The fall (or degradation) of Rome...

[Externet]

Good day.

Is there any found causal or relation between the fall of Rome by the middle of first century and the legalization and rise of christianity ?

The prosper peaceful 'pax romana' era that had abundant reported wealth in many roman citizens...  Where did that people obtained/earned their wealth ?  What business were they involved in those times ?  There were also the not wealthy population; but what activities not tied to government made the rich rich  ?

Yes, can be moved to somewhere else as deserved.  Into politics, history, lounge...

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Good day.

Is there any found causal or relation between the fall of Rome by the middle of first century and the legalization and rise of christianity ?

The prosper peaceful 'pax romana' era that had abundant reported wealth in many roman citizens...  Where did that people obtained/earned their wealth ?  What business were they involved in those times ?  There were also the not wealthy population; but what activities not tied to government made the rich rich  ?

Yes, can be moved to somewhere else as deserved.  Into politics, history, lounge...

I don't think so. The basic problem, as I understand it, was over-extension of the Empire and consequently increasing reliance of the army on colonised people to man it. I think competition from the Goths, notably Alaric, had something to do with it as well. But that was not until c.4th AD.  I think it was still flourishing in the c.1st. 

Edited March 1 by exchemist

[MigL]

Rome may have fallen, and sacked numerous times, but the Roman empire assimilated invaders to 'their ways' and flourished, under various guises, well until recent times. Most Germanic empires, up to the Habsbergs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, fancied themselves as the Holy Roman Empire.
It is no coincidence that Germanic leaders called themselves 'Kaiser' ( even Russian leaders were known as 'Tsars' ), a derivation of Caesar.

See the works of E Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Rome may have fallen, and sacked numerous times, but the Roman empire assimilated invaders to 'their ways' and flourished, under various guises, well until recent times. Most Germanic empires, up to the Habsbergs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, fancied themselves as the Holy Roman Empire.
It is no coincidence that Germanic leaders called themselves 'Kaiser' ( even Russian leaders were known as 'Tsars' ), a derivation of Caesar.

See the works of E Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

Yes but the Holy Roman Emperor was just an honorary title that developed from the coronation of  Charlemagne as emperor by the pope, in return for the protection he provided to Rome against the Lombards etc. Whereas the Roman Empire in the East survived in Constantinople until 1543.   

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Whereas the Roman Empire in the East survived in Constantinople until 1543.   

The fall of Constantinople took place in 1453.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

 

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The fall of Constantinople took place in 1453.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

 

Sorry typo thanks.

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, Externet said:

Where did that people obtained/earned their wealth ? 

They (ab)used slaves from newly conquered territories..

 

 

7 hours ago, Externet said:

The prosper peaceful 'pax romana' era that had abundant reported wealth in many roman citizens... 

"The conquerors/victors write the historical books"..

 

 

"Countless" list of civil wars in the Roman Empire and Roman Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_civil_wars_and_revolts

 

..almost every death of a Caesar triggered a civil war between pretenders to the throne..

Edited March 1 by Sensei

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes but the Holy Roman Emperor was just an honorary title that developed from the coronation of  Charlemagne as emperor by the pope, in return for the protection he provided to Rome against the Lombards etc. Whereas the Roman Empire in the East survived in Constantinople until 1543.   

The fall of the Roman empire is therefore a rather ambiguous term as you and MigL have pointed out. As a whole, the fall was a (very) slow decline first of the Western parts of the Roman empire but over a period of centuries. And even while the central power in the Western Roman empire waned, there was still cultural and structural influence over the region. It just never reclaimed anything approaching the influence it had. In these long periods of time there was a space for many, many things to happen and trying find a singular or even dominant cause is going to be mostly futile. 

There are a confluence of economic woes, cost and effective maintenance of military power, internal struggles and unrest, disease, and so on. 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes but the Holy Roman Emperor was just an honorary title that developed from the coronation of  Charlemagne

I'm aware of that.
Some would consider the mid 400s as the end of the empire, when a Germanic warrior of the Roman army, Odacer, assumed the title of "king' after deposing a child emperor. He had full support from the Roman Senate, and he ruled in the Roman tradition. He even expanded the 'empire' by retaking Sicily from the Vandals, and Dalmatia ( Croatia ) as far as the Danube to defeat the Rugi.
He was finally deposed in the late 400s by another 'barbarian', Theodoric, an Ostrogoth, who also took on Roman sensibilities in his rule.

They may not have been officially 'emperors' before Charlemagne, and they may have been 'barbarians', but they became Roman 'kings' of a somewhat reduced western empire.

Edited March 1 by MigL

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm aware of that.
Some would consider the mid 400s as the end of the empire, when a Germanic warrior of the Roman army, Odacer, assumed the title of "king' after deposing a child emperor. He had full support from the Roman Senate, and he ruled in the Roman tradition. He even expanded the 'empire' by retaking Sicily from the Vandals, and Dalmatia ( Croatia ) as far as the Danube to defeat the Rugi.
He was finally deposed in the late 400s by another 'barbarian', Theodoric, an Ostrogoth, who also took on Roman sensibilities in his rule.

They may not have been officially 'emperors' before Charlemagne, and they may have been 'barbarians', but they became Roman 'kings' of a somewhat reduced western empire.

What I meant is that it is a bit of a stretch to claim the Holy Roman Emperors represent a continuation of the Western Roman Empire. They were not Romans, they ruled over various chunks of continental Western Europe, and did so from places nowhere near Rome, like Aachen. 

[MigL]

On 3/2/2024 at 4:28 AM, exchemist said:

from places nowhere near Rome, like Aachen

Under Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, in the late 1100s.

( don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you, just presenting a differing perspective; I like historical discussions )

[CharonY]

On 3/2/2024 at 3:28 AM, exchemist said:

What I meant is that it is a bit of a stretch to claim the Holy Roman Emperors represent a continuation of the Western Roman Empire. They were not Romans, they ruled over various chunks of continental Western Europe, and did so from places nowhere near Rome, like Aachen. 

Not a direct continuation there are obviously a range of successor states who claim legitimacy by invoking the Roman empire. This in itself is in indication of the continuing influence of the Roman empire. Defining when something ends or starts is often based on the historical, social and cultural context of the historians defining it. What is proposed in OP is, for example an example that were brought forth by scholars in the enlightenment era. Historiography becomes relevant and can identify gaps in those arguments. The continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was Christian, does not align with an assumption of universal erosion of power due to increasing Christian influence, for example. Or one could argue what the most important characteristics of a "true" successor should be. Is it the geography? Is it the political system? The military system? Bloodlines? 

For example, during the third century, Rome lost much of its role as political center with power shifted to the military and other cities becoming important administrative centers (such as Milan and Trier in the west and eventually Constantinople in the east).

[MPMin]

I read that lead poisoning may have been a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire. 

[CharonY]

I mean, there were many contributing factors, and while lead certainly would not help, it is questionable to cite it as a major factor. I suspect you might have read either the paper from Jerome Nriagu, or perhaps someone randomly citing it. There have been many papers from various directions showing that it likely wasn't very important.

A paper from Delile et al. for example conducted isotope analyses that showed that while domestic water had elevated levels of lead, the concentrations were likely not harmful. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400097111

[MPMin]

I read it in a chemistry text book a long time ago. If I remember it correctly, the Romans would reduce old wine in lead vats which created a sweet syrup, this syrup was apparently a highly desirable condiment. It was proposed in the text, that this syrup contained significant amounts of lead acetate which apparently tastes sweet. 

[CharonY]

Yes, I believe that was discussed with Nriagu as proponent and Scarborough disagreeing  (in the 80s). Recent articles tend (see e.g. Villiers and Retief) suggest that levels did not rose to widespread health problems.

[MPMin]

It probably wasn’t wide spread, apparently the lead poisoning was associated with the ruling class as the syrup, I think was called ‘sapa’ was reserved for the aristocracy. 

[dimreepr]

On 3/1/2024 at 11:16 AM, Externet said:

Good day.

Is there any found causal or relation between the fall of Rome by the middle of first century and the legalization and rise of christianity ?

The prosper peaceful 'pax romana' era that had abundant reported wealth in many roman citizens...  Where did that people obtained/earned their wealth ?  What business were they involved in those times ?  There were also the not wealthy population; but what activities not tied to government made the rich rich  ?

Yes, can be moved to somewhere else as deserved.  Into politics, history, lounge...

Essentially, the fall of Rome is the same as every other epoch, IOW "This too shall pass"... 

Edited March 10 by dimreepr