Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 9140107" data-attributes="member: 9254">The real common misperception is that the Roman withdrawl caused the fall. The Romans withdrew because of some other disaster: steppe nomads, plague, and simply deciding a region wasn't valuable enough to waste the resources to defend it from constant raids.&nbsp; For centuries, Romans refused to believe it was acceptable to ever give up territory.To your point, many regions soldiered on with a lower quality of life (higher taxes, more soldiers/fewer farmers, more raids) but never collapsed.&nbsp; What they couldn't make internally, they could still buy from the Empire as luxuries.Others did collapse right after the romans left as those armies, or the Roman reputation, were all that were keeping raiders at bay. But, did they remain &quot;post apocalyptic&quot; until they were able to build bath houses and colloseums?&nbsp; No, at some point they were below where they were but no longer defined by the fall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 9140107, member: 9254"] The real common misperception is that the Roman withdrawl caused the fall. The Romans withdrew because of some other disaster: steppe nomads, plague, and simply deciding a region wasn't valuable enough to waste the resources to defend it from constant raids. For centuries, Romans refused to believe it was acceptable to ever give up territory. To your point, many regions soldiered on with a lower quality of life (higher taxes, more soldiers/fewer farmers, more raids) but never collapsed. What they couldn't make internally, they could still buy from the Empire as luxuries. Others did collapse right after the romans left as those armies, or the Roman reputation, were all that were keeping raiders at bay. But, did they remain "post apocalyptic" until they were able to build bath houses and colloseums? No, at some point they were below where they were but no longer defined by the fall. [/QUOTE]

Verification