Why did Rome fall?

It was cannabalized by creditor oligarchs

>>17861311 (OP)
it tripped

>>17861311 (OP)
Ultimately...powerful Romans didn't give a shit anymore, loss of Talos

>>17861311 (OP)
jews

>>17861311 (OP)
slipped on a banana peel.

>>17861311 (OP) Because every organization with people with low morals cannot function properly.

>>17861311 (OP)
gay marriage

>>17861794
so its Christianity's fault then.

>>17861311 (OP)
One primary reasons and some secondary, but I will not get into all secondary reasons because this is /his/ and who actually fucking cares.
Caracalla's edict, this really screwed the empire and is what caused the crisis of the 3rd century. It diminished the prestige and exclusivity of Roman citizenship. It diluted Roman identity, this wrecked Roman culture and values. It was the absolute worst thing to happen to Rome. It did not generate the tax revenue that these massive punic retard thought it would. It directly lead to the rise private armies because of what the edict did to the decentralizing of authority due to the aforementioned dilution of Roman identity. Literal barbarian peasants became emperor because of this retard and his edict
Secondary reasons
It stopped expanding. Ancient States needed fresh conquest, loot, slaves, people to exploit. This also meant less land grants to soldiers, less revenue to pay these soldiers and with such a massive border, defensive wars became more common than offensive wars. Lots of expense with no new conquest revenue.
Disease/Plague
Even Marcus Aurelius couldn't plan for something like this. Another huge destabilizing factor for ancient States, some plagues wiped out a sizable population and this would have been concentrated more in economically prosperous urban areas killing many people and decreasing tax revenue. Plagues also fucked the military in the loss of manpower and maneuverability.

>>17862036
Non Factors:
Civil War. The government was strong enough to survive what were probably hundreds of civil wars. Nothing suggests that civil war had any major contributions to the fall of the empire, if you include the Eastern empire and why wouldn't you, then Rome survived 2000 years and hundreds of civil wars, though a case could be made for the Civil war of John Kantakouzenos.
Christianity was also a non factor, Rome was already past saving by the time of the Theodosian edict.
Barbarians maybe you could make a case for, but I would say again that Rome was able to win decisively against many barbarian armies, any damage done by barbarians can be traced back to Caracalla.

>>17861311 (OP)
The Germanics got stronger and conquered them.

>>17861311 (OP)
A host of complicated factors that cannot be explored sufficiently in a 4chan post but
>Political instability, coups, assassinations, and civil wars
>Decline of native soldiery and an increasing reliance in foederati
>Mass migration of populations they couldn't effectively absorb and control or destroy outright (like the Teutons and Cimbri were centuries earlier)
Ultimately by the end neither the soldiers nor generals were Romans.

>>17861311 (OP)
Because of me. Sorry.

>>17862097
Rome Wreaker!!!

>>17862038
>Nothing suggests that civil war had any major contributions to the fall of the empire
How is taking out large portions of tax revenue not detrimental? The rebellion of Constantine against Honorius resulted in the withdrawal of the limes in Gaul, the resulting invasions being unstopped by the rebel and the loss in years of tax revenue for the state when they desperately needed it. Civil war between Aetius and Boniface killed thousands and culled an entire corp of officers. Civil war overthrew Majorian and destroyed the last of Roman forces under Anthemius. Civil war absolutely mutilated the West.
>any damage done by barbarians can be traced back to Caracalla.
I don't recall the Vandals, Goths, Alans, Seubi, Burgundians and Alans invading the Empire and trying to settle in the early 3rd century.

>mass foreign immigration
>demographic collapse
>loss of national pride
>unstable economy
>nobody cares anymore
>death of traditional culture

Ermm sounds like the romanx were far right conspiracy theorists

>>17862450
>>mass foreign immigration
I wouldn't call armed invasion 'immigration'
>>loss of national pride
>>nobody cares anymore
>>death of traditional culture
None of this is true

>>17861311 (OP)
The armies of ISLAM destroyed it for blasphemies.

>>17862038
saying civil wars were a non factor is retarded. The amount of able bodied people, wealth and land destroyed in the civil wars if used productively would have had compounding positive effects. If you removed half of Romes civil wars we all be speaking latin.

>>17861311 (OP)
It didn't really. The polity of the Empire did. It fell apart over time, slowly dismembering itself, giving parts to be ruled by the federates, nominally still being under the Empire but de facto independent.
Rome as a civilization continued in the west. Its culture and its identity will simply evolve.

>>17862518
>giving parts to be ruled by the federates
They only did this for the Visigoths in Aquitaine. Africa was never granted to the Vandals, Hispania was never granted to the Visigoths and Suebi.

>>17861311 (OP)

>>17861311 (OP)
Critical mass of brown mixed race people caused societal collapse, as it always does.

it was meant to happen. separate things tend to unite and united things tend to separate

but really I bet the jews did this

>>17861311 (OP)
Christianity. The fall of Rome was punishment from the gods for abandoning their nature faith in favor of Christcuckery

>>17862038
>Civil War. The government was strong enough to survive what were probably hundreds of civil wars
Congratulations. I think you are a special kind of stupid.

>>17862453
Groups pushed away from their homelands by the Huns immigrated. Some peacefully