The Fall Of Rome?

[sparten]

I disagree. The German commander in chief of the West (Stilcho I believe his name was) was largely to blame for it. Not only did he largely ignore the barbarians who were sweeping through the Western Empire, he did so in order to assemble a force from which to wrest Dalmatia from Constantinople. A multi-cornered civil war did not help, as each of the factions focused more on one another than they did on defending the empire. The West was rotten, and it was really beyond Constantinople's ability to save.

Constantinople could have saved the west, but they were too pre-occupied with the Persians.
ANd Belisariu's campaigns in Italy and Spain should convince anyone that the Eastern ROman Empire was certainly capable of defeating the barbarians. It would be Byzantine not to say that.

[lwarmonger]

Constantinople could have saved the west, but they were too pre-occupied with the Persians.
ANd Belisariu's campaigns in Italy and Spain should convince anyone that the Eastern ROman Empire was certainly capable of defeating the barbarians. It would be Byzantine not to say that.

The Eastern Roman Empire was certainly capable of beating the barbarians, of that I have no doubt. The Western Roman empire was also capable of beating the barbarians. The difference was, if the Western Empire beat the barbarians it could still establish effective control over the territory it took. By this point Constantinople could not assert effective control over even the limited lands it regained (Italy and portions of Spain/North Africa), much less the rest of the West. The territories of the West were by this time (especially after their complexion had become more German) just too different from the "Greek" half of the Empire. The only thing that could have saved the Latin portion of the Roman Empire was a "rallying around the flag" that simply wasn't going to occur in a state that had already lost most of its willpower.

[Bulgaroctonus]

I have returned to this thread after long absence. First, I express my regrets that Sparten is banned. Unfortunately, it seems we lose another Muslim member every day.

Secondly, Stilicho has come up in the discussion. Unlike some members have postulated, Stilicho did not ignore the incursions of the barbarians, mostly Visigoths, into the Empire. He defeated Alaric in 397 in Dalmatia, although he allowed Alaric to escape into the mountains. He led an extensive campaign against the Vandals in Rhaetia in 401, and defeated Alaric in two more major battles: Pollentia (402) and Verona (403). Unfortunately for the Empire, the idiot emperor Honorius listened to his advisor Olympius, long an enemy of Stilicho, and had the general executed for high treason in 408. Stilicho's absence led to, among other things, Alaric's capture of Rome in 410. Without a powerful general such as Stilicho, Alaric found Italy an easy target.

Therefore, we should mourn the passing of Stilicho. With him passed the Western Empire's best hope for survival.

[TopHatter]

I have returned to this thread after long absence. First, I express my regrets that Sparten is banned. Unfortunately, it seems we lose another Muslim member every day.

Look closely, Sparten is not banned ;)
You've been had by a Sig.

[Bulgaroctonus]

Look closely, Sparten is not banned ;)
You've been had by a Sig.

I rejoice.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Look closely, Sparten is not banned ;)
You've been had by a Sig.

Ah, I was wondering about that.
There have been a lot of good reasons posted for the fall of Rome. One I haven't seen too much of is the matter of money. When the basic coinage of Rome was originally minted (I forget its name, maybe denarius?) I believe it was pretty much pure silver. Actually I think their first coins were copper, but no matter. By the fall of Rome, the percentage was down to near zero, maybe 5 percent or something. A stable money supply means a stable economy. If money is constantly losing value because the government is debasing the coinage, economic activity will be severely curtailed. People will switch to barter, which is far less efficient than money, and will hoard old coins rather than spend them. In contrast, the Byzantine Empire enforced the death penalty for anyone found guilty of debasing the money. The Byzantines lasted for nearly a thousand years more. One could say it was due to some sort of moral spirit or something, but I prefer something concrete. Just my thoughts.

[Nemesis]

What do you think based on facts that you know about the roman empire led to its destruction?

I know I'm going to take fire for saying this, but here goes.

My personal conviction is that what led to the Roman downfall is exactly what will lead to the American downfall.

Decadance, overt snobbishness, believing themselves to be unbeatable, spreading their military too thin.

[sparten]

I know I'm going to take fire for saying this, but here goes.

My personal conviction is that what led to the Roman downfall is exactly what will lead to the American downfall.

Decadance, overt snobbishness, believing themselves to be unbeatable, spreading their military too thin.

In other words the downfall o every nation (or great nation) in history?

[Nemesis]

In other words the downfall o every nation (or great nation) in history?

That all depends on what you define as great, my friend :)

[ArmchairGeneral]

I wouldn't overrate the importance of the military, at least today. Until Canada and Mexico unite into a powerful alliance to invade America, we're not in too much danger. We can't be destroyed economically by military force either, at least at this point. Our internal lines of communication and resources would enable us to keep producing under pressure. Decadence? Possibly. Believing ourselves unbeatable? First off, beatable in what? Military? See above. Economics? It's not a zero sum game, contrary to the mercantilist way of thought. If a country hurts us economically, they get hurt, as a matter of course. The only people who can beat us is ourselves. Anyhow, going by historical precedent, I would say we've got another century or two of being top dog, or one of the top dogs.

[lwarmonger]

Secondly, Stilicho has come up in the discussion. Unlike some members have postulated, Stilicho did not ignore the incursions of the barbarians, mostly Visigoths, into the Empire. He defeated Alaric in 397 in Dalmatia, although he allowed Alaric to escape into the mountains. He led an extensive campaign against the Vandals in Rhaetia in 401, and defeated Alaric in two more major battles: Pollentia (402) and Verona (403).

I never said that Stilicho wasn't a competent commander. He most certainly was. However, look at how many times he beat Alaric. Each of these times he let Alaric go, yet Aleric kept coming back and wreaking havoc upon the empire. Not to mention that having a German essential running the empire (and letting disruptive barbarians run loose within the empire) was what caused so many rebels to pop up to begin with. Stilicho believed that he could use the Germanic tribes to take away much of Dalmatia from the East. While he did not start the policy of using Germans, he did take it to extremes by employing entire tribes as distinct entities within the empire, rather than simply hiring foot soldiers or regiments from them. It was ultimately that political autonomy (that the German tribes acquired de facto, then afterwords de jure) that fractured the Roman Empire.

Unfortunately for the Empire, the idiot emperor Honorius listened to his advisor Olympius, long an enemy of Stilicho, and had the general executed for high treason in 408. Stilicho's absence led to, among other things, Alaric's capture of Rome in 410. Without a powerful general such as Stilicho, Alaric found Italy an easy target.

True, but the only reason that Alaric was in a position to take Rome in the first place was because Stilicho had let him go/survive several times before. Once again, I'm not denigrating Stilicho's ability as a general, but I am questioning his ability to hold together an Empire that was being challenged on many different levels. Personally, I think a Roman would have been better placed to wage the political war that needed to be waged to save the West.

[lwarmonger]

I wouldn't overrate the importance of the military, at least today. Until Canada and Mexico unite into a powerful alliance to invade America, we're not in too much danger. We can't be destroyed economically by military force either, at least at this point. Our internal lines of communication and resources would enable us to keep producing under pressure. Decadence? Possibly. Believing ourselves unbeatable? First off, beatable in what? Military? See above. Economics? It's not a zero sum game, contrary to the mercantilist way of thought. If a country hurts us economically, they get hurt, as a matter of course. The only people who can beat us is ourselves. Anyhow, going by historical precedent, I would say we've got another century or two of being top dog, or one of the top dogs.

Nuclear weapons and high technology (thus avoiding the communication problems that Rome possessed) ensure that we will never fall in a similar way. Being completely integrated into the world economy (and comprising a sizeable percentage of it) ensures that if we do go down, we'll take everyone else with us.

[Nemesis]

I wouldn't overrate the importance of the military, at least today. Until Canada and Mexico unite into a powerful alliance to invade America, we're not in too much danger. We can't be destroyed economically by military force either, at least at this point. Our internal lines of communication and resources would enable us to keep producing under pressure. Decadence? Possibly. Believing ourselves unbeatable? First off, beatable in what? Military? See above. Economics? It's not a zero sum game, contrary to the mercantilist way of thought. If a country hurts us economically, they get hurt, as a matter of course. The only people who can beat us is ourselves. Anyhow, going by historical precedent, I would say we've got another century or two of being top dog, or one of the top dogs.

Well Rome didn't exactly just fall over one day and BAM there were Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Turkey. Of course we still have a ways to go before we're insignificant, if that's even really possible.

As for us being unbeatable, even if we are, it's never a good thing to overestimate yourself, and it's always a good thing to be on your guard.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Rome itself, the home of the Pope, was never insignificant, but its empire was completely destroyed. A comparable situation for the US would be New York remaining the fashion capital of the world, but New England overrun by barbarian Canadians, Florida breaking off under the Cubans, California descending into utter chaos, and the rest of the states muddling along under various petty rulers.

[sparten]

For the United States, I think it would be more like Britain, eclipsed in power, by hopefully a friendly power