When we look back to the beginning of the collapse of the western Roman empire we see that much of the corruption and institutional issues that were the cause of said collapse began as a result of income disparity. The plebeians were ousted from their roles as citizen farmers by ultra wealthy elites who bought their farms and put them out of work, thus making these people entirely reliant on the state. They received welfare, they were placated by games and low forms of entertainment and most importantly, they turned a blind eye to their government's ever increasing size and corruption. They were satisfied so long as they had their bread and games. This led to the collapse of the western empire and would have led to the collapse of the entire empire were it not for the reforms of Diocletian and the movement of the Capital to Nova Roma (Constantinople) by Constantine later on. That being said, knowing this how can you not see the greatest threat to western society, America in particular is the increasing wealth gap? The same thing that happened to the Romans will happen to us if we don't get the ultra rich and their cronies in check and balance our societal wealth and keep our relevance to society by disallowing the replacement of the worker. Trump is not going to do this, no Republican is going to do this ever either. Bernie would have us simply all become the plebeians of Rome, placated by his welfare and put in the same role of ignorant serfs to the state. Who will be the one to finally realize this?
Why do we not learn from Rome?
I don't know what you're talking about. Rome collapse because there were no more countries they could pillage anymore and leech wealth from anymore to support their over the top bullshit.
I hope you're joking. If not, you have no business contributing to a discussion like this that involves actual historical knowledge.
But their entire economy was built on conquest and the spoils. That ended. It collapsed. What's the counter?
>Why do we not learn from Rome?
Because they're just OLD WHITE MEN.
Income inequality had nothing to do with the collapse of Rome.
>greatest threat is wealth gap
tldr.
it was the jews then and it's the jews now. simple as.
What a shit thread and shit pleb tier OP who can't even respond to
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Roman empire did not have any significant expansions post Augustus save the conquest of Arabia Felix and Dacia by Trajan which were actually abandoned by his successor Hadrian. So if the reason they collapsed was because they couldn't expand anymore, then why did the Western Empire last nearly 400 years after their last major conquests? And why did the Eastern Empire last until the 1500s, a millennia and a half after their last major conquests? You don't know Roman history, i'm sorry.
When you're typing out an actual informed response it takes a little longer than when you're just slamming whatever contrarian points you can, sorry.
>Roman wealth did not come from conquest
ok think we're done here.
They were also defacing their currency by coin clipping and adding other metals into gold and silver. Just like what the fed reserve is doing now to our money.
I never said their wealth didn't come from conquest, you said they collapsed because they ran out of conquests. They didn't conquer any new territory post Augustus. You simply moved your argument to try to get a cheap "heh, nice try kid" type of victory but you failed to address my point at all.
Bump
>then why did the Western Empire last nearly 400 years after their last major conquests?
Because all enemies were destroyed or subjugated? Wars with the Germanics were on Roman terms, not forced upon them like in the migration period. Roman Empire should've ended with Julio-Claudian dynasty. Instead it died in agony changing emperors fast.
Fighting pointless wars for 0 gain in the middle east greatly contributed to the downfall. When they were not gaining, they were losing. The Roman-Persian wars were utterly useless, especially at a time when they got barbarians at the gates in the north of Italy.
They didn't understand inflation well.
Foreign cults.
Landlords, as you said.
Destroying the patrician/plebe dynamic.
I never said they didn't have peace because of the subjugation of their main enemies, this other fucktard was saying they collapsed because they didn't have people to conquer anymore. In reality they collapsed because they COULDN'T conquer anymore as a result of the conditions described in my OP.
Christcucks destroyed Rome. We need to go back to Paganism, the true religion of the white race.
I see mainly a listing of material effects. If you do not look within and understand that values and ideas are where things begin, then things take their course, and unfold to their logical conclusion.
Not true and normie-tier. The Roman world was on the brink of collapse even after Diocletian created the tetrarchy BEFORE the conversion of the empire to Christianity under Constantine. With the movement of the capital to Constantinople, the Eastern Roman Empire lasted another 1000 years as a Christian empire. I have no idea how some of you have the gall to comment on matters you clearly no fuck all about.
Yes there was a lot of moral erosion that came as a result of the elites desire to be more and more opulent and the average pleb becoming less and less aware of what Roman values even were. I figured that would be something most people would be able to read between the lines and not need explained.
some of it did but it was not like no one in the roman world produced anything or no one traded anything ever, basicly your knowledge of rome is on par whit claiming that niggers picking cotton is what built america.
It was clear from that guys first reply of "Rome collapsed because they ran out of places to conquer" that he was very uneducated on Rome in general.
>Yes there was a lot of moral erosion that came as a result of the elites desire to be more and more opulent
Thank you for the old testament, rabbi. Here we have ANOTHER example of how Christians points of view could not stop themselves from projecting their insecurities on Roman society. You're no better than modern day Muslims who create Shariah zones in the west because we're not modest enough. Degeneracy levels were normal throughout the history of the tribe, republic and empire. Some retard-tier Emperors made it look bad, and Roman exaggeration and slander did not help the reputation, but Romans had time for both work and play and it was well demarcated.
>conversion of the empire to Christianity under Constantine
You're thinking of Theodosius I.
Allowing and protecting certain groups at the expense of other groups definitely didn't help though.
>increasing wealth gap
wealth gap is a non issue.
rome fell because the army, led by the emperor, seized all the wealth from the capitalists, the rich.
making money isn't bad. capitalists, the rich, need to make money in order for the economy to prosper.
if the government seizes the wealth, it not only destroys the wealth, but also an chance for wealth creation.
In area of Dalmatia you can find niggas looking like Dioklecijan did 2000 years after.
What's going on in that photo there friendo?
That's a rare flag you've got there citizen.
What's it like in Bulgaria?
It's 7/10. Right now we are at the apex of being based society with a center-right government and only a little degeneracy, but it will be all downhill from here. Economy is doing average, HDI is high, so if you are skilled and budget properly, you'll live like a king stress-free. Nature is good and diverse, you can go to Turkey or Greece very fast with the upside of not living there. Hope that helps.