Is the "rome fell due to the lack of continued expansion,

I guess a huge force of slaves could have helped. Its just hard for such a centralized city to control armies all over Europe

No, considering the expansion more or less stopped with Augustus, Britain and Dacia being an exceptions, and the empire lasted for 1500 years after him.

No, that's dumb. The Empire was so big and unwieldy they needed to split it into two administrative regions. Any further expansion would've only accelerated the fall of the west, most likely.

It fell because of a sudden mass influx of foreigners in an entity that was already filled with non-Romans (i.e., far less capable individuals). The same thing is happening in South-West US and Northern Europe as I type this.

No, Rome fell because of [something my ideological opponents want to do].

t. every moron from the last thousand years

Rome should have fallen 100 times before it did, in the west, but it managed to hold on anyway.

The Empire was trending towards the East for centuries before the fall of the West. Before Trade with the New World, Western Europe was generally poor, and once Hispania was depleted of its silver mines, only Carthage remained rich due to its grain and fine pottery

Slaves from war were a bonus but it was by no means dependent on it, it went for decades without significant conquests relative to its size.

Why would this be a more important factor than literal invasions?

Daily reminder that slavery ruined the roman economy in the first place

>>2474705

the empire fell because it's institutions were left to decline and the romans believed themselves to be invincible

as such when the massive influx of barberians came, along side with plagues and christians the roman backbone had already eroded

Rome fell because of it's size. I was pretty much impossible to control it. Actually, many things caused Rome's downfall.

>>2474705
Rome fell because of Christianity that weakened it for the Huns to impact on it.

File: ancient-rome[1].jpg (335KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1280x960px

>>2474705
You can think of the Roman Empire as a City-state that got way to big for its own britches.

The Roman Empire represents the unsustainable upper limit for the size of societies that you can construct around the City-State model.

The foundation of Rome's strength was in its system of citizenship: yesterday's conquered people were today's servants and freedmen and tomorrow's citizens and legionaries. This constant infusion of fresh blood is what allowed them to field massive armies and weather brutal and appalling military losses while grinding their enemies down through sheer attrition. Rome was just as famous for its stunning military defeats as was for its victories.

This citizenship model broke down in the last century BC as more client cities were demanding emancipation and a say in the public affairs and were facing resistance from natural born Romans who were scapegoating them for their economic woes. By the time Caesar Augustus took the title "First Citizen", the concept had lost all meaning, and Rome was put on the perpetual defensive and its primary expansion phase came to an end.

>>2474762
That's wrong, /pol/. The Germanic tribes had been living in Roman lands for generations as second class citizens, allowing wealthy Romans to extort them and treat them like disposable soldiers. By every right they should have been Roman citizens at that point but by then the Roman citizenship process had become a cruel joke.

This wasn't even the first time that Rome had to be bailed out by one of its satellite peoples and it wasn't the first time that Rome had to rely on an army composed mostly of non-citizens: as much as 2/3rds of the army in Scipio Africanus's day were from allied states. However, unlike every other instance in Roman history, when the second class citizens took over this time, they had nothing but disdain for the central bureaucracy and the many years it spend completely screwing them over, which is why they dismantled it in the west.

>>2474813
This

>>2474922
Germanics wanted what Rome had, just not Roman rule.

>>2474922
>everyone who disagrees with me is /pol/, because I said so
You need to go back to /utg/, you degenerate, neo-marxist, neo-cuckoldian millennial

No, Rome fell because of [something my ideological allies want to do].

t. every enlightened philosopher of the past one hundred and seventy five thousand years

>>2475150
One of those statements is a baseless assertion spewed to advance an existing political agenda, and the other is one based in fact and research.
>>2474762
Immigration today is in no way similar to the massive waves of immigration Rome saw. The peoples who moved into Roman territory did so as a political and cultural entity, complete with their own governments and wills. They moved in more or less nomadic groups with military might to back up their safety and were nothing like the individuals who migrate into the US/ Europe today.
A similar situation would be if every country in Central America (minus Mexico) suddenly picked up their populations, keeping their governments, culture, monetary systems, etc and tried to move into the US.

>>2475200
>everyone who disagrees with me is a baseless assertion, because i said so

go back to /utg/ you millennial
kike
cuck

File: 212.png (54KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 300x100px

>>2475284
Go back to /pol/
Or at the very least try actually giving supporting evidence instead of letting the shit in your mouth drip out and calling it facts.