Is this "Roman empire fall because of decadence" phrase actually true? If so, can you explain me that? I fear sometimes...

Is this "Roman empire fall because of decadence" phrase actually true? If so, can you explain me that? I fear sometimes, it is one of those wrong perceptions we are fed with.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_canals
sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scienceshot-did-lead-poisoning-bring-down-ancient-rome
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Just imagine, you wake up, you have alots of energy and plan to do something productive today. BUT NO, instead you decide to fap and lose all your energy and you can't do aynthing productive today.

no it's not. how do you haven quantify decadence? How does this theory fit into earlier and later empires of the world and their "decadence"?

Rome didn't collapse from a singular issue, it was a bunch of things that played into each other at the right time. But decadence wasn't one of them

It makes me think of something I read. I first somewhere that the show "Dexter" is degenerate as it glorifies serial killers and make them look normal. On IMDb I found an interesting negative review about the show:

>Sad silly misguided viewers

>Does it occur to any of you that the premise that this guy kills only murderers who otherwise can't be brought to justice was a way for the producers to sidestep criticism of what is basically a show that glorifies serial murder? They know you tune in for the blood lust, not the comedy or the justice. If it was about good old fashioned vigilantism they wouldn't include the scenes of Dexter enjoying his killings.

>It says a lot about modern America that this show exists. The parallels to ancient Rome just keep coming.

>Try to imagine this show with a non-sociopathic "hero" and you'll see that you'd not enjoy it nearly as much. And that says a lot about YOU.

Yeah the thing with the Roman empire kept my interest.

>Succession of bad emperors
>Praetorian Guard puts an end to "Caesar worship" by killing an emperor and selling the title to the highest bidder
>Some wars
>Barbarian's begin to infiltrate society in place of getting executed; but, they do not integrate
>Christianity may have made the lower classes 'soft' in the sense that they would spurn public duty because they expected the second coming; you might remember that Jesus said 'this generation will see the coming of the son of man' or something like it (right "Sup Forums daddys" who read the bible to their son every night??? :DDDD)
>some slave uprisings (nothing too major)
>eventually these things lead to the empire falling apart; a lax public with no reverence for their leader or state and the uprising of 'Barbarians'

I find it's the opposite; masturbating just gets rid of that distracting sexual impulse kek

First of all, the fall of Rome didn't occur in a single day, it was a long process. In its last stages, it. was a decadent empire weakened by terrible leadership, corrupt people on the top of the hierachy, a failing economy and a crippled military. Add christianity into that and you've got a real mess. But wait, there's 1 more thing... (the main reason of the demise): immigration. Weakened Rome couldn't fight the savages and keep them out, so they kept giving them land within the empire. The idea was to peacefully coexist with the barbarians. To cut the long story short - it didn't work out that well.

Also, does this scenario seem like something we(western civilization) are going through right now? I'd say it's pretty much the same.

didn't women also gain prominent political power before the fall?

No such thing as a homogeneous empire. You take in that much clay, you take in the people as well.

>Weakened Rome couldn't fight the savages and keep them out, so they kept giving them land within the empire.
Actually, this was a merciful gesture. They had driven them back several times and they could have defeated them without much of an issue, but in order to encourage good relations and put an end to some petty invasions they gave them some land and let them work it. As well as this they let them into the heart of the empire to try and force them to integrate, but once they got together their sense of identity came back.
Quite similar to the Jews in ancient Rome, except the Jews just tried controlling all the trade.

>But wait, there's 1 more thing... (the main reason of the demise): immigration. Weakened Rome couldn't fight the savages and keep them out, so they kept giving them land within the empire.
Yeah right, niggers destroyed Roman Empire.

Tell that to the Ottomans, or the native americans.

>You take in that much clay, you take in the people as well.
Yes well if you put a mass of hateful people who want to kill your people into your capital you'll very quickly find that they will try to fuck shit up whenever they are strong enough to do so.

Not particularly, they were always in the background. Zenobia led a desperate war against the West however and when captured she blamed all of her friends in order to escape death. It's a good illustration of the unavoidable faults of the female character, even in the apparent best of their sex.

It's not, at least not as we modern people understand it.

Put simply, the Roman government collapsed (or at least fell apart) due to a large variety of factors:

1. lack of adequate infrastructure (had the Romans moved from roads to canals, it would have had transports move as fast as about ~16th century England. This is no small deal). Likewise, as cities grew basic sanitation (specifically sewage systems) stopped being expanded leading to diseases becoming more common
2. bad economic management leading to a smaller middle class
3. as a result of the above, inability to assimilate new peoples into the host culture (mostly as a result of Italians unwilling to settle outside of Italy to mate with conquered peoples)
4. as a result of #2, inability to give any reasons for the goths or franks to cooperate as tax money would be used to fund some Senator's lavish lifestyle, and not go into #1
5. as a result of #2, local governors were given a lot of power to handle rebellion. This is bad news when combined with #1.

Basically all the money moved to the top, and the top was rotten to the core. By the time the Roman Senat realized how fucked they were Rome was already burning. Specifically, what happened was that their own colleagues in other regions realized that they could just take all the tax money for themselves, without paying any tributes to the feds. They got away with it as the federal government itself was too small to take on any organized resistance without assistance.

But "decadence" itself really doesn't have anything to do with it. It's less "moral decline" as citizens instead entrusted power with local families rather than an isolated (and uncaring) emperor and his senate.

>Yeah right, niggers destroyed Roman Empire.
It was tribal warbands on the outskirts of the city. So not niggers, but white niggers.

And that's different then whats happening now? Same shit with beaners and muslims

No, they didn't. But the barbarians sure did. For instance, Romulus Augustulus (the last emperor of the western roman empire) lost his throne to Odoacar (a barbarian who served in the roman military & was a christian as well)

Doesn't mean those empires weren't homogeneous even after purges.

Greece was more "feminist" than Rome ever was. Romans worshiped a male Emperor, who was under the command of Jupiter with the guidance of Apollo. Greeks worshiped athena.

Partially true.
>literally slipping on semen

it's a symptom, not a cause, as ever

most idiots seem to think the Empire was otherwise perfectly healthy and strong, but fell because everyone was too distracted giving each other rimjobs

It's very similar anyway.

An Arian Christian to be more specific

>being this much of a pleb
>austrian education

Goths, you cuck

>Minerva wasn't a thing

happy to inform you that they worshiped the same gods

christianity was a roman weapon not the other way around

not nearly as popular as even Mars. Rome is roughly comparable to New Jersey: a place of business (including the business of obtaining and moving slaves). Greece, by the time the Romans came around, was more comparable to Massachusetts (mostly farms and sleepy college towns, with a major trade port on it's edge in Anatolia)

yeah and they put the focus on different ones. Cosmopolitan Greeks were far more "open minded" and free-spirited than their Roman masters.

Its true and it happened over a long period of time

Rome was full of italians. And as we know italians are shit at warfare. That's why Rome lost to a bunch of forest niggers known as germans.

still it was said that empire was rulled by rome and rome was rulled by women

This.

And not sincerely, it was mostly a polytheistic craze that let people have big 'occasions' to go to. And, take note, MUCH more women attended to these than men. Especially upper class women because it was a way to have sex with attractive men from other classes in darkness. (not even fucking joking -- read about Rome if you want to know what women are like)

Rampant lead pollution led to huge behavioral problems in the leadership.

Then conversion to Christianity was the last straw.

Again: that phrase has a different understanding in modern times than it did back then.

Until the sexual revolution in the 1970s, women had their own sphere which was the family. Over this they had total control over housekeeping, as the men of the home were always outside working. As such the phrase "rome is ruled by women" applies to mothers running a household, not SJW sluts running sweden.

*read about Rome if you want to know what upper class cosmopolitan women that aren't fat or ugly are like

fixed that for you

>still it was said that empire was rulled by rome and rome was rulled by women
>it was said

Wew lad

No, it wasn't. The first emperor that embraced christianity was Constantine the Great. Christianity was decriminalized by him in 313. (the edict of Milan)

>read about Rome if you want to know what women are like

Married women of status could be murdered by their husbands, legally, for any extra-marital intercourse.

Husbands, meanwhile, were free to buy as many slaves of either sex (or both) to fuck as they wanted to.

>Until the sexual revolution in the 1970s

You mean "Until the global monied elites realized they could better exploit workers by having women compete with men for jobs"

>Just imagine

The father (pater familias) was legally allowed not only to kill his wife, but children and (obviously) slaves as well. But I think those laws changed at some point, I'm not sure though.

>fixed that for you
Lel, just because I didn't mention other classes doesn't mean they weren't all like this. They were mostly attended by lower classes, it's just an anomaly that upper class women attended in hordes along with them.

That was introduced much later in the history of the empire to increase the population (or to encourage marriage -- I can't remember which).

not totally, the roman empires was decadent lots of times and it didnt fall.

the roman empire fell because it put foreigners into sensitive positions and they used those positions to benefit their own groups

Roman decadence led to appearance of Christianity which pretty much destroyed everything and threw the world in the dark ages. This is why medieval people were far less advanced and had less achievements than ancient people.

So, once muslims take over, first we will have the dark ages but then a new, glorious civilization shall arise?

R-right?

The sexual revolution was an inevitable consequence of mass production and individualized consumerism. Once individual males could afford their own homes, they did so. This made the multi-generational household redundant. Once individual women could afford their own homes, the nuclear family became redundant.

The elities/jews/etc gain but they aren't actually in control. They're just rent seekers off the entire process. The question of the 21st century is if the process can repeat itself indefinitely. A generation comprised half of loners and half of welfare queens doesn't spend money like wholesome families do. A well-run nuclear household produces at least 2 mortgages and 10 auto sales. A loner or welfare queen maybe buys 1 used car, and rents.

You are such a fucking stupid burger. "Oh you seey all these things appeared after some time at the same timey but they are not connected at all in any way".

Stupid burger. The root cause is society "progressing" and giving women equal rights, thereby disincentivizing male productive brhaviour resulting in degeneracy. This degeneracy is thr fucking root cause for all of the following developments you describe. Read unwin.

If muslims somehow grow brains, yeah, why not?

it's what the natives have been saying. you can't value material over natural shit. however, evolution does exist.... so.... idk

Also going back even further, once individual families could afford their own homes and machines there was no reason to respect monarchies or dynasties anymore. If anyone can afford a castle, then the cultural value of a castle is very low. Going back even further once individual countries could afford their own protection and weaponry, there is little reason to respect a centralized authority (the pope).

Yes, corruption,complacency and profound delusion seep into a dying civilization in its last days. Its the natural cycle.

yeah, europe will never recover from niggers until trump's ethnic cleansing

I just find it funny how what a third worlder is to a westerner today is exactly what a westerner was to the Romans/Greeks in the ancient times.

It probably fell because Christianity infected it.

itt: bunch of 18 somethings barely understand history and parrot the same nonsense over and over

the biggest reason the roman empire (and by that I mean the WESTERN Empire) is because the Western empire lost the technological edge it had over its opponents on its western front. the empire would campaign in germany, destroy or pacify a region, and peace would resume until the next generation of barbarians would oppose the empire, with each generation being a little more organized, a little more technologically advanced. able to wield bigger, more advanced forces and becoming more and more like their roman opponents, gradually integrating into and taking over Rome's western frontier. after the third century political crisis and the hun invasions strained roman control to the breaking point, the so called fall of the western roman empire was more the passing of control from one group of romans to another group of heavily romanized barbarians.

Honestly this is the only post ITT that makes any fucking sense

>The root cause is society "progressing" and giving women equal rights, thereby disincentivizing male productive brhaviour resulting in degeneracy. This degeneracy is thr fucking root cause for all of the following developments you describe.

Their society did not "progress" at all, at least not in the modern sense. Women only obtained marginally more rights due to the slave market drying up due to a gradual restriction in supply (wrought by disease and later on a lack of lands to conquer). Ultimately though what little bargaining power they may have had didn't really matter, as in the end the whole thing came undone due to larger and mostly unrelated issues.

Chief of which, was the Romans total disinterest in everything outside of Italy and Egypt. Had they spread the wealth into developing regions (what is now France, Germany and England) to build infrastructure they would have been more able to operate a widespread empire.

>Read unwin.

Try reading an actual history book. Notice how all the "degeneracy" BS either comes from one of two sources: the catholic church (who until the 20th century fought all forms of modern society including basic literacy) or from 1920s (red scare and roaring twenties) era writers.

To add, at some point Constantinople's Governor realized that he was closer to Egypt (re: nubian gold) than Rome was. Everything fell into place from there. It's unsurprising that the Islamic world only flourished after they secured Egypt in the 600s.

>Try reading an actual history book. Notice how all the "degeneracy" BS either comes from one of two sources: the catholic church (who until the 20th century fought all forms of modern society including basic literacy) or from 1920s (red scare and roaring twenties) era writers.

This.
I've never seen a thread so full of teens making bullshit proclamations like:
Just where the fuck are you pulling your bullshit opinions from?

This is my life

I thought the health situation in roman cities was way better then those in medival cities for the next 1400 years.
>bathhouses
>aqueduct
No?

>the western roman empire fell because it lost its technological edge

No, it's a shallow post that doesn't explain anything. Even if we assume that technology was the main reason of the empire's demise, we still have no answer to why that happened.

The empire fell due to a variety of reasons and most posts include good points. If you want a thourough explanation, you have to rely on actual history books and not Sup Forums.

But Odoacar was not a barbarian. He was culturally Roman and preserved Roman institutions. People must realize that at this point in history most Germanics in the empire were Roman. They fought like Roman soldiers and went to the bathhouse to fuck small boys in the ass like everyone else.

This
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
The first time a huge roman army was defeated in Germany by the babarians.
The leader of the germans was educated in roman military tactics.

well the eastern empire survived on as an oriental, hellenic style monarchy for a thousand years, which really debunks a lot of traditional (read: ethnically and racially biased horseshit) theories about why the roman empire fell.

ie: that it was christian, that it was effete or somehow less manly because of its increasing hellenic character, that it became decadent or its citizenry became progressively less loyal to the state

let me clue you in on something: efficient taxation, bureaucracy and the development of an urban ruling class are all features that foster civilization and the rule of empires. these are things the roman empire found in the eastern med, which most certainly prolonged the continued hegemony of the Roman empire

The loss of the western parts of the Empire was due to depopulation from plagues, inflation, political turbulence from civil wars and constant fighting against Germanics and the Sassanian empire.

>no internet or mass media to spread the word fast enough

Imagine if you gave the Roman empire all the advancements we have today...

thats not funny. youre a cuck that cant get past the urges. basically, a weak faggot. the ruges end after the 4th week

>thats not funny. youre a cuck that cant get past the urges. basically, a weak faggot. the ruges end after the 4th week
I gave up smoking after 4 years by quitting cold turkey and haven't smoked for a year since. So it's not that. Wanting to fuck everything around you clouds the mind, you can't think clearly; and I don't like waking up with cum all over the sheets because I tried nofap. Masturbating to chill out in the evening is like meditation; especially when you edge for like an hour, really gets it out of your system.

>pic related

Towards the end of the Roman empire, Roman cities became medieval cities. That's how social evolution works. Aqueducts are also expensive to build and require maintenance, frontier places like what is now England or France often didn't need them compared to the abundance of rivers and rainfall (and snow) which Italy didn't have.

Again it's a matter of priorities: as mentioned above the Roman empire was faced east. Western europe just wasn't a priority for any emperors. Arabia had an outlet to Asia (which Alexander the Great once walked to), Britannica and Germania were cold and had nothing of value north of it except more snow.

Dexter fans BTFO eternally

>Is this "Roman empire fall because of decadence" phrase actually true?
broadly speaking, yes. If you want to understand how the Empire fell, the best contemporary source is actually Procopius' account of Belisarius' campaigns in Italy. He gives an account not of the fall itself but of the situation in the immediate aftermath (maybe two generations after the last Emperor was deposed), and it's very telling. When Belisarius got to Rome, the city was still vast and wealthy, and the Senate still sat as it had since the days of the Republic, albeit in the name of a Gothic king. The Romans opened the gates to the Byzantine army, and then Rome was besieged by a gothic army. And Belisarius found himself hugely outnumbered because, despite the fact that the population of Rome still numbered in the hundreds of thousands, not a single Roman citizen was fit for military service. In fact, they resisted the very idea. It's entirely possible that no Roman in generations had so much as lifted a sword.

Of course, later on in the siege when they realised the Goths would probably sack the city Belisarius got more volunteers from the local population. And they were utterly useless. The hardened and dedicated Roman male who had formed the backbone of the legions, the greatest fighting force in the ancient world, had given way to a rabble who weren't even capable of fighting when the enemy was at their doorstep.

The explanation for the Western Empire's fall isn't complicated: the Romans got rich, and rather than undergo the rigours of military life themselves the opted to pay barbarians to do it for them. Essentially they imported immigrants to do the jobs they didn't want to, while they kept the cushy administrative jobs. And then the immigrants worked out that since they were the ones doing all the actual work, there was no reason for them to keep taking orders from their Roman masters.

it was an ancient tradition, but it's extremely difficult to say how much it was ever used. I think at the very latest by the late Republic it was, although technically still legal, extremely unusual to actually do it.

I seem to remember reading an account of Catalina's rebellion that describes a Roman father sending his servants to bring back his son, who had run off to join Catalina - when the son was brought to him the father had him strangled. And although everyone agreed that it was technically the right thing to do, given that his son was committing treason and the father had ultimate power of life and death over his household, it was still very surprising and shocking.

It's quite possible that Christianity played a significant role in the effeminisation of the Roman male. Christianity in ancient times was a lot less flexible than what evolved in later centuries - it didn't really allow for the same easy reconciliation between faith and warfare that the medieval knight enjoyed, and was just more demanding in general. Instead of committing sin and then just going to confession to absolve it, baptism was a sacrament saved for when you were really ready to put aside any sins.

It's also worth talking about the decline in population growth in the late Empire. This can be attributed to various economic factors, but then again a lot of ancient authors talk about Roman women who thought of childbirth as an unpleasant chore of the sort that they'd rather leave to slaves. Either the women used contraceptives and avoided having children altogether, or they handed basically the entire care of their children over to their servants. Needless to say, population decline was fatal at a time when population growth outside the Empire was pushing barbarians to seek shelter within the limes.

Multiculturalism was also a problem. Or rather, the assimilation of different peoples into Roman culture. In order to have an Empire you either need to have a completely homogeneous population, or a strong central culture to keep the subject peoples in line. Rome decided on the worst of both worlds - it tried to incorporate conquered peoples into a steadily broadening definition of 'Roman', thereby diluting the unity of actual Romans. But it allowed the provinces to blend their native culture with Roman culture, so there were still strong elements of regionalism.

Rome wasn't Sparta. By the time the Goths were around their government was contracting out military services as domestic Italian ones were very expensive and were given special privileges (as it pertains to land ownership, voting, etc). Of course no Romans were fit to fight: that's what happens when you go select untrained peasants as soldiers. Same in any age, including the Republic's glory days. This was how tyrants like Pompey or Ceasar could dick around and not get stomped on by locals.

The bit about the slaves is true though, but again it's true in all epochs. The lowest people of any society are former enemy combatants and their families.

And the first account exists due to the catholic church "preserving" it, so take accusations of degeneracy with a grain of salt. The second account is all bullshit as early christanity was just a rebranded paganism, and mostly indistinguishable from it.

The Roman Empire was well used to fighting technologically equal (or superior) enemies. Rome beat Carthage at a time when Carthage had better technology. Rome beat Greece at a time when the Greeks had better technology. Rome conquered the east, which was full of civilisations that were technologically on a par with Rome. And goodness knows that they had enough civil wars.

Yes, the barbarians' increasing improvements in armour and weapons technology meant it became harder for Rome to hold the west. But it doesn't really provide a convincing explanation for why the Empire collapsed, since it's not as though Roman armies could only win when faced with a technologically inferior foe.

>But it doesn't really provide a convincing explanation for why the Empire collapsed, since it's not as though Roman armies could only win when faced with a technologically inferior foe.

Most of western europe doesn't have Mediterranean access. France only has the Rhône, which runs into Switzerland. For the Roman army it was a logistical mess as roads are slow. From Rome, an army can go to Athens, Constantinople, Cairo or Caesarea by boat. France and Germany require overland road travel.

That said, the construction of canal networks later on in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries proved that there's a workaround. But the Romans hadn't thought of that, and even if they did they wouldn't have bothered doing it in an otherwise backwater area with little value. That's why western rome fell.

>Rome wasn't Sparta
not Sparta, though, but like most city states in the ancient world the Republic, up until the time of Marius, relied on a citizen army (see pic). Even after Marius professionalised the military, a large number of Romans served in the army - it was a vital step in the cursus honorum for the upper classes, and given the accounts of huge numbers of unemployed veterans hanging around Rome it seems likely that a decent proportion of the citizens would still have had some military experience. Whereas by the time Belisarius got to Rome neither the commoners nor the upper classes had any military experience.

>This was how tyrants like Pompey or Ceasar could dick around and not get stomped on by locals.
Pompey wasn't a tyrant and Caesar got as far as he did because he was hugely popular with the common Roman.

>early christanity was just a rebranded paganism, and mostly indistinguishable from it.
well that's bullshit. You haven't been listening to Bill Maher have you? Just because Christianity appropriated a couple of holidays doesn't mean that doctrinally it resembled paganism in any way.

>Whereas by the time Belisarius got to Rome neither the commoners nor the upper classes had any military experience.

yes, but that was due to the high upkeep of Italian soldiers. It wasn't due to pure decadence.

>Just because Christianity appropriated a couple of holidays doesn't mean that doctrinally it resembled paganism in any way.

as applied it mostly did, fuck's sake the catholic church is literally the roman ponitifex rebranded with jesus

Why didn't they build a wall?

Damn that's spot on. That show always made me uncomfortable.

>Romans didn't build canals
literally five seconds on google
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_canals

Also, the defence of Roman Gaul was centred on the Rhine, which is a large, navigable river. In any case it's not as if the Romans had to rely on troops getting from Italy, or elsewhere in the Empire, quickly to defend Gaul - their strongest concentration of forces was already there.

The aqueducts themselves actually played a part in the decline of Rome.

The aqueducts channels were first made of fashioned copper.
This worked well for a good while, until large numbers of the population became very ill.
The Romans were educated enough to deduce the problem was the copper poisoning the water. What to do?
We have another metal, heavier but much more pliable and soft, perfect for channeling water- lead.
The effects of lead poisoning are residual and include dumbing down, frustration and aggression, moving onto full blown lunacy like seen in Alice in Wonderlands Mad Hatter, see Nero, Caligula, etc.

It's obviously not a big of a component of the fall of Rome as political factors, but it definitely played a part.

>he fell for the "Rome fell because of heavy metal poisoning" meme

>yes, but that was due to the high upkeep of Italian soldiers. It wasn't due to pure decadence.
six of one, half a dozen of the other. All you're saying is that Italians were so reluctant to fight that the only thing that could induce them to was the promise of significant financial benefits.

>the catholic church is literally the roman ponitifex rebranded with jesus
do you know ANYTHING about early Christianity besides a few superficial details like the pope's title? Or anything about paganism for that matter? Structurally the Catholic church may have built on existing pagan organisations, but in terms of actual applied day-to-day religious affairs they couldn't be more different.

the real reason the roman empire fell was because the government debased the currency.

fags i didnt mean they had any active power in governing and politics but they had alot of influence indirectly which glubb even noted it wasnt uncommon in last stages of empires lifespan

Aaaaaand there was famine and wars and all sorts of non-Romans claiming to be Emperors dividing up the state taxes so little ended up in Rome to fund the citystate.

>Refugees running from Attila & his horde of Huns
>Barbarians sacking towns & forts on outskirts of Empire. Romans could rebuild but it would happen again & again until they stopped rebuilding
>Not enough manpower for size of Empire (Over extension)
>Empire split in half
>Christianity
>ect. ect.

Rome's last stand was with Justinian.

You big comprehension brain me impressed

sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scienceshot-did-lead-poisoning-bring-down-ancient-rome

>Barbars in/past borders
>Give the foreigners some lebensraum, in exchange for them not pillaging and that they lend manpower to the military
>Giant influx of migrants over the years as people are legging it from Asian hordes
>Romans lose their sense of responsibility and duty to the state
>Armies become less Roman, and filled more and more with barbars and immigrants
>Military becomes less effective because it's manned by outsiders there for money, a job and benefits, rather than patriotic citizens
>Among other things like rampant corruption, intense political turmoil, suffering economy, they fall apart
Almost what the West is experiencing. Society turns degenerate, and this is exasperated by influx of migrants who for the most part of no or little desire to assimilate and contribute to the established society/culture. Eventually it all comes tumbling down because no one is left to defend or cultivate their society.

Christianity reinvented the Empire, tho. Rome moved into the papacy and got monies again.

Do you honestly think that Romans could work with lead for hundreds of years and not work out that it might be poisonous? Vitruvius, writing in the 1st century BC, understood the dangers of lead poisoning.

Firstly, most of the population of the empire wouldn't have been drinking water from aqueducts any way. Secondly, we have plenty of Roman skeletons and they don't show any sign of heavy metal poisoning. And thirdly, it's doubtful that lead piping could deliver all that much lead into the water supply anyway - it would have produced slightly higher levels, but not enough to be harmful to health.

THREE MAIN CAUSES

Loss of cultural values in terms of religion. Paganism was lost and Christianity was on the rise.

Massive influx of barbarians due a climate chance that froze the river danune, allow for barbarians to move.

Last but not least, lack of a strong and or unified army or leader to maintain order and jurisdiction over its territories.

Eventually in one single day, it burst and fell.

All lead poisoning really does it the amounts the romans were getting it, at least the richer ones was turn them a little mentally unstable.
They used lead in their ceramics of which they drank their wine in.

>le ebin dark ages maymay
>le ebin "the catholic church was the same after and before the counter reformation" maymay
>le ebin "i'm a dirty gipsy and i can only repeat opinions that i have heard on tv" maymay
>le ebin "the medieval people never invented anything" maymay

possibly. But although lead-lined containers were fairly common they were hardly the only type in use. As I said we have plenty of Roman skeletons and there isn't really any evidence of an epidemic of lead poisoning. Also, Romans were familiar with the symptoms of lead poisoning, so if lots of people were getting poisoned by their wine you'd think someone would have noticed.

Doesn't mean there won't be a struggle changing the primary religion of an Empire

>Ebin Dark Ages meme
How do you explain all shit that happened between the Crisis of Third Century and Medieval Warm Period? Carolingian renaissance did not last all that time.