Someone send me the Cliff Notes :)
Very log read...
Short version of why I think the Roman Empire collapsed, uncivilized barbarians came in and crapped on the streets and left garbage everywhere, and demanded freebies from the Romans. The Romans pretty much invented indoor toilets and sewer systems, and running water for baths and pools. The unwashed masses coming in screwed it all up. Sort of what is happening now with barbarians coming in from our south.
Very LONG read...
Short version of why I think the Roman Empire collapsed, uncivilized barbarians came in and crapped on the streets and left garbage everywhere, and demanded freebies from the Romans. The Romans pretty much invented indoor toilets and sewer systems, and running water for baths and pools. The unwashed masses coming in screwed it all up. Sort of what is happening now with barbarians coming in from our south.
Rome went from a city of 2 million, to a village of about 10,000 in the 9th or 10th century.
Bookmark
The “fall of the Roman Empire” was more a process than an event, and the process and its precipitating causes varied greatly depending on the venue. Indeed, in the East, the Roman Empire survived until the Muslim conquest of Byzantium in 1453. In the West, the military and political reverses that Rome suffered in the Fifth century seem to have been compounded by climate disruptions caused by volcanic eruptions.
Ping
ping
Bookmarking for later.
The highest peak of civilization was in about 1800, and it was in England.
The economy was fine, even in the west until the Germans came in and devastated it. The standard of living did not really decrease in the heart of the Mediterranean until the 500's and in some places the 600s,we know this thru the archaeological remains. The borderlands including northern and eastern Gaul and Britain were affected first and the worst.
Wow....long read indeed, but worth it.
Basic statement summarized: Cause & Effect is a law of nature that cannot be broken, the collapse of our world as we know it is inevitable.
Fundamental error in author’s thinking: Written in 2011, his conclusions are based on the concept of Peak Oil, which since then has proven to be incorrect - and we look to have a century of oil left, and possibly an endless supply.
But that, in itself, does not negate his conclusion: the collapse of our world as we know it is inevitable.
As a Christian, I think: a.) it is inevitable because of man’s fallen nature, his sin nature; b.) the believer should rejoice, crying out, “COME LORD JESUS!” (regardless of what your eschatology is...), for we seek a kingdom not of this world, an eternal one, wherein righteousness dwells.... where the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all of creation is manifest and there is a new heaven and a new earth........
Bump for later
*old article ping*
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.
“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?
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.