Fall of Rome : 1800th anniversary

Dyflin wrote: »

1600th surely?

It's funny, all empires come to an end. The Roman, the British, Spanish, Soviet, etc. It's hard for us to see now that one day America may not be the dominant world power, but history surely tells this lesson?

American might and hegemony is already in pretty obvious decline. We're heading towards a multi-polar world and, while such a balance will most likey be a good thing overall, I think that, in a world without such a superlative power, and an interventionist one at that, the reflexive anti-Americanism quite common in Europe will be replaced with more nuanced, dare I say appreciative judgements.

ok, you're quick to welcome America's demise but look at what happened when Rome did fall. It took over thousand years just to get to the Renaissance. Let's say America collapsed within ten years because of a number of massive man made and natural disasters e.g. earthquakes, storms, crop failures, virus, civil unrest miltia's against federal government, debt repayments meant unable to pay military, drug war spills over from Mexico, terrorist attacks from internal and external threats, another financial collapse.

The world economy would nosedive. China lost its money IOU from America so they have no money either. EU couldn't support world economy. Who would step up to the plate. could they? Would the world drift into an economic spiral and fiefdom? When empires collapse they can tend to bring a maelstorm with them. Now British empire, soviet, collapse didn't witness such a maelstorm but I don't think they had such a big impact on world economy as USA.

Anyway I really digress. End of Rome was a disaster for Western Europe. The Barbarians thought they ended tyranny only to create another worse kind. Byzantine empire couldn't stop rise of Ottoman Empire. The last emperors could have saved the Empire by giving the local tribes more power locally and created a federal empire of sorts. I suppose the rise of Christianity, the transformation of Romans into pussies depending on barbarians to man their armies didn't help. I think the beginning of the end really began after the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180Ad. It just took a couple of more centuries for it to happen.

It was my understanding that Rome or the Western Empire officially fell in 476 AD and not after the Goths sacked Rome in 410. The last time Rome was sacked was in 387 BC by the Gauls. Vae Victus - Woe to the vanquished

In 476 AD Odoacer the Scirian, commander and elected King of the German troops in Italy, deposes Romulus Augustus and resolves to rule independently, but nominally as the viceroy of the Roman Augustus of Constantinople.
End of the western empire.

So the anniversary is only about the sacking of Rome not the fall of the western empire.

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

Anyway I really digress. End of Rome was a disaster for Western Europe.

Howso?

The Barbarians thought they ended tyranny only to create another worse kind.

Barbarians...the Greeks considered the Romans to be barbarians. Just because the Germanic and Celtic and Slavic tribes of Europe weren't "civilised" in the Roman mind, doesn't mean anything. What sort of tyranny did the barbarians engage in that the Romans didn't? The Romans practiced every sort of cruelty against man and beast.

Byzantine empire couldn't stop rise of Ottoman Empire.

Why is one empire (the Roman) better in your view than the Ottoman? Or at least this is implied by the above sentence?

Only seeing post question now. I wasn't comparing empires Rome is better than, that's a completely different question.
What I was saying was that after Rome fell, Western Europe fell into what's known as the Dark Ages because of the lack of education, political hegonmy, divergent Kingdoms, alot down to Christianity as well, I grant you. If Rome had survived, it would have meant less in-fighting among Western tribes, possibly been a better defence against rise of Islam in Spain, and against Ottomans. As learning would have continued, better technology, social advances would have happened earlier. But's that's just my opinion and into the What-if area.

gbee wrote: »

The Romans created the Roman Catholic Church, ostensibly to flee into.

Arguably the 'conversion' of Rome to Christianity and later the Creation of the Church were its downfall, certainly the 'last straw' as previously Rome had allowed religious freedom ~ as long as taxes went to Rome.

I shouldn't have put that sentence like that. By the 3rd century most of the soldiers in the army were not Romans or Italians but barbarians being paid by Rome.
The Romans i.e. Constantine adopted the Christian church to create a single religion of the Empire as a means of political power. If you can't fight/kill them then embrace them. Christian ideals did soften the Romans up, end of Gladiators fights in approx 375.
The mercantile economy wasn't helping, the devaluation of the coins, no more countries they could plunder without costing alot upfront. Rome was basically dead when Hadrian started building walls around the empire instead of fear into the natives.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

The presence of slaves was always going to have a negative technology impact to some degree. Why have an industrial revolution if there are slaves there to do the grindwork?

You're absolutely right. Slavery was a huge impetiment to industrial advancement. There are cases of inventions that were not developed because of the slave industry. I guess the North and South USA civil war showed how in a industrial vs slave society, industrial is far more productive.