Theory on the fall of Rome

[Cornfed]

I wonder if people knowledgeable on such matters could comment on this theory on the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire: that the problem boiled down to a split between the interests of rich and poor.

The sequence of events seemed to go like this:
1. Rome was an egalitarian, patriarchal society with a governing structure most men had good reason to support. Therefore it had an advantage over competing societies and expanded to be an empire.
2. The trouble was that an empire had the effect of centralizing revenue streams, with wealth going to maintain occupation of the provinces and being extracted back into Rome from the provinces, which the already rich were preferentially able to take advantage of. Hence the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.
3. The rich aristocratic leaders of the republic refused to give up or moderate any of their unwarranted advantages, leading to everyone else losing respect for the system, leading to people like the Gracchi and Caesar being able to appeal to the downtrodden masses to use mob rule to gain power and eventually to dictatorship and then lawlessness.
4. Because most men could no longer afford to equip themselves for military service and in any case had no interest in fighting for a system that was screwing them, a professional army was required, which opened up another spit in the interests of society, this time between the army and the rest of the people being taxed to support them. Since Romans and Italians generally no longer provided enough recruits to staff the army, it increasingly consisted of foreigners. Because the easiest way for emperors was to please the army at the expense of the people, the empire became essentially a military dictatorship, often ruled by foreign generals.
5. The further consolidation of wealth and the expense of the army led to hyperinflation and increased taxation, both of which fell disproportionately on the poor, as the rich could easily avoid them. This led to the poor going to work for the rich as slaves/indentured servants as their only option for survival, which deprived the empire of taxpayers, and of soldiers as well, since the rich world conceal their best workers from military service. This resulted in the Germanization of the military at a far faster rate than the barbarian recruits could be properly integrated.
6. So broke both in terms of funds and manpower, and with a military staffed mainly by men who had no loyalty to the empire, the empire finally collapsed.

Make sense? It is incredible that this took hundreds of years to play out. I doubt it will take nearly as long this time around.

[fschmidt]

It's impossible to prove cause and effect in history but my sense is that culture is generally cause and economics and politics are generally effect. When our times are written up in future history books, they will talk about bad economic policies by central banks that led to economic disasters (coming soon). But since we are living here, we can see that the real cause is cultural. History books won't capture the incredible decline in service and product quality that I have seen in my life. These things reflect decaying culture. The only history book that really has the right focus is the Old Testament as it chronicles the moral decline of Israel. But Rome has left us enough original source material to understand its moral decline. The rise is secondary source, mostly Livy, but I trust Livy. With these source, we can see the moral rise and fall of Rome.

Almost any disaster, whether economic, bad rulers, or whatever, can be overcome by a moral population. A strong culture is resilient and finds solutions to problems. A weak culture just lets problems overwhelm it while it focuses on nonsense. Just look at the California water shortage as an example.

Livy's first 2 books describe the rise of Rome, and during this time Rome faced almost every imaginable problem. They had bad rulers, economic inequality, lost wars, and suffered other disasters. They overcame all of this to become the Roman Empire because their culture was sound.

[Johnny1975]

I really, really, really hate your avatar Cornfed. It's irritated me ever since I joined here. Don't take it personally. Just be cool and change it.

[Cornfed]

It's impossible to prove cause and effect in history but my sense is that culture is generally cause and economics and politics are generally effect.

But might it not be as Karl Marx said; that people's economic situation comes to shape their culture? If the system steals any wealth they accumulate over time, there is no financial motivation for men to be moral. If the average man is thus useless as a provider, there is no reason for women not to become sluts or haremwhores of the elite. One might say that if people were not immoral in the first place this kind of economic situation would not arise. However, the fact that it arose may have more to do with the intrinsic economic realities of empire, where much wealth must be funneled through the imperial government.

[Jester]

I agree with FSchmidt as well as with most of the points in Cornfed's earlier post.

I will add quickly:

(1) Roman Law had no provision for debt relief. Moneylenders were unchecked. This contrasts with Old Testament Law, and with centuries of Christian practice. Farms could be lost, with no homestead protection, and I believe free men could even be forced to sell themselves into slavery in order to pay. (I'm not sure about that last.)

The creditor class maintained power in Rome, led by Cicero et al. We think of them as the republican heroes. As I recall Catiline and his followers were dispatched by Cicero in a precursor to Hitler's "Night of the Long Knives". (The parallel would be that Hitler was crushing the socialist wing of his party.) But anyway I wonder what would have happened if the Gracchi, or Catiline, for example, had succeeded and had come to power.

So pure old-fashioned integrity, the Aryan "word of honor", when unchecked by Biblical rules, operated to reduce small farmers into a dispossessed urban proletariat, or even slaves.

We see this to some extent today, with bankruptcy rolled back except for the poorest, and student loan debt following people their whole lives.

(2) With small farmers driven off the land, huge plantations arose, worked by slaves. Slave labor drove out free labor. And while slaves did manage to gain freedom (as in the American South), they introduced foreign (immigrant) blood in huge numbers, dependent on a class of "patrons" (former owners or others) to tell them how to vote, manage interactions with government, etc. Thus Romans were no longer equal and free. The urban masses had never known freedom, and were used to dependence.

(3) With the wealth of empire came a welfare state. This was not without reason. There were masses of people who would have suffered without the dole. But of course the urban proletariat became more dependent and increased in number, density, and stupidity.

(4) Getting to the root cause as FSchmidt points out, the Romans had lost their culture. The early Romans had worshipped nature gods, invisible, from Jupiter down to the local river-god etc. Their religion was relatively "cultivated" or refined. When they conquered Greece, they imported Greek slaves and Greek culture. Now they started making statues of Gods - and then of emperors. God was no longer spirit, but an idol. With idealization of human excellence came license, including orgies etc. I assume this worsened with the importation of various dark cults from Egypt and the Middle East. As Cornfed pointed out, pretty soon the young aristocrats, at least, were soft and decadent. The bottom line is that Rome had become multicultural, and rootless. Their civilization continued to prosper, their roads and aqueducts and law enforcement were unmatched. But their was no ownership of the state by its people. Everyone was just there for the good life, like a Persian in Beverly Hills.

[fschmidt]

But might it not be as Karl Marx said; that people's economic situation comes to shape their culture? If the system steals any wealth they accumulate over time, there is no financial motivation for men to be moral. If the average man is thus useless as a provider, there is no reason for women not to become sluts or haremwhores of the elite. One might say that if people were not immoral in the first place this kind of economic situation would not arise. However, the fact that it arose may have more to do with the intrinsic economic realities of empire, where much wealth must be funneled through the imperial government.

Then what explains the reverse process in early Rome? According to Livy, all power was initially vested in the king. Then the patricians gained power. And finally the plebeians got almost as much power as the patricians. Based on what you wrote, this never should have happened.

(4) Getting to the root cause as FSchmidt points out, the Romans had lost their culture. The early Romans had worshipped nature gods, invisible, from Jupiter down to the local river-god etc. Their religion was relatively "cultivated" or refined. When they conquered Greece, they imported Greek slaves and Greek culture. Now they started making statues of Gods - and then of emperors. God was no longer spirit, but an idol. With idealization of human excellence came license, including orgies etc. I assume this worsened with the importation of various dark cults from Egypt and the Middle East. As Cornfed pointed out, pretty soon the young aristocrats, at least, were soft and decadent. The bottom line is that Rome had become multicultural, and rootless. Their civilization continued to prosper, their roads and aqueducts and law enforcement were unmatched. But their was no ownership of the state by its people. Everyone was just there for the good life, like a Persian in Beverly Hills.

I hadn't thought of the spirit versus idol issue, but I know that Greek influence was the beginning of the end for Rome.

During Bible study last week, I asked my kids why the Ten Commandments has separate commandments for no other gods and for no idols, and what the difference is. I have never heard this issue discussed. My answer is that idols are specifically man-made creations and we shouldn't worship our own creations. If we do, we will lose respect for reality and believe our own fantasies and become decadent.

Back to Rome, I really like Machiavelli's commentary on the role of religion in early Rome:

http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:11

[Cornfed]

But might it not be as Karl Marx said; that people's economic situation comes to shape their culture? If the system steals any wealth they accumulate over time, there is no financial motivation for men to be moral. If the average man is thus useless as a provider, there is no reason for women not to become sluts or haremwhores of the elite. One might say that if people were not immoral in the first place this kind of economic situation would not arise. However, the fact that it arose may have more to do with the intrinsic economic realities of empire, where much wealth must be funneled through the imperial government.

Then what explains the reverse process in early Rome? According to Livy, all power was initially vested in the king. Then the patricians gained power. And finally the plebeians got almost as much power as the patricians. Based on what you wrote, this never should have happened.

I would interpret early Rome as being a pastoral, tribal society operated on the typical lines of chiefs and common people who, though not completely equal, thought of themselves as being part of the same society. At some point they appointed a senior chief to manage what had become more complex that a tribal system could cope with. He probably had limited powers. Then Etruscan conquerors took over this role and made it more authoritarian, which annoyed everyone, causing them to rebel, so they got the res publica. To start with it was simply a more sophisticated version of the tribal system, but with the increasing complexity and size of the society the chiefs/aristocrats/Patricians were able to insulate themselves from and get out of touch with everyone else, leading to the cycle I describe in the OP.

[Jester]

I would interpret early Rome as being a pastoral, tribal society operated on the typical lines of chiefs and common people who, though not completely equal, thought of themselves as being part of the same society. At some point they appointed a senior chief to manage what had become more complex that a tribal system could cope with. He probably had limited powers. Then Etruscan conquerors took over this role and made it more authoritarian, which annoyed everyone, causing them to rebel, so they got the res publica. To start with it was simply a more sophisticated version of the tribal system, but with the increasing complexity and size of the society the chiefs/aristocrats/Patricians were able to insulate themselves from and get out of touch with everyone else, leading to the cycle I describe in the OP.

IMO this is an EXCELLENT summary.

[Jester]

I hadn't thought of the spirit versus idol issue, but I know that Greek influence was the beginning of the end for Rome.

Yeah, just consider the temple prostitution. Normal in Canaanite Middle East, per the OT. And present in Greece, as illustrated in the movie "300". And had eventually spread to Rome, when Christian women were sentenced to serve as temple prostitutes.

On spirit versus idol:
(1) Think of the stupidity of worshipping something made by man, no matter how beautiful. We do it today, when we love digital animation, Disney sound-and-light shows, etc. Or when we lust after porn. Ancient temples were sometimes quite similar to a Disney sound-and-light show circa 1960's with projected voices, moving or glowing eyes, and even moving statues.
(2) Think of how easy it is to become narcissistic once you are making and worshipping statues in human form.

On Greek influence in general:
The later Greeks had become lovers of philosophical discourse and speculation, quite contrary to the groundedness of ancient Romans and all successful civilizations.

During Bible study last week, I asked my kids why the Ten Commandments has separate commandments for no other gods and for no idols, and what the difference is. I have never heard this issue discussed. My answer is that idols are specifically man-made creations and we shouldn't worship our own creations. If we do, we will lose respect for reality and believe our own fantasies and become decadent.

Precisely. Habbakuk 2:18 says it poetically:
""Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman? Or an image that teaches lies? For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak.

But another verse in the Catholic Bible makes your point specifically. Pagans who worshipped the Sun and the Moon and other elements of nature created by God, are given the grudging acknowledgement of seeking for God outside themselves. Idol-makers are disparaged as total fools.

(I can't search for the verse now, but I think it's in Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus) or Wisdom.)

Back to Rome, I really like Machiavelli's commentary on the role of religion in early Rome:

http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:11

Profound stuff. I take my truth where I find it.

[Cornfed]

My point with the OP is that rather than the plethora of pathologies that are said to have brought down Rome, there is really just one pathology that leads to all the other seemingly disparate ones. Once the leaders of a society have different interests from everyone else, that society is doomed. And this is how the Jews/banksters/Illuminatists take over and ruin a society. If the society already has a division between the elite and the masses, they will attach themselves to the elite and help them screw over the masses while steering the elite in ever more depraved directions. If not, they will go to the people at the very top and bribe them to create such a division. In the long term the elite will themselves end up being screwed over. This may be a kind of Original Sin in human society which the forces of evil are able to exploit time and time again.

[Seeker]

When have elites of a civilization NOT screwed over the masses? That's what being an elite is all about, civilization (or even just farming) allows for a surplus of production which is taken by elites, that's what makes them elites! Naturally the interests of elites will be inherently opposed to that of the masses, otherwise they'd voluntarily be giving up their status. You'd have to go back to hunter-gatherer societies to avoid this kind of system.

[Cornfed]

When have elites of a civilization NOT screwed over the masses? That's what being an elite is all about, civilization (or even just farming) allows for a surplus of production which is taken by elites, that's what makes them elites! Naturally the interests of elites will be inherently opposed to that of the masses, otherwise they'd voluntarily be giving up their status. You'd have to go back to hunter-gatherer societies to avoid this kind of system.

There is a difference between day to day screwing over and having diametrically opposed interests though. Consider the position of the CEO of a company that owned some factories 50 years ago versus now. In the past the CEO would have had an interest in keeping the company running and profitable with basically happy workers. This was because of govt policies such as high marginal tax rates, making it more profitable for senior management to live high on the hog at company expense over time, rather than extracting a lot of money at once. Now it would likely be in the CEO's financial interests to loot the company Mitt Romney style by firing everyone, selling everything off to China, awarding himself performance bonuses based on the decreased costs and then going and doing the same thing to another company. See the difference?

[Moretorque]

I really, really, really hate your avatar Cornfed. It's irritated me ever since I joined here. Don't take it personally. Just be cool and change it.

Your just jealous because you are inferior to the great one, your ancestors linage is obviously of a completely inferior origin to make such a statement about such a superior human being.

You should be used in target practice for the Cornfed catapult.

[MrMan]

For much of the empires history, the poor that were downtrodden and taxed the most were outside of Rome. There was also a welfare state in which other provinces were taxed, while the poor in the city were supported by the daily dole.

I don't know how egalitarian the society really was. If it was really started by renegades who stole brides from their neighbors, maybe so. But early on, tradition says they had kings. But they got rid of kings and it was very much against their philosophy to have one for a while. From the period where we have more solid history, there was a higher class that served as patrons to those of the lower classes. Then Marius was dictator for a while, a lower class man who'd risen through the ranks from military victories. Later, Julius Caesar, an upper class man came to power and eventually his relative and adopted son Octavian came to power and started a dynasty of Caesars.

Part of what caused its fall was the emperor and capital moving to the east where the money was, while the pope emerged to managed the city in the west. The emperors came to care little for the west and stopped defending it, then Rome kept losing its strength until the Lombards took over Italy and set up duchies.

[Moretorque]

How accurate do people believe the old history is we are being spoon fed? I wonder because it has come to my attention our rulers have been seriously rewriting history as of late. Is this a relatively new thing to be happening of this degree or has it been going on forever ?


America used to have much more accurate history books.