Author Topic: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire  (Read 3966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« on: December 12, 2014, 02:26:08 pm »
Let is discuss this complex and nonlinear fall of the West's greatest power.

Historians have assigned abitrary dates to make the Fall of Western Roman Empire an easier subject. Some say it was when Maximinus Thrax launched his rebellion, starting off the 3rd century crisis. Some say it was the Gothic sack of Rome in 410 AD or the exile of Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD. While some say the empire never fell but manifested itself in the bumper is great European powers to come.

What are the greatest factors and the greatest event that contributed to its fall?
Fuck off, Nazi scum

Offline Mr T

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 1253
  • Je Passe Quand Meme
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Mortier
  • Side: Union
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2014, 03:27:50 pm »
Decline of the Roman economy, the migrations of barbarian tribes and poor leadership in the couple centuries before the first sack of Rome.


Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2014, 06:36:20 pm »
While I hate to say it, I think a major factor is Rome's on and off xenophobia. They are either pigheaded racists about people across the Rhine or Danube or completely ready to resettle them (poorly in the case of the Gothic settlement that led to te disaster at Adrianople). The Germanization of the legions, while it had obvious reinvigorating benefits in the 3rd century, also was a double edged sword because the Roman xenophobia was a fickle thing. They had no problem with Germanic leaders like Stilhilco as long as they were puppet masters, not actual leaders. I believe the Romans either had to be completely xenophobic to the point of not allowing any barbarian to reach a rank past centurion or so accepting as to allow people like Stilico and Rickermer to take power without the facade

Also, people like Crispus and Julian living could've been nice
Fuck off, Nazi scum

Offline Chosen1

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Chosen1
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2014, 11:29:55 am »
Rome was doomed when generals abolished the republican ideals the city was founded on. Once people started pledging their allegiance to the generals and emperors instead of Rome itself, it was just a matter of time it was going to collapse.
It was especially a problem when more than half of the people in the empire weren't Roman  ;D
9-11 Coaster.

Find out what it's like to spin, glide, skim and fly like a giant airplane when you experience "United Airlines Flight 175"® – the only flying roller coaster of its kind in the world. Riders are taunted by a head-first, face-down inverted crash into the twin towers… and that's just the beginning. Experience the full force and power of riding down the twin towers, all on one of the deadliest tracks in the world.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2014, 12:28:17 pm »
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.

Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2014, 01:23:37 pm »
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.
Rome was doomed when generals abolished the republican ideals the city was founded on. Once people started pledging their allegiance to the generals and emperors instead of Rome itself, it was just a matter of time it was going to collapse.
It was especially a problem when more than half of the people in the empire weren't Roman  ;D
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.
Also I'll remind you that the Republic itself by the time of Caesar was a fetid husk. The few rich controlled almost all the land and wealth. Also, because of the conquest of Spain, North Africa, and Greece, slave labor was through the roof. There were more slaves than working men which led to an increase in the amount of poor. Also, the "republic" was frankly no better than the tyranny of the Tarquins. This was only a tyranny of a few rather than one man. The senatorial elections favored the rich as elections were not made national holidays so the few working men left (especially by the Late Republic) could simply not afford to go and vote. An finally, many of the generals and civil wars caused in the later imperium were brought on by both ambitious generals but also soldiers who cared less about serving and more about what they thought they were entitled to. The over bloated military the Romans later established were not filled with incorruptible soldiers of the empire but bribable and over entitled soldiers who extorted and bled the state dry
Fuck off, Nazi scum

Offline Chosen1

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Chosen1
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2014, 08:05:34 pm »
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.

Yes, but after the republic was overthrown, Rome was on a downward slope and gradually lost its wealth and territory. My point is, all "empires" are doomed to fail, because the model of a nation constantly needing to conquer territory and needing an enormous amount of resources to sustain its infrastructure and military, combined with the fact that once the republic was abolished, citizens and soldiers were loyal to their generals and local rulers than instead of nation itself (which caused corruption and the government to be less efficient than when it was a republic) caused the WRE to collapse.

It seems like all states with a model like that are doomed to fail. To be able to conquer lands and defeat rival nations, you need good generals. Once the people start favoring the generals more than the state, the generals are able to usurp power and that leads to instances such as this.
9-11 Coaster.

Find out what it's like to spin, glide, skim and fly like a giant airplane when you experience "United Airlines Flight 175"® – the only flying roller coaster of its kind in the world. Riders are taunted by a head-first, face-down inverted crash into the twin towers… and that's just the beginning. Experience the full force and power of riding down the twin towers, all on one of the deadliest tracks in the world.

Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2014, 08:23:18 pm »
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.

Yes, but after the republic was overthrown, Rome was on a downward slope and gradually lost its wealth and territory. My point is, all "empires" are doomed to fail, because the model of a nation constantly needing to conquer territory and needing an enormous amount of resources to sustain its infrastructure and military, combined with the fact that once the republic was abolished, citizens and soldiers were loyal to their generals and local rulers than instead of nation itself (which caused corruption and the government to be less efficient than when it was a republic) caused the WRE to collapse.

It seems like all states with a model like that are doomed to fail. To be able to conquer lands and defeat rival nations, you need good generals. Once the people start favoring the generals more than the state, the generals are able to usurp power and that leads to instances such as this.
After the Republic was overthrown, the Romans saw their greatest achievements. After the ascension of Nerva and the Five Good Emperors, Romans saw civic, military, and political success on an unimaginable scale. Trajan, Hadrian, Pious, and Marcus Aurelius. These are some of the most recognizable names in history. It wasn't until the fatal decision to name a family member (Commodus) to the purple that the Romans began the dark and bloody 3rd century crisis. Out of this crisis, the roots of feudalism were born and the loyalty to local generals and administrators was not really born out of some corrupted, unpatriotic Roman spirit, it was born of necessity. The state had simply gotten too big and the emperor(s) could not handle the many invasions and crisises that popped up. The local citizenry depend on these scant few capable individuals because they were there, the state was not.

Also, the late Roman Empire's administration was no more corrupt than of that of the Republic. One of the main contributors to its downfall was the fact the rich:
1) horded their wealth from state tax collectors, leaving the imperial treasury almost completely empty
2) horded the workers on their estates from army recruiters, leaving the imperial armies with no choice but to hire barbarian mercenaries en masse.

In the end, this fall can be greatly attributed to the single-mindedness of the wealthy in both "Republican" (*cough cough* Oligarchical) and Imperial systems. Up until the very last years of the empire (during the Shadow Emperors), their were always capable and just administrators and generals around but they simply were bound within the tight confines the stubborn aristocracy had given them.
Fuck off, Nazi scum

Offline Josh Faraday

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 5517
  • Desires Stroh 80.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Arminius
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 03:15:15 pm »
The empire existed for more then four centuries after the Republic was overthrown.

Yes, but after the republic was overthrown, Rome was on a downward slope and gradually lost its wealth and territory. My point is, all "empires" are doomed to fail, because the model of a nation constantly needing to conquer territory and needing an enormous amount of resources to sustain its infrastructure and military, combined with the fact that once the republic was abolished, citizens and soldiers were loyal to their generals and local rulers than instead of nation itself (which caused corruption and the government to be less efficient than when it was a republic) caused the WRE to collapse.

It seems like all states with a model like that are doomed to fail. To be able to conquer lands and defeat rival nations, you need good generals. Once the people start favoring the generals more than the state, the generals are able to usurp power and that leads to instances such as this.
After the Republic was overthrown, the Romans saw their greatest achievements. After the ascension of Nerva and the Five Good Emperors, Romans saw civic, military, and political success on an unimaginable scale. Trajan, Hadrian, Pious, and Marcus Aurelius. These are some of the most recognizable names in history. It wasn't until the fatal decision to name a family member (Commodus) to the purple that the Romans began the dark and bloody 3rd century crisis. Out of this crisis, the roots of feudalism were born and the loyalty to local generals and administrators was not really born out of some corrupted, unpatriotic Roman spirit, it was born of necessity. The state had simply gotten too big and the emperor(s) could not handle the many invasions and crisises that popped up. The local citizenry depend on these scant few capable individuals because they were there, the state was not.

Also, the late Roman Empire's administration was no more corrupt than of that of the Republic. One of the main contributors to its downfall was the fact the rich:
1) horded their wealth from state tax collectors, leaving the imperial treasury almost completely empty
2) horded the workers on their estates from army recruiters, leaving the imperial armies with no choice but to hire barbarian mercenaries en masse.

In the end, this fall can be greatly attributed to the single-mindedness of the wealthy in both "Republican" (*cough cough* Oligarchical) and Imperial systems. Up until the very last years of the empire (during the Shadow Emperors), their were always capable and just administrators and generals around but they simply were bound within the tight confines the stubborn aristocracy had given them.
+1
Arminius/Dennis Bergkamp/Tristan Bouvier/J.P. ...

All my life I’ve been fearful of defeat. But now that it has come it’s not near as terrible as I’d expected. The sun still shines, water still tastes good…glory is all well and good but life is enough, nay?

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2015, 04:37:22 pm »
Lead poisening.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Fuck off, Nazi scum

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2015, 04:55:09 pm »
Lead poisening.
Hue

The roman aristocracy drank a lot of wine. Since they had no sugar, they used some sweet syrup from grapes mixed in water to sweeten the wine. They did this in lead cauldrons.
The lead works in a chemical reaction with hydrogen-ions and the lead, releasing the lead in the substance for the wine. Estimates are that on average, a roman aristocrate ingested around 150mg of lead a day. the limit in Europe nowadays is set to 12...

Should've done the same as the Greeks: they prepared their wine in silver-lined cauldrons, which caused no such reaction.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Colonel Howe

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • There isn't a noose tight enough
    • View Profile
    • People's History Podcast
  • Nick: Noah
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Historical Derbert: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2015, 04:57:59 pm »
Lead poisening.
Hue

The roman aristocracy drank a lot of wine. Since they had no sugar, they used some sweet syrup from grapes mixed in water to sweeten the wine. They did this in lead cauldrons.
The lead works in a chemical reaction with hydrogen-ions and the lead, releasing the lead in the substance for the wine. Estimates are that on average, a roman aristocrate ingested around 150mg of lead a day. the limit in Europe nowadays is set to 12...

Should've done the same as the Greeks: they prepared their wine in silver-lined cauldrons, which caused no such reaction.
Oh. I thought you made a pun. With lead being pronounced the other way as to lead.

But I suppose it works both ways as well. Therefore, hue
Fuck off, Nazi scum