4 ms·

it's kinda tiring when people assert that yxz ended the roman empire allow me to be the akshully guy and point out, for one, it didn't, the eastern half of the

by bedobi 2y ago

it's kinda tiring when people assert that yxz ended the roman empire allow me to be the akshully guy and point out, for one, it didn't, the eastern half of the SAME roman empire was still kicking around long after the western half "fell" the western roman empire also didn't end because of migration (even if it had, what's the lesson? the world exists and people move around inside it, there's nothing anyone can do to stop that, certainly the romans couldn't, nor did they when they themselves INVITED the germanic tribes in, as they had for hundreds of years, because they had to, there was no alternative... if you can't successfully roll with immigration, your polity is doomed anyway, the world and the societies in it aren't some hermetically sealed snow globes that are possible to keep segregated and separated from each other) nor corruption or incompetent leadership (Rome and every other political entity in history has also and did also have that, since forever) or any other pet theory (plagues likewise came and went)

selestify 2y ago
So what ended the western part, and why didn’t the same thing end the eastern part?
- Qwertious 2y ago
  There's no single one "what", but: Western rome kept feuding with itself and hiring germanic tribes as mercenaries. After a while, the germanic mercenaries were thoroughly trained in fighting western romans, and eventually western rome pissed off germanic mercenaries and lost the resulting war. Eastern rome didn't have as many germanic tribes as neighbors, and they had less infighting to begin with. One of the major reasons earlier-rome had so much military success was that they conquered their neighbors before said neighbors successfully copied all their (really quite amazing) military doctrines. (I am not a historian, don't quote me on this)
graeme 2y ago
The Byzantines didn’t last all that long as anything recognizably Roman. By 641 they had lost 75% of their prior tax base. They pushed out now and again but were largely Greece and Anatolia for much of their history after that.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Recognizably roman to whom? They recognized themselves as roman, as did their peer polities in the region. That's not the only useful answer to this question but it's not a small thing either.
  - graeme 2y ago
    I should have been more precise. I meant in terms of being like the old Roman Empire. More in terms of vastness than anything. The army for example had dropped about 75% in size by the timeframe I mentioned. And this is only the eastern half of the former empire. So the empire was a shell of itself in terms of extent. Would be as if California, Nevada and Oregon lived on as “Western America” in 2400 with continuity of govt. Impressive in some way but also nothing a contemporary from our time would recognize as being “The United States”.
    - cm2187 2y ago
      Even the western roman empire wasn't really roman anymore. The emperor was not Italian, not based in Rome, and often with a disdain toward Rome, the vast majority of the army wasn't Italian either. But the eastern roman empire was probably even less of an empire than it was roman. The definition of an "empire" is to rule over many kingdoms. When you are reduced to your own territory, you really aren't an empire anymore.
  - paganel 2y ago
    > They recognized themselves as roman They didn't speak a Romance language, for example, under that respect they were certainly not Roman.
    - bedobi 2y ago
      Western Romans, esp the elite, had already spoken Greek for hundreds of years at that point, and huge parts of the population of the west spoke Gaulish, Germanic, Celtic etc etc languages for hundreds of years too. So that's kind of a non argument.
immibis 2y ago
Current thinking on immigration seems to be: shoot the migrants until they stop coming. This is not my opinion. I'm just the observer.
cm2187 2y ago
I am not sure how "they couldn't stop it" is an argument against migration being one of the major causes of the fall of the roman empire if not the leading one. Other causes being ineffective tax collection, ennemies adapting and learning from roman military techniques, and a general collapse of will, where the brightest and most capable ceased to want to serve aggressively in the army and administration for glory.
- bedobi 2y ago
  it's an intellectually lazy, blinkered thing to say the empire had incorporated new peoples for hundreds of years, through both violent conquest and people migrating in = immigration is the only reason there was an empire in the first place, and that it lasted as long as it did - it's not like the Roman Empire was constituted of pure Latin OG Romans, lol. (heck, even their founding myths were that they were NOT Latins - it took conflicts for Latins to be recognized and gain citizenship) so you can't just cherry pick a single time germanic peoples migrated in (as they had successfully many times) and say LOOK IMMIGRATION IS WHY THE EMPIRE COLLAPSED, it's ridiculous and even if you insist on doing that, again, what's the takeaway? if your policy rests on there being no migration, in a world where there is migration and there's nothing you can do about that, it's a bad and doomed policy - successful polities are the ones with the ability to roll with and take advantage of it, not the ones that stick their head in the sand in some misguided attempt to remain static and hermetically sealed off from the world

by bedobi 2y ago

selestify 2y ago

So what ended the western part, and why didn’t the same thing end the eastern part?

Qwertious 2y ago
There's no single one "what", but: Western rome kept feuding with itself and hiring germanic tribes as mercenaries. After a while, the germanic mercenaries were thoroughly trained in fighting western romans, and eventually western rome pissed off germanic mercenaries and lost the resulting war. Eastern rome didn't have as many germanic tribes as neighbors, and they had less infighting to begin with. One of the major reasons earlier-rome had so much military success was that they conquered their neighbors before said neighbors successfully copied all their (really quite amazing) military doctrines. (I am not a historian, don't quote me on this)

graeme 2y ago

The Byzantines didn’t last all that long as anything recognizably Roman. By 641 they had lost 75% of their prior tax base. They pushed out now and again but were largely Greece and Anatolia for much of their history after that.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Recognizably roman to whom? They recognized themselves as roman, as did their peer polities in the region. That's not the only useful answer to this question but it's not a small thing either.
- graeme 2y ago
  I should have been more precise. I meant in terms of being like the old Roman Empire. More in terms of vastness than anything. The army for example had dropped about 75% in size by the timeframe I mentioned. And this is only the eastern half of the former empire. So the empire was a shell of itself in terms of extent. Would be as if California, Nevada and Oregon lived on as “Western America” in 2400 with continuity of govt. Impressive in some way but also nothing a contemporary from our time would recognize as being “The United States”.
  - cm2187 2y ago
    Even the western roman empire wasn't really roman anymore. The emperor was not Italian, not based in Rome, and often with a disdain toward Rome, the vast majority of the army wasn't Italian either. But the eastern roman empire was probably even less of an empire than it was roman. The definition of an "empire" is to rule over many kingdoms. When you are reduced to your own territory, you really aren't an empire anymore.
- paganel 2y ago
  > They recognized themselves as roman They didn't speak a Romance language, for example, under that respect they were certainly not Roman.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    Western Romans, esp the elite, had already spoken Greek for hundreds of years at that point, and huge parts of the population of the west spoke Gaulish, Germanic, Celtic etc etc languages for hundreds of years too. So that's kind of a non argument.

immibis 2y ago

Current thinking on immigration seems to be: shoot the migrants until they stop coming. This is not my opinion. I'm just the observer.

cm2187 2y ago

I am not sure how "they couldn't stop it" is an argument against migration being one of the major causes of the fall of the roman empire if not the leading one. Other causes being ineffective tax collection, ennemies adapting and learning from roman military techniques, and a general collapse of will, where the brightest and most capable ceased to want to serve aggressively in the army and administration for glory.

bedobi 2y ago
it's an intellectually lazy, blinkered thing to say the empire had incorporated new peoples for hundreds of years, through both violent conquest and people migrating in = immigration is the only reason there was an empire in the first place, and that it lasted as long as it did - it's not like the Roman Empire was constituted of pure Latin OG Romans, lol. (heck, even their founding myths were that they were NOT Latins - it took conflicts for Latins to be recognized and gain citizenship) so you can't just cherry pick a single time germanic peoples migrated in (as they had successfully many times) and say LOOK IMMIGRATION IS WHY THE EMPIRE COLLAPSED, it's ridiculous and even if you insist on doing that, again, what's the takeaway? if your policy rests on there being no migration, in a world where there is migration and there's nothing you can do about that, it's a bad and doomed policy - successful polities are the ones with the ability to roll with and take advantage of it, not the ones that stick their head in the sand in some misguided attempt to remain static and hermetically sealed off from the world