Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
I know of none. Let's see if you name any.
Greece? No: accusations of a decline of respect for tradition were endemic; that's the reason why Socrates was executed, something that happened in 399 BC. Athens was defeated by Sparta, but not conquered, not too long afterward, but that was a straightforward military defeat. The Greek city-states (note that Greece as such was never a single nation until modern times) were not conquered by Macedonia until several decades later, but Athens retained considerable autonomy under Macedonian rule, as did the other Greek city-states. But in no way did this put an end to Greek civilization. In fact, it's been argued that Alexander's conquests spread Hellenic culture and civilization throughout the Eastern Mediterranean world.
There is absolutely no evidence in history to support the idea that Greece "devolved into a . . . lawless nation." (I don't even know what you might mean by "disreputable," but "lawless" at least is an objective term.) As noted above, the Greek city-states had never been a single nation; however, each city-state was subject to the rule of its own laws. Moreover, during the period prior to the Roman annexation, all of the Greek city-states, though holding much autonomy, were nominally subject to Macedonian rule. Greece was annexed by Rome in the context of the Roman absorption of Macedonia which was complete by 149 BC. It was a straightforward military victory by a superior military power. Rome held that power not because the Greeks were degenerate and lawless, but simply because it was military superior to just about everyone in those days.
In any case, the Roman conquest, like that of Macedon, in no way brought an end to Greek culture and civilization. Greek remained the language of scholarship, and Romans continued to regard the Greeks as culturally superior to themselves, if less than practical. Greek remained the language of the eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Rome itself, and is the language of the Greek Orthodox Church to this day.
Absolute bollocks. The problems in Egypt were dynastic, and no different from any other dynastic conflicts that have emerged in monarchies since time immemorial. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind of widespread popular abandonment of traditional morality in Egypt; in fact, ancient Egypt was an extremely conservative society in cultural terms and remained largely unchanged for literally thousands of years. You have also mischaracterized the transfer of power to Alexander. He did not "invade" Egypt. He was INVITED by the Egyptians to become Pharaoh and thus end their dynastic disputes. They justified this in terms of their own religion by proclaiming Alexander a god, in much the same way that Cleopatra would later justify mating with Gaius Julius Caesar to produce an heir. (And with Marc Antony after that, because Antony was Caesar's cousin.) Alexander's godhood descended to his general Ptolemy who became the founder of an Egyptian dynasty that lasted until Cleopatra VII, the last Queen and Pharaoh.
First of all, I think you need to define each of these terms. What constitutes a "decline" of education? What are "cultural foundations," and what are the signs that they are "weakened?" By what measure do you observe an "increase in materialism"?
Once you have strictly defined these terms so that you are not at liberty to slap them onto any society about to fall to foreign enemies at will, we can discuss further whether there are any examples of societies that have fallen as a result of these things.
Where the hell are you getting all this nonsense? First of all, what made manufacturing and trade unprofitable in the WESTERN Roman Empire (not the Eastern Empire) was not "burdensome regulation and taxes," but the decline of the population as a result of the Crisis of the Third Century (mostly a pandemic that struck then), which did not permit the kind of manpower needed to keep the roads safe and in good repair. All of the other consequences you mention, except children being a "needless burden," which did NOT occur (just the opposite in fact), are consequences of this. And, please note, Rome did NOT fall as a result! A restoration of strong government occurred under Diocletian and continued for quite a long time thereafter.
Now, about the only thing you can cite that did impact the Roman Empire roughly at this time was the loss of faith in the old religion. But a new state religion was crafted for it under Constantine. Are you prepared to argue that it was the rise of Christianity that doomed Rome? Was it the wrath of the city's old traditional gods?
Now this is just plain confused. First of all, as regards common practice, NONE of it is true. As regards the aristocracy, some of it was true, but it was nothing new. Justinian wasn't even a Roman emperor properly so called; he was a Byzantine emperor who ruled AFTER the fall of Rome. There is no good evidence that Nero even knew Christians existed, let alone that he persecuted them -- although he did persecute the Jews as scapegoats for the burning of the city. And Rome continued and prospered for centuries after his death.
Enough. Everything you describe is described in vague terms, with frequent errors of fact as noted above, and you present nothing like a cogent argument.
Last edited:
