Learn from the decline of Rome from the Romans

[Socrtease]

Hell there is a theory that lead poisoning had a big part in the fall of rome because so much of the water was run through lead.

 

[Damocles]

Clearly he knows more about the Roman Empire than you originally gave him credit for.

 

[TheDanold]

Again, the statesmen who you quoted did not "live at that time." They lived hundreds of years "before that time."

Sigh, yes moron, but a decline does not happen overnight, they could foretell what was coming. I have for years warned you and the rest of the left that social welfare programs never go away and government dependence keeps growing, it is not that hard to see what kind of decline that will lead to.

It's fun to watch you try to pull stuff out of your arse in knee-jerk responses to the points I brought up. I haven't seen an historian yet not include the Roman military budget and the overextension of the empire as one of the primary reasons for Roman downfall. It's idiotic to suggest that it was just "covered" by the conquered areas. They had an unbelievable amount of territory to defend, and it's a fact that the military budget dwarfed other expenditures during the era of their downfall (again, hundreds of years after the quotes you posted, which you're relying upon as a "commentary on the downfall" - what a friggin' buffoon. It's like me quoting Ben Franklin on why we're fighting the war in Iraq).

The military budget ALWAYS dwarfed the other parts of government in the Roman empire. Do you really think Romulus and Remus were diddling around with healthcare and education or spending Rome's income on core functions of government like defence and defensive infrastructure?
Yes I've heard some, not MOST, but some historians suggest that military overextension was the reason for the decline, but again the facts are that the Roman empire was at it's greatest extent during Trajan's time which had few problems, that conquered populaces paid taxes and gave up treasure which helped fund the military in those areas and that those populaces were allowed to become citizens in the Empire with some rights which greatly helped to reduce strife in conquered areas - that act alone is a primary reason why conquered areas like Hispania and Gaul were far more civil and offered less problems than other uncharted areas like Germania.

Complacency is not "contradictory." I like how you turned "overextension" into "aggressive." The overextension came about from centuries of expansion, and the fact is, the Romans WERE complacent at the time of the barbarian invasions. Again, this is something that ancient historians are pretty much in unanimous agreement upon. Do you deny it?

You are distorting here, they could be said to be more complacent in their military (ie: they started using more and more non-Romans for generals and employed near barbarian people to fight) which sounds like the opposite of your previous premise of an overambitious military empire.

Public health conditions were also horrendous at the time of Rome's fall. Emperors kept more & more money for themselves, and there was very little investment in infrastructure. Decay & disease were rampant.

This part is just lies, of course conditions are worse than today but they were certainly better then then in earlier Roman years and that kind of spending is partly why they declined - people need to be responsible for themselves and their own health and welfare.

"people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." – Marcus Tullius Cicero

So out of my league "it's not even funny." Again, you know little to nothing about the Roman Empire, little boy....

You were saying? Take a seat junior...

 

[Onceler]

That's correct, they strayed away over the years from funding core functions of government like defence and instead funneled money into the dole (social welfare cash giveaways).

How is this consistent with what you just said about their military spending?

 

[uscitizen]

did Christianity have anything to do with the fall of the roman empire ?