Posted on 10/25/2018 11:24:48 PM PDT by vannrox
A modern empire is not one of land, but of ideas.
Which makes the Left’s destruction of Western Civilization’s foundational principles our greatest threat.
Of course there were external challenges, from climate change (remember the empire flourished during a period called the "Roman Warming") to the incoming migration of peoples. But it is important to remember the empire was an open system, heavily engaged in foreign trade as well as conquest, and adept at incorporating ideas from foreign sources. It was not closed in upon itself, relying only on its own resources for survival.
When Rome had strong leaders, it flourished, as with Marcus Aurelius. When its leaders were weak or corrupt, it became vulnerable, as with Aurelius' pusillanimous son Commodus. Systems theorists have no way to incorporate this crucial variable into their mechanistic fantasies.
I think it was the fifth century when the emperor of the Western Empire let the Goths in. He was subsequently defeated by a Gothic army, who then went on a rampage in the Empire. It was the beginning of the end of the Western Empire. We should keep this in mind before we let barbarians into our country.
——the emperor of the Western Empire let the Goths in-—
I have been considering that thought for sometime now.
The question rises, did he allow them in or was he powerless to resist.
I suspect the latter.
Goths were. Rome wasn’t
I think I remember reading that the Goths were fleeing from the Huns. The Emperor resisted letting them in, then relented, hoping to enslave them.
But, my memory could be flawed.
“In ancient societies that I studied, for example the Roman Empire, the great problem that they faced was when they would have to incur very high costs just to maintain the status quo. Invest very high amounts in solving problems that don’t yield a net positive return, but instead simply allowed them to maintain what they already got. This decreases the net benefit of being a complex society.”
The question today is: Is the cost of building the wall higher than letting them in if we want to maintain the “Status Quo”? Which provides the net benefit to our society?
Thanks fieldmarshaldj. The whole screed is goldbug nonsense.
This year marks the 2000th anniversary of the battle that led to the annihilation of three Roman legions and changed forever the history of Europe. It was a tremendous shock for the Romans, who saw their mighty army destroyed by uncivilized barbarians.
And as GGG readers probably know, the modern myth that a single defeat "stopped Rome" is not only silly on its face, it's been overturned by more and more finds, as evidence of Roman preseence deep into what is now Germany have turned up. Most telling perhaps is Roman Copenhagen.
Sorry SunkenCiv not to ping you on this. You are, of course correct on your comments. Never the less I found some interesting things in the dialog.
wow ... was that a long read... i will have to look at it again so i can remember it
In short, Rome was a city. The question isn’t why did it fall, the question is how did the empire stay together so long.
You can’t hire your enemies as paid mercenaries and think you are secure.
The hinterlands population increased greatly from 500 BC to 400 AD Demographics is a MoFo.
Splitting the empire into thirds is a non-starter.
My 50 cents worth.
I prefer 1880-1930 age of inventions
Some would say now with the age of personal electronics.
even when there was patriotism the legionaires wanted land and other spoils. Hard to show an age of pure patriotism making thousands rush into the army.
I hope I wasn't too b****y.
Everybody likes to get paid. But then came the age of "bread and circuses". What is the allure of getting some land of your own that you can farm and raise a family on, when there's free stuff given to you for just voting for it?
One big factor in the decline was the wealthy getting slaves, and those slaves working more cheaply than the old Roman middle class. Something like how the Cheap Labor Express operates today.
No, but you CAN award your troops prime farmland in the areas you conquer, where they can raise a large family whose sons will want to serve a stint in the Army so that THEY can get land of their own.
Yes I made that point in my comment about enlisting for loyalty
Rome's conquests began with Ostia (no later than the 5th c BC) and the empire ended at last with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.
What do you have in *your* wallet?
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.