4 ms·
Am I wrong for believing that the author has drastically oversimplified their argument to make it seem like walls were the downfall of the roman empire? I've st
by not_a_cop75 7y ago
Am I wrong for believing that the author has drastically oversimplified their argument to make it seem like walls were the downfall of the roman empire? I've studied the fall of the roman empire for years on and off, and am no expert, but in decades prior, not once were the existence of walls ever mentioned as the reason for the downfall of society.
Some societies have over-relied on such defenses, true. But that is not the same as a pure causation. In those situations the problem is cultural, and either the people have become lazy and or divided.
- jerf 7y ago.
- sd_dev 7y agoI'm not saying you didn't read the article, but the article is from 2012 and is about archaeology.
- hartator 7y agoI've been listening to the fall of Rome podcast. Never the walls have been mentioned there either. It seems a cheap try to make a political argument.
- Gabriel_Martin 7y agoThe author seems a bit more nuanced. Seems reasonable to point out that "walls were the reason for the downfall of society" != "beginning of the downfall of their society".
- maximente 7y agothe subtitle should perhaps read 'Rome’s border walls coincided with the beginning of its end' or similar; the article doesn't really argue that the walls caused the downfall, more documenting the associated history for whatever it's worth the title is 'Roman Frontiers', the HN title is the subtitle
- frogpelt 7y agoThe whole discussion around border walls has been thrown into the theater of the absurd. The issues are simple even if they are hard to implement. 1. Do we want to control who comes over our border or not? A. Where are the weakest points of entry? B. How do we protect those points? Any politician who has a negative opinion of border walls or fences should have to answer the first question and parts A and B with a solid plan. Stop the rhetoric and don't disagree with a plan for border security just because you don't like the person who suggested it.
- sd_dev 7y agoYes, you are wrong. It's clear you haven't even read the article. The article is an overview of (semi-)recent* archeological research into Roman frontier fortifications. The general conclusion that it draws was that the Romans focused too much on fortifying their frontiers, which provided them with a sense of complacency. Once the frontiers were breached, it was already over. Sorta like the Maginot line. It also suggests that fortification-building towards the end of the empire was a symptom of the decline itself, not a cause (or cure). All the off-topic comments here about politics are by people who didn't read the article. *It's from 2012.
- thatoneuser 7y agoYou can reference something from 2012 and still make scathing partisan points. Just because the source wasn't aiming to match current politics doesn't mean the post isn't. Additionally the title flat out says the wall was "the beginning". Then in your comment you say the wall building fascination was a symptom, meaning it clearly wasn't the beginning - something else was. If this post wasn't meant to be political then some tact should have been considered to not draw obvious political parallels.