[happydogdesign]

Rome's decline has far more to do with disease than moral turpitude. Malaria was endemic, small pox was making its presence known, and the first major wave of bubonic plague during the reign of Justinian cut through most of civilization like a scythe at a point when an understanding of disease pathology was just beginning.

It is always popular to blame the woes of past cultures on moral weakness, but the facts are most of our ancestors had to be pretty tough, lucky, and smart to live long enough to reproduce at all.

[SkyRat]

First time I hear that.

I'm only a amateur, my knowledge of the fall and decline of Rome is small. Yet the little I know fits quite nicely within the original post of this thread.

Do you have any sources for your statment? I'm very interessted to learn more.

Regards
SkyRat

[Skywalk]

I don't believe that disease theory for a minute.

I've heard people attribute the fall of Angkor Wat to that and it makes as little sense there as it does with Rome. I recall great diseases wiping out a quarter to a third of human beings not just in Europe, but in Asia(Black Death killed about a 1/4 of East Asia's population too) and those civs surviving.

In fact, look at the fall of nearly every civilization or culture and it's rarely attributable to disease. An epidemic may be the last straw, but no way it's the main cause.

Rome fell from it's internal weaknesses, weaknesses I see here.

It goes without saying that the movie Gladiator uses Commodus as the embodiment of the welfare-lord Emperor and Maximus and Aurelius as the symbols of all that was right with Rome. That movie was so much more than a guy getting revenge and fighting in the arena.

[qam1]

Rome's decline has far more to do with disease than moral turpitude.

Disease actually saved Rome. If the Plauge didn't decimate Attila the Hun's troops he might have taken Rome.

[templar]

Rome's decline has far more to do with disease than moral turpitude.

"That may have been a contributing factor, but it wasn't the cause by any means. I've also heard it attributed to military overextension, economic woes, the cost of the 'bread and circuses' welfare state that developed, growing military resistance in outlying areas and increased military prowess and strength of the various 'barbarians', hedonistic decadance and self absorption among the leaders resulting in almost no vision for, or respect from, the people, etc. These are all probably factors but could more realisitcally looked at as being the visible symptoms (not the cause) of a culture in decline.

A strong moral people can withstand all kinds of severe hardships and setbacks and still survive, even grow stronger, in the presence of them. An immoral people falls to whomever or whatever seeks their demise.

[sawyer]

Also, as always, new thoughts begin to more in and take over. Guns have never been able to stand up to thoughts that comes into mens minds.Or armies either. One thing we can plan on is change. What empire has lasted or will? None.