Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

  1. #21
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by First Citizen Gallienus View Post
    I was gonna tell him I liked his post as it made for good reading, but I forgot and turned off my PC. So I said " it, I'll just go to sleep."
    After the sleep may you explain us why you liked his post or have we to make use of an "agens in rebus" (1) to discover the truth?





    Notes:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    (1) Typical Imperial "Agens in Rebus" at work during the Great Crisis:

    Last edited by Diocle; September 07, 2016 at 08:12 AM.

  2. #22

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Well I particularly enjoyed his discussion on Celtic-Latin relations, and the technologies they had come up with before the Romans had conquered Gaul etc. His explanation of how the Roman Empire exhausted its resources which in turn led to its collapse was good too.


    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar.

  3. #23
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    And the consequent collapse of trade.
    There's been a lot of archaeological evidence coming out in recent years that shows this simply isn't true. Trade did decline but did not collapse.

    also no mention of the sassanid empire which was a much bigger threat and pain in the ass for the romans than the germanic tribes that flooded the western empire.
    Yep. This is the basis for Peter Heather's arguments. The Sassanids caused necessary increase to size and military expenditure and caused the crisis of the 3rd century.

    My personal interest is about the concept of time, have we to consider time as a monodirectional vector, a segment on which we can travel only in one direction? Or have we to consider time as a complex function of our living space, maybe having a circular shape, or better, some sort of spiralic pattern, on which you can find yourself exactly in the same point of Magister Militum Flavius Aetius, but just slightly moved upwards of few hundred years on the main spiral?
    ...

    I'm not sure what you're implying here...

    The main argument here is that romans fell because lack of metal and thus worse supply of food? is this only applied to the western empire? what about the east that was able to stand up to persia and defeat it in the 620īs? also the if i recall the cunna annonae only ceased to function when the western empire disappeared so we can assume it was working during the IV century (of course rome being of ideological importance might explain it). I always considered that the main problem lied in replacing the roman professional soldiers that died by the thousands at the end of the IV century and the early V century that and the bickering between the two courts.
    Actually recent research by Meaghan McEvoy shows the courts largely operated in unison during the Theodosian Dynasty.

    Replacing soldiers slowly started to become an issue. Drinkwater shows that Romanized Alemanni manned the Rhine Frontier under Aetius (professional Limitanei regiments, but the recruits were Alemannic). Aetius used Alans mostly, and Huns too, to man his cavalry regiments. Romans still largely composed the majority of the army though, 3/4 according to Hugh Elton (which Goffart notes is flawed in methodology but sufficient).

    The main problem was the loss of Africa, the primary tax base and grain supplier for the West and its army. This led to massive military cuts, which led to further land loss, which led to further income, which led to further military cuts.

    Assimilating incoming groups was a problem too. They were doing so successfully with the Alans, but not the Franks, Aquitanian Goths, Vandals, or Suebes.

  4. #24
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    ...

    I'm not sure what you're implying here...
    Well, actually ... it's .. it's a complex concept concerning the reciprocal relativity of time and space, harassing my mind because I cannot forget an old disturbing discussion in the Tavern (the real one, not the copy paste) with SBH, about a painting of Velasquez, a King Tiger tank and the actual meaning of life (I presume, but I'm not sure ..) and ..
    .. but what I think is not important here, my opinion is meaningless in this thread, I posted this video just because I think Molyneux has done what I didn't dare to do, i.e., he has dared to build a confrontation between our present day and the age in which Rome has fallen (only Western Part, Byzzie boys, only the Western Part!), so, I'm interested just in reading what you guys think about the whole matter, .. so, .. all in all .. thank you very much for your contribute Mag!
    Last edited by Diocle; September 13, 2016 at 09:26 AM.

  5. #25

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Poor leadership rots from the top down and eventually it will destroy an Empire, a kingdom A government, A corporation, a small business and even a lunatic marriage over time. The Western Empire lasted long as it did for many great leaders built it until too few were able to sustain it.

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  6. #26

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by Riothamus View Post
    Poor leadership rots from the top down and eventually it will destroy an Empire, a kingdom A government, A corporation, a small business and even a lunatic marriage over time. The Western Empire lasted long as it did for many great leaders built it until too few were able to sustain it.
    Indeed. ^^ A presentation I did on the Third Century Crisis nearly a year ago reflected this observation. Diocle had the fortune of reading my paper as it was developing.


    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar.

  7. #27
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by First Citizen Gallienus View Post
    Indeed. ^^ A presentation I did on the Third Century Crisis nearly a year ago reflected this observation. Diocle had the fortune of reading my paper as it was developing.
    A fortune indeed, not only because it has been a goood reading but also because it has been the form taken by your friendship, and your friendship has always been a honour for me, First!

    Quote Originally Posted by Riothamus
    Poor leadership rots from the top down and eventually it will destroy an Empire, a kingdom A government, A corporation, a small business and even a lunatic marriage over time. The Western Empire lasted long as it did for many great leaders built it until too few were able to sustain it.
    I agree with you, Rio, of course, but why at some point a Republic is no more able to produce Thomas Jefferson, Octavian, or Hadrian and it starts producing people like Bush, Obama or Elagabalus? What does it happen in the mechanics of the Power? What does it begin to go wrong?
    Last edited by Diocle; September 13, 2016 at 01:23 PM.

  8. #28

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    A fortune indeed, not only because it has been a goood reading but also because it has been the form taken by your friendship, and your friendship has always been a honour for me, First!



    I agree with you, Rio, of course, but why at some point a Republic is no more able to produce Thomas Jefferson, Octavian, or Hadrian and it starts producing people like Bush, Obama or Elagabalus? What does it happen in the mechanics of the Power? What does it begin to go wrong?
    Its a good question Diocle. A great question. It as if a forest needs to burn to regenerate itself. I think people forget the hard work and and the resilience it takes to keep ourselves and government accountable for something great to continue over time. Civilizations are prone to this. Rome and even the great USA are Susceptible to the decadence from which the brilliance it originated from. The USA lost its way after great men in the 1960s who had a sense of direction(the resiliency) such as Martin Luther King. Robert Kennedy Malcolm X and many others who were eliminated in order to maintain the status quo and to further distance the opulent and the working poor. They were great 20th century thinkers in the mold of the founding fathers. I'm not sure if its in the nature of things that the result is, ''Their is something wrong in the forest and the animals all have fled'' for man is just too dam greedy stupid to not devour himself.
    Last edited by Riothamus; September 13, 2016 at 03:33 PM.

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  9. #29

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Personally, I have my doubts about attributing too much of responsibility to the leadership. Ancient authors, for reasons of perspective, personal bias and state propaganda, tended to over-emphasize the importance of single historical figures. Sometimes, the quality of the rulers indeed declines and that is easily explained by well-attested facts (e.g. the case of the Ottoman Empire, where the custom of upbringing the younger members of the dynasty in isolation, instead, for example, of training them by appointing them as governors in various imperial provinces, gradually developed), but that's hardly the case for the Romans or even the majority of the past's long gone superpowers. In my opinion, the phenomenon of comparing past leaders with the present ones, in favour of the latter, is explained firstly by nostalgia, according to which the negative aspects are preferred to be forgotten and the fact that the past was a period of financial growth, in stark contrast to the grimmer and more frustrating present, therefore the various advantages are associated with the leadership and not with the prevailing social and economic conditions. Perhaps, neither Alexander the Great nor Octavian would have been so fondly remembered, if they reigned during the 2nd BC or the 5th AD century respectively. After all, Caligula is still considered as a small interlude, only slightly interrupting an era of prosperity and wise administration, and not as the man who doomed the Roman Empire.

  10. #30

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Personally, I have my doubts about attributing too much of responsibility to the leadership. Ancient authors, for reasons of perspective, personal bias and state propaganda, tended to over-emphasize the importance of single historical figures. Sometimes, the quality of the rulers indeed declines and that is easily explained by well-attested facts (e.g. the case of the Ottoman Empire, where the custom of upbringing the younger members of the dynasty in isolation, instead, for example, of training them by appointing them as governors in various imperial provinces, gradually developed), but that's hardly the case for the Romans or even the majority of the past's long gone superpowers. In my opinion, the phenomenon of comparing past leaders with the present ones, in favour of the latter, is explained firstly by nostalgia, according to which the negative aspects are preferred to be forgotten and the fact that the past was a period of financial growth, in stark contrast to the grimmer and more frustrating present, therefore the various advantages are associated with the leadership and not with the prevailing social and economic conditions. Perhaps, neither Alexander the Great nor Octavian would have been so fondly remembered, if they reigned during the 2nd BC or the 5th AD century respectively. After all, Caligula is still considered as a small interlude, only slightly interrupting an era of prosperity and wise administration, and not as the man who doomed the Roman Empire.
    This is also true. I would say it's really a combination of things. I'd argue that many of the issues of that time led to the creation of others which in turn all combined together to exert a heavy amount of pressure on the Empire. There may have even been a snowball/domino effect in which the situation increasingly worsened over time.


    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar.

  11. #31

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    In another decade or so even this thing called history will become a myth. There is this thing called technology that has evolved into creating a divide to what is real and what is not and we just go about our lives as if its heaven sent.. No longer will the victors write history. Those who control this technology will control your thoughts. It is the wrench in history for technology has become the supreme weapon of choice. Understanding history has always been a pattern. Empires built on conquest will eventually fall on it's sword it was built upon unless its' people are able to build upon anything good and true that its rulers have left behind. This includes the American founding fathers. Their voice was of independence and freedom. In short the ability to continue greatness is the ability of every individual to at least have the chance to achieve this. An Empire that does not empower and enable its people beyond mediocrity will decay into the mud as every other empire has done so. It is an amazing feat the Western Roman Empire had survived as long as it did.
    Last edited by Riothamus; September 17, 2016 at 04:28 PM.

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  12. #32

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    I thought I was the only one who saw uncanny parallels to the Barbarian Invasion of the Roman Empire, to the Barb...erm I mean Muslim Invasion of the European Union. It was mostly Germanic tribes that flooded the borders of the Romans and now the Muslims are flooding the borders of the EU at the behest of the Germans. Strange days. The Germans can not seem to shake the unfortunate title of bogeyman of Europe.

  13. #33

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    So what say you or this the next generation with its thumb up its arse!

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  14. #34
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Poor leadership rots from the top down and eventually it will destroy an Empire, a kingdom A government, A corporation, a small business and even a lunatic marriage over time. The Western Empire lasted long as it did for many great leaders built it until too few were able to sustain it.
    ...Yes and no... we quite clearly see this with the events surrounding Stilicho, who was a brilliant leader so absorbed in his own arrogance and ambition he basically brought his own downfall and began the process of the collapse of the Western provinces when he completely neglected the imminent usurpations and focused his efforts on trying to assert his dominance over the Eastern Emperor (the West worked on a Child Emperor system at the time, which, if you read Meghan McEvoy's work, was quite stable and effective).

    Ricimer is an obvious yes. The division between the Italic and Gallic Aristocracy is a yes.

    But there's also the factor of simple inability to sustain itself. The Empire had forced its way through crisis and crappy leaders time and time again, and come out on top. But this time the situation was different: you had two major superpowers on its borders at the same time (the Hun Empire and the Sassanids although the latter were beset by the Kidarite Huns as well), both of which were sucking tribute from the Empire and draining the 5th century economy, shifting a lot of trade from the Mediterranean north into Central Europe. You had the loss of Africa which was the equivalent of the Roman Empire stepping on a landmine economically, followed by a massive military cut that caused a slow spiral downward into oblivion.

    You also had the collapse of the stable child emperor system with the death of Aetius by Valentinian III which resulted in the death of Valentinian III and the subsequent years of chaos. The death of Aetius also had the side effect of the total desertion of the Roman field army, and the death of Valentinan III voided all the treaties that had been written which left the Empire wide open. Majorian came in but his stability and surge of recovery was only temporary: once he was separated from his army (which was about 99% barbarian federates) in Italy, Ricimer and the Italic aristocracy assassinated him because his policy was counter to Italic and Burgundian interests.

    Actually when you look at the fall of Rome, Aetius is tied to literally every aspect of it. All the major figures of the late 5th century were his lieutenants or officials (or enemies), and although we can't say much about his life in the early 5th century we know that he was pretty effectively tied into the Gothic and pre-Attila Western Hunnic court.

    It's like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon of 5th century Rome.

  15. #35

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    "What does it happen in the mechanics of the Power? What does it begin to go wrong?" - What if it is an invisible quiet shift in the real source of power(planned or unintended) in the system whereby the source of power is placed in the hands of a certain group of people. Each system is different therefore each source is different but the source tends to permeate the whole system and brims with the power to control whole populations of people. Here are two candidate events: analyze system (US/ancient Rome), discover the source fueling power to the system(money/ military), shift source, putting it in certain hands(Federal Reserve 1913AD/Rome 107BC) and very soon everything quietly changes.

    From then on it is a matter of using that power to set up what Molyneux mentioned - the right incentives to control people along the chain of hierarchy so that they can be enslaved without knowing it and can happily police themselves and each other. Job well done!

    Of course then the old system is gone - Rome has nothing Senatus Populusque Romanus left in it except name and deceptive inscriptions in stone. In a Heraclitean manner it seems that the greatest "strength" of a system is always its greatest downfall. For example with Rome, ironically, its "greatest" invention of 107BC would be its gravestone with centuries of no one knowing it except for a fatefully, almost comically accurately placed hint - the term imperium itself. Rome grows quickly after 107BC but it is no longer SPQR neither is it Rome, nothing Senatus, nothing Populusque and nothing Romanus in it, for Rome is morals, Rome is Lucius Junius Brutus. The US is no longer a republic. But no no one then realizes it. When they do 100 years later, you embroil everyone in conflict(Hillary-The Donald,migrant crises/Roman civil war), which by now is easy when you have had 4 generations of moral degradation under the above 'incentive' system, and burn the remnants of the old system in the conflict in a dark alchemical sublimation where you become what you fight and thus both sides mutually destroy each other and the one who secretively held the power before the conflict can confidently consolidate.

    The question still nags - but how is the source of power shifted? How do you manage that? What if it doesn't matter how, as long as it is secret(or obvious but inscrutable to the general population). We can run child hmm (in)stitution rings with the Queen and Tom Jones for all we care - as long as you tell the children to keep it secret from the Spanish inquisition.

    If the question about when to put on the masks and in which glove to hold the keys remains - well that should vary depending on the system and the source of power.

    You don`t need conspirators, just opportunists. And as Gore Vidal points out - when you see 100 billionaires in the same room they don`t even need to conspire - they simply think the same. (that`s not to say all billionaires do charity work in child institutions but the point seems clear),(and that`s not to say rich people/billionaires are bad but the point blah-blah),
    (and that`s not to say that the Queen/Tom Jones are...)

    Unexpectedly, however, all this doesn't mean we are poised to end up like the Romans for reasons I feel too tired to explain at the moment and do not want to bore you with so I will wait for anyone to show interest.

    As for "is our future contained in our past?" Here is a proposition: a historical discovery(archaeological etc.) is made by a civilization only when that civilization reaches the level of development of the civilization that left the evidence constituting the discovery. But of course all of this is idle speculation, wild generalizations.

  16. #36

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Stefan Molyneux in disguise. ^^^


    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar.

  17. #37
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by First Citizen Gallienus View Post
    Stefan Molyneux in disguise. ^^^
    If you ask my opinion, FCG old chap, I think we have found a new interesting character for IBFD Forum, in fact R.I.P.SPQR107BC's posting style is very, very, very attractive and intriguing, at least for me.

    In two days I think I should be able to give him his well desered +rep.

  18. #38

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Why is this thread dead?

    Under the esteemed patronage of Ramon Gonzales y Garcia IB and IB2 Mod

  19. #39
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: "The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels" by Stefan Molyneux

    Quote Originally Posted by Riothamus View Post
    Why is this thread dead?
    Good question!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •