What caused the Roman Empire to fall?

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome-fell

>>11867
>shit nigga its a surprise it didnt fall sooner
-edward gibbon

>>11867
the jews

It was a combination of different factors.

Firstly it was the political corruption that went rampant as well as a number of incompetent emperors who even killed generals due to paranoia.

The mass influx of barbarians in the army is also accounted for since there is a less Roman influence on the legions. Also, Rome couldn't pay there army their sum.

The introduction of Christianity caused political upheavals that eventually caused the split.

Oh, and Rome got sacked like three times.

army was spread to thin, relentless assault by the barbarians

>>12114
Not to mention the terrible climate change/huns which forced the mass migrations which Romes weakened legions were not in a position to deal with.

>>11867
The simple and short answer is that their values eroded over time and they lost their vigor. Losing to barbarians is merely a symptom of decline, not the cause.

>>11976
Or more elegantly

>‘The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity repined the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it lasted so long.’ – Edward Gibbon

>>11867
To quote my Roman history professor:
>A concatenation of misfortunes.

>>11867
Complacency.

>>12687
Where would you pinpoint the moment of the fall?
When did the road to ruin truly begin?

File: allnatty.jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

massive gains ( territorial )

File: b525648050[1].png (35KB, 293x783px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 293x783px

>>12783
It began when men stopped walking in their father's footsteps and turned their back on everything that made their culture thrive in the first place.

>>12783
Crisis of the Third Century would be the big one. But really, you could pinpoint it all the way back to the Roman Republic if you digged around enough.

>>12783

When Caesar fucked the republic and turned it into a dictatorship shithole. It destroyed the union of nobles for the great good and started the plots for power and corruption.

File: 1443944407013.jpg (56KB, 610x355px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 610x355px

>>11899
Looks familiar.

File: the air was filled with smoke and blood.png (179KB, 800x345px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 800x345px

>>11867
The question isn't 'why did it fall?' it's 'why did it stay around as long as it did?'

The Roman Empire was unstable, corrupt, overpopulated, and mismanaged on every conceivable level.

Maybe we should try that as a thread topic next time for a breath of fresh air.

>>13051
It started before that. Greed and corruption had already taken root in the hearts of Roman consuls before Caesar and Octavian's rise to power.

>>11899
>only 8

https://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

>>13148
Hardly. You're describing the Roman Empire on its deathbed. If you only looked at the the last century or two that might have been accurate (apart from the overpopulation part, they suffered a fertility crisis just like we're doing right now) but at the Republic/Empire's peak it wasn't any of those: it was a powerhouse.

>>13158

One thing is two or three corrupts plotingto get place in a higher rank, other thing is all the senators fighting each other for the absolute throne, who will lead to feudalism in consequence.

>>12507
What chapter was this in?

>>12783
The Marian reforms.

Prior to that Rome had an army of short term enlisted landowners whose primary motivation was civic duty. After that you had an army of long term enlisted landless poor, whose primary motivation was money and land. And therefore they proved completely loyal to the generals who could provide that, not to the state.

In the 600 years prior to that point, the worst Roman on Roman violence was street clashes. From that point almost immediately you have legions fighting other legions which becomes both common and never stops until the very end of the Empire.

The final terminal step is when even the landless poor can't be incentivized or coerced into the army, and you end up a situation like after Adrianople an Empire an order of magnitude as populous as the Republic after Cannae has a harder time dealing with a defeat a third the size.

>>13148
>overpopulated
Thanks for demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about. A consistent theme from the 2nd century onwards is underpopulated areas as a result of war and disease.

>>13504

Good point.

>>13504
The Marian reforms were a necessarily evil, though. Rome was in a bad spot at the time they were enacted but their efficiency ensured Rome's survival, but you are correct in saying that it helped pave the way to the centralizing of power to the Roman generals.

>>12895
>pessimism, materialism, frivolity, a weakening of religion, selfishness, love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty

Yea, the US is pretty much fucked then tbqh

>>13393
Volume 3 Chapter 38. Might be different based on editions. Here's one online version with it:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/892/892-h/892-h.htm

>>13643
I'm sure someone has come up with a theoretical system that would have dealt with the strains the traditional system was under without unleashing the side effects of the Marian reforms, but that's just hypothetical history.

>>11867
The simple answer is "the empire did not die of natural causes, it was assasinated".

All the "degeneracy"/"corruption"/"christianity" things are just ahistorical projections that have been trendy at some point as a way of framing it.

It was really just a series of blunders and the perfect shitstorm of the Migration Period.

"Bad Luck" isn't a satisfying answer, but that is a big part of it too. There were multiple times when shrewd governmentship might have turned things around, but by the time they had lost Carthage there was no possible way back, the networks that defined the Western Empire were gone for good and they had been dismantled piecemeal to the point where there was no possibility to put it back together again.

>>13204

>Bolshevization

IT WAS THE COMMIES AGAIN.

>>12507
>actually fucking quoting Gibbon as a reliable source on this
>20fucking15

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

>>13204
this is garbage

>>13801
A high birth rate coupled with patriotism and a sense of duty to one's people should be enough to generate a steady stream of soldiers, no? I don't think you need an advanced scheme or system for it to work. Sometimes the simple answers are the way to go.

>>11867

Degeneracy

>>12783
>When did the road to ruin truly begin?

When the Julio-Claudian dynasty ended.

It set the stage for continual bribery of the military to keep their loyalty which led to a system where civil war was common and imbalanced the economy.

>>13204
Ha, that's the list my professor used.
[spoiler]hook 'em horns[/spoiler]

>>13929
That's the point.

>>11899
I still don't understand why they ran out of troops, as in #8. Did they run out of able-bodied men? Or did they just not want to fight anymore? For centuries Rome always seemed to draw on plenty of soldiers, like in the Punic Wars.

>>14203
>>/pol/

>>15985
Christianity led to the decline in the martial nature of Romans, since a big part of the doctrine is about peace etc. But they were still rich as fuck, so they just hired barbarians to fight for them, since the seemed to like doing it.

>>12756
This.

File: John_William_Waterhouse_-_The_Favorites_of_the_Emperor_Honorius_-_1883.jpg (1MB, 1576x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1576x900px

This guy, at least for the west

Marcus Aurelius not adopting a successor like the other good emperors and placing Commudus in the throne.

>>17295
>But they were still rich as fuck
The empire was in a sharp economic decline. Who are the "they" you're referring to?

Math.

Some times things make an empire stronger like a powerful army, some things make it weaker like barbarian invasions. There are infinite positive and negative values that are fluctuating with the progress of time. After a few centuries the negatives outweigh the positives and the empire goes into decline. Once its declined enough it hits critical mass and collapses.

It was literally nothing but the product of chance. There was no "mistake" that caused it all to go wrong, it was more like a million micro-mistakes that would have been to much for anybody to understand.

>>17487
Nobles, the church. How do you think they paid the foederati?

>>16048
back to >>>/reddit/
he's not wrong

Rome fell? Coulda fooled me.

>>11867
Immigration and sympathy for refugees. seriously.

File: 1354759034381.gif (1MB, 245x118px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x118px

>>11867
The answer is literally, "White people."

>>17874
Are Italians not white now?

File: Hun.jpg (495KB, 854x937px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 854x937px

>>17874
Don't you mean asians

>>17894
Spaghettiniggers have never been white

>>17894
Now, yes.

because ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>>17896
Huns drove the Visigoths and Vandals who sacked Rome. Attila was turned away with gold by the pope.

The lack of a proper succession method made it hard for rulers to establish legitimacy, especially if the previous emperor did not name his successor. This ensured that civil war was frequent, especially with troop loyalties to their generals.

>>17896
>that thick uncircumcised penis near the horses neck

>>18051
That's exactly what I mean, the Huns and climate change forced a migration of german tribes into Roman lands and thus caused the fall of Rome

Snow beaners

Gracchi brothers which started the death of the Republic, Marius was an expediter, and officially executed by Caesar

Once the Republic died it was just another kingdom that happened to have a lot land

>>18110
What you're saying is that white people were too cowardly to fight the Huns? So it's still their fault.

- Romes armies by the end were basically foreign mercenary tier that when werent paid decided to sack the city

-Christanity hated the fact that pagans existed, to them THEIR religion is the ONE TRUE religion and if you arent one of them you either are converted or you are killed. Pagans didnt give a fuck what religion you were as long as you didnt push it.

-literal Back stabbing politicians

>>18213
Watch what you say, racist. Mods are swarming this place.

>>18110
Ah. My bad, I thought you meant the Huns literally sacked Rome.

>>11867
Mehmed II's cannons. The west not wanting to help drive him back. The usual

>>11867
http://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/210%20Reasons.htm

All 210.

1. Abolition of gods
2. Abolition of rights
3. Absence of character
4. Absolutism
5. Agrarian question
6. Agrarian slavery
7. Anarchy
8. Anti-Germanism
9. Apathy
10. Aristocracy
11. Asceticism
12. Attack of the Germans
13. Attack of the Huns
14. Attack of riding nomads
15. Backwardness in science
16. Bankruptcy
17. Barbarization
18. Bastardization
19. Blockage of land by large landholders
20. Blood poisoning
21. Bolshevization
22. Bread and circuses
23. Bureaucracy
24. Byzantinism
25. Capillarite sociale
26. Capitals, change of
27. Caste system
28. Celibacy
29. Centralization
30. Childlessness
31. Christianity
32. Citizenship, granting of
33. Civil war
34. Climatic deterioration
35. Communism
36. Complacency
37. Concatenation of misfortunes
38. Conservatism
39. Capitalism
40. Corruption
41. Cosmopolitanism
42. Crisis of legitimacy
43. Culinary excess
44. Cultural neurosis
45. Decentralization
46. Decline of Nordic character
47. Decline of the cities
48. Decline of the Italian population
49. Deforestation
50. Degeneration
51. Degeneration of the intellect
52. Demoralization
53. Depletion of mineral resources
54. Despotism
55. Destruction of environment
56. Destruction of peasantry
57. Destruction of political process
58. Destruction of Roman influence
59. Devastation
60. Differences in wealth
61. Disarmament
62. Disillusion with stated goals of empire
63. Division of empire
64. Division of labor
65. Earthquakes
66. Egoism
67. Egoism of the state
68. Emancipation of slaves
69. Enervation
70. Epidemics
71. Equal rights, granting of
72. Eradication of the best
73. Escapism
74. Ethnic dissolution
75. Excessive aging of population
76. Excessive civilization
77. Excessive culture

>>18515
78. Excessive foreign infiltration
79. Excessive freedom
80. Excessive urbanization
81. Expansion
82. Exploitation
83. Fear of life
84. Female emancipation
85. Feudalization
86. Fiscalism
87. Gladiatorial system
88. Gluttony
89. Gout
90. Hedonism
91. Hellenization
92. Heresy
93. Homosexuality
94. Hothouse culture
95. Hubris
96. Hypothermia
97. Immoderate greatness
98. Imperialism
99. Impotence
100. Impoverishment
101. Imprudent policy toward buffer states
102. Inadequate educational system
103. Indifference
104. Individualism
105. Indoctrination
106. Inertia
107. Inflation
108. Intellectualism
109. Integration, weakness of
110. Irrationality
111. Jewish influence
112. Lack of leadership
113. Lack of male dignity
114. Lack of military recruits
115. Lack of orderly imperial succession
116. Lack of qualified workers
117. Lack of rainfall
118. Lack of religiousness
119. Lack of seriousness
120. Large landed properties
121. Lead poisoning
122. Lethargy
123. Leveling, cultural
124. Leveling, social
125. Loss of army discipline
126. Loss of authority
127. Loss of energy
128. Loss of instincts
129. Loss of population
130. Luxury
131. Malaria
132. Marriages of convenience
133. Mercenary system
134. Mercury damage
135. Militarism
136. Monetary economy
137. Monetary greed
138. Money, shortage of
139. Moral decline
140. Moral idealism
141. Moral materialism
142. Mystery religions
143. Nationalism of Rome's subjects
144. Negative selection
145. Orientalization

>>18558
146. Outflow of gold
147. Over refinement
148. Pacifism
149. Paralysis of will
150. Paralysization
151. Parasitism
152. Particularism
153. Pauperism
154. Plagues
155. Pleasure seeking
156. Plutocracy
157. Polytheism
158. Population pressure
159. Precociousness
160. Professional army
161. Proletarianization
162. Prosperity
163. Prostitution
164. Psychoses
165. Public baths
166. Racial degeneration
167. Racial discrimination
168. Racial suicide
169. Rationalism
170. Refusal of military service
171. Religious struggles and schisms
172. Rentier mentality
173. Resignation
174. Restriction to profession
175. Restriction to the land
176. Rhetoric
177. Rise of uneducated masses
178. Romantic attitudes to peace
179. Ruin of middle class
180. Rule of the world
181. Semieducation
182. Sensuality
183. Servility
184. Sexuality
185. Shamelessness
186. Shifting of trade routes
187. Slavery
188. Slavic attacks
189. Socialism (of the state)
190. Soil erosion
191. Soil exhaustion
192. Spiritual barbarism
193. Stagnation
194. Stoicism
195. Stress
196. Structural weakness
197. Superstition
198. Taxation, pressure of
199. Terrorism
200. Tiredness of life
201. Totalitarianism
202. Treason
203. Tristesse
204. Two-front war
205. Underdevelopment
206. Useless eaters
207. Usurpation of all powers by state
208. Vain gloriousness
209. Villa economy

File: tumblr_n9ev2ttxbj1smi5c7o1_500.gif (1MB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x269px

>>18263

>>18585
210. Vulgarization

Take your pick.

>>18585
>>18558
>>18515
>no obama
>no marxism
>no librulz

bad list

>>18558
>poly theism
>the official religious stance of Rome when it started out as a cingle city state and grew to encompass 90% of the known world
>reason it failed

oh ya, im sure

>>13504
You raise an interesting point that leads me to a question

>even the landless poor can't be incentivized or coerced into the army

so this would mean that the state was unable to pay enough to maintain an army?

this would suggest to me that a large portion of the Roman economy slipped out of the government's hands, ie was black. I mean the money was obviously there to pay for those poor fuckers lives but not enough to get them to fight. Is there any literature on this topic?

>>12114
>who even killed generals due to paranoia.
What?
The generals often killed Caesars when they didn't pay them enough or they did something they didn't like.