Rome

Anyone got any good knowledge on Roman politics.

Perhaps some old Roman redpills.

More importantly, similarities between Roman politics and modern politics.

/rg/ Rome general so to speak.

>Why did Rome fail

Other urls found in this thread:

thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2012/05/179-the-end.html
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U
youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A/videos
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread564758/pg1
thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2010/03/87-thinking-and-feeling.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bumping

>too much territory
>widespread corruption

Well, what I'm getting at is how come they couldn't make it work, similar to how the British made their empire work?

From what I understand, the Romans all but obliterated the Brittonns, and the Brits of later centuries adopted Roman politics in a monarchy and ended up with a much greater empire.

Why couldn't the Romans keep the lid on it?

>Why did Rome fail
Loosened citizenship requirements
Used more and more conquered peoples in their army
Currency debasing
Became more and more degenerate

Sounds like right now in America.

The Roman Republic began collapsed due to the elite not caring for the lower classes, a gigantic wealth gap (much, much bigger than today), and rapid expansion.

There were two political factions in the waning days of the Republic -- the Optimates and the Populares. The latter were led by men like Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus -- the First Triumvirate which came to win the affection of the lower classes and dominate Roman politics. The triumvirate fell apart as Caesar began winning the adoration of the people, he out maneuvered Pompey and Crassus. Caesar gained power but did little to cater to the elite/senate so they killed him.

His adopted son, Octavian (aka Augustus), sought revenge and had all the conspirators killed, and seized power with the Second Triumvirate (Marc Antony and Lepidus). This too fell apart and Augusts took control of Rome, but he learned from Julius and catered to the senate a bit more -- gradually drawing power and becoming the first Emperor bringing in the Pax Romana an unprecedented era of conservatism, peace, and prosperity.

Yeah, history repeats itself.

>Why did Rome fail
Historians tend to agree on 14 or so factors that contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It took a lot of things to bring it down.

thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2012/05/179-the-end.html

Follow up:

The collapse of the empire is much, much more convoluted and focuses on many factors. But mainly the leadership just sucked. The transition of power between emperors was almost always messy and led to instability. The Roman army became composed of almost entirely non-Romans leading to a rift between the military and citizenship.

Rome basically let itself become an all around mess in the west. The east kept its shit together though.

Is it common law and is it not Roman Law? It is a shitty legal system. Muh precedents muh disclosure muh fact finding missions on Windows 95

If you bugger a fire your penis is bound to get burned

Maybe this is what you are looking for :
> The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

And along came chlamydia

Thanks Stef

Caesar was a Roman socialist lol.

Under his system of populism do you think Rome would have survived longer?

Once the people had a taste of Caesar the concept of going back to elitism and serfdom by oppression seems horrendous, he some how let the genie out the bottle on the lower-classes, recognizing them as human not cattle, particularly by granting military service in legions to almost everyone and guaranteeing them land and their sons citizenship for generations to come.

Augustus can partly be blamed for latter emperors downfalls, by building the Praetorian Guard up so much they had so much power and ability to simply remove emperors that didn't pay up, correct?

Arguably they didn't have an industrial revolution because slave labour was cheap and the huge incentives of mechanisation didn't exist

>Implying Rome ended

ROMA INVICTA

ROME UNCONQUERED

ROME ETERNAL

I don't think industrialization would have saved them, given the vast human resource they had.

their engineering was by-far better than any one else of the period.

I think the downfall is more political than mechanical.

A lot of modern politicians seem to be doing the same shit Roman politicians did.

either by nature or by actually studying them and mimicking them in modern politics.

Romans controlled a much larger landmass, Also Brits only controlled colonies which was mainly populated with other Brits. Which meant no immigrant bullshit to take down the UK. Also the empire bullshit is sort of over valued. Romans had theres for way longer than the Brits had theres. Plus Victoria was pretty damn amazing.

bump bump bump

It's quite hard to imagine the Roman empire spanning 2,000 years.

and already seeing signs of its collapse in the U.S a mere 200 years into it's existence.

However, isn't revolt more likely in colonies?
when it's a large group of foreigners being controlled by small foreign minorities?

I don't think landmass has much to do with it, if your lan mass is fairly centralized control is more centralized.

For example, if India decides to revolt, it's going to take a long ass time for the Brits to get men and ships there to quash it.

whereas, if there's a Gaul uprising, it takes a matter of days to get Roman legions there to quash it.

Ya man- I am a historian and I specialize in antiquity. I am also drunk

Roman redpills are tough to find. Without the internet and lacking in any form of mass communication the majority of the population were Romans through and through. After the republic fell there would be no more conservative and reformists fighting it out.

The big "redpill" moments are when Rome realized that they had become complacent in 260 AD and due too a number of factors, they nearly collapsed. A series of warrior emperors took over though and restored the empire. This helped reinforce the idea that Rome needed to maintain a massive army.

Rome fell due to a number of reasons. It government was not effective (depending on who ruled), the military had grown weak, they had let many immigrants in from Germany, and there were numerous invasions. They lacked the resources to resist.

Rome had also become a bit too peaceful. Christian pacifism had taken hold and the military was largely made up of German immigrants. When these Germans decided the didn't like their treatment they marched on Rome. That was the start of the end.

There are a TON of reasons Rome feel though. This is just one- there were also economic, social, and political factors at play.

Yeah I think you're totally right. My comment was not necessarily about the fall of rome, more a fun fact / point of discussion.

Truth.

Jesus christ I'm sitting bracing my seat
>literally shaking

Why can't people see this today?
Sweden is literally miniature Rome

>let in hordes of foreign cultures
>grant them exacting equal rights
>grant them exceeding rights when they freak out
>extreme pacifism when shit goes bad
(see: Malmo, rather than deportation, you just say "don't go there"
>your native people (Swedes) are outbred by mongrels loyal to foreign religions and nations
>suddenly your military is all foreign mongrels
>suddenly your politicians cater only to foreign mongrels

At what point does your nation become the foreign mongrel?

Arguably Sweden is already a mongrel-state pretending to be cultured and westernized.

The only western values they still adhere to is democracy and law, both easily subverted by the other.

As for similarities-

Many compare the US right now to the Roman empire of 400 AD (the Roman empire in its decline). I disagree.

I see the US as Rome during the period of 50 BC when Caeser took control and abolished the republic.

I say this because before Caeser came in Rome was a MESS. The fighting between the conservative and reformist political parties had literally come to blood shed. The politicians leading bands of gladiators to attack opponents.

For 200 years Roman politics were pretty calm. From their founding up to becoming the worlds only superpower they seemed to get democracy right for the most part. There was never any political violence for the most part and the parties would even work together when need be.

But after centuries the cracks were shown and the political parties saw each other and mortal enemies rather than friends. Backstabbing, corruption, spreading lies, and violence came to define Roman politics. Republics cannot survive such things.

Rome was lucky- Caeser was a genius and he took control from the dying government and this new system maintained and grew the Roman empire.

The question is when our nation falls will we have a caeser? Or will we divide and break apart forever.

Also Roman conservatives are much like modern conservatives and Roman reformists are like liberals.

Yes. A lot actually.

Roman courts are the main standard by which the American Court system is founded upon, but they were more like public shows for the people.
Other than that and the idea of an elected officials; roman politics and modern politics are completely two different worlds. Not much else you tell unless you want specifics.

>why did muh Rome fall?
Not because of politics.

>Corrupt and degenerate at it's height
HMMMM

>Roman Republic
>talks about emperors

>

Actually it sounds more like Canada

additionally I agree with everything you said.

kek

I like unilaterally all western nations are making the same exact mistakes across the board.

>Britain
>Canada
>U.S
>Sweden
>Germany

almost as if these nations are governed by the same people

IDK man. The broken Roman Political system was certainly a MAJOR factor.

Sadly true man. Immigrants retain their orig culture and norms, conquered peoples usually do not. It will be our doom as well sadly.

I wish I could time travel and go to the point the west fell and just read a historical account of it all.

>Praetorian Guard
Yes the Guard, and military in general, held great sway over who was, and would be, emperor. The Guard was needed to keep Augustus safe -- ending the Republic was not very popular within Rome especially among those who could see through Augustus's scheming. Augustus was a master at propaganda. He portrayed his every action as ensuring the preservation of the Republic but clearly had other intentions. Make no mistake, he cared about Rome and wanted to fix it, but also got carried away. He made the military swear allegiance to himself, rather than the state, to avoid them turning on him and this was his biggest fault as this set the precedent for the military to swear allegiance to all emperors rather than the state.

>Caesar
He was very charismatic and a fine military tactician, but he lacked the political acumen of Augustus. Augustus was truly one of the greatest politicians to every live. He knew he sucked as a general so he kept Agrippa close to him at all times -- Agrippa was initially supposed to succeed Augustus, but those plans fell through. Caesar wouldn't have been able to achieve the type of political change and consolidation that Augustus achieved so if he weren't assassinated I believe that Rome would have been worse off. Augustus's policies weren't always spot on but without his reforms Rome surely doesn't exist for as long as it did.

Criminal illegal immigrants

Throughout history there were always a shit ton of political assasinations. What makes the modern era any different?

youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A/videos

Very good channel.

The Roman Republic was free of political violence/assassination until the Gracchi brothers who favored the populace over the elite and wanted reform. This is what began the decline of the Republic. Tiberius Gracchus was assassinated in 133 BC. It was an unprecedented event that changed Rome forever. In 88 Sulla would be the first Roman to march on Rome with the Roman Army.

>Why did Rome fail
The same reason Western civilization is probably going to fail again: welfare.

In 123 BCE one of the fucking Gracchi brothers passed a law whereby it became the basic right of every Roman citizen to a ration of free grain.
This quickly became one of the major expenditures of Rome and their bright idea as to a solution was to increase the number of citizens so they can tax more people (who they then also had to feed).
Eventually the Roman sense of identity died because everyone just held onto their old culture and no one had any money (which inflation had made worthless anyway) because the state taxed it all in order to pay for bread and circuses.

>Rome
Literal pioneers of all modern troubles. Romans willingly intermixed out of existence. Rome allowed scum from Asia Minor, Judea and North Africa to freely travel and settle. You know the drill. The Mediterraneans are dead. It's anthropoligal fact. Again I repeat, Meds were glorious with exception for Rome. I mean, Romans got B L A C K E D in brothels and watched gory spectacles in the Colosseum. The "barbarians" being savage were a victor's meme. Just like the "muh ebul" Nazis today.

>Ritualistic and very spiritual occasional post-battle cannibalism/head decor innawoods.
>Blood for sport and animal cruelty followed up by some nigger dick in the brothel.

Pic related - more of Roman """""""art"""""""

Quite literally the ancestors of modern Italians

S.P.Q.R.? More like C.U.C.K

Gods Bless Alaric and his struggle

Results of free movement without the anti-miscegenation laws. A dead race.

nigga, fucking technology?

Rome fell because a megacuck gave roman citizenship to everyone. You can literally track the beginning of the end of the roman empire back to that particular event, after that everything went downhill.

The similarities to our governments giving citizenship to millions of muslims and niggers are striking.

>I don't know anything about the Roman history: The Post

you too faggot

you aswell
Fuck Sup Forums might actualy be retarded
protip: universal citizenship came in already down the road to its death not after

This. Rome was multiracial. Need I say more?

>redpill
Don't be like Rome and kick out wogs from Australia and New Zealand
Rome: multiethnic, multiracial, equal rights, jews, arabs, asian and Europeans under one flag, corrupt, no social peace and trust

...

Et tu, faggus

>>Why did Rome fail

Degeneracy, homosexuality, catamintes, gluttony, urbanization, social welfare, slavery

It's Sup Forums. I don't know what you expected, half the people here aren't even white, but just larp about being a strong 6'2 aryan or some bullshit.

It was multiracial, but you could only be a citizen if you spoke latin and adhered Roman values.

Multiculturalism is fine so long as the multi is adhering to your culture.

>caesra was a socialist
Nope. He was a populist. Is trump a socialist?

Here's a redpill that will be hard to swallow:

Rome totally cheapened the idea of citizenship, and this in turn lead to the one of the major problems with western culture.

Up until the rise of the republic, the ancient world treated citizenship as something extremely special. To be a citizen of any city-state essentially mean that you 'made it' as an individual. Citizenship wasn't cheaply handed out like gold star stickers in kindergarten.

Some of these city-states were intensely anal and selective about it. Sparta, for example, didn't consider you to be a citizen unless you went through their hellish and brutal state education program called the agoge.

Simply being born in a city to two citizens isn't enough for some of these fucks. You had to take additional steps to earn it beyond your life as an infant.

But then comes along Rome, and they decide to make their conquered subjects and former enemies citizens.

The rest is history.

>Rome
>Anyone got any good knowledge on Roman politics.

Ask away, I'm well read and well versed on the subject, although I'm more prepared on the period between the III century b.c. and the I a.d., or on the IV century a.d.

Let me red pill everyone on the three reasons the empire in the west fell.
1. Christianity. Gibbon deals with this in his decline and fall, Christianity was a religion for slaves and undermined roman values such as gaining arete in this life

2. Inflation. This was what brought the empire down so that it could be finished off by 1 and 3. The Romans had no understanding of monetary policy and the emperors with a couple of exceptions constantly debased the coinage
3. Letting the Goths and other Germans in without crushing them in battle and breaking them up before integrating into he empire.

>Thanks Stef

>Caesar was a Roman socialist lol.

Gods no. He was anything but.
He believed, as far as we could tell in unequality, and in individual qualities.
He was exceptionally meritocratic, even for Roman standards of the time.

He wasn't a snob, though. He acted understanding perfectly the differences of classes and capabilities of people, and found no inherent fault in those who were his inferiors (roughly the whole population, given he was a genius with an impressive character and immense moral authority).

What would be be better to say, then, it is that he was a true patriot for Rome. He knew, and focused his politics on, the fact that the height of virtue for a Roman was to care for Rome above all, and for ALL of it, not just the senate or the equites.

Enlightened Paternalism

By the way, if you consider Gibbon's work to be a) relevant (outside of his historical significance for its time), b) accurate, c) not blind, d) not obsolete, you really should reconsider and expand your studies a bit.

while it is true that Caesar exhibited some (what we would call today) socialist tendencies, he was by far not the first to enforce reforms in favor of the masses. In addition, this had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the republic. The fall of the republic was 100% the outcome of conflicts in the ruler class (caesar vs pompey, caesar vs conspirators, 3rd triumvirate vs conspirators, and finally octavian vs marc anthony)

>Loosened citizenship requirements

Restrictive citizenship rights were the reason for the Social Wars of the Italian allies in the first century BC. Likewise, Caesar started the trend of expanding citizenship rights outside of Italia before the Roman Empire even began, which challenges a notion of it being a detriment. Citizenship rights expansion had no bearing on a decline of Rome. The franchise was expanded empire wide in the 3rd century largely in order to get more taxes and more potential recruits in.

>Used more and more conquered peoples in their army

False in that it simplifies the issue. Use of conquered people in the army was an age old tradition going back to the first century AD at the earliest. Recruitment for the rank and file legion went from the agrarian-middle class/aristocracy of the early republic to the proletariats of the late republic and early empire to the use of provincials in the early to mid empire and finally wholesale use of outsiders in the late late empire. That latter is the point at which a crisis happened.

When the system worked (up until adrianople), you fed the Roman military machine non Roman recruits and it spat out latin named, latin speaking, latin cultured Romans whose sons continued in their footsteps. After Adrianople this system of Romanization fails, you have barbarians hired wholesale under non-Romanized generals who want to keep the Roman system going but also want to set up their own fiefdoms within and they can't have it both ways.

Wrong! You have to go back chink. Culture is a product of Race. The reason multiethnic state gets a bad rep is because behaviour and cultural norms are directly related to Race. Whether we like it or not we can take the gook/coon out of the jungle but can't take the jungle out of the gook/coon.

You can also look into the "bowling alone" study and it's numerous off shoots that show multiracialism indeed dissolves community and leads to overall unhappiness and isolation of the individual. In group preference cannot be weeded out, and as a result you will see what the LibLabConKip are already working on which is "identity politics".

It's a mess and not as simple as "everyone has British values", the same way not everyone can be German, Latvian or Brahmin guju.

Caesar and his supporters had been always in favor of passing legislature in favor of the masses. During Caesars consulship, socialistic-like reforms have been at the heart of his accomplishments. While we don't know for sure whether he did it because he believed in equality or he wanted support (I tend to think its both), we do know that he actively supported things such as the free food for the poor and most importantly his land reform bill. His actions were on the far left.

>Currency debasing

100% true and a major issue in the 3rd century crisis. It is to Diocletian's credit (even though he was limited in how much he could solve it) that he delayed the collapse for 150 more years but currency debasing was a huge issue.

>Became more and more degenerate

False. The empire was at the degenerate heights in the first century AD, which was also the height of its imperial power and stability. Christianity introduced more strict morals than anything the empire had known, but also introduced the problem of a morality favoring the hereafter over the now. This coupled with the complete erosion of a civil society (something you see under authoritarian regimes in the middle east) meant that political office and serving your country/state/empire was seen as a hindrance and headache.

Literally, it was so bad in the successor period that the Visigoths in Spain had to legislate to -force- Hispano-Roman civil servants to remain in office and not run away or join the clergy to escape the dues and responsibilities and even tie their sons and their sons sons to the position. This was a trend long in the making back into the early days of the empire.

Caesar was simply practicing the policy that previous Greek officials like Solon (and later figures up to Napoleon and the present day) found most prudent - it is better to strike a middle road that mollifies the masses and respects the wishes of the aristocracy than to purely throw your weight behind one or the other.
We are mistaken to view Roman social relations in the narrative of our own - issues of aristocracy vs the commoners is less the modern "Wealthy vs poor" and more "Blue blood vs non-noble". Much like during the medieval struggles of aristocracy vs king (with the middle class on the side of the king), many of the up and coming bourgeoisie would have greater wealth than the blue-bloods yet be scorned and denied political opportunity or priviliege and honor because they didn't come from a noble cunt.

You might think aristocracy by blood is good and oligarchy by wealth is bad. If you believe this and you aren't a hypocritical hack then you would have supported the Clintons, Bushes, Schumers and others because the story of Trump vs the establishment is greatly similar to this perennial struggle between an entrenched 'old money' aristocracy and a rising 'new money' force. What was the senatorial gluttony of proto-latifundia and bloated slave labor is now the senatorial and big business love of importing third world labor and outsourcing.

Much like Napoleon struck a middle ground between the radical communard Jacobins and the reactionary Royalists, Caesar struck a midle ground between the class-warfare populists and the naive senatorial class that sought to preserve an almost oriental sense of unilateral authority despite contributing less and less to the republic.

Roman republic collapsed due to numerous conflicts in the ruling class. These conflicts began as a result of the extremely flawed political system of the republic. One of the major flaws was the fact that the tribune of the plebs had the power to veto almost any senate legislature. Abuse of this flaw (and other factors) began the war between Pompey and Caesar. wealth gap, rapid expansion and elite not caring about lower class had nothing to do with the fall of the republic.

This fellow user is well learned as well.

Enjoy ban

During the Roman Republic the notion of noble vs non noble was still strong, but there were many senators and high ranking officials who came from rich Plebeian families. I believe that during the Roman Republic, it was a mix of rich vs poor and noble vs non-noble.

>Caesar struck a midle ground between the class-warfare populists and the naive senatorial class

I disagree, I believe that Caesar himself was the "class-warfare populist". He was an extremely radical figure at the time and after defeating Pompey he pretty much had absolute power over the whole Rome. There was no middle ground, the senate was powerless in the last months of Caesars life.

>Be Roman Republic
>Strong culture with good men
>Soldier/Farmer the ideal member of society - responsible, strong, simple
>Community of individuals - real men
>Pagan religion was sanitized and entwined with the state
>Religion and social order strongly entwined
>Healthy politics between the elite and the people
>Roman Law slowly codifies - general rules that all citizens must follow (absolutely revolutionary - no special divide between the elite and the masses)
>Expansionist wars, but all fall under the "Just War" principle
>Expansion brings wealth
>Wealth brings the first signs of decadence
>Powerlust begins to seize politics (What we today would call the Will to Power)
>State Religion sets strict rules, handed down by the gods, about how politics affairs are to be conducted
>Very ritual, VERY important visual (for a mostly illeterate population)
>Taboos were violated by young, long haired rulers
>Religion slowly hollowed out, never recovered
>Politics became super-heated and divided
>Protests
>Riots
>Turned violent
>Dictators
>Political Purges
>Both sides have power variously
>Nothing is solved
>Violence escalates
>Chaos spreading
>An entire generation lives in darkness
>Ceaser takes over
>Man of the people
>Oligarchs assassinate him

>Augustus takes over
>Consolidates power
>Republic becomes Empire
>Makes conservative social policy that never reaches people's hearts
>Virtue becomes associated with authoritarianism (the West has never escaped this association)
>Empire's size makes its culture multicultural
>Dilution contributes to weakness of overall social cohesion
>Slow burn to decadence begins
>Birthrate slowly drops
>Huge number of holidays accumulate - work ethic decrease
>Bureaucracy enlarges
>Planned economies often fail
>Existence becomes fraught with anxiety
>Birthrates become extremely low
>Gives up on Expansion (Basically, gives up on itself)
>Hadrian walls the Empire in
>Third Century: Plauges, Civil War, Invasion on repeat
>Population crisis
>Solution: Settle Germanic barbarians in the Empire
>They demand citizenship
>Bar Bars grow in number, rank, and prestige
>Soon there are enough that they keep their culture
>Roman culture filthy by now
>Elites constantly infighting and backstabbing
>The people are obsessed with fucking
>Only Greeks and Germans are competent rulers; Romans are barely human
>Emperors don't bother to visit Rome (the city) anymore
>Christianity tries to hold back degeneracy, but only partially successful and has its own problems (At first they were fringe and radical, then are quickly accepted into the mainstream and become part of politics - never had a chance)
>Germans start to form marauding bands
>Huns harass the Germanic Kingdoms outside the Empire
>HUGE migration of Germans into the Empire - Entire Kingdoms
>Not properly spearated
>German armies inside the Empire with Kings at their head
>March on Rome multiple times, sack it a few times
>Demands usually met
>Huns attack
>Weak Empire crumbles
>West falls apart
>East becomes bureaucratic and authoritarian

>HUGE debt problems for most people from the middle to the end of the Empire
>Fucking retards who can't spend their money
>Most powerful social forces: Degeneracy (highly emotional) and Christianity (highly emotional response to degeneracy)
>Austere Roman virtue deader than dead
>A few not-retards accumulate all the resources and wealth
>Buy up land in the provinces
>Agree to buy debtor's debt in exchange for the debtors themselves
>Huge estates full of debtor slaves
>Slowly grow
>Estate owners become influential and powerful
>Become extremely territorial
>Western Empire falls
>Aristocracy emerges
>Cue Dark Ages

ty

They relied on slaves which stifled technological innovation

Anytime

Great pasta, user

REEEEEE STOP WITH THE CURRENCY DEBASEMENT MEME IT HAS AND ALWAYS WAS TIED TO THE GRAIN DOLE.

Slow burning decline is not equivalent to successful tradition. Every replacement of the army was a response to the degeneration of the previous source.

Julius Caesar was a class traitor
his attempted land reforms were cuckery

There was a period where currency was so debased by cheap metal that it was suspended as a collectible form of tax. Resources and products were taken instead.

read this book if you are interested in SPQR

Ceaser was the tyrant they needed. He stopped a divided Republic from eating itself alive. And he gave us Augustus.

>and already seeing signs of its collapse in the U.S a mere 200 years into it's existence.
It's not really fair to claim the Romans lasted 2000 years, the Republic, Empire, and Byzantine Empire are all pretty distinct.

And you could view the US as a continuation or offshoot to the British Empire, similar to how the Byzantines were an offshoot of the Roman Empire.

I'd offer a few points in rebuttal
1) Communication technology has sped up Civilization.
2) The Industrial Revolution and cosmopolitanism have intensified decadence
3) The US was a barbarian country whose windfall of wealth after WWI was the result of declining empires cannibalizing each other.

We're suffering underneath the burden of technology and prosperity and we were never meant for it.

>particularly by granting military service in legions to almost everyone and guaranteeing them land and their sons citizenship for generations to come.
That was Marius a generation earlier

>We're suffering underneath the burden of technology and prosperity and we were never meant for it.
This seems to be true of all empires that stick around for long enough. The Greeks viewed the Persians as decadent, the Romans viewed the Greeks as decadent, steppe peoples viewed the Romans as decadent, the steppe peoples became decadent whenever they settled anywhere etc.

Becoming wealthy and civilised eventually leads to weakness, feminisation and decay.

REPUBLIC ISNT THE EMPIRATE SOMALIS GET OUT REEEEEE

But those societies had the history of a strong civic order behind them to act as a bulwark against the worst of decadence for a time. We didn't have any of that, and on top of that we were hit with the technology boom. We're a repeat of Rome's worst mistakes without its virtues.

m8 you are a retard.

the Original farmer-soldier, virtuous Roman middle class was fighting endless wars in Tunesia, in Spain, in Macedonia, In Greece, .... everywhere they ent on long campaigns for those patricians who stayed in rome. they sacrificed everything, and for what? when they returned, their farms had become wortlessbecause they could not be maintained. they were completely undercut in labour by the massive influx of foreign slaves after the wars they had won. they were forced to sell their farms and land to the greedy roman upper class that had stayed on their comfy villas while they were fighting for Rome. they had to sell everything for a minimum price, and became landless, became a proletariat, and flocked to the city in hope for work, living of the free bread aid, while they were kept content by the corrupt and decadent elite with gladiator games, free food and all other sorts of stuff to dull their misery.

meanwhile the degenerate "elite" owned massive estates consisting of former yeoman farms, now being merged into gigantic agrocorporations with slave laborers.

a pretty interesting read from ATS - All Roads Lead to Rome:

abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread564758/pg1

it includes Jewish false flags and claims that Jesus is actually Julius Caesar.

Literally wimminz killed us

Rome fell becaus Constantine fucked everything up.
>make a tax system that creates semi independent oligarchis inside your borders
>germanfied the army
>Retarded succession plan that was never ever NEVER going to work.
>calling the legions from the borders and into fortified border cities, which lesd to legionaries becoming sloppy and conflict in the cities since cities had to feed 'em
>kill your own heir by getting played like a damn fiddle by your new wife and then kill her.
He did build a nice capital tho
Also the overall roman problen was that their education system was total garbage, which lead citizens emerging from education hating learning and thus making technological improvements not happen

>not realizing that roman culture was built off of virtues and duties
>thinking the very foundations of ones identity which allowed it to become great is the reason for its downfall
>this nigga never read about how the romans tangled with carthage
>you cant stop intermingling your modern bias with historical analysis

>Also the overall roman problen was that their education system was total garbage, which lead citizens emerging from education hating learning and thus making technological improvements not happen
can you go into that more? sounds interesting.

Thats retarded and ridiculous. Sure, east and west were culturally distinct, but remained roman at heart the same. Byzantium is a modern name for an entity which would have been self described as roman. The roman empire fell with constantinople.

thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2010/03/87-thinking-and-feeling.html

Also, the foundations of the usa are completely different from that of gb. The usa was built off of a philosophical revival of sorts which really has no mirror in history. The foundations of our constitution being rights bestowed by the divine is revolutionary as fuck.
Abo or troll, gtfo.