Why did rome fall? What can we compare and contrast from their fall and to what our current day is facing?

rome did never fall...
antichrist pope and his jesuit general took all power
they established a system of puppets to hide behind

so almost like the point we're at today ?

Sounds like Europe today

Why did Yugoslavia fall?

History repeats itself.

whamans
because of whamans

Attached: 1522777157121.jpg (590x824, 238K)

Rome was crumbling even after the reign of commodus. the devaluation of currency, the destruction of the patrician bloodlines, the use of auxiliaries and mercs, the degradation and perversion of Roman law, and so much more was already a major problem in the late second century.

Constantine was actually ahalfways decent emperor, and fixed the blunders of diocletian

Christianity

tl;dr Serbs kind of oppressed the Croatians in the Interwar period, so the German-sponsored Croatians killed like 2 million Serbs in WW2. Tito kept it together because he was a very well respected unionist but then he died and the guys that came after were nationalists. Guess what happens afterwards.

Unironically it's because they went from silver and gold coins to bronze and brass coins.

...please read and stop being mentally retarded. Rome was already in a slow decline more than a century before constantine

Niggerfication of the citizenry

Constantine was the start. His predecessor, Diocletian, was the greatest of the persecuters of Christians. When Constantine came to power, he realized that persecution would not work and decided to appease the Christians by making Christianity legal, not because of any personal belief in Christianity. In fact, Rome was the strongest it had been in more than a century under Constantine. It wasn't until Theodosius that Christianity rotted Rome out from the inside. Theodosius ordered purges of Temples and alternate forms of Christianity alike, destroying thousands of years of human philosophy and knowledge in the process.

Usury and decadence. Kingdoms, republics, empires, all the same. Always fall from leaders going into debt to money changers. The babylonian woe. It should have failed. They were meddling globalist slaving scumbags anyway. Unoriginal myths that were rip offs of the greeks. Killers of the northern, ACTUAL white people. Shit arses.

ia902609.us.archive.org/14/items/TheBabylonianWoe/Babylonian_Woe.pdf

what? diocletian was a sociopathic, silk clad king of an emperor. the roman empire and its noble families were in deep decline by the late 100s AD. soon you would see total outlanders as emperors (philip the arab), the total devaluation of currency, massive use of foreigners in military, and a flood of alien foreigners gaining citienship.

Christianity held Rome together longer than it should have held, and kept the spirit of Rome alive.

Eroding institutions and expansion focused economy lead to an overstreched under funded empire that couldn't face external threats nor maintain internal cohesion and fell appart.
Rome was advanced for it's time but lot of the same things that lead to it's rise were also behind it's fall.

This

Attached: 1543749374875.jpg (678x960, 160K)

Due to easy life,people become lazy,start having sex,orgies,LGBT arrives,and all goes to hell,as people start selling their own country for money,nothing is sacred.Its just natural degradation of society that has progressed to much( LOOK AT USA AND WEST TODAY)

people have done countless studies and have written countless books on the question of why Rome fell, I don't think you will find the complete answer you are looking for on the politics board of an anime imageboard. If you want to learn history, read books, Jow Forums is generally bad at history

Attached: 800px-Vespa_militare2.jpg (800x565, 93K)

We're in the late republic period.
>with few to no foreign wars Rome has plenty of time to turn on itself
>rich landowners consolidate all of the farm land into the hands of a few men
>replace old farmers with foreign slaves for cheaper labour
>all of the farmers with no work opportunity go to the city, most remaining unemployed
>the state starts giving out a free grain dole to their massive unemployed population
>radical populists trying to redistribute wealth to the poor majority without approval from the senate
>individual men continue to lead revolutions and civil wars while bypassing the senate, effectively making centuries-old democracy and parliament irrelevant
>Rome ends up being ruled by emperors with absolute power for almost 500 years before finally falling

Macron is like a modern Honorius.

Rome's internal problems got pretty severe as soon as they defeated their greatest foe, Carthage. After that moment, Rome emerged as the premier superpower with overwhelming military might. But power tends to balance itself. As Rome became the richest and the most powerful country in its region, Rome immediately started to fracture. Civil wars became commonplace, because ambitious men had more to win from defeating their domestic enemies rather than their external foes. After defeating Carthage, Rome underwent the continuous cycle of civil wars followed by periods of peace. Eventually, a combination of things (internal fracturing, external enemies growing in strength, plagues sapping wealth and manpower, inflation, etc. etc.) wore Rome down. Emperors grew so weak they couldn't reunify the empire anymore. Even though the Byzantine empire survived for a thousand years after the West fell, it was never the same after that.

Roman democracy was pretty much a joke before the empire transition because of your second point. Democracy is only as strong as your "middle class" so to say
The more nations wealth is concentrated at the top elite and more the population is concentrated in the uneducated, unproductive masses the less effective it becomes

egypt
babylon
persia
greece
rome
Spanish
French
English
Jews

The Jews. Did you seriously have to ask?

So basically modern times give proof that humanity has not learned this simple lesson? That too much wealth disparity inside a nation leads to misery. Personal greed is too much to overcome? Is history just people/nations hoarding as much to themselves as possible and then, when they have reached critical point where they simply have too much and others have too little, they get torn to pieces by others?

Does that not make modern man a blind man?

Also, what's funny about this is the way wealth concentrated. When farmers were drafted into the military for extended periods, their farms fell into disrepair. They then had to take loans from the patricians, and when they couldn't pay back, they lost their farms. Rome then had a lot of angry ex-soldiers who had lost everything fighting for Rome

This is essentially the message Piketty promotes in his book, Capital In the 21st Century, with the addition that world wars tend to relieve income inequality (when so much wealth is destroyed, those who have the most, lose the most, and workers will have a great bargaining position after the war)

If that is correct, it is an example of inexcusable abandonment of their own people by the nationstate. That is a fucked up way to treat those who many times gave their lifes for their state.

True, I should hardly call it a democracy. But they had some sort of elections, a formal senate, they nominated two new consuls each year, they debated legislature, had different institutions and systems to pass through to make decisions, etc. This was a system hundreds of years in the making, thoroughly entrenched in the Roman psyche and as inherent and inviolable as our own republics and parliaments are to us today in Europe and USA. Therefore it says a lot that within a few generations all state-running came to be handled by a single all powerful emperor with no accountability to anyone else. I think that right now we are approaching similar circumstances in the West and may end up ripe for autocracy in the coming generations.

>Does that not make modern man a blind man?
We are man first and modern second. We are beast first and consciousness second.

Thank you for reminding me about that, it's incredibly shocking.

Rome was a military state, and this was its inherent advantage. It could levy large amounts of man power, individuals considered serving the state as valuable in itself, and defeat was considered unacceptable.

In the Punic Wars you'd have laughably one sided ROME BTFO losses in battles - losses that pretty much would make any sane bean counter sue for peace. Roman mentality didn't allow it.

What killed Rome was when it lost its ability to Levy and make war to the same extent it had. Think of it like the Macedonians in Punjab - Alexander the Great could have conquered India, but the soldiers themselves weren't willing to get gored by elephants to become slightly more wealthy and gain a little more glory for Alex. They wanted to go the fuck home.

In Rome, as conditions greatly improved amongst the citizenry this sort of martial spirit began to decline. People became softened. Mercenary and foreign soldiers became common which often lead to political instability on the fringes which would drag itself home. Likewise, infighting became more profitable than expansion, and very much status was attributed to this old martial way of life. Why should I conquer the Picts a world away for their bog butter and shitty melalwork instead of fucking up "Not-So-Great" Emperor IV and becoming a slightly richer noble?

>Levy

Oy vey.

Current ideology of money elite seems only to accelerate wealth AND income disparity. There seems to be no end to their greed. Don't they understand where that kind of road leads? It would be in their own personal interest to close up the gap between them and masses, yet they seem hellbent on only hoarding more for themselves.

I have zero empathy for them, if/when they shall pay the price for their worthless greed/stupidity. It is perhaps the most despicable trait in person there is.

Lots of reasons but the basic reasons.
>1. Failed to secure the border (and no walls didn't work for them! Should have crushed the Germans and Parthians)
>2. Replaced Conscript Army to Volunteer Army
>3. Heavy Taxes but no infrastructure investment (bad economy)
>4. Plagues
>5. Slow erosion of personal freedoms. Diocletian introduced the beginning of Feudalism, where if you were a baker one of your sons had to be a baker. People became tied to their work by birth.

Attached: 1356430688482524.jpg (411x428, 70K)

Humanity isn't a thing that can learn. The same pattern repeats itself hundreds of times in history because it arises from decisions that make sense at the time for the people in that time for their maximum benefit.
Roman empire still lasted for hundreds of years which makes it objectively a pretty succesfull thing so it's not like it was bunch of jews sucking it dry at every opportunity. It's just that the seeds of destruction were sowed and at some point where even normal people could see what was wrong nothing could be done anymore.

Like right now I can tell you there are national leaders who worry themselves to death over stuff like falling birth rates, falling marriage rates and shit like that which causes nations to crumble but the root causes for those (like say womens education) can't be fixed without causing more damage to the system than just letting it crumble.
Or another is how automation and technological advancement is causing a fundamental shift in the workers needed and population precent. (this has happend many times before as well). You can fix an issue like this but often the fix is more costly than the disease so it's left as infinite money hole and plugged with welfare for instance (rome had this too)

You could call it shortsigted but it just weks, rise and fall, collapse and rebuild that's the state human society operates

>we are beast

To me, it seems more that we are like Last man which Nietzsche wrote. What "beastlike" quality is there in modern man? Does he rebel? Does he seek to impose his OWN will on world and not just hollow, false echoes of will offered by those already on top?

Modern man does not seem beastly at all. If anything, he is domesticated. To the very core of his soul.

Yes
mostly, but the Jews were a solved issue after Hadrian
to a point
and yes if you read Gibbon and see the parallels in today's society. But he saw parallels in Britain in the 18th century.
Very much yes.
partly true. Was a contributor
yes but the Rule of the Five Good Emperors were the best times

No
the republic was also degenerate and multicultural and it lead to the golden age of Rome in the early 2nd century.
not really. Generalissimos were worse than fags.
Kinda
but it definitely fell in the West even thought it was ok in the East

Attached: lil_h.png (1987x1966, 1.89M)

Yup. It's pretty easy to see then why people would follow populist leaders. From there on out, political disagreements escalated, and the cycles of violence started escalating. First populist gracchus forcibly removed a tribune in order to pass his wealth distribution laws. Then a mob murdered Gracchus. Which then escalated into the fighting between Marius and Sulla, and eventually Julius Caesar

The reality may be a little more complicated than that, even if I agree that the system needs to be fixed

Also this

There has to be evolution, then. Otherwise, we just keep repeating this same meaningless pain on ourselves. For what? If our nature dictates us to act stupid, then we must overcome our nature. It can be done. That is irrefutable.

Whether we have collective will enough for that to happen, is the problem. What is needed is a authentic shift in whole culture. Our whole understanding of reality. It might be true that this problem cannot be fully overcome in near future, but at least we can lessen the pain we inflict on ourselves. If we seek wisdom and understanding, of course. Animalistic ways will guarantee misery.

>Current ideology of money elite seems only to accelerate wealth AND income disparity. There seems to be no end to their greed. Don't they understand where that kind of road leads? It would be in their own personal interest to close up the gap between them and masses, yet they seem hellbent on only hoarding more for themselves.
Read Polybius and his theory of government cycles. In short King -> Oligarchs -> Mob Rule -> King
Rome balanced the three in their government, which slowly gravitated to strong-man rule (King).
In the US, the constitutions had similar balance but we are also gravitating to strong man rule, compare the powers of the president 150 years ago and now.

Don't they rather seek justice than follow "populist leaders" in that example? If there is no one else to give it to them, what choice did they have? Those already in power, should have understood their grave mistake and if needed, gave their lifes for fixing that insult. Their unwillingness/inability to do so made them obstacle to true justice.

Communism was an attempt to fix this cycle, and look where that got us. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to fix the system, but simply that it's difficult, I don't have all the answers, and that the things we try could go horribly wrong

Some of those in power did indeed understand the injustice (the Gracchi brothers) and people did follow them. Some of those in power did try to remove "obstacles to justice", like when Marius purged Sulla's supporters. That's how you end up with the cycles of civil war

Isn't it weird that we know all this, know this to be a FACT, yet that understanding has no influence on current politics? That too much inequality means more misery FOR ALL. Then, after that understanding of reality, why the fuck we keep going down this same path that we KNOW to be a mistake?

Is collective even conscious, in meaningful way? It does not seem to be so, for this kind of stupid shortsightedness means misery in the long run. That cannot be a conscious decision. Therefore, we seem to be ruled by unconscious entity. Something which does not think, only feels and acts accordingly. Like an insect.

Or animal, if one is not so predisposed to misanthropy.

Nature doesn't dictate us to act stupid, you are just reflecting good decisions at the time to their centuries later consequences.
For instance the reason English passed the french in industrial revolution (well at least one of the many) and what lead to French kingdoms collapse was that French had stronger aristocracy which worked great until it didn't and those brits started that whole factory business. You could have asked anyone pre french kingdom collapse who is the stronger nation of the two and everyone would pick France, 50 years later one was gone and other was global super power.

People naturally in their search for better life make decisions that make their life better but on a societal level those decisions cost money and as they accumulate they make the system more fragile. The only major ways to undo the damage on the system level is trough radical change (such as collapse and restrucuting of the system) or trough technology
Society is bit like windows, it keeps accumulating junk from all the seemingly good decisions you do and then eventually either needs to be upgraded or reinstalled.

Even with the wisest of people in charge every decision is a potential pitfall that causes unpredictable institutional clutter that will burden the society in some point in the future. It's just inevitable it will eventually happen especially when not every decision is made by the wisest with purest of intentions either.

Women.

Literally uncontrolled immigration.

They had the honor then, for standing for justice. Not all men do that, especially if their own wellbeing is at stake.

If civil war is seeded by inequality in a nation, it would only strengthen the need for less inequality inside a nation. Harmonious people don't want war. Again, this should be a lesson for all those who are wielding power. Yet, there isn't that many voices in current culture seeking greater harmony inside a nation.

You have to understand that while many see the concentration of wealth as a huge problem, many others have a wide range of different ideas as to what's wrong with the world. Some say nothing is wrong. Some say it's all these populists that are killing the economy (Trump, Brexit). Some blame immigrants, some blame Jews, some blame millenials. Some blame China and trade policy. Libertarians blame the government and "statists". Some blame communists, social democrats and welfare systems

The mismanagement of Goth refugees
started a chain of events that led to the
collapse of one of the biggest political
and military powers humankind has ever
known.

It’s a story shockingly similar to what’s
happening in Europe right now—and it
should serve as a cautionary tale.

qz.com/677380/1700-years-ago-the-mismanagement-of-a-migrant-crisis-cost-rome-its-empire/

Attached: Killing-Murder-Decalogue.jpg (1200x819, 191K)

Democracy seems to produce collective incoherence. That is logical.

Also this. Learning about Roman history, it was fascinating to learn about their policies. Many policies, that were incredibly useful and sensible when they were made, could have huge consequences 50-500 years down the line

If only goal of society is to be the king of the hill, in personal level and global level as a nation, then there probably never can be any other outcome than that. Animal in human, the greed build inside, is the problem. That is what tears nations apart.

Even current times of overconsumption on global scale have not made us satisfied. There still is only the goal of hoarding as much as we can, to ourselves or to our nation. Nothing has changed.

This has been enlightening. Thank you for this. It was a pleasure.

Name 10 of these policies.

Degeneracy, decadence and sodomy surely had nothing to do with it.

Enjoy your sportsball and flings goyim.

There's nothing like good sodomy. Like heaven on earth.

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Attached: 1495235_10152036479017584_3387314718719031409_o.jpg (1300x1820, 605K)

Hellfire in the bumhole. Hellfire in the future.

Jews took over and convinced them it was immoral to go around butt fucking slaves from inferior races. Said races then started getting ideas and rioted

JEWS
IT:S ALWAYS JEWS

Attached: jews.png (1542x867, 188K)

Naughty.

Yes except if you dont do that then you collapse even faster because you get out competed by people who are doing it

Welll for instance one would be the thing that we already talked about farming and farmers
Pop quizz where did those people who made the roman armies strongest in the era come from?

Rome was one of the most urbanized societies around. This was due in large part because farming had been outourced to mega farms ran by slaves and the citizens congregated in cities.
This in turn gave rome limitless pools of manpower free from having to go back to their farms each year
This allowed for unfettered conquest for more slaves and for a time it was great

Then the same system ended up hurting them immensly in the later eras with civil wars a plenty

Free grain allotments, move to professional armies, barbarian resettlement, auxiliary armies, etc. It's not 10 but those are off the top of my head

True. The whole collective understanding should shift from competition to co-operation. That means to not "outcompete" anyone anymore. To just take from the land what is needed for decent life and nothing more. And expect your neighbours to do the same, not invade you or try to "outcompete" you.

Although, it might be as wise to hope for unicorns as to hope for humanity to ever reach conscious awareness on collective level. Time will tell in any case.

Or army reforms to make the army professional

Before you paid you own shit -> most were middle and high class who gave a shit about the land because well they owned some

After
Romes saved from bunch of barbarians and even expand a shit ton golden age of republic but wait whats that? Folks who dont own shit are more loyal to the general paying them over the state? Promises are easy to make and those rich landowners could use bit less wealth anyways! Republic no more!

Competition is a natural part of life, and you'll never get rid of it

Exactly. But the move to professional armies made a lot of sense at the time. Rome had trouble recruiting, since most citizens couldn't afford to serve. Meanwhile the poor, having no work, were growing restless. State had money at the time, so why not move to professional armies? It gives people work, and moves all that violent and rebellious rabble out of the capital. And besides, the rich didn't feel like risking their lives in battle.

Later on, professional armies crippled the Roman economy. Every emperor relied on the army, and often the army supported whoever paid them the most. This race to bribe soldiers put a huge strain on the economy through taxes and inflation. And there were the civil wars like you mentioned

Islam destroyed Rome.
hooktube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=youtu.be

Attached: Constantine XI last stand.jpg (687x960, 185K)

>Byzantium
>Rome

the Vatican IS the roman empire and it still collects tribute from every western nation to this day. look up "ecclesiastical trusts". it is the synagogue of satan.

Read "The Storm Before the Storm." Great book on this very subject. And yeah...frightening parallels with the US right now. Ask for it for Christmas. Good read.

BASED and SPENGLERPILLED.

They couldn’t pay their army you fucking retards

Christianity

A complete rundown:
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

Attached: n701kwjof14z.jpg (1476x1500, 203K)

They killed Jesus and suffered greatly for it.

before """opressed""" you forgot to mention serbia saved their ass, they would be occupied by italy like it was arranged. there would be no WWII probably, no "mutilated victory" idea in italy, no mussolini
serbian naivety and trust to catholic snakes fucked world up

uh oh

"As numerous points of interest have arisen
in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
(a) We do not learn from history because
our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years
emerges as the average length of national
greatness.
(c) This average has not varied for 3,000
years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great
nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty. "

unregulated mass migration