So do the Japanese nowadays, but I don’t think the fall of the Empire was really relevant to that.
The decline and fall of the Empire set back European civilization hundreds of years. The subsequent period was one of recovery from a significant loss, not an improvement over what preceded it. Only afterhundreds of years of recovery, arguably over a thousand, did conditions for Italians improve from what they were during the height of the Empire.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen far too many serious “The fall of the Roman Empire improved quality of life because it was an empire and therefore bad” arguments.
though The Roman empire was great for its upper class,. the average person quality of life wasn’t that great.
The average person’s quality of life wasn’t that great after either; and, for that matter, became considerably worse following the Empire’s fall.
… your rebuttal had the clear implication that the ‘populated regions’ that the Romans conquered didn’t engage in the same kind of warfare and enslavement that the Romans themselves did, which is patently untrue.
and please don’t reply with “every empire did that”. because they weren’t really invading competing empires but populated regions in their way.
That’s 100% things you said I said, not things I said.
If I said I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. It is safe to assume that I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. not that I “only don’t care about expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures if said empire is this specific one”
I think Italians have better healthcare and quality of life now, so, yes?
So do the Japanese nowadays, but I don’t think the fall of the Empire was really relevant to that.
The decline and fall of the Empire set back European civilization hundreds of years. The subsequent period was one of recovery from a significant loss, not an improvement over what preceded it. Only after hundreds of years of recovery, arguably over a thousand, did conditions for Italians improve from what they were during the height of the Empire.
thought it was obvious a non serious answer.
though The Roman empire was great for its upper class,. the average person quality of life wasn’t that great.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen far too many serious “The fall of the Roman Empire improved quality of life because it was an empire and therefore bad” arguments.
The average person’s quality of life wasn’t that great after either; and, for that matter, became considerably worse following the Empire’s fall.
personally, I don’t feel that bad for an empire that went around enslaving every territory it conquered until it ended up destroying it’s own economy.
and please don’t reply with “every empire did that”. because they weren’t really invading competing empires but populated regions in their way.
what.
… what do you think the peoples whom the Roman conquered did to each other? Or to the Romans themselves, for that matter?
Do I have to launch into a lecture on Celtic and Germanic endemic warfare?
Wow, way to jump unto another topic.
… your rebuttal had the clear implication that the ‘populated regions’ that the Romans conquered didn’t engage in the same kind of warfare and enslavement that the Romans themselves did, which is patently untrue.
That’s 100% things you said I said, not things I said.
If I said I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. It is safe to assume that I don’t feel bad for the end of expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures. not that I “only don’t care about expansionists empires that enslaved and destroyed other cultures if said empire is this specific one”