The stages of the fall of every empire

[Den Valdron]

I can't see how the Christians didn't care as the almost exclusive majority of the population of the Roman empire was Christians when it fell and they where conquered by Muslims.

Uhm... Excluding the Arabian peninsula, the Muslim conquests were in the eighth century largely, during the 700's.

The Roman Empire's fall is generally attributed to the 5th century, and the 400's, when Barbarians sacked the city twice and eventually executed the last Roman Emperor. Although arguably, the Roman Empire was mostly a dead letter by the 4th century.

Three hundred years off. Sorry.

 

[scy12]

Uhm... Excluding the Arabian peninsula, the Muslim conquests were in the eighth century largely, during the 700's.

The Roman Empire's fall is generally attributed to the 5th century, and the 400's, when Barbarians sacked the city twice and eventually executed the last Roman Emperor. Although arguably, the Roman Empire was mostly a dead letter by the 4th century.

Three hundred years off. Sorry.

But actually the Roman Empire's fall is not attributed to the 5th century.

 

[silver 2039]

islam wasnt around when the roman empire fell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I can't see how the Christians didn't care as the almost exclusive majority of the population of the Roman empire was Christians when it fell and they where conquered by Muslims.

This may be ground for Plonitus and not me, but what I might to say was that some (rather "hardcore") Christians like Augustine took the rather unpopular stance of saying that Rome's fall is inevitable and that Christians shouldn't consider the fall of Rome to be the end of all civilized existence. Not all Christians agreed with their ideas, of course.

Also: Fall of Rome: 300-440 AD; Muslim Conquest : 640-730 AD

I never was talking about the Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire, I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

 

[scy12]

This may be ground for Plonitus and not me, but what I might to say was that some (rather "hardcore") Christians like Augustine took the rather unpopular stance of saying that Rome's fall is inevitable and that Christians shouldn't consider the fall of Rome to be the end of all civilized existence. Not all Christians agreed with their ideas, of course.

Also: Fall of Rome: 300-440 AD; Muslim Conquest : 640-730 AD

Well the city of Rome may have fallen before the Muslim conquest but the Roman empire didn't.

I never was talking about the Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire, I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Ok then but it isn't the only matter here. I am interested of how the western Roman empire declined but the eastern parts didn't. I don't think one should look only at the western roman empire when speaking about it's decline even if he acknowledge the continuation due to the eastern empire surviving.

I think an empire migrating while it declines is something we see quite often in history. It is one of the reason of why new Nations where created by people from other Nations. It is something that must be thought when one sees the effect of a decline of an empire.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I never was talking about the Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire, I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

 

[holy king]

Well the city of Rome may have fallen before the Muslim conquest but the Roman empire didn't.

quovadisnation was obviously speaking about the fall of the roman empire, not the fall of the byzantine empire...

edit: crosspost

 

[silver 2039]

quovadisnation was obviously speaking about the fall of the roman empire, not the fall of the byzantine empire...

Their the same thing.

 

[Den Valdron]

Actually, it did.

The Roman Empire as it was generally understood was a dead letter by the time the final Roman Emperor was executed by Barbarians around 476. Even that Roman Emperor was not recognized by his counterpart in Constantinople, making him in some degree illegitimate. Prior to that, Rome had been sacked by both the Vandals and Goths. The Roman provinces had been taken, and even Italy was overrun. There was nothing left.

The Eastern side of the Roman Empire, principally Greek, and much more heavily Christian, persisted and became the Byzantine Empire. But this was a different, derived entity and principally a regional power. Its effort to reconquer the west under Justinian was only partially successful and prohibitively expensive. Rome became a colony of Constantople.

The rise of Islam, through the 7th and 8th centuries resulted in the loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Libya by the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, they continued to rule the areas now known as Turkey, Greece and the Balkans. The caliphates bypassed them, pushing on to Morocco and Spain.

The Byzantine Empire suffered slow deterioration, lost ground to the Turks and Constantinople eventually fell by the 12th or 13th century, to the Ottoman Turks.

 

[holy king]

Their the same thing.

no. a very own culture evolved in byzanz after the western roman empire had fallen. (they even developed their own branch of christianity, had a unique architecture etc.)

anyway, even if you count byzanz as "the roman empire" after the split, it was very clear that quovadisnation was speaking about the fall of rome, not the fall of byzanz.

 

[Mirc]

The Byzantine Empire suffered slow deterioration, lost ground to the Turks and Constantinople eventually fell by the 12th or 13th century, to the Ottoman Turks.

No, it fell in the 15th century, 1453 to be more exact.

 

[Den Valdron]

No, it fell in the 15th century, 1453 to be more exact.

I stand corrected. It was pretty much whittled to death.

 

[scy12]

Actually, it did.

The Roman Empire as it was generally understood was a dead letter by the time the final Roman Emperor was executed by Barbarians around 476. Even that Roman Emperor was not recognized by his counterpart in Constantinople, making him in some degree illegitimate. Prior to that, Rome had been sacked by both the Vandals and Goths. The Roman provinces had been taken, and even Italy was overrun. There was nothing left.

The Eastern side of the Roman Empire, principally Greek, and much more heavily Christian, persisted and became the Byzantine Empire. But this was a different, derived entity and principally a regional power. Its effort to reconquer the west under Justinian was only partially successful and prohibitively expensive. Rome became a colony of Constantople.

The rise of Islam, through the 7th and 8th centuries resulted in the loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Libya by the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, they continued to rule the areas now known as Turkey, Greece and the Balkans. The caliphates bypassed them, pushing on to Morocco and Spain.

The Byzantine Empire suffered slow deterioration, lost ground to the Turks and Constantinople eventually fell by the 12th or 13th century, to the Ottoman Turks.

Actually NO. The western Roman empire and the eastern roman empire came to existence when the emperor Theodocius gave the western part to his one son and the eastern part to his other. Both parts had the same culture , laws , and language latin although greek was more widespread in the eastern part.

When the western part fell then the Eastern part still functioned quite like a Roman empire/state would.

But yes overtime there was a cultural shift from the Latin to the Greek but in laws,constitution and their beliefs it was still a Roman Empire. So you either choose to attribute the fall of the empire to 1453 or to when the Eastern part was culturally becoming more Greek than Roman if you believe that, which isn't at the time of the fall of the western part.

But since such issues didn't bother them and even some where expressing their selfs at both Greeks and Romans i think the second view would be a mistake.

 

[Den Valdron]

I can't see how the Christians didn't care as the almost exclusive majority of the population of the Roman empire was Christians when it fell and they where conquered by Muslims.

So, how does this statement become meaningful in light of your current position?

 

[scy12]

So, how does this statement become meaningful in light of your current position?

I don't understand where your question is coming from.

It doesn't have to in the way you suggest as that would be an anachronism . That statement is an answer to the position "The only Romans who "didn't care" necessarily were the Christians or the second class citizens on the periphery. " So it is meaningful on it's own amend.



If your referring to the position that an empire that declines often migrates people,Ideas to areas where they can make profit then there are several examples to support this. Rome was such an example , The Greek world after the Alexandrian conquests ,. In relation to the Western Rome that was one of the reasons of the decline as it was more profitable to allow barbarians into the ranks of the roman society and soon the romanizations of Barbarians started as it was profitable. (but the primary reason was population moving from Asia to the West forcing the Barbarians to migrate)Later the New World. An empire in decline leaves it's cultural fingerprints and often selects heirs.

But that position only came up in the course of the discussion and this statement that you quoted

I can't see how the Christians didn't care as the almost exclusive majority of the population of the Roman empire was Christians when it fell and they where conquered by Muslims.

was only a response to this

The only Romans who "didn't care" necessarily were the Christians or the second class citizens on the periphery

I can't see why that isn't obvious to you and you rather ask this question.

 

[Hackapell]

To the OP-

Financial ruin is typically the first step. Then overreach militarily, leading to a weakening of defense and increased reliance on mercenaries. The populace is then subjected to glossy propaganda to cover up the internal weakness of the country or nation or what-have-you, insisting that they will remain a power forever as long as they stay on the path they've been on. Meanwhile, leaders fritter away valuable time doing nothing while problems get worse, and a string of weak leaders doesn't help. Finally, something gives, and either the country is destroyed from the inside or in a fireball from another country.

 

[gangleri2001]

Empires can fall, and have, without the following:

Partial admission, shock, negation, blaming others, run as fast as you can, who cares, negation; even total admission with hope is questionable because we don't know much about other empires..

You are thinking too much in a post-colonial European perspective. A mere understanding of how the Roman empire worked showed that Rome conclusively had none of those traits. If you want, it'd be easier to just take away those 'traits' and say that prior to destruction, pride takes over.

also:

Who cares?: Rome

The only Romans who "didn't care" necessarily were the Christians or the second class citizens on the periphery.

So what psychological traits has the fall of Rome and the fall of the european empires? BTW, the who cares? phase is the phase when the empire felt long ago and nobody no longer cares, that's why Rome is there.

 

[amadeus]

Totally meaningless when you measure standards of living.

Would you rather live in the UK in the 19th century or the UK of today?

 

[stormbind]

All of those clasifications apply to every state at every point in its development, empire or not.

 

[stormbind]

Totally meaningless when you measure standards of living.

Would you rather live in the UK in the 19th century or the UK of today?

Depends who I am to be... I would argue the upper classes of the 19th Century lived better than their 21st Century counterparts.