Analyze the data AND THEN make statements about history based on that data. Anything else is political propaganda.
Here are the links to the video about Rome vs Greece
• How Did The Romans Def...
And the recent video about Transgender Vikings
• Transgender Viking War...
Please check out my Patreon to support the correct and data based speech about history!
/ themetatron
/ puremetatron
The causes of the fall of the Roman Empire are multiple, difficult to summarize
and schematize, and to this day, they are not agreed upon by all scholars of the
subject. However, one can try to construct a general discourse by analyzing
various internal and external contributing factors, starting from the first attempts
at analysis carried out by historiography.
The first to address the issue in depth was the English scholar Edward Gibbon,
according to whom the original cause of the fall of the empire was to be found
in a generalized social crisis, which was reflected in several factors, all related
to the protection of the state by its citizens.
According to Gibbon, ease and wealth would have progressively distanced Roman
citizens from military practice, who would have gradually delegated the defense of
the empire to
militias formed by barbarians. These militias, grown disproportionately in
number and influence, amid power struggles and a lack of foresight and
planning capacity, would have led the empire to collapse. Another fundamental
reason for the decline of civic sense identified by Gibbon is the affirmation of
Christianity: the intrinsic pacifism of the new religion and the certainty of a
better life after death would have further dampened both the martial drive of the
Romans and the willingness to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the
stability of the empire.
Gibbon's vision, while certainly offering some
interesting points of reasoning and having undeniably set a precedent for
Roman historiography, is now dated and suffers from a series of ideological
elements typical of his time: to the aversion to religion, characteristic of the
Enlightenment environment, Gibbon adds archetypal categories that we now
know to be the result of clichés and commonplaces, such as the soft and
decadent imperial Roman, now rendered effeminate and unwarlike by too much
luxury and ease, in contrast to the virile but impulsive and warmongering
barbarian.
The agricultural and industrial technology of the time was not as advanced as that of
Europe in the Late Middle Ages, making the process of resource production
much more burdensome and inefficient. Excessive taxation and the fiscal
burden borne by the productive classes, combined with the reduction of the
agricultural population due to the excessive fiscal burden, contributed to the
economic decline of the Empire.
The presence of a large "unproductive" portion
of the population, namely that assigned to the bureaucratic and military
apparatus, further aggravated the fiscal burden and reduced the available
agricultural workforce. The size of the empire, on the other hand, made an
articulated bureaucratic apparatus a necessary element for its management, and
the pressure of the barbarians at its borders made a large army equally
necessary.
The term "Barbaricum" refers to the set of territories north of the Danube and
east of the Rhine, inhabited mostly by Germanic but also Indo-Iranian peoples,
such as the Sarmatians. We are used to imagining the Barbaricum as something
wild, uncultivated, and above all antithetical and opposed to Roman civilization.
In reality, the Barbaricum was a sort of "poor periphery", albeit external to the
Roman Empire, which was constantly influenced from a technological, but also
cultural and ideological point of view by the Roman world. This is a
fundamental fact to keep in mind, because the Barbarians objectively never
wanted to destroy Rome. The idea of the barbarian rising among the ruins and
moving to demolish the foundations of the empire is the result of a romantic
imagery, but has very little to do with historical reality.
The Barbarians wanted to enter into the Roman systemThis will be a
constant in the relations between Rome and the Barbarians, and this is because
Rome was something that was not necessarily perceived in a hostile way, not a
hated model, but rather an envied one, a model to strive for, not something to
destroy. Of course, we remember figures like Arminius, Vercingetorix, and
Queen Boudica, who opposed Romanization.
#ancientrome #lgbtq #debunking
10 май 2024
