I've been playing Rome Total War and I need to know

I've been playing Rome Total War and I need to know.

Where the fuck did Rome go wrong? Why did they crumble?

multiculturalism

What do you mean go wrong? Crumble? What happened to Rome?

decades of poor leadership, germans, natural disasters, and civil war

It was a very slow decline. The fact that the Empire overcame the crisis of the 3rd century was astounding.

...

Draenei, Worgen, Goblin, Gnome, Night Elf, and Forsaken death knights should not exist.

it was a very slow decline. when rome was sacked for the last time it's walls weren't even defended.

THE JEWS

put the video game down you brain dead nigger

why the fuck are you not playing Rome 2?

I really wish Rome never abandoned Britain. Their influence inspired us to become the best civilization on Earth and conquer over half of the world.

If they had never left then who knows what could have happened

Both of these

google it

Cultural decadence
Letting in foreign cultures without forcing them to integrate and become roman

Austro-Hungary fell for the second reason, ruling over a melting pot of cultures without actively trying to replace it with a unified culture leads to chaos

The US have been rather successful in doing this, atleast initially, since altough being a melting pot a new "american" culture was enforced

Sweden is currently in a state of chaos because they don't actively try to make immigrants integrate into swedish culture.

>The western half of the empire had a large trade deficit with the eastern half. The west purchased luxury goods from the east but had nothing to offer in exchange.

>It's a "Sup Forums rewrites history to justify their nationalism" thread

They didn't have a choice. By the end, the Romans were far too weak to hold Britannia.

Nobody knew what 'Inflation' was yet, so the economy began to crumble

Huns pushed Germanic tribes westward, over the Roman borders

Late Roman society was trending towards feudalism, without the obligation of the landowner to provide troops. Landowners were reluctant to allow their able bodied workers to leave and go fight.

Because of this Rome relied more and more on Germanic levees. A great idea at first, but they ended up being overused, and this can cause problems when you are fighting Germanics with Germanics.

Germanic refugees from the Huns were not divided and spread out as previous migrants had been. They were settled in one place, allowed to keep arms. The idea was to use them as a buffer against the Huns. Instead the Germans got mad about taxes and exploitation and rampaged.

Huns invaded very shortly after Rome dealt with this narrowly and finished the job.

Also nearly every point where there was no foreign invasion happening saw ambitious generals and governors trying to set up their own personal kingdoms in distant provinces due to how difficult it was in those days to keep tabs on land so far away. Dealing with these constant rebellions pulled troops off the borders, encouraging Germans and then Huns to cross.

Sup Forums pls go

The western empire fell for a number of reasons. Shit rulers, shit handling of the Germanic tribes. Overwhelmed by too many threats on too many fronts.

OP play Rome Barbarian invasions if you are too autistic to actually open a book or read a fucking wiki.

>Every bad thing happens because of multiculturalism

I'm trying my best to be a law-abiding immigrant while still retaining a bit of my culture, what the fuck do I have to do anymore to avoid being treated as potential underpaid workforce? I hate multiculturalism as much as any other smart person, but is it really that hard to live and coexist peacefully with people of different cultures? Come on, I'm a 23yo pizza-loving chubby virgin too lazy to bother with following any religion to begin with, I'm not gonna rape your daughter or bomb your public areas dammit, I swear!

Of course failure to integrate isn't the only reason Rome fell, it is one of the big ones though

"OMG POL PLS GO!!!!"
Did you even read my post? What's even Sup Forumsish in it?

just look at what happened to the poo in loos. that would've been you in the romans had stayed in control over you.

He does have a point. The Empire never properly integrated the Germanics as they had other ethnic groups they conquered. Allowing entire armed bands to settle in Roman territory and set up effectively autonomous kingdoms was one of the worst decisions the Empire made.

That being said, it was only one problem of many.

If the Roman Empire started again today, do you think they'd be much more successful or fail sooner due to tech like radio/internet/WMDs?
On the one hand, you can now send messages instantaneously from one side of the world to the other, so those many small rebellions wouldn't be such an issue. And better weapons combined with Roman tactics could be very effective.
But then people are a lot more adverse to seizing land the way Romans did these days, plus the internet means people are possibly less susceptible to Romanization. They would have to be much more diplomatic, since they can't just say "oh, they're barbarians, we can just take their land".

Corruption and overexpanse

Climate changes resulting in bad harvests, civil wars, dividing the empire, migratory Germans, lack of martial innovation, internal political conflict, client states turning on them, and a number of other issues.

the EU is the closest thing we have to le roman empire today. It's just not realistic to forcefully expand your borders anymore. but you can convince people to adopt a common government and currency.

>Austro-Hungary fell for the second reason
Austria-Hungary fell because they lost a war and the victors decided to split them up, if they had won they might as well still exist.

This

In the Spanish Colony things went rather smooth with the imposing of christianism and converting people instead of bashing heads randomly. Of course there were many head bashing, but the cultures merged together and held pretty easily.

snowniggers

Wow you are so fucking retarded Sup Forums, it's not even fun. This is why you are fucking worse than sjws, you try to apply your elementary school tier logic to everything just to push your shitty agenda. Kys faggot

Yeah that worked out so well when all the colonies wanted and gained independence despite the common language, religion and culture.

Op did not ask for retarded Sup Forums shitposts.

True, the empire never integrated the Germanic tribes very well, but that was because the Empire refused to let them be integrated. Refusal to offer citizenship and only towards the end of the empires life did they even offer them land for their work to settle. Failure to abandon the original culture and adopt the new culture was in no way any cause for the fall. Look at Egypt. They held onto their culture so fucking hard that they even made Romans worship their gods openly.

To put it into perspective Rome spent 1\3 of their income into fucking gladiators at some points. Most of their income came from war but once they started to defend they couldn't defend all of their territories, and then they have civil wars which meant only losses, no income, and then huge corruption, insane emperors that spent ridiculous amount of money into anything, decadence like you can't even imagine.

please describe the downfall of Rome in whatever length you desire then. you have no idea how to, do you?

How about you tell him why he is wrong, instead of sounding like a fucking idiot.

Christianity

>constant fund-draining wars on multiple fronts
>economy based on slavery couldnt sustain itself since they stopped conquering new land
>army quality degraded due to recruitment of barbarians who were just in it for the money
>corrupt ruling class
>city of Rome falling out of favor because of Constantinople

Austro-Hungary couldn't carry it's weight in said war because it wasn't culturally uniform and partly because of this a weak empire plagued by infighting between cultures.

Anyone who pins the fall of Rome onto a single, easy-to-understand cause is lying to you for their own agenda

In reality Rome collapsed slowly, over a period of hundreds of years, due to a whole bunch of factors that historians are still studying and debating. There were civil wars, fending off the Germans, rampant corruption, and natural disasters which were way more catastrophic for governments in ancient times. Entire african and middle eastern civilizations collapsed due to a single drought, which is to be expected when you have a ton of peasants that are supposed to be fed with an annual harvest that for one reason or another doesn't happen.

In future centuries, leaders looked at all the civil wars and client states that turned on Rome over petty shit to realize that provinces don't always like to have their shit micromanaged by a single central government. So the Europeans eventually worked out Federalism, which granted a degree of autonomy to member states while still keeping them under one banner.

>Come on, I'm a 23yo pizza-loving chubby virgin too lazy to bother with following any religion to begin with, I'm not gonna rape your daughter or bomb your public areas dammit, I swear!

You sound like a typical American and what's left of your old culture sounds like worthless window dressing for your personal self-esteem. You assimilated just fine.

Truly a thought-provoking post

Rome fell only in 1204 or 1453, depending on how you want to look at it.

Pity.

This desu

Do you think I'm willing to explain the reasons why the longest empire in human history actually fell to some random retard on Sup Forums?
I'm studying history, I learned latin in high school, I love Roman history but does the retard not understand how stupid is saying "lol multiculturalism is the cause of every evil in the world".
The Roman Empire survived centuries even with "multiculturalism", the inevitable fail was principally caused by the size of the Empire, the Barbarians where pushing on multiple sides and it was hard to have enough men to defend all of them while administrating efficiently the furthest zones. Also there was a lot of incompetent emperors during the times, only few of them managed to have some military successes, majority fell into battle of where killed of by their own soldiers

Far too many things are different to make a proper comparison, it's apples and oranges. Old problems solved, new problems introduced (explosives and modern media make holding territory a bitch).

Interesting thing regarding your comment on Rome just invading barbarians whenever they wanted, though, it's not actually true. They needed to justify their wars to their people in a similar manner to modern nations.

According to Livy, "Rome conquered the world in self defense".

Of course these justifications, like in modern times, are usually contrived.

yup, the whole empire just collectively blew all their money on luxuries and didn't produce anything of value.

People will fall under a federal government so long as it benefits them, but in ancient times it was harder for Rome to properly manage and assist people that we geographically divided from them. It was easy for lords and governors to do corrupt shit for their own benefit behind Rome's back when they were thousands of miles away and it took over a month for messengers to bring word, and it was easy to lie to the higher-ups anyway. The same thing happened to China several times, the emperors/communists couldn't manage shit because messengers kept lying in order to avoid getting killed for delivering bad news about famines or losing battle to the British

Real non Sup Forums answer:

Emperor got assassinated and 3 generals fought over leadership of Rome.

Thus the empire split in 3 parts. 1 general quickly defeat 1 other so that puts the Roman empire in 2 districts.

West roman empire which was mostly gaul + hispania since Syria/England had proclaimed to be independent kingdoms and the civil war between the generals didn't have enough manpower to reclaim them. During this period a lot of Germans started to raid the undefended cities of the Roman empire since all soldiers were off fighting for power.

Eventually Rome got sacked and the western roman empire just collapsed like the soviet union. Into all kind of smaller nations.

The eastern Roman empire eventually called the Byzantine empire survived until somewhere in the 14th century until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. Ending the last Roman empire and starting the Ottoman empire.

Meanwhile those balkanized nations in the west Roman empire still held nationalism for this Roman idea. So some nations came together and eventually formed the "Holy roman empire" in central Europe with Bohemia as its capital.

Eventually the holy roman empire would collapse completely when Protestantism took hold of northern Europe. But unified Germany under Bismarck still had the Roman Eagle as its symbol.

The last piece of Rome to truly fall was when the Nazi German reich collapsed. Since their use of the Roman Eagle stopped after that.

(Also Roman history is pretty funny such as Caesar personally knowing Cleopatra. And the government system from Chiefdom->Kingdom->Democracy->Dictatorship(Caesar)->Democracy->Dictatorship(Famous Caesar we all know, named himself after the first dictator) again.

Some would say that the Roman empire would've collapsed anyway because they were stretched too thin over too much Area and it would be only a matter of time before some areas would proclaim independence without Rome able to reclaim them.

will i gain valuable political insight from this?

Bad management, especially when it came to the army. Sup Forums will claim it was multiculturalism in general, but the real problem was allowing non-Roman citizens, meaning people governed by Rome who didn't directly own any land or business dealings, into the army. These conscripts had more loyalty to their generals, who would make them rich by sacking cities and allowing the soldiers to keep what they looted, and had no personal stake in a peaceful and prosperous Rome and the moment the Roman empire hit the borders of its potential expansion, whether it be through natural barriers, other Empires capable of resisting them, or supply line overexertion, those armies full of men looking to loot and not a whole lot else became political tools for those generals to take power and suddenly a Roman general marching on Rome became a common occurrence.

The moral? Don't give political power to people who have no reason not to fuck the state over with it, along with the stakeholders in the state's continued ability to maintain peace and the rule of law over individuals.

just got too big

B-but memes on Sup Forums are a more reliable source. Are you by chance a slave of the jews???

Recently picked up Total Warhammer

These are the clunkiest controls I've ever seen in a video game.

I specialised in Late Roman military history during my PhD so maybe this thread is my time to shine

...

When the late Empire stopped bothering with Romanization and instead of recruiting young men with the promise of citizenship while also instilling Roman values through drill and training as well as enforcing a basic understanding of Latin they just hired mercenaries. Tons of them. And those mercenaries really only wanted money and trusted the man that was in charge of them, usually. You can notice the shift when the standardization of the Legion's kit went completely out the window and the soldiers just wore what they wanted and just had to march under the signifiers banner. When the money started to dry up due to terrible economic practices, corruption, and mismanagement those very same armies just turned on their masters. Carthage had this issue too but much earlier and in a smaller scale.

In comparison, the ERE continued to try and control and Romanize their migrants as they flooded in but the East was much richer, had a much more diciplined and better equipped army, and was able to resist many of the hordes pushing in after suffering some defeats. Eventually those hordes saw that the WRE was much easier to loot and went that way. There are tons of different factors, multiculturalism isnt one of them. The Romans were civic nationalists for centuries.

why did roman swords get longer?

im not gonna comment on whether you're right or wrong about rome or austria-hungary, but how was america able to integrate people so well as a melting pot? people used to come here and become americans, but shit seems much more divided nowadays

tell me about the lorica segmentata. why wasn't it more popular than the hamata?

THE HUNS

That's actually why they fell though

we used to control who we let in and really only let in people from cultures that were already similar to our own. the chinese and japanese have been immigrating here as long as the irish and italians have and they still live in their own little communities. You could argue, as many already have, that the melting pot doesn't actually work.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Christianity fuck over the Romans?

>Empire on economic decline
>Forms east and west effectively seperate nations
>West gets ass raped by shit skins forming the italians as we know them today
>East gets brainwashed into christianity and forms the whites as we know them today
>Shit degrades and they eventually devolve into assorted euro nations

I fucking love things like equipment (especially armour) and military heirarchies. I always write up these fictional ranking systems just for fun. Rome's is great, with the maniples and separate lines of hastati, principes, and triarii. Whenever I play Rome 2 I always try to stay at least somewhat true to Roman army composition and tactics.

it was sacked multiple times? lrn2history

>germanics
>shitskins
it's time to get off Sup Forums user.

Just how full of shit do you think Herodotus really was?

No, invasions, migrations, inflation and corruption fucked it over. The Eastern empire was christianized much earlier (greeks translated the bible) and much more throughly than the west and it blossomed.

Fuck off Gibbon.

Only your first two meme arrows are anywhere close to reality

Try reading the thread first before posting, you would look less of a moron that way

RTW was always fun. It was great with 4 vs 4 battles online. Then there were the people who'd spam war elephants and beserkers. It was funny when the unit size was made large.

>Where the fuck did Rome go wrong? Why did they crumble?
There isn't one particular reason for this. Not going to go into the details because anything you could Google would be better than what I can spit up.

A couple of reasons, mostly because of changes in the way Roman warfare was conducted.

There was an increased emphasis on cavalry, so you'd want to have a weapon with more reach and a shield that could offer you more immediate personal defence instead of a formation defence. So shields got smaller and swords got longer. Roman soldiers were also more often finding themselves engaged in smaller engagements which a more personal set of armaments is better for.

Also notable is that the arms and armor of Late Empire were supplied by state-owned factories instead of contracted private workshops, so there was a desire for equipment that could be equipped on any type of troop. A gladius is only really useful for heavy infantry, but you could equip your heavy infantry, light infantry, cavalry, skirmishers, archers, etc. with a spatha and it would be handy for them to have

The west essentially ruined themselves with spending, the east were fucked by arabs.

tbqhwy it's more than maintaining an empire is alot harder than expanding your power. every year in the early republic you knew a new army would come at you to reck your shit in summer. the constant expansion and pressure required efficiency to be effective. the empire just sought to maintain what it had won which tends to cause fungus and shit to grow. you could say Christianity grew out of that lazyness. also an unwillingness to completely eradicate the jews

lol, did someone hurt your feelings again?

No. Read Machiavelli "The Prince" to learn the basis of Geopolitics, Realpolitik and rulership.

The decline of Rome can only be used as a history lesson.

>germanics
>Not shit skin

So you're saying italians are white? That doesnt add up

...

They didn't fall fast enough imo. Hannibal should have ended them long ago, they were stupid lucky for years.

Lorica segmentata was harder to repair, harder to maintain and harder to wear/put on, and for all these disadvantages it only offered marginally better protection than hamata. It was a lot more long-lived than people give it credit for though, being used at least until the early fourth century.

They underestimated time and the 'barbarian' horde. Think about the way the British Empire started to crumble. They went to America and failed to beat back the revolutionaries. The Roman Empire over extended to acient Britain and 'conquered' it. Then got ass fucked and had to go back to the European continent and then over time the Celtic peoples united and stormed Rome. Specifically the Visigoths lead the charge. Obviously a lot of over shit happened but all Empires fall victim to the sands of time.

Every empire has a golden age and a downfall. Empires aren't sustainable, eventually they reach out too much, bite more than they can chew and fall apart from inside out.

Same with the US, it had its golden age and now we see the clear signs of its downfall. Being destroyed by the inside, retards being put in charge etc.

by how do you perform a maniple swap?

People came to America in waves for the most part, and when those waves happened were decided by how many jobs needed to be filled or how much territory needed to be settled. People will not seek hostile divisions among themselves and their new neighbors if they can go to work every day and provide for their families.

Nowadays, lax border control and a lack of decently paying jobs for low-skilled people means that its easy to come here, but hard to find a job that pays well. Where did the jobs go? Europe, then Asia. Remember, America's progress into the Industrial revolution was both fast and completely unaffected by both world wars while they completely demolished Europe's manufacturing basis both times, which of course America profited off of by rebuilding.

Basically, America was able to lend money to other nations so they could turn around and buy American goods, meaning America could essentially set the price on everything. This control and the effects of borrowing so much American cash lasted of like 6 generations from the 20s to the 80s and early 90s, but the current state of things is far more "natural" in terms of individual nations now able to compete on a more level playing field, but America isn't going to change its golden age thinking until there's a serious fucking catastrophe because its ingrained into our national self-image at this point.

(1/2)
Here's another non Sup Forums answer from a different user. The first reason Rome fell was size. It had become huge towards the beginning of the end and simply became overtaxed trying to keep all it's holdings. Communication was difficult over long distance, which made organizing and uniting such a large empire for military defense difficult.

The second reason was over reliance on cheap labor. Rome would often enslave defeated forces and use them as slave labor. This worked for a time, but as the years went on the slaves died off and labor could not be found to replace them. Because surprise surprise, no one wants to do the work slaves do. Military campaigns would have helped replenish the slave population, but it was difficult for core provinces to do so due to the fact that they were so far away from the borders.

The third reason was decline of the state's infrastructure. As cheap labor began to vanish, it became more and more expensive to maintain the high quality roads and civil services used to run the empire. Roads began to crumble, Aqueducts began to clog and collapse, and many civil institutions began to shrink as less and less employees could be afforded.

The fourth reason was economic collapse. As the civil service began to shrink and as infrastructure began to fail, trade began to dry up as it became more difficult to move goods over large distances. Massive military spending often kept peasants and laborers away from fields and industry, making goods more expensive and food more scarce. As a result, poverty began to increase as cost of living went up and total income went down. This meant less taxes, less economic growth, and less coin in government coffers.

The fifth reason was decay of Rome's military. As Rome began to suffer more and more it soon became impossible for them to maintain, train, and recruit the soldiers they once had. To save coin, Rome turned to Germanic mercenaries. But these mercenaries were often not that loyal.

If I remember well they even created a new division of ligh high mobile troops that could reach more easily the borders of the empire when needed.
The Roman Empire was quite short on soldiers and men

no, i'm saying the romans weren't if you look at their curly-haired statues they are obviously arabic.

Yep, the Limitanei. Early scholarship framed them as being of a lesser quality than the main Roman field armies but at least until the fall of the western empire they were mostly still well-equipped professional soldiers.

DALLAS

Nope.

>Where did the jobs go? Europe
I wish, I live in Italy and it's hell to find jobs here

Anyway yeah, yours is an interesting analysis, I'll say even more, some economists think that the crisis of the 1948 was overcomed thanks to WW II.

>Edward "Only good Praetorian is a dead Praetorian" Gibbon
>in the current year

no dude, you dumb, it was multiculturalism, lol

>lol, i have a job, how could i be poor?

I typed out a lot of butthurt text before realizing you're baiting me. Well played user

WE