re: Question about Ancient Rome

quote:

---

Hadrian's wall was too little, too late.

---

Please say this is just you trolling. No one can be that stupid.

No, not that Jesus.

quote:

---

Was reading that Rome also fell due to lack of technological innovation and reliance on slaves.

---

Listen to Dan Carlin’s Death Throes of the Republic


And Punic Nightmare

And Celtic Holocaust to get a better understanding of Ancient Rome.

quote:

---

Was reading that Rome also fell due to lack of technological innovation and reliance on slaves. They had no competition, that why France and England progressed.. what do you think of this?

---

Not true. Rome had made a lot of technological advancements for its time.Hell, go to Western and even SE Europe today and you will still find usable Roman roads and if they wanted usable Roman aqueducts. Yeah, they had slaves but their biggest problem had to do with mass migration and almost constant war after Constantine's death

The Roman's had to deal with a huge mass migration of Goths in the late 300's who were fleeing the Huns in the far east of Europe. That mass migration destabilized the empire in Europe to a great degree. Basically the Romans allowed 80,000 of them to cross the Danube in about one week in the late 300's and along with their other Goths, the Ostrogoths really caused a major headache.

The Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 and a few years after that they, the Vandals and the Alans started running free throughout, then in 453 the Western Romans had to deal with Attila running wild across the weakened empire into France when Aetius stopped him cold at Orleans, but by that time it was too late. The empire was degraded and the Roman emperor had Aetius killed. Also by this time the imperial capital had been moved from Rome to Ravenna.

The Romans were very much technologically proficient and innovative, but organizationally they were corrupt and the population had started to become stagnant

quote:

---

The better question is why did the western empire fall in 476, but the Byanzantines (eastern Roman empire) last until 1453, almost a thousand years later?

---

Historians usually just say the eastern empire had more wealth and more population, plus Constantinople could never be sacked by barbarians.

quote:

---

Most people forget that the Byzantines lasted up almost to the arrival of Columbus to the Americas, yet the Byzantines held a huge swath of the eastern mediterranian for hundreds of years.

---

Yes, and they could have lasted a little longer if they had not attacked the Seljuk Turks at Manzikert after Romanus had split his forces

quote:

---

Rome had made a lot of technological advancements for its time.

---

I’ve read a counter argument to this a while back. Basically, Rome deserves credit for building roads and aqueducts on a grand scale, but the Romans didn’t actually invent much on their own. Concrete being a major exception. Other things like aqueducts, roads, drainage and sewage, and water screws were not invented by Rome.

This is a contrarian view that goes against common thinking, but the article I read was compelling (forgot where I saw this).

Rome fell because they accepted tips

Roman's weren't allowed to join army in last 100 years of western empire

Source: Durant