Posted on 06/25/2009 11:16:21 PM PDT by Osnome
Six Most Important Factors that destroyed Roman Civilization:
1)Overtaxation
2)Opression of the Provences by the Central Government
3)Government topheavy with bureaucracy
4)Military power overextended across the world(their world at the time)
5)The Populace diverted by degenerate mass entertainment
6) The Borders poorly defended against increasing foreign migration(in their case, Barbarians)
People don’t even know the meaning of liberty anymore it is so confused with entertainment and debauchery. We watch the thieves in proud plain sight and we do nothing to stop them as they rape and beat lady liberty into submission we do nothing when we should have their heads.
That’s a great statement, worthy of engraving somewhere.
You are absolutely right on all those factors leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire. I read once that the taxes were so high, that many of the Roman citizens welcomed the barbarian invaders as a relief from high taxation.
It seems that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.
A problem is that we who are not debauched have often voted for those politicians who have fraternized or would like to do so with the Hollywood Crowd.
We should not seek to be with them(or co-opt them), we should eradicate them!
There are no Conservatives worthy of the name in Hollywood(or the rest of the Popular Media).
None of them can be trusted.
The Barbarians are already in the White House.
They are not Americans, they were not raised in America, they owe no allegiance to America. We could only be destroyed from within, and that is what is happening.
Unilateral disarmament, runaway spending leading to hyperinflation... what more could a Jihadist against America wish for?
The cancer in D.C. must be excised.
>>You are absolutely right on all those factors leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire. I read once that the taxes were so high, that many of the Roman citizens welcomed the barbarian invaders as a relief from high taxation.<<
Yeah, I think I saw that too, on some show on The History Channel.
There are other factors, I leave it to posters to add their own considerations.
P.S. I sometimes consider the Canadians to be a reincarnation of the Parthians.
I do not trust any of them. When they are with us it is fine. We see how well supporting Arnold benefited us in CA?
A self-ping for a morning comment. I think your list is a good one. I’d add a couple - first, the shift in political emphasis, military resources, and especially revenues toward Constantinople after the split of the Empire, and second, as Gibbon proposed, the dramatic shift in talent from the secular government to the building of the Church. It’s a little difficult to understand just how radical a shift it was until you consider that Christianity had, in the same period, run like wildfire through the Goths, and that the very men taking over the Western Empire in 476 AD were Arian Christians. The notion of a barbarian taking over the monarchy was tempered by the realization that the barbarian was a Christian, not to mention the leader of an army that was as close to Roman as anything in the field at the time. The Emperor was, by then, in Ravenna anyway, not Rome. It may not have been as jarring a change as it might appear to us at this historical distance. IMHO, of course.
Of course, there have been some historiographical developments since Gibbon’s day. One thing he failed to consider was the agriculutural revolution that happened in the East, which lead to an explosion in wealth and population in the barbarian East, which could perhaps be likened to the economic rise of China....
Also, most of what you have just mentioned is more indicative of the collapse of the Republic, following which there was another 500 years of Empire, much of which was even more successful than the the Republican period.
America has yet to reach it’s ‘Principate’ phase if we’re making the analogy with Rome here. So is Obama a Marius, brothers Gracchi or a Julius Caesar, or maybe a combination?
Oh, and I almost forgot - I’m going to bed, really, and won’t comment until the morning - yeah, right - the fact that the Vandals had swept through Spain and captured North Africa, which was the principal granary of Rome, really put an end to the whole thing. Until Belisarius came back through (from Constantinople) half a century later Rome only ate by permission of the barbarians. The Ostrogoths from the north and the Vandals in the south - that was pretty much all she wrote.
The truth is, the Roman Empire did not fall in a day in 476 A.D., it withered away until nothing was left but a shriveled denuded trunk of its’ former self.
Then the Goths took over, then the Byzantines sought to recapture the Italian peninsula in the 6th century.
The Goth & Byzantine wars devastated Italy.
That was the onset of the Dark Ages.
The truth is, the Roman Empire did not fall in a day in 476 A.D., it withered away until nothing was left but a shriveled denuded trunk of its’ former self.
Then the Goths took over, then the Byzantines sought to recapture the Italian peninsula in the 6th century.
The Goth & Byzantine wars devastated Italy.
That was the onset of the Dark Ages.
Good night!
Bookmark for later
>>Also, most of what you have just mentioned is more indicative of the collapse of the Republic, following which there was another 500 years of Empire, much of which was even more successful than the the Republican period.
America has yet to reach it’s ‘Principate’ phase if we’re making the analogy with Rome here. So is Obama a Marius, brothers Gracchi or a Julius Caesar, or maybe a combination?<<
Well ofcourse the U.S.A. is not a verbatim remake of the Roman Empire.(antiAmerican Cynics from Europe to Canada will call us that)
We are a democracy of which Rome never truly was.
We don’t rely on slaves for cheap labour(once again Libs and Lefties will compare that to immigrant labour).
I think Obama is our Septimus Serverus, an interloper~
He maybe our Septimus Serverus, an interloper from Africa
We are not an empire ruled by an emperor. Such a comparison was more apt for the British. We are a republic. As such, comparisons to the Roman Republic are more apt. Why did the Roman Republic fall?
Good night all :-)
We let government schools teach our children and they are infected with poison, and we continuously reelect the same politicians. We see it coming and all we want is bread and circuses. I see no way to get these people out of our institutions.
You can either head for the hills and live off the land, or prepare for and engage in revolution; and without effective organization a revolution will be short lived.
I don't know what to do except teach my children well, defend my beliefs, and vote my conscience.
It seems as though all great nations end this way. How does one stop it?
By shedding off the dead weight- by giving up the imperial possessions(and the cost of the garrisons that went with them).
That is what Japan was forced to do after WW2 and consequently became one of the 20th century's greatest economic powers within less than two generations. Does this apply to America, I would say not now it doesn't. But then again what do we shed? Our NATO presence in Europe(plus our garrison in Korea and other countries). Pat Buchanan advocates such!
“There are other factors, I leave it to posters to add their own considerations.”
Here’s one, that applies today also. The central Roman gov’t became too dependent on their colonies for production of materials and supplies. They farmed out their needs or imported from their colonies the material products they wanted, and thus no longer had a manufacturing base of their own, making them vulnerable economically. Just like we have done in the U.S., by losing our manufacturing base and having to import so much from the likes of China and others.
>>Just like we have done in the U.S., by losing our manufacturing base and having to import so much from the likes of China and others.<<
And from Malaysia, Korea, Mexico, and those damned Canadians
Good post
Perhaps we should become "the barbarians."
Arrrgh! Or a pirate!
I’m a pirate! Blather, blather!
“And from Malaysia, Korea, Mexico, and those damned Canadians”
You obviously missed the point I was making.
Corruption did the roman republic in - as well as near constant warfare. It was just a matter of time before a general decided to bring matters under control.
>>We are not an empire ruled by an emperor. Such a comparison was more apt for the British. We are a republic. As such, comparisons to the Roman Republic are more apt. Why did the Roman Republic fall?<<
I am not making a verbatim parallel of America to Rome.
I am making a loose analogy based on similar trends that I have discerned
To entertain your line of thinking, why did their Republic Fall~ many reasons; greed, softness, and addiction to luxury(this includes an addiction to using slaves), the loss of the sense of Public Duty, the increasing ambitions of many Generals/Politicians.
But in the end the form of government that suited a city state could not govern and maintain a multinational empire.
It was inevitable that the Romans gravitated to authoritarian and increasingly despotic government.
That is the Fall of the Roman Republic.
With us it is the rapid growth of Big Government and dependence on Federal support.
We have been evolving into a Washingtonian Empire for the past 90 odd years.
Fall of a Great Republic, Democracy, Empire never happen in a day and are a combination of causes both external and primarily internal.
When a government has so many tentacles spread out over the world, it is only natural for it to try to protect its interests.
I'm not saying Obama is our Julius Caesar, but he may wind up being our first emperor - without clothes.
I disagree very much.
The Roman Empire was not totalitarian, not until the rule of Diocletian.
And the symbol of the Roman Republic was the Fasces.
The Roman Republic was very authoritarian to begin with- very similar to SPARTA.
>>“And from Malaysia, Korea, Mexico, and those damned Canadians”
You obviously missed the point I was making.
<<
Oh, I thought you were talking about the willful loss of America’s manufacturing base to other countries.
The Romans did not create their own industries but relied on their colonies and conquered provinces(to be sure there were some exceptions to that pattern)to provide good and services(slaves).
I was also being a little whimsical :-)
No blood for oil? Yeah, right.
A major factorial difference between the Republic of Rome and the Empire is that while not really a democrcy per se, the Citizens, The Public Sector(Plebians) did have a voice in government matters— thru the Tribunes.
With the Empire established, the Citizens where content to have grand scale matters decided for them, they were guaranteed their leisures and wealth.
Maybe that is the way we’re going now~?
What part? The Imperial cult started with Julius. And the Senate was castrated by the time of Caligula.
I agree that they were authoritarian from the git go, but they (Rome) ruled with an iron fist from the time of Augustus.
Ah, good point. Although, I’m not sure at what point they (the Plebians) lost their voice.
>>And I might add, that Islam may be wholly put down because they have the oil we need.
No blood for oil? Yeah, right.
<<
Yes that dependence on a foreign controlled resource is a weakness to our Democracy.
No, there has been no blood for oil.
At least not in this invasion of Iraq- - everybody thought that Saddam Hussein was hiding dangerous weapons.
As for profit, we would all be better economically if we had not invaded that nasty third-world country at all.
If supply of oil was thee consideration, we would not have invaded Iraq at all for Hussien was perfectly willing to sell his oil to anyone who would buy.
Fuel prices would be lower today if we had never invaded.
7)Dark ages followed.
—as well as constant warfare—..etc..
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Especially when the citizenry decides it is ‘below them’ to represent the pols in the warfare end of it...you end up with mercenaries, who, when the thrill of the outside fight is over, turn on the hand that feeds them and takes it for themselves...that is when the ‘lazy, pampered citizens’ are overrun, unable to stop it as the powers that be have either disarmed them or made ‘them’ apathetic to self preservation, through welfare, government schools, FREE THIS, FREE THAT etc
I agree that they were authoritarian from the git go, but they (Rome) ruled with an iron fist from the time of Augustus.
<<
Yes and no, again.
The Senate held some real power all the way until the rule of Aurelian The Reformer in the 3rd century(and we need not digress why he did so).
Then Diocletian dissolved the Senate permanently.
Not just to our democracy, but China and everyone else that relies on it.
While we invaded Iraq over WMD and we liberated their people, the flow of oil is of great consequence. It is fungible, but a steady supply is still required.
Yes, we didn’t invade for their oil, but we will forever remain in the middle east because of it.
The power of their Tribunes like the power of the Senate became gradually(for the most part) whittled down to nothing more than a ceremonial role.
All important decisions were made from the Imperial Office downward.
The last vestiges of self government were only at the local level.
>>the flow of oil is of great consequence. It is fungible, but a steady supply is still required.
Yes, we didn’t invade for their oil, but we will forever remain in the middle east because of it.
<<
Very well
There is one theory that the ‘Dark Ages’ were precipitated by some global natural catastrophe in 536 A.D. which darkened the skies of Europe literally and brought about many plights.
This is alluded to in the Legends of King Arthur with the fall of Camelot and stories of famine in the land.
But this becomes a digression.
The Senate held power at the whims of the emperor. While it wasn’t dissolved until Diocletian, it was held at bay by any given emperor.
Aurelian was the last to let the Senate have any kind of voice at all, although how much can be debated. Most emperors ignored them except on trivial matters - usually internal affairs.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
But, your overall view is clear. Our country may well dissolve into dictatorial rule. It may only survive by plundering the resources of others. I don’t think we are going anywhere, but the game has changed.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
<<
Hah hah hah hah!
Would you believe that he may have dissolved away the Senate because they submitted to the petition of a women's protest(the first organized female protest in history).
The emperor had banned importing silks from the east.
He thought the empire could not afford such a trivial flimsy luxury.
The women of Rome could not stand to do without their silks.
LOL! Okay. You seem to have the better memory. Even after reading Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” and Philip Schaff’s multi-volumed “History of the Church” ... I’m now running back to brush up on my history.
Run Away! Run Away!
>>Of course, there have been some historiographical developments since Gibbon’s day. One thing he failed to consider was the agriculutural revolution that happened in the East, which lead to an explosion in wealth and population in the barbarian East, which could perhaps be likened to the economic rise of China....<<
Maybe.
The Huns were from the East and were certinaly not dependent nor involved in agriculture(farmimg).
They were barbarian raiders and expert horsemen.
The Chinese are not barbarian invaders, but I get the last point and would say at this time it is a bit of a stretch.
Run away and good night - - again:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.