Why Rome Fell?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

CJH RE:Why Rome Fell? 11/21/2005 4:15:22 PM

One interesting thought. The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee whose Bible teaching messages are still broadcast on the radio and on the internet said in reference to the prophesies in the Book of Zechariah that the Roman Empire, not having been subject to the conquest of another empire as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian or Macedonian empires were, only fell apart and will simply reconstitute itself at the time of the tribulation in the future. Maybe Rome dissipated rather than fell.

Quote Reply

Pars RE:longrifle 11/21/2005 7:23:44 PM

"Why Rome fell?" is not a religious question. Everything comes from the God including the air we breathe. OK but that is not the answer of why. To ask "Why" is a way to understand the things that happen. You can not understand if you do not ask why. In fact the question "Why" is the reason that we have science and technology.

Quote Reply

Pars RE:CJH 11/21/2005 7:26:14 PM

So, according to this theory of falling apart; what did Franks, Goths, Vandals have done? As long as I know they conquered the Roman Empire. Even the city itself.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Vandals in the streets 11/21/2005 10:15:55 PM

Yes I always thought the Goths had something to do with the sack of Rome.

Quote Reply

longrifle RE:longrifle 11/21/2005 10:51:16 PM

>>"Why Rome fell?" is not a religious question.<< You are correct that it was not asked as a religious question. But since I believe it to be the truth I chose to answer it that way. There are lots of opinions on this board that not everyone thinks should have been inserted into the discussion. >>Everything comes from the God including the air we breathe. OK but that is not the answer of why. To ask "Why" is a way to understand the things that happen. You can not understand if you do not ask why.<< I think I did answer "why" with examples of worldly circumstances. I just prefaced and followed up the worldly circumstances with a refrence to Divine manipulation of said circumstances. I'm not doubting the role of the Goths and Vandals, one of the circumstances I mentioned was invaders wasn't it? I think the other circumstances I mentioned played a part as well i.e complacency and decadence make it easier for invaders.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:CJH 11/24/2005 3:01:27 PM

"So, according to this theory of falling apart; what did Franks, Goths, Vandals have done? As long as I know they conquered the Roman Empire. Even the city itself." Well, IIRC from my history, The Franks (rendered "Free Men"), who were not originally an ethnic group but rather were an assembly of men from different Germanic tribes, raided across the the German border into the province of Gaul. When the west empire fell, the Franks set up a kingdom in Gaul around Paris with Paris as their capital. The Vandals, who were thought to have originated around the Baltic coast, migrated at the time of the collapse in the west, through France, Spain and North Africa to Carthage (Tunisia) which they made their own seat of power. From there they took to the sea and dominated it. In 405 AD they sailed across the Mediterranean and sacked Rome. This was the first time since 386 BC when Rome fell to a barbarian invader. Before that 386 BC sacking Rome had only been the chief city of the Latin league. It lost that status in the immediate term but by about a century later it controlled all of Italy to its south. There were numerous invasions by the Goths in the third century AD before the empire was divided. The second Emperor Claudius, who was a Flavian and therefore a descendant of Vespasian, conducted a long and difficult but successful military campaign against the Gothic invaders. The threat of Gothic inroads ceased after this until the time of the invasion of north Europe by Huns when Goths and other Germanic bands fled south into Italy. Some when into southern France and some stayed around Italy and as the western empire government weakened, they gradually took over and established the Gothic kingdom of Italy in 475 AD. Of course earlier Goths also received sanctuary in the eastern empire but later made war on the eastern empire and won the battle of Adrianople (in 379 or 378 AD?). Your "Why?" pertains to the question "Why Rome Fell?". My comment was intended to examine the premise of the question "Why Rome Fell?" which is that Roman empire ceased in the same way that say the Inca Empire did after Pizarro or the Aztec Empire after Cortez or the Graeco-Macedonian after Rome. My comment was to venture the possibility that a distinction may be needed here between the empire falling by being permanently terminated and the empire simply decomposing into constituent components which allows for a recomposition at a future date, into an empire again. That's all. If you look at the EU today you see a kind of shadow of the Roman Empire. McGee's comment as I understand it looks forward to a future date when the same nationalities and the same territories will again be part of a superstate that will dominate the world if not rule over the entirety of it.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Pars 11/24/2005 3:18:12 PM

"In fact the question "Why" is the reason that we have science and technology." Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton wrote more treatises on theology than he wrote on physics? The original why is "Why are we here?". Without that line of inquiry, we would not have universities, sciences or technology, banking, insurance or industry.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Pars 11/24/2005 5:15:22 PM

(This is the same as a previous response which had been named RE:CJH) "So, according to this theory of falling apart; what did Franks, Goths, Vandals have done? As long as I know they conquered the Roman Empire. Even the city itself." Well, IIRC from my history, The Franks (rendered "Free Men"), who were not originally an ethnic group but rather were an assembly of men from different Germanic tribes, raided across the the German border into the province of Gaul. When the west empire fell, the Franks set up a kingdom in Gaul around Paris with Paris as their capital. The Vandals, who were thought to have originated around the Baltic coast, migrated at the time of the collapse in the west, through France, Spain and North Africa to Carthage (Tunisia) which they made their own seat of power. From there they took to the sea and dominated it. In 405 AD they sailed across the Mediterranean and sacked Rome. This was the first time since 386 BC when Rome fell to a barbarian invader. Before that 386 BC sacking Rome had only been the chief city of the Latin league. It lost that status in the immediate term but by about a century later it controlled all of Italy to its south. There were numerous invasions by the Goths in the third century AD before the empire was divided. The second Emperor Claudius, who was a Flavian and therefore a descendant of Vespasian, conducted a long and difficult but successful military campaign against the Gothic invaders. The threat of Gothic inroads ceased after this until the time of the invasion of north Europe by Huns when Goths and other Germanic bands fled south into Italy. Some when into southern France and some stayed around Italy and as the western empire government weakened, they gradually took over and established the Gothic kingdom of Italy in 475 AD. Of course earlier Goths also received sanctuary in the eastern empire but later made war on the eastern empire and won the battle of Adrianople (in 379 or 378 AD?). Your "Why?" pertains to the question "Why Rome Fell?". My comment was intended to examine the premise of the question "Why Rome Fell?" which is that Roman empire ceased in the same way that say the Inca Empire did after Pizarro or the Aztec Empire after Cortez or the Graeco-Macedonian after Rome. My comment was to venture the possibility that a distinction may be needed here between the empire falling by being permanently terminated and the empire simply decomposing into constituent components which allows for a recomposition at a future date, into an empire again. That's all. If you look at the EU today you see a kind of shadow of the Roman Empire. McGee's comment as I understand it looks forward to a future date when the same nationalities and the same territories will again be part of a superstate that will dominate the world if not rule over the entirety of it.

Quote Reply

Pars RE:Pars 11/25/2005 9:48:16 PM

Rome was much differant than Europe. Rome had the South Europe, Middle-East and North Africa in itself which contributed much to the collective culture of the Empire. On the other hand Central and North Europe was not part of the Empire. Today only Catholic Church is the surviving part of the Empire. In everything else in Europe it is the succesor states cultures (mostly German) that is dominant effect. So your theory of "simply decomposing into constituent components which allows for a recomposition at a future date" looks unrealistic to me because german culture was not part of the Empire.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Pars 11/25/2005 10:33:43 PM

It is true Germany proper was not conquered by Rome. However, Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany west of the Rhine were part of the empire. Cologne, Germany, a Roman colony, was named Colona and was a spa for Roman soldiers. Also, Germany proper could not exist as a neighbor of the empire without being exposed to Rome's influence and effected by its pretensions and mores. Consider the fact that the later Holy Roman emperors, who were German, styled themselves the inheriters of the mantle of the caesars. From Charlemagne through Bonaparte to Hitler, strong men and adventurers have had ambitions to rule a Europe united under them. And even the rulers of Russia called themselves czars in imitation of the caesars.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT