Did Rome Fall Because of The Gays?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- Analyze the data AND THEN make statements about history based on that data. Anything else is political propaganda.
Here are the links to the video about Rome vs Greece
• How Did The Romans Def...
And the recent video about Transgender Vikings
• Transgender Viking War...
Please check out my Patreon to support the correct and data based speech about history!
/ themetatron
/ puremetatron
The causes of the fall of the Roman Empire are multiple, difficult to summarize
and schematize, and to this day, they are not agreed upon by all scholars of the
subject. However, one can try to construct a general discourse by analyzing
various internal and external contributing factors, starting from the first attempts
at analysis carried out by historiography.
The first to address the issue in depth was the English scholar Edward Gibbon,
according to whom the original cause of the fall of the empire was to be found
in a generalized social crisis, which was reflected in several factors, all related
to the protection of the state by its citizens.
According to Gibbon, ease and wealth would have progressively distanced Roman
citizens from military practice, who would have gradually delegated the defense of
the empire to
militias formed by barbarians. These militias, grown disproportionately in
number and influence, amid power struggles and a lack of foresight and
planning capacity, would have led the empire to collapse. Another fundamental
reason for the decline of civic sense identified by Gibbon is the affirmation of
Christianity: the intrinsic pacifism of the new religion and the certainty of a
better life after death would have further dampened both the martial drive of the
Romans and the willingness to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the
stability of the empire.
Gibbon's vision, while certainly offering some
interesting points of reasoning and having undeniably set a precedent for
Roman historiography, is now dated and suffers from a series of ideological
elements typical of his time: to the aversion to religion, characteristic of the
Enlightenment environment, Gibbon adds archetypal categories that we now
know to be the result of clichés and commonplaces, such as the soft and
decadent imperial Roman, now rendered effeminate and unwarlike by too much
luxury and ease, in contrast to the virile but impulsive and warmongering
barbarian.
The agricultural and industrial technology of the time was not as advanced as that of
Europe in the Late Middle Ages, making the process of resource production
much more burdensome and inefficient. Excessive taxation and the fiscal
burden borne by the productive classes, combined with the reduction of the
agricultural population due to the excessive fiscal burden, contributed to the
economic decline of the Empire.
The presence of a large "unproductive" portion
of the population, namely that assigned to the bureaucratic and military
apparatus, further aggravated the fiscal burden and reduced the available
agricultural workforce. The size of the empire, on the other hand, made an
articulated bureaucratic apparatus a necessary element for its management, and
the pressure of the barbarians at its borders made a large army equally
necessary.
The term "Barbaricum" refers to the set of territories north of the Danube and
east of the Rhine, inhabited mostly by Germanic but also Indo-Iranian peoples,
such as the Sarmatians. We are used to imagining the Barbaricum as something
wild, uncultivated, and above all antithetical and opposed to Roman civilization.
In reality, the Barbaricum was a sort of "poor periphery", albeit external to the
Roman Empire, which was constantly influenced from a technological, but also
cultural and ideological point of view by the Roman world. This is a
fundamental fact to keep in mind, because the Barbarians objectively never
wanted to destroy Rome. The idea of the barbarian rising among the ruins and
moving to demolish the foundations of the empire is the result of a romantic
imagery, but has very little to do with historical reality.
The Barbarians wanted to enter into the Roman systemThis will be a
constant in the relations between Rome and the Barbarians, and this is because
Rome was something that was not necessarily perceived in a hostile way, not a
hated model, but rather an envied one, a model to strive for, not something to
destroy. Of course, we remember figures like Arminius, Vercingetorix, and
Queen Boudica, who opposed Romanization.
#ancientrome #lgbtq #debunking
Hey noble ones, thanks for watching! As a response to a few people who said I’m building a straw man because technically he didn’t say the exact words “Rome fell because of the gays”, let me clarify.
1 - I’m being slightly hyperbolic when I say “because of the gays”, it’s my way of making fun of it, but I included the clip precisely to show you what he said so you could see I was making fun of him. (Also he said more in the full interview).
Still my points of attack against his thesis remain valid.
No serious historian considers homosexuality a factor, yet he says the opposite, that historians who are objective do (hence all others are not being objective). There is nothing objective about that statement.
2 - he talks about “rampant homosexuality”. Massive myth. Romans weren’t gay in the modern sense and the people engaging in open homosexual acts would have been a minority compared to the entire population. The “rampant” part of it makes even less sense after Christianization.
3 - When you have power and influence, if you make a statement about historical events you have to present data to back up said statement. Just like with the activists that said Vikings warriors were transgender but presented no evidence, here as well the evidence is just his opinion and he mentions "historians" without bringing in names with actual studies. history is described with evidence not feeling or personal preference.
No qualified historian puts homosexuality as a reason for the fall of the empire also because the Romans were not gay in the modern sense and the numbers of people engaging in homosexual acts was still a minority compared to the population as a whole.
I hope this provides perspective on my point of view but as usual I’ll be looking forward to your views on the matter and thank you so much for stopping by!
We live in divisive times. Thanks for some sanity😊
(Disclaimer: Did not watch the video yet) I think, while that statement is obviously dumb and too specific, that the broader point of the idea he probably had, that rome fell because of hedonism and degeneracy (which I would personally make an argument for that christianity was actually a massively contributing factor into this), remains. And he just picked one part that could be interpreted as hedonism, homosexuality, and ran with it for his spin on it
You didn't attack the man; you attacked his (and many other people's) argument, which you found to be faulty (because it is, factually speaking). In fact, you didn't even level any sort of moral judgment on his perspective; he made a statement (yes, here, it's not fully in context, but, as a conservative and someone who knows a little about Johnson, I can tell you, this statement out-of-context sounds very much like something he might say or agree with) and, in the wake of his statement, you delivered a counterargument. That's it. No shaming, no name-calling, just facts.
I appreciate your insights and tireless work, sir. You a real one. 👌🏽
It's multifacet. The bulk of the riches of the Roman Empire came from trade through the Middle East and Asia. When the empire was split in 2, the western empire didn't had access to this wealth. 2nd is the general decay of Rome, which is why Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople instead of Rome and even the Western empire chose Milan as their capital. Third is a general decay in politics and sane political decisions in the west, leading to squandering money left and right which in turn led to austerity on its military... to the point they invited the Germanic tribes to protect the border; which then backfired and the Germanic tribes roamed through the empire, looting and sacking everything in their way. Without a central government, people were depended upon the local economy instead of the empire, which led in a general decline in living standards, craftsmanship and availability of commodities overall.
The only history channel I've come to trust and cheer on. Thank you Metatron and I hope you continue to have a bright future.
The water in the baths is turning the consuls gay!!!
"Quinctilius varus, WHERE IS MY STRAIGHTNESS!"
Lmfao
VARUS GIVE ME BACK MY MANHOOD
"Octavian charging into a goblins' nest"
Selling "consul bathwater" is the reason for the fall of the Roman empire.
So many different things brought down Rome that we still can't agree what did it.
Exactly
It was multiple factors
Many different GAY things...
one was them being gay obviously
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 Because remember child, dying is gay.
Romes fall, and determining what did it, is like seeing a guy shot hundreds of times by over a dozen different guys dual wielding different calibers of weapons with hundreds of bullets, each one representing a different critically bad issue that hurt rome, all hitting different parts of Rome, and trying to figure out which magic bullet did him in.
I dont think Rimes fall was because of a lynchpin, but an unholy brutal assault by hundreds of different problems ravaging it at the same time.
100 percent correct
It’s the price of just being too damn big🤷🏾♂️.
Empires fall due to poor economic principles. Economies fall due to low innovation and productivity. Every empire that has fallen was caused by depending on outside elements to produce the things needed. Therefore, obstructing the supply chain leads to the end
Abstract thinking works wonders, Dod, Thanks. Rome fell all sorts of ways, as you describe. Stupidity did take president in the minds of elite Roman citizens, causing them to make poor decisions and these decisions allowed fucked up zones to develop in spaces that promoted the fall of the Empire.
There were always problems that strained Rome across centuries and when several outside issues started to make Rome more unstable, these strains all acted up at the same time
Metatron is working like a real roman soldier. Producing videos one after another. He must feel some special pressure nowadays.
In italian, we say “ sempre avanti, mai indietro “, meaning always forward, never backwards (or never fall back) . I like his educational videos and discussions.
@@luigitosti7599 Wasn't Italy both forwards AND backwards in WWII?
He should het a raise of salt in his salarium....
@@nodiggity9472 Every culture has moments in their history they aren't very proud of. Doesn't negate the positive contributions of said culture
How did Italy in WW2 go backwards? They went forward with a different government. Mussolini, and soldiers that still believed in Fascism, didn’t change sides, they kept fighting under the Nazis. The Italian patriots, called partigiani, fought against fascism, during fascist rule, and with allied support, took control of the country and changed its political ideology. The narrative that the French people were all part of the French resistance, is interesting, because it would need to explain the reprisals the French resistance perpetrated on the French collaborators, Italian partigiani did similar reprisals to the fascist members, even after the war was over. Finally, the saying in Italian I referenced in my initial comment, was directed towards the creator of this content, and his willingness to not give up on the truth, instead of giving in to simple statements like “the gays caused the fall of Rome”, or similarly untrue statements like “Italy changed sides”. Maybe find out how many Italian patriots died and were tortured trying to liberate their country instead of believing that once the allies invaded Italy, they just went home and ate pizza and drank wine. If I have stated anything that isn’t true, please, with sincerity, correct me. It always nice to learn from others with greater knowledge than myself.
TLDR: A US politician said something ridiculous, anyway here's a history class.
Sounds like a good time to me.
To be honest. 99.99% of the population would likely say something ridiculous about history. I was actually watching a video not long ago of someone going to a college campus and asking if they knew what the Holoc**st was. Lets be honest, he only showed clips of people who didn't know. But the number of people that didn't know is striking. Definitely when I grew up we were over saturated with the subject in school. If someone came out of school not even knowing what it was implies "Did they even bring it up in school?" Which makes me wonder what replaced it.
Rome was cursed by God because of the desise
a classic example of a one sentence lie, and an entire essay debunking that lie.
An ‘istory class eh?
Most Europeans know that Rome fell because of Asterix and Obelix and their Merry band of Gauls 🤷
EXCATLY 😅
Those were my history books.
The "Gals" are Galileans, Hebrew Israelites.
@@psalm2764 Gauls: The Gauls were an Indo-European people of the Celtic branch. They lived during the Iron Age in central-western Europe, roughly modern France and Northern Italy. The ancestors of the Gauls migrated from somewhere east of Europe with all the other Indo-European people (Germans, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, etc.)
Asterix and co were junkies!! Hell the druid was called get-a-fix!! Such an awesome comic and cartoons!! Some are on youtube!!
So what you're saying is that it wasn't the gays but the immigrants who destroyed Rome? "We must build a big beautiful wall and the picts will pay for it" - Hadrian.
The picts didn’t have enough money for that
Cool seeing you here.
Those dirty picts, all covered in tatoos. They’re not sending their best into Britannia, they’re sending their rapists and drug dealers. And some Picts are good people, maybe.
Immigrants/invaders are the only thing that destroy.
How about the Jutes?
When I was in high school, more than 55 years ago, one of the reasons they gave for the fall of Rome was finances, the loss of hard currency.
Like how to turn from a pillage economy towards a tax farming economy. Expanding gets harder and harder, and large splurges of loot stops coming.
High taxation, mass I M M I G R A T I 0 N, inflation, wars among other things. This one mentioned in the video also.
@@kennymichaelalanya7134 All true, the same is happening to Europe and the US right now.
Ron Paul for the win!!!
I've always believed it's the finances. Without money you can't pay for the many military campaigns to keep out the barbarians. And when Constantine moved out of Rome to Byzantium to rule over the wealthy Eastern Roman Empire that includes Egypt, the Middle East, and Greece, it's inevitable that Rome would fall sooner or later.
Maybe this is incorrect, but from what I've learned the Roman Empire didn't so much "fall" as just morph into something else.
By the time the city of Rome fell, the seat of power was in the eastern empire. The western empire had been on hard times for awhile, but they were still sitting pretty in Constantinople. They just rebranded to the Byzantine Empire.
The capital in the West had been moved from Rome to Ravenna before the alleged "fall", which was really more in the nature of a military coup. If you had been in Rome that day, you probably wouldn't have known anything of importance was happening. There was very little fighting, and the deposed Emperor was packed peacefully off to a country estate. Lots of people were actually happy about it, especially in the Senate, which was now the last governmental organ standing. People thought it would mean a return to Senate rule and the old Republic. It took an astonishingly long time before they realized it was over. The aqueducts and roads had to fall into rubble before people believed the Empire was gone for good.
It didn't morph. It is still the Roman empire.
They never did rebrand, actually; as far as they and most of their neighbours were concerned, they were and continued to be the Roman Empire. The name of Byzantine Empire was only given to it after its fall - I'd guess in order to make it easier distinguishable from the other Roman Empires around .
They actually didn't "rebrand" themselves, they've still called themselves Romans. "Byzantine Empire" is a fake historical entity which never actually existed in reality, which was completely invented in the so called "Holy Roman Empire" which was neither Roman, nor holy, nor empire.... but they invented that thing "Byzantine Empire", because they "the Holy Roman Empire" were the "true" descendants of Rome... and not that pesky and fake Byzantine Empire... in truth Byzantine Empire never called themselves "Byzantine Empire" and nobody called them that at the time. They called themselves Romans and everybody around them called them Romans.
The Byzantine empire called itself the Roman empire.
Can't believe metatron just said that the real fall of rome was the friends we made along the way and then turned us all gay
This comment is right outta cumtown 😂
Scientific fact.
Why would you lesson to your friend in personal matter you mean someone taking advantage of your social or economic situation and you have nothing to do expect to listen to them or work hard like the rest of people and do it alone....easy money kills men when they don't know how to take responsibility 😊
😂😂😂
You mean its not the flour in the water nor the orbital mind control laser?
That's one migration era tribe I never knew about...
We're they related to the Visigays and the Ostrogays?
Yo, where the Visigoth women at?
And the frankgays and the anglegays and the vandalgay and the saxongay, between other germanicgays
Actually they were closer to the Gaylitcs and Gayelic peoples
@@Notsram77 women aint real
the CIA invented women to doom men to sin
@pempotfoy6206 you won, "gayliec people" was the nature endpoint of this joke...
I'm not a deep expert on ancient Rome...but I have three books just here at home that contain three different sets of factors that led to the fall of the Roman Empire (or to be clear, the Western Roman Empire)...along with a couple of others that dispute the whole idea of a specific "fall." Conservative christians like Mike Johnson have not one clue...they just blame it on people they hate here in the 21st century because it's politically useful to them.
Anyway, thanks for a professional 20-minute examination of a really complex historical subject and debate.
I'm a conservative christian and I think Mike Johnson is a moron. And so are you for implying that that's something inherent to conservatism or being a christian.
The title is hilariously risky ,got to respect the man for taking on this kind of subject it's got ban me written all over it.
Nothing can fix this 😔😕.....
But he disproved that it was because of the gays, so he’d towing the RUclips party line
@@MythwrightWorkshopI need to think about the shape of my balls era ...
Times are changing.
Love your content on your channel. You speak like a real historian who does research and tries to make arguments based on certain points. That is what I did enjoy about History classes in University because you always had to make an argument on a certain subject. I cook some classes such as on historical German culture, The American Civil War, American History, Slavery during the colonial period and the cold war.
476 AD is merely a convenient date chosen for simplicity, popularized by Edward Gibbon. There are other possible dates one could consider, such as 480 AD, marking the actual deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor, Julius Nepos, in Dalmatia. Technically ousted, Nepos remained the de jure emperor, as coins continued to be minted in his name, and he retained control over an army and part of the territory, unlike Romulus, who was a child with no real power or recognition. Another significant date is 486 AD, the fall of Soissons to the Franks, marking the establishment of a de facto state founded by Aegidius in response to the assassination of Majorian by Flavius Ricimer.
One could also argue that there was no definitive fall of Rome at all. Odoacer deposed the Western Emperor but declared himself a subject of the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, sending him the Imperial regalia. Even Theoderic, who invaded Italy and deposed Odoacer, did so under the orders of Zeno and recognized his authority. If you were to ask the Romans of the time about the fall, they would likely give you weird looks, as they had no concept of Rome's demise. The idea of Rome falling gained traction during the reign of Justinian as a means to justify his reconquest.
Perhaps most importantly, as John Julius Norwich highlights in his work, the concepts of "Eastern Rome" and "Western Rome" are relatively modern constructs by historians. At the time, there was no such distinction. There were simply Eastern and Western emperors, not Eastern and Western empires. This arrangement was akin to the republic's two consuls or the empire's multiple emperors under the tetrarchy instituted by Diocletian. From their perspective, the state wasn't divided, it was merely ruled by two individuals who focused on different regions. Considering that, it's not accurate to claim that Western Rome fell and Eastern Rome remained, rather, one line of emperors ceased, leaving only the eastern lineage. Hence, the 'state' that modern historians label the "Byzantine Empire" was not a successor state but the Roman Empire in its entirety.
What I've written barely even scratches the surface, the fall of Rome is really that complex. It's not just the reasons for its fall that historians can't agree on, there's also the matter of when it really fell and if it even fell that still leaves room for debate.
Why not 395 AD, when the empire split in two and stopped being the roman empire.
@@wrongthinker843 Refer to the third paragraph of my comment. To summarize, the Roman Empire didn't actually split, the notions of Western and Eastern empires are modern inventions by historians. To the average Roman of the time, it was still one empire under two emperors, which was quite common ever since Diocletian and the Tetrarchy.
Well then Rome was like the ship of Theseus and it gradually stopped existing over time. Sure, the Byzantine empire had unbroken state continuity from since the Romans up until 1204, but they spoke a different language, had different genes and different culture and religion than the early Romans. If Caesar for example could see the 13th century Byzantines would he really consider them Roman? And if so then were the Lombardic duchies in southern Italy actually Lombardic if they abandoned the language, culture and religion of the original Lombards and had no genetic continuity either?
@@teIemay Except it's the other way around, since the two empires had armed conflict, different religions, different laws, and one lasted for ~100 years longer while the other kept going.
476 BC is not a simple date - and you are way overestimating the influence of the ape historian. He might have been widely read in the English-speaking world but apart from that not so much.
08:00
Metatron (paraphrased): Rome fell because it had too mamy useless clerks and officials.
Me: thinking of our current bloated bureaucracy in Poland... :-(
I'd rather have bureaucracy than Islamic invasion
@@leonrussell9607 islamics at least have a set of unshakeable principles they wouldn't move for love nor money
@@cftyftyufyfuyfty nah they do. Trust me they do. Also their unshakable laws kinda suck. And give all the power to the man. As a conservative man I don’t need all that pressure bro.
@@cftyftyufyfuyfty yeah, thats all great until you realise that all those principles are about diddling kids and graping women
@@cftyftyufyfuyfty you don't belong in Europe if you support those principles
Looking at the comments, some people are really so attached to the whole idea of "moral decay" being the factor to the fall of Rome, but all the examples of that "moral decay" given are from the leaders, during the hight of the Roman Empire, centuries before "the fall"...
"Moral decay" is nothing more than the exantsion of the Gibbon idea that "Romans lost, because they became weaker due to the Christianity" just with "Christianity" being replaced with whatever commentator wants to criticize.
"People die because they drink water" kind of reasoning
my understanding of the fall of rome was that it was due to too many external wars and internal corruption.
Symptomatic of the disease known as a Godless society.
Shhhh, don‘t give them ideas…
And also internal wars.
I like how Rome views client-patron relations running up and down their society not as corruption like we would but a necessary kit for holding society together
Like being a client to your patron officer.
Too many external wars are a symptom of internal corruption, usually because someone is profiting from them. You know, much like today.
Just to be clear, even though the Western part of the Roman Empire had fallen, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire continued on for another millennia afterwards.
@@anomonyous Funny. They followed Roman laws, Roman customs, called themsekves Roman. But you know better.
Guess they weren't actualky German in East Germany either. Since they got split.
It was one empire ruled by two emperors.
The only difference from all the other times Rome had multiple rulers, is that they all ruled from Rome, not their region of authority.
@@anomonyous it literally is the Roman government.
The Romans had to choose between their slaves who were mainly northern barbarians to have😏🤤🍆🥵... . . .
The Ottomans did take Constantinople from behind. Kind of.
Christianity was the catalyst. It made us all "equal" with peoples that are clearly NOT equal to us Great Europeans.
Verry well put together video, great job Raf and team!
I think we also have to consider that the Eastern Roman Empire went on for 1000 more years so wichevewer the causes of the fall of the western part were, they have to be something that was absent or different in the East
A different concept of militarism and national defense and a balance of centralization of power
It was not Roman.
Obviously the Eastern roman empire was 100% straight and thus managed to survive until the 15th century. Then the gays took over and the empire was conquered by the very heterosexual Ottomans. /s
Eastern Roman empire was obviously chads and not gays.
@@jagerdergroe8604 bruh I could understand if you were talking about 14th century Eastern Roman Empire but are you trying to tell me Justinian wasn't a roman for example?
I have never clicked a notification so fast.
Dis gon be gud
Absolutely!
Why?
I mean what made this topic the best you have experienced?
I left a comment a few weeks ago on one of your videos asking you to make this video ! I’ve been checking back to see if you would make it and it made my day to see that you did ! ☺️ excited to watch !
Rome was Catholic at the time, so homosexuality was definitely persecuted back then. Societies don't fall for one singular reason. It's always a bunch of reasons that compound until the floodgates break.
They were persecuted under paganism too
Eastern or western? Western is fell for arianist gothic tribes.
He probably meant decadence and corruption instead of saying gay but he is a dumbass politician and basically in the same system of the corrupt senators
They where Christians
On a side note, if Christianity was indeed a contributing factor in the fall of Rome, it wasn't due to its pacifism, but its propensity for schisms. Pagan Romans didn't kill each other over esoteric minutiae regarding the nature of their deities, Christians absolutely did. And even then it was more of an issue in the East, long after the West had indeed fallen.
The fricking lead pipes were turning the frogs gay.
the response is yes the homosexuals biological males destroy any empire and agresive cities , countries etc that why was banned in so many countries after the fall of rome as well
ahaha thats funny. There is one theory that the lead made people crazy even at the highest levels. I would imagine the lead might have played some factor but given how long the empire existed, I doubt its not a huge factor.
There was also lots of bisexual people as well during this period, even potentially some of the Emperors.
@@StallionStudios1234 female biology bad and castrating
@@StallionStudios1234maybe, but it wasn’t celebrated or excepted like a lot of people try to make it out to be
The “loss of morals” they always talk about is ridiculous. The Roman Empire fell more Christian than it began.
The Byzantines even banned Gladiatorial games and even reformed some of the harsher slavery laws.
If anything their morals were better than when they started.
welcomed change of someone who is truly neutral about historical subjects. seriously the modern political atmosphere has driven some folks outright looney. been enjoying nearly every take you have had when it comes to the issue of politics. especially the subjects people have forced to be political. Keep up the impressive work
Thank you very much I appreciate your comment and support
@@metatronyt always happy to support someone who doesn't let his politics effect his work. not gonna name any individuals.
"seriously the modern political atmosphere has driven some folks outright looney"
Shadiversity comes to mind. Glad Metatron hasn't gotten caught up in the brainrot culture war.
@@LordVader1094 mrtatron made one video even close to that but even then. It was actually really well done.
@@LordVader1094 Shad use to be so much better when he was the only one doing it. The moment he invited his friends his entire channel became a weird rant channel that sounded like teenagers talking about their childhood heroes and their political beliefs based on their parents more than themselves.
Please check out my Patreon to support the correct and data based speech about history!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
Good video yet again 👍
Yeah, but objectively speaking, "the gays" caused all of those things... 🤔😅😂
Please consider doing a video on how ancient Roman’s cut and styled their hair
The impartiality that you bring with your content is the most precious thing you are bringing to the table. Politics invaded almost every realm of information and divulgation, learning unbiased informations is becoming a really difficult task. I'm grateful for your work, this is top quality youtube
Sloth and decadence are the Empire killers, a society gets stupid and lazy and someone hungry comes along and rips it to shreds. Hell, Rocky Balboa is a perfect example, he crushed Apollo because he was hungry and Apollo was lazy, and in turn HE got wiped by becoming the exact same way. Once every dragon has been slain, every land conquered, every enemy wiped out people tend to "ride it out" and do as little as possible to maintain the "status quo". Over the decades of my life I've bounced between respect for Rome's prowess to hatred of its brutality and now in my 50's I see it in a slightly more broad view. SOMEONE has to be the "Big Guy" on the block, and Rome ended up being that guy until they "dropped the ball" and someone else picked it up. Whoever is the top dog will have to make the tough choices and be the "Bad Guy" at times, how long they can maintain that status depends on the strength of the society it is based on.
I love my country (America) and joined the Army to fight for it back in the dim days of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and have watched in sadness and horror as everything I thought was true has been revealed as a lie. One thing that never changes no matter the historical period is that the "elites" will fight for every advantage at the expense of the "commoners". We're just too short-sighted as a species to build truly epic Empires, that unite entire swathes of the planet under one banner. On a small scale look at families that started with nothing and build a business, only to lose everything as the next generation comes along and squanders everything because they didn't earn it, respect it, or preserve it.
In modern times trying to put a single cause like orientation as the reason an Empire fell is just stupid. it's a collection of small flaws added together that determines the fate of a group, not who a small percentage of the population prefers to sleep with.
Dude, this. 100%
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but comparing the rise and fall of our planets great civilisations & empires to a Stallone movie is beyond absurd.
Ah, there's no telling eye-talian history without the eye-talian stallion! 🤣
..though that comparison is kind of ridiculous.
this quite fits with th defeat of Athens on the Peloponnesian wars aswell
@@outrlmts1879 It was meant to be, lol. A simple illustration of how once you're on top, you tend to lose that edge.
I'd just assumed he was trying to blame the Geats.
That’s too funny!
Make Götaland Geat Again!
Or you can Just Blame Canada like SouthPark did. That is the real answer!
I would love to watch more videos about Carthage and the early roman Empire. The video you made 7 months ago was very interesting
Im from Louisiana and I cant stand that RINO Mike Johnson.
Politicians don't know crap about government, much less ancient Rome. Leave history to the pros like our host.
I lean right, and am able to have a polite conversation with anyone, however I believe in the truth, not many truths. Thank you good sir for your thourough and professional analysis.
The conservatives here also have a bunch of new challengers. Nationalists and fascists don't mind pushing out other conservatives. And if those other conservatives can't muster more than scoffing at the thought, why should conservatism not get pushed out.
I am also from Louisiana and I completely agree with you!
you claim to lean right yet call mike Johnson a RINO? I note your wording is that you stated you LEAN right as opposed to saying you're a conservative or on the actual right, so something tells me you would be the actual RINO in the Republican Party.
Only maga say rino. Pretty sure trump doesn't know anything about rome apart from porn
Ah yes, RINO. The intellectual equivalent of calling someone a “racist.” So much for diversity of thought.
Curiously, Nero's downfall occurred shortly after he got obessed with an androgynous eunoch named Sporus. Gays surely didn't cause the fall of Rome, but femboys probably had something to do with the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. 😅
It should be noted that Nero's downfall was recorded by his enemy. So it makes sense they would portray him as a terrible person
It was Nero himself that made the boy a enunch 😂
@@williamjenkins4913
He literally castrated a boy and treated him as his dead wife?
The senate sent a gay assassin to kill Commodus too
It's not gay if Nero is thinking of his wife the entire time.
I have been watching your videos for about 2 years now. I love the videos and the way you use logic to support your arguments. I have my children watch them with me so they can learn how a successful argument is made. Keep up the good work!
The extreme irony of this rather new claim is that the acceptance of homosexuality has an inverse relationship to the time when the Western Roman Empire fell. The Romans were more accepting of homosexuality during the Roman Republic and earlier Empire than during the later empire when the fall of the Western Roman Empire occured because the earlier Romans were Pagans while the later Romans were more Christianized (and Christanity introduced more of the anti-homosexual ideology). Furthermore, this flawed idea ironically contradicts the popularized (and also flawed) Edwards Gibbons claim that the Roman empire fell because of Christianity.
Popularized? I've never heard anyone say that.
I think Christianity, partly, had a part in the fall of the Empire if you consider the early paganism of the Roman Empire was a pluralistic faith that was comparably more tolerant of divergent cultures and gods, and Rome being a collection of many different cultures with many gods then forcibly being converted and conformed likely lead to greater tension.
@@rjjacob101 Christianity almost completely took over by the end of the 4th century (Theodosius was "the harbinger" in this respect), the people who remained non-Christians were at this point a few rich aristocrats/intellectuals, so functionally there was little social tension to speak of.
@@Heldarion Christianity TOOK OVER, meaning they forcibly converted people, defaced and destroyed pagan shrines and history. That causes issues.
@@rjjacob101It was more that Christianity was anti slavery and monogamous.
One of the few channels I click like at the beginning of the video.
I appreciate that, thanks
As a gay person, I agree, the roman empire fell because of me. Sorry guys
I own a 3 volume novel from 1876 from a guy named Felix Dahn "Ein Kampf um Rom" ( "a struggle for rome") , decribing the alledged things around the fall of rome in the view of those days. No gays mentioned, must be a recent invention ;-).
Every generation reinterprets history based on their experience. That's why primary sources are better than secondary sources.
Did.... did OP just deny the existence of historical gays? 😂
I'm sure that won't be misinterpreted in any way 🍿
@@shanerooney7288 He implied the nonexistence of historical "gays", not necessarily the nonexistence of historical homosexuality, big difference to keep in mind.
@@Zionswasd
Homosexuality (Noun)
_The quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex._
🍿🍿🍿
@@shanerooney7288 Yes, that is the definition of homosexuality, thank you. It is distinct from the modern word/concept "gay".
Thank you for being so honest
This is one of the very few channels I’ve subscribed to halfway through the first video I saw! GREAT CHANNEL!!
It was a compounding of failures, from the degeneracy of society (not them being gay, but the standards, morals, and religion of rome were eroaded as their society declined) the economy was in decline, the leadership was incompetent, their millitary was in a decline, and they were seeing pressures from every side in every sector.
I have viewed for a long time it was like the straw that broke the camels back, can I name that last straw for sure? Maybe yes maybe no, but I can name some of them that were there but we will in the future name more of them.
The “degeneracy” was more prominent before Constantine and especially Theodosius than after. Clearly “degeneracy” had nothing to do with it.
So homosexuality isn't immoral? Please
@@chuckyoneill9029 homosexuality is amoral
@@chuckyoneill9029 it’s amoral
Nah, it fell because of immigration and onlyfans
🤣
Homophobes are just idiots to me. The gays are actually a great ally in the fight against the true enemy…
Furries.
@GreeceiscoolI laughed way too much at this 🤣
The main reason empires fall is not moral decay. It is that eventually they run out of other people's money. Large unintegrated exploited segments of the population either on the periphery of the empire or within the empire itself are an inherent liability and when further subjugation and conquest becomes impractical, the economic transition from empire to kingdom or nation is difficult and perilous.
In other words, it is the immorality baked into the structure of empire itself that causes empires to fall, not the decadence of their population.
Constantine's bureaucracy became the church, which no longer needed an imperial court if it could not even be bothered to defend Rome against Atilla.
I think Rome fell because everyone pooped in the same room together
We still do to this day, separated by cubicles!
Yes, mixed gender poop rooms cause the fall of the empire.
I think it was unifying)
I think bathroom stalls are pulling our society apart , bring back communal pooping
@@johnhowell2117 with public communal sponge to wipe
As a conservative, I want to do a face palm when I hear people say such things because it smacks of presentism. It is taking modern concepts and projecting them to the ancients. And while I may be incorrect, my understanding of "sex" at the time was based on the penetrator and the penetrated (not gender). And while there were some men who might have found being penetrated a positive thing, this was not anywhere common and was considered a stigma in society (which is why it was done to either the youth or to slaves). Moreover, this had nothing to do with the fall of Rome because these excesses happened, centuries before the fall of Rome.
Moreover, did Rome really "fall" or did it relocate and consolidate towards the east and Constantinople? Yes, the westerners call that the Byzantine empire, but the people there considered themselves Roman. In fact you might even say that the real fall of the Roman Empire didn't take place until the Islamic invasion of Constantinople.
Superb commentary and analysis!
Another outstanding video, fratello!
Bravo!!
Thank you so much 🙏🏻
If being gay brings about the fall of an empire, by that token, the British empire would never have gotten off the ground. 😊🇬🇧
How?
Exactly. Look at the French.
Spoken like a true Irishman 👍
Yeah, cause Queen Elizabeth I, and Sir Walter Raleigh, and the East India Company were sooooo gay. 🙄
@@strellasmith777IT WAS A JOKE
Mike Johnson also believes the world is 6,000 years old. Not exactly a man of history.
Young earth creationist?
@@metatronyt Is Mike Johnson a young earth creationist? Yes.
Don't confuse or misuse "history" with "evolution" it's concerning that you would attempt to stretch your ideology there. @OuterRimPride
@@arizonabusinessleague918 6,000 years ago cuts right into human history so yeah, it kind of does relate. We have more evidence that dinosaurs evolved into modern birds than we have that Julius Caesar ever existed.
@@OuterRimPride quite the comeback lmao
I don't understand how people can think you are bigoted. If this isn't supportive, I don't know what is. You just aren't going out of your way to formulate crazy biased stories for your points - true political neutrality.
You make some of the best history content on youtube, great job!
Egypt fell because of the gays too. In exodus one of the plagues was frogs 🐸 but you see the frogs were turned gay so they had max destructive powers
😂
"Of course Rome fell because of the gays."
- People who unironically think Rome fell in 476 AD.
@@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96 It's Roman Empire, cope.
@@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96It is the East Roman empire. Byzantine is the capital.
Byzantine name came when after ottomans conquered constaniople@@paulodelima5705
@@paulodelima5705s first used in 1557
@@paulodelima5705 no Constantinople was the capital. The name Byzantium to describe the Eastern Roman Empire was applied by later historians.
I remember reading a theory when i studied history in university. I don't remeber the author, but I remember he claimed that Rome didn't really fall or sufferred a cathaclysm that ended the empire, since it was still a major and solid empire in the east. Furthermore, roman culture and practices weren't abandoned in the west. On the contrary, christianity mantained some cohesion and spread 'romanness'. So, it would be more appropiate to say it transformed, at least in the western part.
Come to think of it, the power of the church in the middle ages could support the theory. Anyway, just wanted to share. Thank you for the great content!
When talking about the fall of rome, it means the fall of their empire not abandonment of their culture.
@@adrianaxelssonpersson2456 Agreed, but consider that an empire is more than a political structure, and the roman empire is still strong in the east.
I remember that the Romans at the time blamed the fall of the Republic on the decline of their morals and that women were becoming more powerful, did Roman authors blame the fall of the Empire on something similar?
Thank you for such an educational video. I appreciate your unbiased and thorough review of this topic. Well done *Metatron*
Glad it was helpful thanks
A well laid out presentation to be sure, but one thing that is overlooked I feel, was why the romans were unable to overcome these problems despite the vast resources at their disposal. It's all well and good when you describe how a man might suffer a dozen blows from his opponents, but where is the description on how he fights back, and where and why did he fail in his defense?
A degree of this is had by describing the caliber of their later problems and issues as was stipulated, but it's a separate argument to have over why these problems were so unbearable compared to other problems the Romans had recovered from. Why were the Romans able to withstand the crisis of the third century, the myriad of problems under the later emperors, yet unable to best later opponents? How was Caesar, Pompey and other generals of the Empire and Republic able to win with only a fraction of the resources of the Roman World? Where were the Reformers that previously were able to adapt and remedy the system to contest with present issues? Why was Italy trembling when the barbarians encroached into Italy, when previously legions could arise from the land many times fold?
As described, the Barbarian's interests led them to prey upon the system, carving out power blocks within the Roman apparatus for themselves and their culture blocks. Yet, where's the Roman opposition to this? Where is the fire and fury of the Cato's, or the brazen spirit of the Romans that first won them - and then kept them - their world? It must be observed, that there was a cultural component to the roman's failings, and - that notions of decadence, religion, and other such components are therefore relevant - albeit not totalising.
The Western Roman World was not doomed in the 5th century, the list of external problems was not so vast that no such people would be capable of overcoming such a challenge. Yet, they failed, and the west faded. As such, although yes saying 'the gays' is mostly unhelpful and misleading, there is a kernel - a notion, that the blame was some what on the Romans for their failings, that the culture, mindset, virtues of the Late Roman world slipped, and thus proved not up for the challenge. Naturally, this isn't the whole picture, as is often the case, but in this presentation, this particular aspect has been somewhat neglected I feel.
Also, as a separate matter, Christianity of the time was not the crusading Christianity that would exist 500 years later. As I'm sure you know. It probably wasn't the video for it, but that matter is a bit too nuanced to simply say that Christianity itself didn't have negative detriments to the nature of the Roman spirit, at that particular time, across the various strains that the faith took, or that Christianity can be dismissed as a contributing factor - be it large or small.
Well said 😊
They couldn't overcome their problems because BLM and the commie lefties allowed mass illegal immigration and protested to the point of mass chaos causing the Vandals and other germanic tribes to sack Rome.
Hi Metatron. Always love your videos, but can I please ask that you turn the music volume down a smidge on future edits, it's quite loud and I have difficulty hearing/focusing on you when the music is at this volume.
There are documented conversations from the Roman senate where some older senators were warning the last generations of Roman’s that letting in and giving citizenship to a bunch of migrants was a crazy stupid thing to do
Very true, you know your sources. I’m sure you are also familiar with the response by the emperor specifically to that when he mentioned the patrician families though.
@@metatronytThe families had no problem with land ownership concentration and slave labour.
The modern US equivalent I could think of was the southern plantation owners who started to act like a southern aristocracy.
@@SusCalvin The response I’m talking about is the fact that the emperor who instead was in favour of granting citizenship to wealthy non Romans reminded the senators that their ancestors were also once non Romans. It’s a famous debate that happened in the senate.
@@metatronyt I'm a few thousand years late to that debate but... aren't the Roman senators more Roman at the time this debate took place due to fact that their ancestors were thoroughly Romanized for centuries after being conquered (Republican era)? As opposed to these migrants-recently-turned-Roman who have yet to become properly Romanized?
@@kaizokujimbei143 Yes but the point the emperor was making was that their ancestors were not Roman yet they were given citizenship and eventually granted access to the senatorial seats. The point was that if the senate at the time their ancestors were granted citizenship were against it, they wouldn’t exist now as senators in Rome. It’s a quite compelling discourse.
Dear Metatron,
As someone who likes your work I wanna give you some little dose of constructive criticism and ask you to watch out for your audio. SOMETIMES the background music gets to loud, making it difficult to follow what you say.
(or maybe it's just me)
Apologies for that. I'm just very much into back ground music on YT videos for some reason. When I edit I keep it even louder
From what I recall Rome fell for a number of reasons. Attila raided Rome, forcing them to pay him tribute, weakening an already weakened empire, and the Vandals delivered the final blow when they took Rome, their capital. The Eastern half survived but had to become the Byzantine empire as they no longer controlled Rome. Centuries later and the Byzantines would fall as well. Also, I would say the Mamluks taking Egypt from the Byzantines was an overall positive.
The Western Roman Empire fell because it was in a state of unstable equilibrium, and as per Chaos Theory, only required a small perturbation (or set of small perturbations) to break it.
Perhaps another way to succinctly capture this is in Nemik’s quote from Andor, “The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle.”
The boring answer is that reducing it to any one factor is pointless, but I would say that degeneracy was a very significant factor in the context of the debilitation of the patrician class which incentivized the decentralization of power along the empire, which incentivized in turn policies of taxation that led to self sufficient duchies which ended up in kingdoms with little need of the empire.
Yes. But the question was about gays. Being gay is just a fact of life for people with that particular orientation, they did not "degenerate" into being gay. Think of that african leader whose videos were popular recently with titles that said that there were "no gay people" in his country. That's a lie. There are gay people there, they are just forced to live in the closet by an irrational leadership and culture.
Roman administrations out there in the periphery was always small. There was always a whole lot of local allies and clients. Egypt spent centuries moving into clienthood. A lot of these were allied with Rome against other neighbours.
Greetings!! One of your best and well analyzed videos! That was a masterpiece and it covers so many things within its time limit.
I definitely come for the history & truth. I always get genuinely honest information here. Thank you.
You are very welcome
I think a society with "too much time on its hands" falls into debauchery of all kinds--not just mere "homosexuality" which is actually a modern word and a "modern concept" compared to the types of same-or-other sexual proclivities that Romans and other non-contemporary peoples engaged in.
How is homosexuality bad though? Unless I'm mistaken and "debauchery" doesn't carry with it a negative connotation?
@@snowcat9308 my point is that while same-sex attraction is simply a fact, homosexuality is a modern word and so is the connotations it implies. As a modern concept, it had no bearing on Ancient Romans and our use of this term would have been alien to them. If you feel the need to be offended--by all means feel free--but understand I was speaking ironically and no offense was intended.
@@MythwrightWorkshop Alright! I have a bit of a hair-trigger because there are bad actors in these comments, so your language confused me a bit. Carry on!
@@snowcat9308we can’t cover the sun with one finger. Homosexuality is not a good thing either. I mean, you can’t condemn people for being what they are through no fault of their own, but the purpose of humans (as other creatures), is to reproduce so as to not extinguish the human race; homosexuality would put an end to humanity. So, technically, in that sense, it would be “bad”.
*HYPERINFLATION!*
Mainly driven by massive government spending and by the dilution of the silver Danarius (they essentially "printed" money by reducing the amount of silver in their silver coins), Rome's inflation rate reached an all-time high of 15,000% between AD 200 and 300. By AD 301, one Roman pound of gold was valued at 72,000 denarii coins!
I’ll give you the biggest reasons:
1. The Romans lost their marshaling nature and sense of patriotism.
2. The numbers on non-Roman soldiers proliferated as a result of my first point, and tribal loyalties seemed to matter more than loyalty to the Roman state.
3. The Christians of the late empire, were self-deprecating of their Roman pagan ancestry. They tore down statues and pagan temples, kinda like how in America nowadays people (won’t name names) are doing the same to their ancestors and forefathers.
4. Internal strife, and perpetual conflict and power jockeying. Civil war was common in the late empire.
5. Lastly, the economic status of the late empire was unstable and untenable.
Roma was founded by pagans that homosexuality was fine, Roma felt when Cristianism was spread.
After, all empires wanted to be Roma but failed because they didn’t had the Roman gods.
Its a clown world !
I have heard this before, many years ago.
I was always taught that the fall of the Roman Empire was due MAINLY to
Over-expansion.
I thought Rome fell because of barbarianphobia
true!
Pretty much. If Honorius did not have the families of his barbarian troops slaughtered and did not refuse to negotiate with Alaric the Empire would have lasted a lot longer.
This is why i find people who try to slander you as some right-wing shill so idiotic
It reminds me of Whatifalthist's comments where he basically thinks the Romans were effeminate and were conquered by the "manly" Germans... Completely failing to account for the Eastern Romans... Or the actual factors
*Western Rome falls
Eastern Romans: haha Gayyyyy
*Eastern Rome falls
Ottoman Turks: haha Gayyyy
Ottoman empire falls
Arabs: haha Gayyyyyy
We still have two empires and they look quite gayish to me😂
With that logic US will fall because they made m&m logos less sexy.
This is when I started making my Fallout bunker. As soon as the female M&M was less sexy, I saw the fall of the United States. That just proved it all to me. This is how all Empires and countries really fall - when sexy made up CGI mascot characters no longer are sexy, and in fact turned ugly on purpose, the fall of that empire or country is assured.
I'm writing this from 20 miles inland in a pacific NW forest, in an unmarked location as we speak. The signs are there, abandon civilization and embrace survivalist ways of life. It's the only chance of surviving to remake America.
Be prepared. It happened to Rome, it will happen to the U.S. too!!!
With how it is going, I would not be surprised.
@@Vainglorious.1 Divided by borders united by bunkers!!!
I have been building my bunker since US started liberating our neighbouring countries soul from this mortal realm.
Do you offer citizenship and official position if I help in the rebuilding effort? My proposal is to start an independent paramilitary organisation to keep logo designers in line and prevent such treacheries.
Yes, it happened to rome and every other country, My country fell because we didn't keep our logos sexy enough.
If you offer citizenship in any first world country or anything amount of money above 20k$, I'll gather a team of Gorillas🦍 to restore the old mascot and save the headache of rebuilding.
@@atimidbirb Damn I wasn't aware,
Even though worthless I offer my sympathies, it's devastating to see your country fall, it hits especially hard when it's due to your own people's incompetence.
Why do you think a certain right wing news pundit was so butt hurt about it?
I remember recently one woman saying the same thing and her only evidence was Roman statues she studied and claimed by the fall of Rome they went from verile masculine men to and I quote "Wet Noodles." I can't remember her name...
One of the biggest draws of this channel is the fact that there is such a rigorous effort made to be unbiased and apolitical. In a time when *EVERYTHING* is politically hypercharged, it's refreshing to find a channel that doesn't succumb to all the noise.
Also, among professional soldiers, especially those who have seen combat, what genitalia you have and how you use them is totally peripheral to more important matters. Namely, such things as "will you have my back"? Will your die if necessary to defend your buddies? Unit morale and cohesion, the common will to achieve the mission, is the primary purpose of an armed and disciplined force. This is why you get the NCO hated by recruits. The idea is deliberate. The NCO becomes the common enemy of recruits. Later that hatred of the NCO transforms into respect, and even affection for them. The same for officers in many armies. The idea is often to impose discipline with the view of creating self-discipline, especially in special forces units, and other situations where individuals and small teams are involved. Inside a tank or aircraft, for example.
So in some ways, you will find military forces a little more liberal and inclusive in their sexual morality than the general populace.
For example, in the US army, initial resistance to non-white soldiers dissolved in the face of practicalities. All black units, especial under their own officers, tended to do well, often exceptionally well in combat. This was not confined to the army, but also became true in the US air-forces also, for example, the Tuskegee Airmen. The 332nd fighter group, and the 477th Bombardment Group both got reputations as "punching well above their weight". Of course, this did not happen overnight, because racism was very ingrained, but it did happen.
More recently, the acceptance of women, first into the armed forces on a large scale, and also, their deployment in combat. [Female nurses, etc, were always a thing].
And again, the "gamble' payed off. But one would be cautious in being overly complementary to military authorities for their "progressive" ideals. A lot of it had to do with pragmatism. Short of conscription, the only way to get cannon-fodder is to appeal to patriotism, service, etc, and if insufficient numbers of white males sign-up, then you are logically required to enlarge your recruitment pool. Non-white folks, women.
So to Uber-right wing US Senators of a fundy "Christian" persuasion, evil gays causing the fall of the Roman Empire makes some sort of sense. By the same twisted logic, the US armed forces, by incorporating the "woke" principles of racial and sexual inclusiveness, are similarly "degenerate". But hey, it is just fascists being fascists. "Nothing new to see hear, move along".
The real core and strength of armed forces are the "lifers'. Those that stay in for a long term, and get lots of skills and professionalism. Right wing agitation of culture wars, such as draconian abortion laws, or being bigots towards a service person's kids who happen to be non-binary, is a real turn-off. This can badly affect retention rates, and readiness rates in units.
I’ve noticed a lot of attention being given to the ancient Romans lately being used as an example for the failings of our modern-day society in wildly over-generalized and inaccurate ways.
As someone with Italian heritage I find people pretending to understand my ancestors (who haven’t studied) very shallow and insulting. Sure, let’s project all of our current societal ills onto an ancient civilization while we ignore facts as well as all of amazing things Rome gave the world.
Christians of that type tend to overplay certain things, because it suits their narrative. For an alternative view, I recommend “The Darkening Age” by Catherine Nixey.
True although we’re not ones to talk since modern historians do the exact same thing
I dare you to say the same thing about other religions.
The Roman Empire fell because my barbarian ancestors fucked them up
We all dream about stuff, I dream about my ancestors the Picks disliking the Romans, intensely. While my other Italian ancestors became Romans and fucked up the senseless Europe residents and Beyond. My Irish and Saxion ancestors, well had a way about them that the Romans hated, until they returned back to their crumbling empire, that is. My dreams are interesting too, I guess.
Yes, and why couldn't the Romans defend themselves? Because they were extremely effeminate.
Betcha when that guy hears Goths he thinks it's the kids who wear black and think life is pointless.
Your view is the Roman Empire fell because her army was no longer staffed by Romans. This begs the question, what happened to the Roman military elite and Roman citizen populous who staffed these armies? Where did they go?
The answer is the Romans, as early as the age of Augustus, indulged in decadent pleasures and disavowed the customs and morals conducive to bearing large fertile families. Carnal unions between members of the same sex, being unconducive to siring offspring, surely contributed towards this dysgenic decline of the Roman citizen body.
So, while Rome was at her apparent heights, her major cities were in fact populated mostly by Middle Easterners and her armies staffed by Germans. Rome was no longer Roman. At this point such an empire is fated to crumble.
Yet it took centuries before it happened and Empire was at the peak when Romans had hedonistic life style.
Which suggests perhaps the opposite, Empire fell when it stopped being one. Christianity surely contributed to that. Romans stopped being gay and their Empire gradually fell. But that's what Johnson doesn't want everyone to know 😂
@@reav3rtm I don't know who Johnson is. That is a good point that Rome fully fell in 476 AD far after it had been decadent for several centuries (Augustus 27BC - Marcus Aurelius 180 AD).
That being said, I think Rome was in decline as early as the age of Commodus, which ends the period of the "Five Good Emperors". After that you notice very few virtuous Romans and mostly Illyrians, Spaniards, and even Punics maintaining the Empire.
@@juliuscaesar8951 Johnson is the Speaker of House of Representatives in US, from Republican Party. Being true to himself and his values, he obviously alleged Roman Empire fell because of gays. Did you watch this video?
I still find it hilarious that Americans elected a politician who believes that people as gay as me took down the Roman empire. Let's do it again with the American empire 😂😂😂
I absolutely love your videos! I wish you had a show on the history channel!
The acceptance, promotion and eventual celebration of homosexuality does precipitate the fall of nations, empires, cultures and civilizations.
Rome fell because they tripped.
The economic base of the empire was agricultural slavery, which relies on heaps of 'cheap' labour, there was multiple plagues that devistated the population, making each life relatively more 'valuable'. This economic and social stress comes at a time when there is multiple invasions from outside threats, and civil wars.
I think the question that we gotta ask ourselves is not why the western part of the empire fell when it did but how that the damn thing was still shambling along up until that point when most empires would have died centuries before.
The Roman Empire in part fell because they trusted strangers to be part of their society. They relied on their enemies to stay in power. But vanquised people will hate you, even if you give them career opportunities. Remember Arminius.
I hate when people say Rome fell for stupid reasons
*Rome Fell Because It Became **_CHRISTIAN_*
Rome was fine as a kingdom, then as a republic, then as an empire, all the while being polytheistic.
For more than 1000 years it survived. Whilst being polytheistic.
Then Constantine converted the empire to Christianity around 300 AD. And the (western) Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD.
A rapidly increasing rate of of gender confusion and homosexuality is very much indicative of morale decline which inevitably leads to societal collapse. While it may not be a primary reason it is certainly a canary in the coal mine.
That didn't happen, the Roman Empire was Christian near the end, so the tendency regarding homosexuality was actually the opposite and it stopped being tolerated. The Romans complained about "loss of traditional values" during basically their entire history, even before the Empire, which means it didn't actually affect its fall in the end
Trying to put your 21st century opinions on 4th century issues is goofy. Where is your proof Rome got more gay?
@@johnnygreenface There is no proof because it didn't happen, it was actually the opposite. And Romans were obsessed with the idea of new generations losing "traditional values" all throughout their history even when Rome was at its peak and growing. There is zero correlation
i gurantee youre one of the goofballs who constantly stands on his soapbox about liberty and 0 governemnt intervention yet at the same time think two consenting adults shouldnt be allowed to kiss one another
@utopiandystopia1383 the government has no place in the lives of Americans, besides oppressive over reach over a handful of things I don't like
Nice to see you actually debunk some right wing motivated pseudohistory. In reality there is far more right wing motivated pseudohistory than left wing pseudohistory.
Your bias is on show, you should stop and consider just how biased you just admitted you are.
I've read or watched a video that meationed it? About time someone speak about it!💯🤔
Rome fell when Christianity took over.
😂😂😂