Did the Roman Empire collapse because of moral degeneracy?

>>17855330 (OP)

The Roman Empire collapsed because of paganism.

>>17855330 (OP)
Too much lead in their diet poisoned them

The worst parts (euro provinces) were separated from the best parts(Anatolia Syria Egypt) at the worst time possible(population decrease from climate, hunnic subhumans damaging military and pushing Germanic subhumans to migrate and chimp out everywhere after military was damaged)

>>17855330 (OP)
if by moral degeneracy you mean massive amounts of corruption then that would be one of the reasons

>>17855330 (OP)
It collapsed because of scheming eunuchs and feckless 'emperors'
Honorious was the worst, his brother not much better. The East survived thanks to Constantine's genius and the Theodosian Walls, Ravenna was not as well placed.

>>17855338

How can civilization which lasted 2000 years because of same paganism collapse due to it?

Maybe you should shoot yourself in the head to get the tumor removed and you can maybe think clearly

>>17855330 (OP)
>Did Rome collapse because of moral degeneracy?

No. Though I do factor in the adoption of Christianity because it made them invert their values and diminished loyalty to the Rome (though it increased Rome's power as a religious authority as paradoxical as that is).

The main reason that Rome fell is that the surrounding powers and polities simply caught up.

Nations like Rome; with far superior technology, economies, and military tactics; can briefly steamroll the world.... but then that also causes all rival powers to attempt to catch up. Once they do, they're no longer so easily subjugated.

Small tribes band together, they adopt the superior battle tactics that defeated them, adopt economic and logistic tactics used by their conquerors, and essentially adopt every tactic that gave Rome an edge.

Same thing happened with the Indian nations inhabiting the US. They were initially steamrolled but became a major threat once they adopted Western technology and battle tactics.

>>17855330 (OP)
>Did the Roman Empire collapse because of moral degeneracy?

Yes, specifically the moral degeneracy of race mixing. A critical mass of brownoids destroys all host nations.

>>17855403
I remember reading this but apparently it has been debunked? Nero almost bankrupted the economy and I think some of Senecas story interesting.
>During his time serving Emperor Nero, Seneca the Younger was accused by the senator Publius Suillius Rufus of accumulating a fortune of 300 million sesterces in just four years by charging high interest on loans throughout Italy and the provinces. Suillius, however, is considered to have been prejudiced in his claims, as he himself was an embezzler and informant who had been close to Claudius, according to Wikipedia.
>Regardless of the validity of the claims, Seneca was indeed very wealthy, owning properties and estates, and Cassius Dio reported that his lending practices may have even played a role in the Boudica uprising in Britannia.

>>17855330 (OP)
Microplastics

>>17855330 (OP)
>Did the Roman Empire collapse because of moral degeneracy?

No, don't be retarded.
The Roman Empire Collapsed due to several things happening at once:
-Slavery creating an enormous and expensive population of welfare/depenedants. Senators would buy massive amounts of land, kick tenants and private smaller owners off, work the land with slaves, and free citizens would head into Rome and collect welfare. Like a million people were on welfare.
-A trade deficit combined with a gold-based currency, bankrupt the country. Roman exported gold in exchange for luxury goods (silk, spices, drugs, etc) so basically anytime anybody bought something from somewhere else gold was permanently siphoned out of the country.
-They were running out of land to conquer, so army pensions in land couldn't be honored, and they had also antagonized EVERY neighbor they had doing this.

>>17855403
Running lead pipes don't flake so the water would have been completely fine. It's only if the pipes aren't used for some time and water runs through it again where it becomes a problem
>>17855859
>because it made them invert their values and diminished loyalty to the Rome
Proof?
>>17856476
>Senators would buy massive amounts of land, kick tenants and private smaller owners off
Tenants were preferred to slaves due to the fact they were effectively tax deductible while slaves were not.
>-A trade deficit combined with a gold-based currency, bankrupt the country
The state coffers were based on taxation, not trade. The only time a bankruptcy happened was in the 5th century under Valentinian III and the reason was that he simply couldn't collect any more taxes.
>-They were running out of land to conquer, so army pensions in land couldn't be honored
This was never really a problem in the Empire. In fact they almost had the opposite issue with laws being made that unclaimed or unused (non state) land could be appropriated by others so long as they make it productive and they would henceforth own it.

>>17855330 (OP)
I think it collapsed because of the million zillion invaders from all borders. That's just me though.

No. Unless corruption is considered moral degeneracy. They had massive inflation. Trade networks broke down which ruined the economy. Massive amounts of germanic tribes migrating across the borders. Nasty diseases that broke out, proff of malaria spreading north and killing tons of romans. A elite class that owned everything leaving little for the bottom class and middle class to try to survive. Religious problems. Add it all together and that's how the western roman empire fell apart.

The eastern roman empire figured it out and fixed all their problems. Their biggest problems was constant civil wars that happened at the worst moments. Too many enemies. They couldn't catch a break. Avars and turks and arabs and persians and Serbs and Bulgarians and turks and slavs all attacked and raided the eastern romans. Plus they were getting attacked from all sides. It's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

They outsourced the military to non-Romans. The Roman military used to be about citizens fulfilling civic duty through military service, and about Roman allies fighting in exchange for the privileges of limited citizenship. In the time of Augustus, the auxiliaries went form being ad-hoc foreign attachments to being full Roman soldiers whose promised reward for service was full citizenship. The army served as a Romanizing institution. By serving, barbarians would be forced to learn Latin, to learn Roman way of living as they lived alongside Roman legionary citizens, and by the end of that service they would BE a Roman citizen in their behaviors and beliefs regardless of whether or not they actually won citizenship.

This system broke down over time. More reforms, not just to the military, but social reforms as well. Citizenship was given to more and more people, without any accompanying obligation for military service. The civic duty was abandoned, people no longer had any obligation or real reason to serve in the Roman military if they had citizenship already. So the Roman military became increasingly dependent on a new class of soldier: the foederati, basically barbarian mercenaries in all but name.

>>17855330 (OP)
>>17855330 (OP)
No. Rome died because the original Romans died off and were replaced. It may have taken hundreds of years for this to happen, but that was just because they had such a powerful overwhelming legacy.

The Roman Empire’s great strength and source of life was that it could absorb European enemies and turn them into people who have and want a stake in the Empire, and become Roman too. This led to the Wmpire being able to subjugate any European White foe.

the successors the the Romans, the “Latin” colonial hicks in Spain and Serbia and other people who took up reigns after the real Romans disappeared, they could not maintain this. They were unable to accommodate new people or territories properly without them being too nationalistic and atopping the Romanization allegiance process. Look at what happened with the Valens regime and the Goths. Compare that to Caesar in Gaul. Many Gallic tribes were like the Goths; defeated by a non-Roman entity and driven into Rome’s arms. The difference lies in the Romans’ reaction and inability to accommodate the Goths whereas it was able to with the Gauls. That led to a never ending spiral of disintegration

>>17856565
>The Roman military used to be about citizens fulfilling civic duty through military service
The Roman army wasn't filled by civic duty. It was filled by widespread mass conscription. You didn't get a choice in the matter. It was during the reign of Augustus that this system ended to a volunteer army which is how it remained.
>and about Roman allies fighting in exchange for the privileges of limited citizenship
The important Roman allies in Italy also all practiced mass conscription. For nearly 200 years they fought essentially with no citizenship benefits even in limited capacity. They fought because they gained wealth, continued practices in their society which they shared with the Romans and actively desired to fight.
>people no longer had any obligation or real reason to serve in the Roman military if they had citizenship already
The size of the Roman army increased massively even after citizenship was granted to everybody. During the reign of Diocletian and Constantine the size of the army skyrocketed to almost double what it once was.
>So the Roman military became increasingly dependent on a new class of soldier: the foederati
The Foederati weren't part of the Roman army, that's like the entire point. The Roman army itself was still largely local and formed by volunteers and conscripts. It's estimated only some 20% of the actual army in the West were settled foreigners, who were not Foederati.
>>17856579
>Look at what happened with the Valens regime and the Goths
The Goths were completely independent from Roman power while the Gauls were not. The only difference between the two was the Gauls were crushed militarily and the Goths were not.
>Many Gallic tribes were like the Goths; defeated by a non-Roman entity and driven into Rome’s arms
Most Gauls were defeated by Caesar, and earlier in the Middle Republic after decades of constant warfare. They didn't accommodate with Rome because they wanted to, they were forced into the relationship by defeat

>>17855816
Apparently that guy is a shinto and he makes anti pagan shitposts as a form of irony despite there being no joke and no irony in his posts.
>>17855330 (OP)
You're right, OP. Christianity brought moral degeneracy and the destruction of the tradition that made Rome the greatest empire in history.

>>17855874
The vast amount of Rome's power was centered in MENA's side of the med, not Europe. Stupid wignat snownigger you will never be a real roman

>>17855330 (OP)
Weak succession laws. Plagues, poor monetary policy sending all their silver to India, forcing currency devaluation, and migration of hostile German tribes.
The romes that fell was a Christian and thus far far less degenerate than at its pagan height.

>>17856618
>The vast amount of Rome's power was centered in MENA's side of the med
What makes you think this? because of the slave trade?

>>17856633
>sending all their silver to India, forcing currency devaluation
This stopped being a thing by Nero's reign and the devaluation of silver during his reign was due to paying for the massive reconstruction and charity after the fire of Rome. This leaves you about 300 years off from the actual period

>>17856565
Rome commonly had half its armies made of auxillia during its height. It's later mass adoption of Germanics was due to massive depopulation, the late Roman Empire didn't have the massive population of the early empire and republic. The Roman system of war was designed around massive well trained well equipped legions. When that population no longer existed and Rome could no longer win wars like how it had the punic wars, by simply replacing entire armies. The Roman army was almost never better, but the Roman system was.

>>17856634
Seeing how most of the established civilizations were east of the Italian peninsula they were able to get more taxes and soldiers from there

>>17856634
>spic groyper thinks Romans didn't enslave Europeans
The word slave literally comes from slav. Are you retarded(American)?

>>17856647
What makes you think they were getting more taxes and soldiers? There's plenty written about the Britons for example- they hardly seem poor when you consider the vast number of fortifications or the golden army they had.

>>17856650
Slavs didn't even exist in Roman times- most of the slaves came from Arab stock.

>>17856652
>>17856652
Golden army? The Roman over ran Briton pretty quickly. And yeah they probably got more money and men out of syria or Anatolia then they ever got out of Britain

>>17855780
Cutting the shitty europeans off are what allowed the Eastern Mediterranean parts to survive another 1000 years

>>17856663
>The Roman over ran Briton pretty quickly
A testament to the Romans, but the army wasn't active during the time of Julius or Tiberius.
>they probably got more money and men out of syria or Anatolia then they ever got out of Britain
Slaves. We've already covered that.

>>17856673
Established cities make more money than rural areas inhabited by tribes anon.

>>17856680
The west had established cities. There's a reason Goths ran the late empire.

>>17856616

>[Simon Salva] is a shinto

Where did I affirm that?

>>17856697

I am God's chosen apostle to convert 4chan, and He would not allow me to worship false gods.

>>17856695
>The west had established cities.
The biggest of those shitholes were the size of towns in Italy and Anatolia, face it the western portions were trash, and your ancestors were slaves.

>>17856707
I think you've lost your grip on reality. The Romans said their slaves came from the middle east and it's not those mongs that took over the Roman empire, but instead northern Goths. How do you square all of that?

>>17856712
Concession accepted.

>>17856721
I won't push the knife much deeper. Until next time

>>17856702

No proof of me saying that? Lol.

>>17856695
Which ones? What city in the western part of the empire was close to Athens, byzantium, Damascus or Alexandria

>>17856738
If I say Londinium was already built up and list the other cities that Bede and Gildas talk about you might just say Rome built them-even though they're clearly major cities based on the Irish/Scottish route of attack.

>>17855330 (OP)
Rome was just great humans dealing with how dumb and useless the spy system is on earth until the great vikings were just too much to be bogged down by it and rebelled. A lot of what happened was just pompous pretentious nonsense. Anything that is this shiny in history is just a psy op from the left, normally nothing happens like that, people just like to live and eat.

>>17856697
right here
>>17849906
you also in gneral don't like christianity
>>17848946
>>17848948

>>17856680
>>17856738
The West had Rome itself, Cadiz, Naples, Paris, Lyon, Toledo, Hispalis, Italica, Milan, Ravenna, Siracuse, Londinium, Zaragoza, Massalia, etc.

>>17856743
Bede and gilded lived half a millennium after Rome showed up in Britain.

>>17856768
Half of those were fou dedicated by Rome. You can literally look at maps showing the wealth and privileges that different provinces in the Roman Empire had and see that it heavily favors the eastern empire

>>17856695
>There's a reason Goths ran the late empire.
The Goths didn't run shit outside of Moesia and later Aquitaine. High ranking Gothic members of the administration were executed in the East early on and in the West they stopped allowing any into power by the 420's.

>>17856768
Those cities were founded by Carthaginians, Etruscans, Greeks, and Romans. You are a retard.

>>17856820
Rome was founded by Celts. Even Carthage was found by Dido.

>>17856833

Rome was founded by Celts who were Christians.

>>17856835
Oh that's right, I forgot Liao went to them and exposed their whole pantheon on Reddit

>>17856837

The Celts who founded Rome were inspired by a vision of God the Father and God the Son in Heaven to create a great empire. Says so on an ancient stone plate they found near the Italian peninsula.

>>17856638
That was simply one example. And without endless conquest Rome never rebuilt its economy to the pax Romana heights. The Rot was slow and took centuries. The weakening of institutions, is the core issue.

>>17856846
>And without endless conquest Rome never rebuilt its economy to the pax Romana heights.
You do know the majority of pax Romana was peaceful? There was a period of over 50 years without any war of note from Trajan all the way to Marcus Aurelius. They did not need conquest to fuel their economy. This is pop history nonsense and just shows a complete lack of understanding how any ancient economy worked or where the Roman state got its money from.
>The weakening of institutions
Which is why they reformed them, multiple times. The administration reformed by Diocletian showed no signs of stopping its work in the west until they literally could not do it anymore by force. In the east it continued into the 7th century and only started to be changed after the Arab conquests. This weakening is practically non-existent

>>17856844
do you have a source

>>17855330 (OP)
Roman empire collapsed because if immigration.
They handled Roman citizenship left and right to nationals who didn't identify themselves as Romans.
What is "Rome collapse?". It's barbarians founding their own kingdoms for their tribe inside Roman empire.
USSR fell appart exactly the same.
Tribalism always wins in the end.
Important warning for modern West that West choose to ignore.

>>17856656
>import Semites
>what's the worst that could happen?

>>17857105
>They handled Roman citizenship left and right to nationals who didn't identify themselves as Romans.
>What is "Rome collapse?". It's barbarians founding their own kingdoms for their tribe inside Roman empire.
The people who invaded the Roman Empire never became Roman citizens. They were despised by Roman authorities and they wanted them gone. Neither did these people even want to try, they invaded Roman territory with force and ignored the Romans when possible. That's just invasion, not immigration.

>>17857120
Odoacer was a Roman citizen.

>>17855330 (OP)
It fell mainly due to economic policy.
Immigration only made things worse.

Exactly how the USA will fall in the following years - fall of the USD will trigger massive hyperinflation and a collapse of the economy, and the high-melanin people will make everything worse due to crime and competency crisis.

Here's a short explanation of Rome's situation:

>>17856647
>they were able to get more taxes
Northern and western Europe were the wealthiest parts

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/2-200-year-old-celtic-settlement-discovered-in-czech-republic-and-its-awash-in-gold-and-silver-coins

>>17857151
No he wasn't. Where do you even get this from? He was a foederati, which was a non-citizen, whose main demand was for land for his men which was given to Roman soldiers and not foederati.

>>17855330 (OP)

>>17855330 (OP)
The Roman Empire collapsed because of Christianity.

>>17856976
Trajan and Marcus Aeurilous had a good amount of warfare between them adding to the economical prosperity, I mean it was probably pretty costly I guess like the walls built in between by Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.

>>17858879
>Trajan and Marcus Aeurilous had a good amount of warfare
They did, but Antoninus Pius and Hadrian had no wars of note during their reign, to the point when the Persians invaded under Marcus Aurelius many men had absolutely no military experience.
>adding to the economical prosperity
Only Trajan's wars could be said to have done that, all of Marcus Aurelius' wars were defensive.

>>17856616
>Apparently that guy is a shinto
I wouldn't trust anything he says

>>17856835
>Rome was founded by Celts who were Christians

I nominate this anon for the stupidest shit said on /his today award...imagine seriously saying this lol

>>17859405
He wasn't saying this seriously and you're stupid for not knowing that.

>>17859363
True. Marcus Aurelius maintaining hegemony for the most part anyway and Hadrian and Antoninus were not involved in any.

>>17856976
Pax Romana was built on conquest. After is ended, and the state no longer had huge infusions of plunder, and the emperors started lasting five minutes how else were they going to restore the states coffers. And then once the population starts dropping, now the tax base is smaller but infrastructure hasn't shrunk. So expenses stay the same with less money. It's what happens to cities that lose their pop. They have all the land and roads, and sewers of a city much larger, to maintain.

>>17857105
You literally just made everything you said up.

>>17857203
Not a chance. Well unless Trump continues to degrade faith in our institutions. There is no reason the US couldn't go for centuries more.

>>17857211
Is this a joke? The Roman's kept records we know Europe outside Italy was the poor part

>>17859738
>There is no reason the US couldn't go for centuries more.
I could think of a reason:

>>17855330 (OP)
there's an interesting theory
1. jews started to get handed gold managing (no, I didn't read this in /pol/ but in a uni banking slideshow, the uni was literally pro-banking)
2. the jews starved the empire
3. they pushed it to war for expanssion, or death kind of deal
the rest is /his/tory

>>17855330 (OP)
no

>>17856786
>Half of those were fou dedicated by Rome.
so? the question was about cities which existed in the western Empire in the late Roman period not how those cities got there

>>17855330 (OP)
mostly no; depends what you mean.

A contributing factor is the rulers putting their interests above the countries interests. That makes collapse inevitable; you can only pull so much before the will runs dry.
I feel when you say 'moral degeneracy' you meant some irrelevant bullshit

>>17856672
The actually good parts of the Eastern Mediterranean were taken by Persians and then Muslims. All they were left with was Anatolia and Thrace.

>>17855330 (OP)
I see this repeated often but it doesn't make much sense given that Rome had Chrisitianized by the end of the western empire. I think the biggest thing that led to the West's fall is their overreliance on those German foederati, of which they paid with land

>>17861341
>it doesn't make much sense
its because people will hear gossip stories from Suetonius and assume they happened when the Empire was on the decline because they have a less than surface level understanding of roman history.

>>17859740
Which record are you referring to?

>>17859740
There is no surviving Roman census data at all. The closest that exists is the Appion Egyptian papyri.

>>17860749
Please list anytime in history a debt this large has existed, or any economic situation similar. O wait you cant because this has never happened before and nobody, has any idea what will happen.

>>17855330 (OP)
>did it collapse due to material things or not worshipping the right heckin' goderinos

>>17855338
No, it collapsed due to being Christian. Rome at it's height was pagan

>>17855330 (OP)
Rome collapsed due to the antonine and cyprian plagues ravaging the populace into complete economic instability.
The empire saw an estimate population loss between 20% and 40%, which destroyed the economy and consequently the tax base used to pay for the army and the manpower base it recruited from, leaving no other option than hiring barbarians.

Seeds of the ultimate collapse of the west were planted during the third century crisis and persisted throughout the relative stability brought by Diocletian/Constantine. The borders were secure again, but within those borders rome was dying. The population losses from half a century of plague and constant warfare forced Emperors to settle Germanic tribes within Roman borders, and as the Legions were decimated by extremely bloody civil war battles between the Tetrarchy, then Constantine and his rivals, then Constantine's sons, then Thedosius, etc. commanders were forced to rely more and more on foederati who were never fully integrated into Roman society and mercenaries. After Adrianople and the invasions of 406 Rome had to give territory, money, and military positions to Tribal leaders just to secure their loyalty, and threats outside of the empire had to be increasingly paid off with money the Emperors didn't have. Inflated currencies and overtaxation forced free citizens to become tenant farmers under rich landlords, and diocletian's reforms mandating hereditary occupations kept the population immobile and at the mercy of local magistrates. Collecting taxes from the rich landholders was difficult, and the split between east and west cut the western half of the empire off from the massive revenues generated by wealthy provinces like Syria and Egypt. Without money you can't pay for large armies, without large armies you can't protect the frontiers. When the people living in those frontiers realize they're paying taxes and not being protected they turn to the Germanic tribes that moved in and pay taxes to them instead.

>>17857211
>>17856652
>>17856695
>>17856743
>>17862225
This is mental retardation at fever pitch. Egypt and Syria were the epicenter of the economy snd commerce back then. Mesopotamia as well. They were what the Blue Banana region in northwestern Europe is today.

The Blue Banana in Europe actually existed back then too, but it was very poor and much tinier than the Fertile Crescent economy. It wasn’t until the 15th century that the Blue Banana eclipses the Fertile Crescent.

>>17855330 (OP)
The latent moral degeneracy was rather a symptom of the start of its downfall, but it notoriously decreased during its last years because of Christianity. But I do not think it was the moral degeneracy what finished off Rome.
You can't really keep a world order as big as this going on for so long if you ask me, to begin with.

>>17864957
That doesn't sound right at all.

>>17865017
He's pretty much correct though. Antioch and Alexandria were (economically speaking) the most important cities in the empire.
It likely sounds off because he mentions when the west eclipses the east, while you're thinking about when it gets even or starts pulling ahead, which is a few centuries earlier than he mentions thanks to the carolingian renaissance and the byzantine-arab wars.

>>17855330 (OP)
If the empire collapsed under degeneracy and people associate that with being LGBT why were all of the best Roman and Byzantine Emperors all gay or bi?
Hadrian, Basil, and Trajan were queer as a three dollar bill
Don't believe me look up Hadrian's boy toy