feudal society was far more egalitarian and beneficial for the common man than Imperial Roman society ever wasthe church kept a decaying Rome which has ripped itself apart in apocalyptic civil war after civil war on life support, later preserved Roman institutions and the use of a common language which would be the one unifying force in western Europe for the next millenialiterally too, the Christians provided the first real public hospitals in the Roman empirebefore Nicaea, the only hospitals that existed were dedicated to slaves of the rich, soldiers and gladiators, aka only for people who could afford to pay and their underlings after Nicaea, there was a public hospital in every cathedral town which provided services for allthe political structure of Rome deserved to die, but elements of the culture were preserved by the church
>>18287288the monkey English of that macro really fits its message
>>18287288the socialists
>>18287288Egomaniac Alexander fetishists
>>18287288Theodosius’ incessant civil warsBad leadership during Valentinian III was the point of no return>>18287333Lmao christnigger and pisamic revisionism to paint themselves as the altruistic beacons on hope will never not be funny
>>18287288>Burned to the ground Roman cities>Lacked of Reason>Opress Lol, lmao even.
>>18287288It was pretty much just a changing world that wasn’t fit for the Roman Empire. The decline of urban centers and the decentralization of power into the countryside are major causes. Elites increasingly moved away from urban life and civic participation,, which formed the basis of local rule and wealthy cities. They instead created estates in the countryside worked on by tenant farmers and indentured servants, who eventually were bound to the land by Diocletian, sowing the seeds for feudalism. The move to the countryside also made it difficult to extract tax revenues from elites. Another major cause was Rome’s failure to integrate the Germanic people into Rome, which would have rejuvenated the empire with an ambitious lot
>>18287824>The decline of urban centersThe main cause of this was the Antonine Plague if it hadn't happened things would have been a lot less shit
There is no single culprit behind Rome’s decline. The Western Roman Empire fell because multiple long-term structural weaknesses accumulated over centuries and eventually overwhelmed the state. Assigning blame to one group or event oversimplifies a complex historical process.>inb4 le christianityEvidence does not support it as a primary cause. It did not destroy the army or economy, but it did redirect loyalties and reshape elite culture. But this happened alongside, not instead of, Roman state structures. Besides, the Eastern Roman Empire remained Christian and survived for nearly another thousand years. It was a transformation, not a collapse mechanism.
>>18288644>No single culpritIt's literally just immigration.
>>18288657Nuh uh. Immigration didn’t kill Rome. Rome’s inability to remain Roman in how it governed, taxed, recruited, and integrated people did. When Rome was strong, immigration made it stronger. When Rome was weak, immigration exposed that weakness.
>>18288644>survived for nearly another thousand years.Without a sliver of the relevance actual Rome had and populated by non-Romans who started calling themselves Roman just because they adopted the universalist religion pushed by the government. aka soulless globohomo
>>18288955>Without a sliver of the relevance actual Rome hadYour brain on average American education
>>18287288Me, I did.
>>18287288>Lacked of Reason>opressSarr
>>18288663>Rome's ability to remain RomanHmm...>When Rome was strong, immigration made it stronger. >When Rome was weak, immigration exposed that weakness.So Rome was strong, then massive immigration happened after their elites robbed countless Roman military veterans of their land and subsequently invited hordes of random foreigners in, and then Rome became weak and ongoing mass migration made the problem worse.
>>18287288Their own people.
>>18287333>feudal society was far more egalitarian and beneficial for the common manFeudal society propagated manorlism and serfdom across Europe. When Feudalism was introduced to England it made the English people less free and subjugated them to a new system of lords and structures which weakened their legal standing as opposed the the older Anglo-Saxon court system. Feudal society was not egalitarian at all, it was literally based on birthright, unlike a Roman who could rise from obscurity to the highest offices in the state if they did well enough, you could only be a feudal lord if you were born into it. >>18288657I wouldn't call hostile armed invasion 'immigration'. >>18289291> then massive immigration happened after their elites robbed countless Roman military veterans of their land What the fuck are you talking about? Veterans got land, and they got plenty of it. There was no issue supplying them with land, in fact the Roman state had the exact opposite problem, there was too much unused land and there were laws made to try to counteract this.>subsequently invited hordes of random foreigners inThey didn't do this. The only group that was invited with the Visigoths and not even a year later they decided to expel them because they were hostile to Roman authority. If the Romans had their way they would all have been dead before they crossed the Danube or the Rhine.
