Bad Leadership

[Imperator Marzullius]

Personally, I love every aspect of Rome. You have to look at its heighest point to really know what made it do a 360, what could've been done to prevent that, and what the results would be. Like would it have been remotely possible for Rome to make it through the dark ages? Even without accepting christianity? I blame christianity, the barbarian invasions, and some really bad leaders on the collapse.

 

Simply the best part of italian history. If only we took notes on ancient rome, then maybe we would be a super power of our own to this day. No, not an empire, the days of the empire is done for. But for a unique utopia in a blend of constitutional monarchy with its own style of republic. Imagine the technology advancements if the barbarians hadn't invaded!

 

I wish to study all aspects of latin. There is gaps in latin, but I think it would be cool to utilize italiano to fill in those gaps to create a new language. Is that endeavor possible?

 

The new empire of today is America. But not the empire you would think. The empire of capitalism. Just think of it like this. Everywhere there is coke & pepsi, there is america...

[DanM]

I blame christianity, the barbarian invasions, and some really bad leaders on the collapse.

14864[/snapback]

 

I don't think anyone would dispute the bad leadership issue. But why not be a little more specific? Do you think it was just a series of bad emperors making bad choices, or do you want to attribute some of blame to the system of leadership that was adopted by the Empire after the fall of the Republic?

 

What about the continual stream of corrupt govenors and tax collectors who impoverished the farmers and prompted economic contraction? What about a tax system that allowed the wealthiest citizens (senators) to escape taxation to such a large degree? What about a military where effective commanders were often killed exactly because they were good at their job? Even exceptional Emperors could do little more than mitigate many of these fundemental flaws in the system.

 

As for the barbarian invasions, lets go into a little more detail. Why did the Germanic tribes invade the Empire? Was it to escape Asiatic tribes that were pushing them out of their homelands? Why did they stop serving as allies and become masters instead?

 

What about their treatment by the Empire. For example, if the Romans had not exploited the Gothic refugees so ruthlessly, is it possible they would have become peaceful, productive citizens of Rome instead of sacking the Balkans at will and eventually setting up their own kingdoms in the Italy and Spain?

 

As for your blaming Christianity, I think I have to disagree. I just think you are giving Christianity too much credit. I just don't believe it was a cause of Rome's fall because I do not believe it happened in a vaccum. Christianity was a means to an end. The end was a desire by the upper classes to avoid public work in the decurions and a desire by the lower classes to avoid compulsory military service.

 

While I agree that huge amounts of financial and human resources were diverted from the defense and economic benefit of the Empire, I do not think Christianity was an independent force. It was simply a means to an end that allowed certain members of Roman society to escape less desirable duties such as public service and/or the military. As such, I think it would be more accurate to assign blame to the root causes that prompted Romans to use Christianity as a means of escaping public service.

[Imperator Marzullius]

I blame it on unpatriotic greedy people in the leadership of the empire. There was too many people looking after their own ends, and not enough kind hearted patriots that wanted to do good for their empire, not destroy it.

 

Those greedy and corrupt people in positions of power should've been relieved of duty, but when the Imperator is corrupt, well, then that makes it impossible to really make change when one wrong move and you get executed.

 

The barbarians invaded because of mainly the roman mistreatment. Personally, I would never accept non-italians as civilians. That's completely a culture killer. But, I wouldve either conquered them or wouldve made peace. But rome liked to back stab them because they didn't respect the barbarian tribes. So they thought they could.

 

The gothic refugees weren't of roman blood, not even of italian blood. So they were treated badly by everyone.. yes.. How would you like a people that has been at war with your people for centuries and say you had a family member in the army that lost his life fighting these people. Would you accept them in open arms? Or would you rather cut their throats? It's quite an easy endeavor when you have completely no respect for someone.

 

Christianity culturally massacred the whole system. It took a unique culture and passified it to where it wasn't even rome anymore. It turned into something else that eventually left rome to die and travelled east. That was what happened to rome after the traitor constantine betrayed his people.

 

Resources? For the first time instead of standing by your state, people were standing by a jew that they crucified a few hundred years previously. It's quite ironic that the same people that killed jesus are the ones who are mostly desely catholic. It's funny.

 

On a side note I hope "kelly" discontinues its idiotic schizoid messages that "i was stabbed in the back attempting to avenge caesar's murder". *sigh* There's some crazy people in here. I apologize, but i'm not trying to flame anyone, just leaving an indirect statement for a certain someone to comprehend.

[DanM]

I blame it on unpatriotic greedy people in the leadership of the empire. There was too many people looking after their own ends, and not enough kind hearted patriots that wanted to do good for their empire, not destroy it.

 

Those greedy and corrupt people in positions of power should've been relieved of duty, but when the Imperator is corrupt, well, then that makes it impossible to really make change when one wrong move and you get executed.

14923[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Its not that I disagree with your statement about the existence of greedy, unpatriotic people in positions of power. Its just that I do not think that was any different from Rome in its heyday.

 

As for the Emperors, its more likely that incompetent Emperors had to rely upon people with ability and without scruples. Being an incompetent dependent instead of a powerful leader, however, meant that the Emperors too often were not a check upon the men they appointed.

 

Still, corruption existed in the times of the Republic. There are many accouts of Roman govenors during the Republican period who were corrupt and enriched themselves at the expense of the provincials. There are even many accouts of Senators during that period "stealing" the land of the small farmholders. So its hard for me to look at corruption or unpatriotic sentiment by itself as a cause of the fall.

 

Large groups of people follow the incentive structures that are either intentionally or accidentially set up by their leaders. Maybe it would be worthwhile to ask yourself how the incentive structure changed from say the first century to the 4th or 5th century for the wealthy landowners? If you look at things like legislation targeting the decurions, tax policy, the growing concentration of wealth and administrative corruption, I think you will find all the answers you are looking for.

[Viggen]

split from the "Area of Expertise Thread" due to its off topic nature...

 

regards

viggen

[DanM]

split from the "Area of Expertise Thread" due to its off topic nature...

 

regards

viggen

14946[/snapback]

 

You missed one more I was writing while you were in the middle of splitting.

[DanM]

The barbarians invaded because of mainly the roman mistreatment. Personally, I would never accept non-italians as civilians. That's completely a culture killer. But, I wouldve either conquered them or wouldve made peace. But rome liked to back stab them because they didn't respect the barbarian tribes. So they thought they could.

 

The gothic refugees weren't of roman blood, not even of italian blood. So they were treated badly by everyone.. yes.. How would you like a people that has been at war with your people for centuries and say you had a family member in the army that lost his life fighting these people. Would you accept them in open arms? Or would you rather cut their throats? It's quite an easy endeavor when you have completely no respect for someone.

14923[/snapback]

 

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but I gotta do it again. I do not think the barbarians invaded roman territory because of Roman mistreatment. Quite the contrary, I believe they often entered Roman territory for either economic opportunity to earn money as a roman federate or to flee other tribes who were stronger (such as the huns).

 

Roman mistreatment was, I believe, the reason they turned against Rome. The Goths, as refugees, were exploited to the point where they were selling their children for a little food. Barbarian federates in Italy were masacred. These things explain much of the trend from servant to master among the barbarian tribes.

 

An important thing to remember is that the lines were not as tightly drawn as you describe above. Stillecho was a vandal chieftan who became the military chief and real power behind the throne in the final days of the western empire. In fact, during this period most of the Roman military commanders were of German origin. Barbarian federates and allies had been serving Rome for centuries. In fact, many tribal leaders learned their skills from their days in the Roman army.

 

Often the reasons for anger and resentment came much later for the barbarians. It came after they had taken up residence within the Empire as its defenders or as refugees.

 

Also, the issue of "blood" was not that meaningful to Romans of the 3rd or 4th century. Roman senators came from North Africa, Spain, Gaul and Britain. Germans ran the army. Syrian merchants supplied many of the trade goods from the east. It just wasn't a matter of some tightly regimented "volk" rejecting outsiders. Heck, they embraced outsiders to a degree that is beyond the capacity of most modern readers to understand.

 

Christianity culturally massacred the whole system. It took a unique culture and passified it to where it wasn't even rome anymore. It turned into something else that eventually left rome to die and travelled east. That was what happened to rome after the traitor constantine betrayed his people.

14923[/snapback]

 

Are you familiar with that Roman laws the highly regulated and usually forbade Romans to bear arms? By the time of its fall, Romans in Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Africa had gone for centuries without knowing anything about weapons or combat. Thats why they could offer no resistance.

 

And this policy was not a Christian policy. It predates the growth of the Christian church into a significant role within the Roman Empire. This policy was intended as a means of control by limiting the opportunity for rebellion.

[Perseverantius]

Well, for some people Christianity is the source of all the world's woes and the classical age was set, forever idyllic and unchanging until the monks came and destroyed everything.

[DanM]

Well, for some people Christianity is the source of all the world's woes and the classical age was set, forever idyllic and unchanging until the monks came and destroyed everything.

14991[/snapback]

 

Thats the problem with simple answers to complicated questions. They usually tell you more about the feelings of the person giving the simple answer than anything else.