this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)
History Memes
1132 readers
714 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IT WAS ALL THE SACK, ONCE IT WAS SACKED IT WAS ALL OVER 😭
For those who are curious about the actual details, the Western Roman Empire (the fall of the Empire as we generally think of it) fell around 476 AD, when the last Emperor was replaced by a Germanic warlord. But it was only marginally functional by then - Majorian (died in 461 AD) was the last real independent ruler, and Rome had been sacked twice (once in 410 AD, once in 455 AD). And even the sacks were not really a cause so much as an effect.
Rome went through a period in the 3rd century AD known as the Crisis of the Third Century, wherein the old institutions of the Empire as most of us imagine it were broken and brutalized by increasingly naked military rule, plague, economic crisis, barbarian invasions, constant civil wars, and a breakdown of government legitimacy. By 284 AD, with the ascent of the Emperor Diocletian, these issues were compounded by a curious mixture of centralized power and decentralized authority, necessitating increased taxes and repressive oversight from officials, including a form of proto-serfdom for the poor.
Over the course of the 4th century AD, the Empire's fortunes deteriorated in every conceivable aspect, and when the Empire was split between Arcadius (Eastern Empire) and Honorius (Western Empire) in 395, the Western Empire was very clearly on its last legs, all-but-broke, unable to muster enthusiasm from its own population for its defense, and unwilling or unable to curtail the power of its elites even for the sake of self-preservation of the polity.
At that point, one is basically asking for the barbarians to sack the place for the nice narrative ribbon to tie around the decline. Especially with the sack in 410 AD - caused by the incompetent Emperor Honorius murdering his best general and best troops for the crime of being (checks notes) loyal while Germanic, leading many of them to join the Germanic tribes in opposition to Rome - who had agreed to not attack in exchange for a bribe that Honorius also welched on.
Why the sack of 476 AD? Why not the end of the Republic? Why is the Eastern Roman Empire ignored? What about the Papal State? What about modern Rome that is still a nation's Capital?
Rome never fell and dinosaurs never went extinct (birds are dinosaurs)!
I think it actually depends on what you're into or studying.
I like architecture and infrastructure so I tend to count from when infrastructure spread stops in an area especially with Rome (the empire, not the state) since their power receded in stages regionally.
But don't you see different dates for different regions? And also changes in roman architectural styles itself?
If you look at architecture you do though, expensive materials receded more towards seats of per regionally, projects abandoned so on and so forth.
Not necessarily the style but how they're actually built, materials and such. Solid wall v. with junk infill, things where it starts with a more expensive or materially intensive techniques into ones where it's cheaper.
Also pottery is a pretty good indicator of how people are living at the time and a lot ends up inside or below construction as it is built.