Fall of Roman Empire caused by rampant homosexuality

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,533
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#41
Well given the current adulation of everything LGBTQXYZ, this sort of assertion is as politically incorrect as can be....

Having said this, it is funny that people are still searching for the ONE CAUSE that led to the fall of Rome when it clearly is a combination of factors, some of which are simpler (like higher demography elsewhere similarly to what we see today - weak demography in Europe, high demography in africa and the m/e for example) others which are more complex (relative technological progress)
Well, there is who simply notes that after a history of more than 1,000 years it was time for old Rome to leave the scene to something else ... Rome had already got old a couple of times in its long existence as power, but it had been able to change, regenerating itself probably thanks to its expansive society and economy. I mean when the Kingdom ended and when the Republic fell.

But when the Republic was falling down, the Roman Power was in its main expansive phase. No way that Rome fell as well. The end of the Republic [the facto, de jure the Res Publica kept on existing for about other 2 centuries] didn't mean the end of Rome. On the contrary!

Anyway, when the Empire was falling, there was no more an expansive push coming from the core of the Roman domains. The Roman civilization was already withdrawing. Historians have written rivers of words to understand when this withdrawal begun and why. Sure there hasn't been one only cause, this is absolutely certain.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,112
#43
Well, there is who simply notes that after a history of more than 1,000 years it was time for old Rome to leave the scene to something else ... Rome had already got old a couple of times in its long existence as power, but it had been able to change, regenerating itself probably thanks to its expansive society and economy. I mean when the Kingdom ended and when the Republic fell.

But when the Republic was falling down, the Roman Power was in its main expansive phase. No way that Rome fell as well. The end of the Republic [the facto, de jure the Res Publica kept on existing for about other 2 centuries] didn't mean the end of Rome. On the contrary!

Anyway, when the Empire was falling, there was no more an expansive push coming from the core of the Roman domains. The Roman civilization was already withdrawing. Historians have written rivers of words to understand when this withdrawal begun and why. Sure there hasn't been one only cause, this is absolutely certain.
Well the chinese empire has been around for much longer than 1 000 years, so there is no "age" argument for empires
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,491
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#44
[I'm posting this again because the original post got caught in the moderator's net. I'm removing what I think were the offending phrases.]
Unless you also want to be caught in the moderator's net, you will show considerably more respect to your fellow posters.
 
Sep 2012
1,614
London, centre of my world
#45
I never knew Carthage (finally conquered in 146 BC) created the eventual fall of the Roman Empire (Rome sacked 410 AD).
I never had the Carthaginians down as a bunch of effeminates either.
500 years to destroy a world empire by buggery. Wow, it's surprising what you learn every day.
 
May 2017
136
Monterrey
#46
Well the chinese empire has been around for much longer than 1 000 years, so there is no "age" argument for empires
Debatable, as the Chinese Empire of today is not the same as that of a thousand years ago. In general, everything that becomes stable tends to become stale due to the corruption of man.
 

Similar History Discussions