homework and terminology that is very technical and dry.

There might not be anything "better" about sweating and working hard, from a subjective standpoint. It is a lifestyle choice. In the long run though, which way is the more honest way to live? I want to feel like I earned my way in the world through pain and sweating. Can a body builder say that he/she earned their muscles from no sweating and only drinking health shakes? Nope. One example that comes to mind is Gyllenhaal's physical regime before he filmed Prince of Persia. He spent 8-9 months working out for hours each day to look that "shredded" as the fitness world calls it. There is no pill that can make anybody fit like that.

Stress is a part of life. Whether we need to hurry to work in the morning, juggle several jobs in a day, do presentations in front of a lot of people, or even prepare for a meeting...stress is always present in our lives.

As to toil, I do not know your ancestry, but I know that my ancestors must have toiled each day in the fields, they were farmers in China or other skilled workers. They were not rich and did not have the luxury to sit around doing nothing. They worked the ground to produce crops to feed their family and possibly sold some in town to earn some money.

Studies show that people who work out in the fields are actually happier than those who live sedentary lifestyles. A part of it may have to do with the added oxygen intake that their brain gets from being outside and of course, the endorphins are flowing during all their exertions. Working hard is healthy and taking it too easy is not good, not only for the mind but for a person's total well-being.
#14760000
The Roman Empire has fallen because of "Multiculturalism" during the 4th and the 5th century the barbarians were immigrating into the Roman empire and they kept their culture and refused to become like the Romans
many of them were part of the Roman army and were not completely loyal to the Roman state by this time the Barbarians had learned the Roman military tactics and used Roman technology and because they had much more manpower eventually the Roman empire have fallen because they didn't had technological and manpower advantage as they had before

The Roman empire is somewhat similar to the EU and for now the EU is heading in the same direction as the Roman Empire.
The mass immigration eventually going to destroy the European identity
#14760005
MistyTiger wrote:Ever heard the saying, "Easy come, easy go"?

Sayings do not prove anything. Especially sayings that aren't about whether it's "better" to be stressed and work hard.

Why did I decide to go back to school and study Accounting, instead of moving to Vegas to gamble all day long? I had a vision of working my way to the top to learn the ropes of business or possibly becoming an accountant. Which road is funner? It looks more glamorous to dress up nicely and frequent casinos and it feels good to collect all those chips. I do not like to study and work through nights struggling with homework and terminology that is very technical and dry.

I'll guess because you didn't have money to lose, and because there are thousands of more enjoyable ways of spending money anyway than gambling, ie handing your money over. If you think it's "glamorous" to buy chips from casinos and then hand the chips back a few hours later, you have a poorly developed sense of glamour.

There might not be anything "better" about sweating and working hard, from a subjective standpoint. It is a lifestyle choice. In the long run though, which way is the more honest way to live?

It's perfectly "honest" to aim for a comfortable, easy life. It doesn't involve fooling anyone else, or stealign from them.

[quoteI want to feel like I earned my way in the world through pain and sweating.[/quote]
Pain and sweat do not 'earn' anything. Being of use to other people earns things. And that doesn't have to mean pain or sweat.

Can a body builder say that he/she earned their muscles from no sweating and only drinking health shakes? Nope. One example that comes to mind is Gyllenhaal's physical regime before he filmed Prince of Persia. He spent 8-9 months working out for hours each day to look that "shredded" as the fitness world calls it. There is no pill that can make anybody fit like that.

There's nothing 'earned' in bodybuilding at all. It's either for narcissism, or to get other people to find you attractive. Who cares how you do it? At most, only you.

As to toil, I do not know your ancestry, but I know that my ancestors must have toiled each day in the fields, they were farmers in China or other skilled workers. They were not rich and did not have the luxury to sit around doing nothing. They worked the ground to produce crops to feed their family and possibly sold some in town to earn some money.

That doesn't mean their life was "better" than yours. Do you think they would have wanted you to work even harder than them?

Studies show that people who work out in the fields are actually happier than those who live sedentary lifestyles. A part of it may have to do with the added oxygen intake that their brain gets from being outside and of course, the endorphins are flowing during all their exertions. Working hard is healthy and taking it too easy is not good, not only for the mind but for a person's total well-being.

Stress, which you want, is very bad for your health. If you're not getting enough oxygen indoors, open a window. Yes, a sedentary lifestyle is also bad for you. But you were advocating stress (unhealthy), toil and hard work, rather than an active routine.

Leisure is enjoyable. Less stress feels better. These are good goals in life, both for yourself and those around you, rather than working yourself into stress, and admonishing others for not doing the same.

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

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

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

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