Fall of the Roman Empire mirroring the West

[Hi-Tech]

The majority of historians don't agree with this. To a Romano Brit after the eagle departed, for example, things would have def got worse (although over a period of centuries). His elaborate plumbing and heated baths sadly not return for nearly a couple millenia.

Fact is the Romans level of tech far outstripped medieval Europe's in most cases. Mass produced plate armour for the average solider (meanwhile a dark age Viking maybe has a iron helmet and wooden shield). Look at the Roman aqueducts and compare them with the ones built in the Renaissance, they are storm drains in comparison. The Renaissance itself was spurned by lost (to western audiences) classical texts becoming rediscovered after the fall of Constantinople (whose survivors took them to Italy and thus began their spread across the western world).
Constantinople was the greatest city in the medieval age, and much of this was due to the advanced knowledge left to them by their eastern Roman ancestors.

People focus too much on the knowledge Romans had and medieval people didn't while ignoring what was developed during the middle ages that the Romans didn't have.

Medieval architecture surpasses that of Rome in many ways. Romans never built anything as great as medieval cathedrals, they didn't build fortresses like medieval castles either. Their military would also get smashed by European medieval armies from 1000 on.

The social structure of medieval societies was superior to that of Rome which was a slave owning society where women were basically property. Roman aristocracy was much more degenerated and corrupt than the warrior aristocracy of the middle ages. In the middle ages the Church provided certain social mobility if you decided to become a cleric and provided education through monastic schools that would later develop into universities.

Constantinople wasn't that relevant since it was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. It was a big city but I'd take a city like Venice which established a huge sphere of influence based on trade over Constantinople any day. At the end of the day having that link with the Romans didn't prevent the Byzantines from being torn apart by their neighbors for centuries while the barbaric Western and Central Europe was much more stable.

Also let's not forget that the middle ages developed the naval technology that was crucial for Europeans to conquer the new world. Imagine Roman galleys trying to cross the Atlantic consistently. It would have been a disaster.

 

[colby25]

And how many societies can actually be proven to have fallen because of public expression of homosexuality. Ancient Greeks weren't shy about homosexuality but what evidence is there to suggest they fell because of it.

Hey I'm just telling you what he said. Not saying it's true but idk looking at things right now... Seems like it may be accurate.

 

[uolen]

This is a really good example of how the left obscures facts by trying to sound informed. Historians absolutely agree on the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire. Source: I majored in Greek and Roman studies at university.

I think not little friend and you may want to ask for your tuition money back.

For anyone interested here is a very basic overview showing that there absolutely is not any kind of consensus of opinion among historians regarding the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

 

[Siderealmotion]

Hey I'm just telling you what he said. Not saying it's true but idk looking at things right now... Seems like it may be accurate.

Except in this case, the opposite was true. Homosexuality was widely accepted throughout a large portion of Roman history, and only really frowned upon during the last few hundred years of the western empire, as Christianity became more widely accepted as the state religion. The only negative really ascribed to homosexuality before the Christian period was directed towards the passive partner, the one being penetrated. Julius Caesar himself had to deal with derision for this. It seems very likely that Augustus and Agrippa were lovers as well.

Overall, Rome was pretty down with the gays during its height. The decline and fall of the Western Empire occurred during a period when homosexuality was being persecuted and was on the down trend.

 

[RhinoRush]

I think not little friend and you may want to ask for your tuition money back.

For anyone interested here is a very basic overview showing that there absolutely is not any kind of consensus of opinion among historians regarding the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

Ah yes, Wikipedia, the world's most reliable source.

 

[7437]

Ah yes, Wikipedia, the world's most reliable source.

Wikipedia is sourced. I believe it far more than a random poster claiming to be an expert who does not have sources.

 

[lfd0311]

The thing is that the Roman empire never really fell in any dramatic way.

During the 400-800 dark age certain knowledge was lost and certain institutions were crippled but Roman laws survive as did the "Romans" (ie. the people who inhabited the empire) and the newly arrived Barbarians wanted to become Romans anyway. It's not like they wanted to commit some ethnic and cultural genocide over the Romans but rather the opposite.

Then in 800 Charlemagne basically revived the Roman empire which survived through direct continuity until the 19th century (until Napoleon abolished the Holy Roman Empire). The Eastern part of the empire never died and when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople the Sultan considered himself the heir of Roman empire too.

The Roman Catholic Church also preserved a lot of ideological and cultural continuity with the Romans.

Overall what we call the "fall of the Roman empire" was actually a good thing for Western civilization because the newly arrived Barbarian tribes gave new life to European culture and the medieval civilization improved a lot of things that Romans didn't have any clue about and set the foundations for the later progress and domination of the West. For example there were a lot of improvements in agriculture and food production while the Romans were just blessed with Mediterranean climate, also the medieval world gave Europe the vibrant medieval cities and urban class that would later lead a lot of the progress, universities and modern schooling, a sense of European cultural unity (through common Christian culture and until Luther also the common Church) and medieval kingdoms proved to be solid foundations for later nation states.

The descendants of those barbarians like Franks (French), Germans and the modern British took the key role in European culture. The Roman empire was never able to civilize anything north of the Rhine and yet it was later in history that those nations lead the industrial revolution.

It's absolutely false that people today view the supposed catastrophic collapse of the Roman world and of the antiquity as something that lead to a millennium of darkness when in fact the Roman civilization and whatever remained of antiquity was totally spent at that point and had nothing more to offer neither culturally nor politically. That it was replaced by Christianity and medieval culture was a big blessing for Europe. Contrary to popular opinion 800-1500 middle ages present a huge leap forward in European history and it's no coincidence that Europe very soon afterwards became the dominant force on the planet.

I'd say it was fairly dramatic in the time that took in relation to the lives of Empires. I mean we're talking barely 120 years from the Tetrachy to the sacking of Rome.

 

[lfd0311]

Texas is the biggest national producer of textbooks.

If you don't think there was a systemic extermination of indigenous populations here and abroad, then....man...I'm surprised that "propaganda" was the only word you were unable to spell in that post.

I'd just like to hear a greater fleshing out of this position. I always hear the generic term "extermination" from Leftists like you, then when pushed to go deeper into it you disappear, which is probably what you're going to do as well.

 

[Ruprecht]

Stopped at "leftist propaganda."

Yeah, it's the "leftist" narratives that have completely white washed the formation of our countries on the extermination of indigenous peoples. It's "leftists" that are actively trying to remove fact checkers from history books (Texas), postively frame American slavery (Texas), and remove anything that seems anti-patriotic as well (Kansas). It's "leftists" that have sought to suffocate earnest accounts of deeds done by Columbus and Cortes.

This guy is a fucking moron.

Now now... if you're looking to join an online therapy cult of teenage autists, Molyneaux is the man!