Some measure it by territorial losses, but I think that’s wrong. A better measure of a civilization’s decline is when the conditions that allowed for its expansion vanished. In Rome we see that happen once Carthage is destroyed. That’s when infighting started, when cults of personalities emerged, the landlords consolidate land and replaced farmer-soldiers with slaves, when oligarchs bought political votes, etc. Cato the Elder was the last bastion of the Romans of the old, those who made Rome great.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Bump. The Gracchi assassination was probably the earliest watershed moment that signalled the death of sober and equitable Rome.
How do you figure? I would have thought it was the mass replacement of the working class by the foreign slave and proletarii classes on the order of tens of millions rather than the death of two men.
That's what the Gracchi brothers were trying to prevent.
The Gracchi themselves were a problem in how they conducted politics. They broke tradition, exiled political opponents and took actions that were unprecedented. Their actions were unacceptable to the political community especially for an issue which didn’t affect Roman citizens. They broke tradition and worked outside of the confines of political normality and law and they were punished for it which is where their low opinion from writers comes from. They were recognised as talented men but the way they went about it opened themselves up to the same tactics they used on others and eventually the ultimate retribution of death.
The Gracchi were planning on land reform for Roman allies as in some places like Etruria is was an issue that some aristocrats would hoard Public land this wasn’t a problem in some places in Central Italy and wasn’t one at all for Roman citizens who were granted public land as private property.
Point taken, but the aristocrats jumped the gladius on that one. Instead of edging them out quietly by diffusing the situation they gave them more rhetorical ammo by taking the "hard line". The assassination itself was a sacrilege.
Gracchi reforms took away incentive to keep expanding
logistics affected expansion more than reforms.
expound please
Gladly. After the Gracchi affair Rome underwent several waves of reform under Marius, Sulla, the Triumvirate, and lastly the Principate, which were accompanied by economic and social changes, some short civil wars etc. Sometimes this worked to Rome's advantage in terms of geopolitics as it freed up more manpower for army/fleet. Landless peasant becomes a soldier on the promise of a piece of land after 20 years in the army.
Expansion fatigue happened much later, at the very end of the Pax Romana, and it was in part due to the distance of every bordering province to the imperial centre. The emperor couldn't be everywhere at once, leading an invasion into Germania, ruling in the city 600 miles away, and putting down a rebellion in Mauritania or Syria more than a thousand miles in either direction from Rome itself, let alone say Britain. Trusting capable generals wasn't feasible either because Rome didn't have a "holy dynasty" and nothing could really stop a bunch of drunk Thracians from raising their general on the shield.
antonius pius was passive
160s and Antonine Plague combined with Germanic raids were beginning of the end
with the gallic sack
>before: chill patrician rule, gentilic warfare
>after: pleb armies, map painting
I think the Crisis of the Third Century is when the fact of there being no political legitimacy outside of raw strength finally settled into the Roman consciousness. It was a problem basically created by the decline of the Republic as the institutional legitimacy of elected magistrates were hollowed out, but the flareups in competing for power didn't become overly regular before the third century, and after its particularly intense struggle it feels like you get a destabilizing civil war every two generations or so.
>Crisis of the Third Century
This is probably the best answer. After that, who could blame the frontier for going into business for itself?
Everyone talking about the Gracchi brothers in this thread is a fricking fat kid Rome can't be said to have declined in any way before it became an empire and conquered most of the known world jesus christ go post on one of the moron boards
they're talking about the decline of something more important than physical borders
No, they're not, they just think they are
>Rome can't be said to have declined in any way before it became an empire and conquered most of the known world
It did, socially and economically. The peak was the late Republic, then Italians get great replaced by Anatolians and 99% of the population is brutalised drones. By the Dominate, the "Roman" Empire has essentially degenerated into Bolshevism.
Proof?
All I've said falls into common knowledge anyone with a basic education should be aware of - it's not good practice to attempt to take part in discussion of a topic you don't know the basics of.
So you made it up?
I'm sure you have a sincere interest in the topic, but study it for at least a couple years before coming here. Adults are talking.
You’re a gay Black person who sucks troony dick on the weekend. This is not debatable, anybody with a basic education should be aware of this.
>great replaced by Anatolians
Never happened
Do you suppose it was Levantines then?
Political legitimacy definitely stayed with tradition. Dynastic value, appointed heirs and marriage were all very important for who could become Emperor, especially in the Later Empire. The Later Empire was dominated by dynastic politics, the Theodosians had legitimacy based on their claim of family relationship to the Valentinians. Non dynastic Emperors even when they were elected were rejected in the East even if the political community or even Emperor in Constantine III’s case shows. Men like Honorius and Valentinian III were just not supposed to be replaced, deposing them was something no rival considered and they always tried to reach an agreement of co-rule
Wasn't Valentinian III murdered in the end. You're right that dynastic succession was a manner of conferring legitimacy, but it wasn't foolproof and you still get generals (later more like nobles/distant relatives in the Byzantine period) revolting to take the throne. A successful emperor could gather the legitimacy/political capital that his wishes of who succeeds him will often stick, and if it's a son this is a bit more successful, but it's never a codified law like we see in the modern British Monarchy, military strength often overrules the wishes of lesser emperors.
It never did. Only midwits think so.
Explain.
>t. Midwit
Majorian could have saved it...