Fall of the Roman Empire - 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.
#14760017
I do not mean working myself to the bone. I mean taking pride in challenging oneself like trying to run 3 miles a day or taking on the toughest jobs at work. People are at work to get paid but some people will just do enough to warrant their pay while others will go that extra mile.

And by stress I did not mean like putting one's body into overdrive and working hard enough to cause a heart attack or other serious health problem. I was talking about a healthy amount of stress like just enough to increase the adrenaline. Our bodies are designed to handle stress and if pushed enough, the stress actually makes us more productive. Some people like to cut it close to deadlines or some like to multitask all the time. For them, it works and it might be healthy for them. They thrive on a little stress.

I used that casino example as what you can expect from Hollywood movies, how they glorify the gambling scene. I know someone who was in debt from gambling and I would not wish that on anyone, let alone myself. So no, I do not find it glamorous.

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.


Actually, having more muscle helps your body to metabolize fat more efficiently. So by increasing muscle tone, they are actually keeping their BMI low and their metabolisms are faster than the average person.
#14812109
Zionist Nationalist wrote: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


The problem was, by the late 4rth century, the Romans were no longer strong enough to evict or fully control barbarian groups--even on their own territory. Military weakness was due to the increasing refusal of citizens to serve, or fight.



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 Romans could have easily overcome them just like they had repelled barbarians before, if only their own people were as determined and dedicated as they were previously.

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


It needn't not any more than it destroyed American identity. I do believe nationalism will ultimately weaken but that owes much to technology--rapid easy communication.
#14819805
I read lots of theories on the rise and fall of the Roman Republic and Empire that focus on the wars, the military technologies, political strategies...even mention effects of disease and crop failure in the mix, but I came across something new recently while reading "Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet" by Italian geochemist- Ugo Bardi. The book takes a long view of first- how metals and minerals got deposited in relative amounts in various depths and locations around the world by the forces of geology, and it follows the slow development of mineral extraction and processing right through to the modern era. And in chapter three of the book, Bardi touches on how he believes Roman metallurgy and development of copper, bronze and especially iron were essential for an empire to rise in the first place. And after the Punic Wars, Rome takes possession of Spain and at the time, the world's largest and most lucrative source of gold and silver...which were essential for payment in coins to Roman soldiers. And likewise, Bardi ties an apparent decline in gold and silver production to the eventual demise of the western empire:

"Apart from gold and silver, the Roman Empire never produced much more than two things: legions and grain, neither of which was a tradable commodity with the outside world. So the Romans imported all sorts of luxury products from Asia and the Middle East: silk, spices, ivory, pearls, slaves, and more. They paid in gold, and that gold never came back because the Romans had little that they could sell outside their borders. Gold and silver also disappeared from the empire as foreign mercenaries took their pay with them when they went back home. And in the last period of the empire, a perverse negative mechanism took place: deflation. With gold becoming rare, it became more and more valuable, so people tended to hoard it.".......................................................................................

"With the second century CE, the Roman Empire attempted its last feats of conquest. Under Emperor Trajan, it managed to annex Dacia, a kingdom located in the region of central Europe that corresponds to modern Romania and that controlled gold mines in the Carpathian mountains. Then, perhaps with the use of the gold looted in Dacia, Trajan attempted a thrust into Persia and Arabia. The idea was, probably, to recover some of the gold that the empire had lost through trade, alongside taking control of the caravan routes to Asia. It was the last of several Roman attempts to conquer, or at least control, the region. It ended in failure. Asia was too big for the Romans to conquer, while Arabia was too dry and too hot. With the failure to recover its lost gold and silver, the Roman Empire was doomed, at least in its western half, which had run out of mineral resources that could be extracted with the technologies of the time. By the fifth century CE, the last century of the Western Roman Empire, coinage had basically disappeared in Europe, except in forms that seem not to have been used as currency, such as medallions or decorative objects."

(from "Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet" by Ugo Bardi, Jorgen Randers)
#14826585
right to left wrote:"With the second century CE, the Roman Empire attempted its last feats of conquest. Under Emperor Trajan, it managed to annex Dacia, a kingdom located in the region of central Europe that corresponds to modern Romania and that controlled gold mines in the Carpathian mountains. Then, perhaps with the use of the gold looted in Dacia, Trajan attempted a thrust into Persia and Arabia. The idea was, probably, to recover some of the gold that the empire had lost through trade, alongside taking control of the caravan routes to Asia. It was the last of several Roman attempts to conquer, or at least control, the region. It ended in failure. Asia was too big for the Romans to conquer, while Arabia was too dry and too hot. With the failure to recover its lost gold and silver, the Roman Empire was doomed,


In fact the Romans recovered a lot of gold when Severus overran Ctesiphon at the end of the second century. Scarcity of bullion was a problem in the mid to late third century but Constantine obtained more and produced good coins, the solidi.


By the fifth century CE, the last century of the Western Roman Empire, coinage had basically disappeared in Europe, except in forms that seem not to have been used as currency, such as medallions or decorative objects."


Even the West retained a lot of gold after 400 CE. Alaric was able to extort quite a bit and Aetius had enough to pay his Hun mercenaries in the 430s.
Any theory that links Roman fortunes to quantities of precious metals is absurd. What mattered was the level of dedication to the Empire, the willingness of enough citizens to fight for it. In the time of Aurelian the empire was seriously short on precious metals. Yet the Roman army was still strong enough to crush all kinds of enemies, foreign and internal. The fifth century Empires were no worse off in terms of gold but were chronically weak, especially the western, because most citizens no longer seemed to care.
By Rich
#14826596
The Libertarian / Conservative argument is that the Roman Republic became corrupted by Commi /Liberals and this led to inevitable decline. The most pessimistic of these theorists argue that we have already reached the stage of the Gracchi. If true this means our culture / society may only have about a thousand and a half years left to run.

There is another school of thought that argues that Libertarians are liars and 1650 years is actually significantly longer than the mean life time of an empire. This school believes that Libertarians are irritating, time wasting drivel mongers.
#14826859
Rich wrote:The Libertarian / Conservative argument is that the Roman Republic became corrupted by Commi /Liberals and this led to inevitable decline.


The republic fell because it was obsolete; designed for a small city state, it was unsuited to run an empire. Its fall meant relative stability and prosperity not decline.
#14826869
The republic fell because it was obsolete; designed for a small city state, it was unsuited to run an empire. Its fall meant relative stability and prosperity not decline.

Indeed. In fact, the stability and prosperity of the Augustan Age was only made possible by the fall of the Republic. It was not Roman civilisation which fell in the 1st century BC, it was was Roman liberty which fell. And it had to fall if Rome was to survive. The 'liberty' of the Roman Republic had become functionally indistinguishable from corruption, nothing more than the 'liberty' to oppress and exploit the vast majority of the population. This liberty had to be taken away from the Optimates, otherwise Rome would have militarily and economically collapsed. It is arguable that Western civilisation is currently entering a similar type of crisis, which will likely have a similar type of outcome.
#14827048
Yes, yes, most likely. It came close to it in inter-war era, with the rise of dictatorships (Communism, Fascism, Nazism) on continental Europe.
#14827067
Yes, yes, most likely. It came close to it in inter-war era, with the rise of dictatorships (Communism, Fascism, Nazism) on continental Europe.

In retrospect, the inter-war years proved to be a false dawn - liberalism survived the crisis, albeit in a vastly altered form. But as Slavoj Zizek has pointed out, things have to happen twice before they become real - the Roman Republic had to fall twice, first at the hand of Julius Caesar and then at the hand of Octavian. Napoleon had to fall twice, first in 1814 and then in 1815 at Waterloo. And so on and so forth, as Zizek would say. Liberalism has already (kinda, sorta) fallen once; if it falls again, its fall will likely be permanent.
User avatar
By Beren
#14827133
Zizek really improved Marxist analysis, did he not? :lol:

I also like when Trumpists blame decadence, which they consider a kind of big city thing whereas they believe in the virtues of rural communities, for the fall of the Roman Empire. Who else could represent American decadence more than Trump the Manhattan-based 'businessman' and his family and cabal do? And no, they have nothing to do with the Byzantines and their despot of course! :lol:
User avatar
By Saeko
#14827140
Potemkin wrote:In retrospect, the inter-war years proved to be a false dawn - liberalism survived the crisis, albeit in a vastly altered form. But as Slavoj Zizek has pointed out, things have to happen twice before they become real - the Roman Republic had to fall twice, first at the hand of Julius Caesar and then at the hand of Octavian. Napoleon had to fall twice, first in 1814 and then in 1815 at Waterloo. And so on and so forth, as Zizek would say. Liberalism has already (kinda, sorta) fallen once; if it falls again, its fall will likely be permanent.


Actually it fell three times. Sula.
#14827141
I can't see that the later Western Empire offered anybody anything much, with its heavy taxes, people forced to carry on in their father's jobs and very little defence to be had to pay for those swaggering troops. Certainly the British province did very well to see it off in 4100. I think ordinary people were hugely better off when the Empire failed to replace the troops who left with Constantine 111, and people's notions of what happened afterwards are clearly based on archaic racism, which is well worth discussing in terms of the way we see the past through our own misunderstandings of our own time.
#14827211
Ned Lud wrote:I can't see that the later Western Empire offered anybody anything much, with its heavy taxes, people forced to carry on in their father's jobs and very little defence to be had to pay for those swaggering troops. Certainly the British province did very well to see it off in 4100. I think ordinary people were hugely better off when the Empire failed to replace the troops who left with Constantine 111, and people's notions of what happened afterwards are clearly based on archaic racism, which is well worth discussing in terms of the way we see the past through our own misunderstandings of our own time.
This is why when Justinian ("The Last Roman") tried to reconquer the western part of the Empire, his expeditionary force found that local populace that they will occupy actually did not desire much for Rome's return.
#14827464
Ned Lud wrote:I can't see that the later Western Empire offered anybody anything much, with its heavy taxes, people forced to carry on in their father's jobs and very little defence to be had to pay for those swaggering troops.


I don't think it was much better in the third century, when there were many failures of defense. Yet the empire retained enough citizen troops to prevail.
It is true as Albert wrote that the people weren't enthusiastic about Justinian's attempt to restore Roman rule. Lack of enthusiasm or support is indeed why the western empire collapsed in the preceding century. But based on history I don't think the reasons for this, given above, were the most important ones.


Certainly the British province did very well to see it off in 4100. I think ordinary people were hugely better off when the Empire failed to replace the troops who left with Constantine 111, and people's notions of what happened afterwards are clearly based on archaic racism, which is well worth discussing in terms of the way we see the past through our own misunderstandings of our own time.


After Constantine III left c 407 CE Britain was increasingly taken over by Angles, saxons, jutes. There's no doubt that Roman civilization disappeared, and I don't think Roman Britons were enthusiastic about the new state of affairs. Some fled to what is now Brittany, others implored Ravenna to send help.
User avatar
By Beren
#14827468
starman2003 wrote:It is true as Albert wrote that the people weren't enthusiastic about Justinian's attempt to restore Roman rule.

How should they have been enthusiastic about a Byzantine despot? :?:
#14827472
starman2003 wrote:I don't think it was much better in the third century, when there were many failures of defense. Yet the empire retained enough citizen troops to prevail.
It is true as Albert wrote that the people weren't enthusiastic about Justinian's attempt to restore Roman rule. Lack of enthusiasm or support is indeed why the western empire collapsed in the preceding century. But based on history I don't think the reasons for this, given above, were the most important ones.




After Constantine III left c 407 CE Britain was increasingly taken over by Angles, saxons, jutes. There's no doubt that Roman civilization disappeared, and I don't think Roman Britons were enthusiastic about the new state of affairs. Some fled to what is now Brittany, others implored Ravenna to send help.


There is serious doubt about what was happening. The latest book I read suggested that the British boss class, limited to 'little worlds' by the disappearance of the troops who used to support them and lacking popular support, brought in mercenaries and mixed with them by marriage, language and so on. There is no sign of heavy population-movement or of heavy popular discontent with the mercenaries - just of a desperate attempt to make up 'national' histories a lot later, when the evidence had vanished.
User avatar
By MB.
#14827475
Starman I want to talk to you about Mitchell at the battle of the Philippine sea and Nagumo's actions at Midway, or rather, why did Yamamoto give Nagumo such a singular mission, shouldn't he have been available with the combined fleet for the decisive super-jutland/tsushima the Japanese naval leadership really wanted? Yamamoto allowed Spruance to smash Nagumo without retaining the ability to intervene, a classic case of over-centralization in my opinion. Also what about Kurita and Halsey's respective decisions at Leyte gulf. Has your position, the one you advocated on your blog, about a large scale attack using the entire combined fleet, changed in your mind or do you still support the concept? What I really want to know is, how did the Toyoda A-go plan fail so terribly in May 1944 at the Battle of the Philippine Sea? Were Mitchel and Nimitz just geniuses compared to Ozawa?
#14827523
Ned Lud wrote:There is serious doubt about what was happening. The latest book I read suggested that the British boss class, limited to 'little worlds' by the disappearance of the troops who used to support them and lacking popular support, brought in mercenaries and mixed with them by marriage, language and so on. There is no sign of heavy population-movement or of heavy popular discontent with the mercenaries - just of a desperate attempt to make up 'national' histories a lot later, when the evidence had vanished.


You mean the angles, saxons and jutes who came were just mercenaries? :) You'd think Brittany wouldn't have acquired its name had the flow of refugees there not been substantial. And what about the SOSs sent to Ravenna? Weren't they from the upper classes?
Beren the Roman masses had no problem with despotic rule of the early Caesars, and btw I doubt barbarian rule was less despotic (Indeed arian invaders like the Vandals persecuted the catholic populations of areas they overran.) They just no longer supported Roman rule specifically--the reason for te collapse of the WRE before Justinian.
MB that's way OT here--did you post on that old blog thread on Alternate scenario Leyte gulf? It's been a while since I checked.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls General Election Summary 2022 Date[…]

Claims that mainstream economics is changing rad[…]

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

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