Why did over expanding collapse Rome but Britain was not punished

>>130614077
> communication technology of 117 A.D.
> communication technology of 18th and 19th centuries

>>130614077
>>130614077
On the one hand I assume someone asking something so dumb to be naturally shitposting, but it's purpose is so meaningless then I have to assume you're actually that dumb. For all that a care about being red pilled or just a proper human go learn your history, it isn't hard.

>go to London 2017 AD
>think everything is fine

Neck yourself my man

>>130614390
This. Corruption is a lot easier when your only communication with the government is through letter carriers on horses, verses steam engines and telegraphs.

>but Britain was not punished for expanding across the globe
not very bright are you?

>>130614077
Genuinely because Romans enjoyed fucking European women so much that they lost their identity and became loyal to natives. Don't have that problem with niggers because they are so different and mostly unattractive

>>130614077
Because Frank unleashed the spine beetles on them.

>>130614077
>Britain was not punished for expanding across the globe
t. le muiticulti islam island

>>130614077
You gotta lotta haters but I'm honestly hoping some history anon comes through with some facts about Rome

>>130614077
>not punished

Have seen the state of our mudskin infested cities?

The only people unpunished are the upper class who don't have to live amongst the scum they allowed in.

File: 1470384533912.jpg (85KB, 640x566px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x566px

>>130614077
>"expansion caused the collapse"
>this is how much /pol/ knows about history
lol

>>130614077
>Whatever happens, we have got
>The Maxim gun, and they have not.

>>130614077
Technology

Britain's empire grew during a major leap in technology that made the world smaller, and they jumped on it early. Better shipping meant better supply routes, better supply routes mean better armies/navies.

Because Rome was filled with various factions, politicians, and families competing with each other. While that is true of every other power throughout history up to and including the present, the actual Roman state didn't have much power, while modern states do.

So while Britain has the same rich people competing for power... They are rich because they work within the confines of the modern system and the state, laws, order, are what give and keep them in power. And the state is what maintains the order and the system where they are at the top.

In Rome, you had to claw your way to the top and they did so with wars. The rich owned their own private armies that were loyal to their benefactor, not to the state. While it was more stable than barbarism elsewhere, it was incredibly unstable compared to modern nation states.

And internal turmoil was only one facet of Rome's demise... Being as big as they were in the ancient world was a problem that was not a problem later. It would take YEARS for news to travel across the empire... It could take YEARS to respond to it, if they responded at all.

All of it adds up to a literal house of cards. Which is why it is silly when people compare modern nation states the Britain and the US to Rome... Because those ruling modern society have a vested interest in maintaining the state, and the state has a vested interest in maintaining the power granted to them by their benefactors, and the people have a vested interest in maintaining the state because as shitty as they may cry their lives are, its better than being fucking dead, or living in the shit ass third world, and anarchy. Everyone has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo...

That wasn't the case in Rome... Everyone competing for power had a vested interest in upsetting the status quo because that was the only way to depose someone from their position of power and install themselves. Its a wonder Rome even lasted as long as it did in this state.