05-07-2008, 10:20 AM
I haven't read the hypothesis, but do the authors explain how the Empire was more "complex" in 400 Ad than in 200 AD or 100 AD or earlier ?
One problem I have always had with "explaining" the fall of the Roman Empire is that the problems were different, but no more complex than earlier.
I believe it would be truer to say that the Roman Empire "evolved" to a point where it was no longer recognisable as the Empire of old.......in other words, that it never "fell" but rather evolved......
One problem I have always had with "explaining" the fall of the Roman Empire is that the problems were different, but no more complex than earlier.
I believe it would be truer to say that the Roman Empire "evolved" to a point where it was no longer recognisable as the Empire of old.......in other words, that it never "fell" but rather evolved......
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
