I asked you repeatedly to back up your arguments with evidence and all you have done is attack me. If you can support your arguments with actual facts and analysis then do it. If not stop the whole Roman comparison. Anyone can make a claim that the US is a modern collapsing comparison to Rome but all you have presented is facile assertions.
My message 120 was more than an attack on you. It's "facile" assertions could very well have been a partial outline on why the U.S. voters just made such a drastic change in the beliefs and intentions from their former president to their current one. The word "concise" would be more applicable to my generalizations than the word facile.
Most of which seem to be a gross misunderstanding of the actual end of the Roman Empire.
If you want to actually proceed down this road, your first requirement is to define what you believe constitutes the end of the empire. Once you do that we can go from there.
That would be a new thread which I'm not interested in.
I have never claimed to know more about the Roman empire than you. To do so would be silly. I know nothing about your academic background and you know nothing about mine. Also, academic credentials are not the only source of expertise. Extensive subject matter knowledge can be achieved through personal research and reading. I would have more respect for someone that can show subject matter expertise rather than a person with a PhD in an unrelated subject. That being said I can point to a number of books on the subject. There are a few general historical surveys that are quite good and also a few good fairly technical looks at the subject. Most should be available through a public library system or online.
It's not necessary to do an in-depth analyzation of the Roman Empire to make a few general points about how the U.S. could be making some of the same general mistakes that the Romans did, which contributed to their downfall. A few links that show the basics of why Rome fell, (most links generally agree on the basics) is all that's necessary. And yes, one of the links I'm about to show mentions the lead poisoned drinking water, which I'll address.
Are you actually claiming you have no idea what sarcasm is?
I didn't look at it as sarcasm as much as an inability to address what I said.
Also, please stop misrepresenting what I post. It destroys your argument and makes you look petty and foolish.
This is ironic, since you misrepresented MY post by claiming it had nothing to do with Rome, since it actually had the word "Rome" in it.
I was showing that your post gave us nothing to show that the USA is like the Roman empire.
I'm not saying or implying that the U.S. is "like" the Roman Empire. I'm saying the U.S. could be making some general mistakes that both the Roman people of that time and the Roman government of that time were making.
If you want to have an honest debate I will gladly take up the challenge, with facts, data and analysis. If you want to continue down the road of dishonesty, than good day sir.
I'm not looking for long, drawn out, boring, hard to read nuts and bolts history of the Roman Empire. I realize that's the only way today's big government, wide open border liberals see as a chance to downplay the history proven dangerous carelessness the U.S. has been exhibiting, especially for the past 8 years. Don't you want to see my brief, concise response to your brief, concise claim about the lead poisoned drinking water in Rome?
Earlier you intimated that barabarian invasions were responsible for the the fall(hmm the USA has not been invaded), now it is the number of bureaucrats?
Does the U.S. have to be invaded before you on the left will believe it's actually possible for it to happen? We suffered a costly attack on 9-11-01, no one on the U.S. political left thought that could possibly happen either. After only 15 years, it now seems to be largely forgotten.
Your link does not provide original source. I will try to find original source. Numbers seem a bit off, but not sure. Context means everything.
The exact numbers aren't necessary for my general points to be valid. Here's another link of 8 reasons Rome fell, they generally agree with my previous link of 5 reasons;
The U.S. is a "superpower", Rome was a "superpower" in its day. Not a term that I'm especially fond of, but its a designation of a (usually) large land-area country that is a successful country economically, is quite capable of defending itself, and can unfortunately be the envy of smaller, less successful countries. There are 2000 years difference in the existence of these two superpowers, but human tendencies and desires don't change. There are and have always been "wars and rumors of wars". The Romans had barbarian enemies, and the U.S. today has a barbarian enemy, ISIS. An invasion of the U.S. by ISIS will be considered impossible until it happens, just like the flying of planes into buildings was though impossible until it happened.
quote:Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
$20 trillion in debt? Liberals claims that we need illegal immigrants in the country to do work that our citizens won't do?
quote:The rise of the Eastern Empire
The increased political division in the U.S.? Just after previous elections, did you notice organized protests with people carrying signs "not my president"? Or is this the first one? A small minority, sure, but how many of the majority of that party did something besides wink and nod at them?
quote:Overexpansion and military overspending
Overexpansion doesn't apply to the U.S. The question of military overspending could be questioned, since it seems they didn't have enough military to keep the barbarians out.
quote:Government corruption and political instability
quote:The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
Arrival? Migration? Illegal immigrants, anyone?
quote:Christianity and the loss of traditional values
Yes, some historians blame Christianity for the fall of Rome. But it wasn't a free (for individuals) exercise of Christianity that was the problem, it was the attempts to establish it as a state religion. It was a new religion, a CHANGE in religion, that increased the turmoil. Just like the turmoil is increasing in the U.S. with its increasing establishment of a new religion, atheism, and all the lack of traditional morals and earth worship that go along with it.
quote:Weakening of the Roman legions
Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies.
Do you remember the reference by someone, can't remember who, earlier in this thread that claimed illegal immigrants were legally in the current U.S. military?
This one largely agrees with the previous one, but this one includes the lead poisoning one, so I'll address that;
quote:Since they were constantly consuming lead in wine and in other forms many Romans were dying. The excessive drinking made them all exposed to lead in their bodies, ultimately killing and poisoning them.
Wine? Excessive drinking? Maybe the problem was more with drunkenness than it was with lead in water. Does the U.S. today have a bigger and bigger appetite for drinking, and more importantly, illegal drugs resulting in overdoses?
Seems like I saw a reference to increases in gambling in the later days of the Roman Empire too. Have you noticed an increase in legalized gambling in the U.S. recently? I can easily remember when there was no such thing as state lotteries in the U.S.
Re: For the record I find this Roman QUOTE debate END QUOTE to be an exercise in ignoranc
Notice that Theodoric expressed agreement with Jar when he told me my Roman Empire stuff is off topic. AMAZING since I initially only posted a small post of a few sentences, in response to Marc, then was attacked in no less than 3 posts by Theodoric and NoNukes. They have kept posting ever since. Even after post 136 and the Theodoric avreement click. Amazing. Just amazing. I always considered much complAining around here to be sneaky and tactical but this is blatantly obvious to the extreme.
Thank you. I'm sure NoNukes will be highly amused at the way you smoked me
I did not say that Theodoric had smoked you. What I said was that Theodoric correctly called you when you claimed to know how the Roman Empire ended in your attempt to make some point about the decline of the US. Given that nobody knows the proximate cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, it does not take much citing of facts to prove you are blowing smoke.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
Hi Marc, Interesting discussion. Just want to add to the mix of causes of the fall of the Roman Empire something I recently learned, about the role of Islam in its destructive march across Europe from the seventh century to 1924. This comes from the studies of Bill Warner, and I'll post a video reference below when I figure out where it starts.
To include this in the mix means considering that the Roman Empire didn't fall as rapidly as is sometimes supposed, or as early, but there isn't anything all that hard and fast about when it fell anyway. The usual date I've seen is 476 when the last emperor was replaced by a German conqueror, but as Warner points out, the barbarians weren't out to destroy the Empire as much as they wanted to become its leaders and reap its benefits. So Warner moves the fall up to the seventh century march of the Islamic Caliphate as the main cause.
Whether or not that should be considered the major cause as he considers it to be, I found his demonstration of the 548 conquests by Islam to be explanatory of a lot of destruction that for some reason we don't get in our histories. At its height Islam had conquered MORE territory than the Roman Empire ever covered. And we don't hear about this? Warner claims it ended "classical Christian civilization" and was the cause of the Dark Ages. We do know that the Middle East was predominantly Christian before Islam -- BIG change. I'll let historians sort all that out but the series of conquests he demonstrates needs to be added to the mix of the overall shaping of Europe in any case.
The relevance to the topic is of course that Islam today hasn't stopped its drive to conquer the world, though it's conquering as much by hejira* -- (by stealth you could say, but only because of the stupidity of its victims) --as by jihad. The denial of the history of the Caliphate in Europe is a dangerous thing. But the Left today seems bent on suicide. Too bad they want to take us all down with them. / Here's Warner showing 548 conquests of Europe by Islam. Start about 11:00. / /
Faith it is mainstream for historians to attribute the losses of the 7th centuHHafizheretic century to heretic Christians getting fed up with persecution by their Orthodox mastersTTheat that doesn't mean people here know it though. To