Did The Romans Know Their Empire Was Falling (and will we see it in ourselves?)

[John Thomas8]

Kings and Generals channel on YouTube digs into various military/military history subjects from the BC civilizations to now.

This morning's video was rather interesting I thought (the part in the parens I added, it's not in the video):

[RTH10260]

Just an IMHO - no - the Romans did not know that hteir empire was falling. Not even today did the US know that Vientnam or Afghanistan was falling. And we today have the insight into ancient history in ways that the Romans never had. For a Roman emperor it was daily life to gain and lose some far off territory. That some migrating tribes would have the capabilities to unlodge the social fabric that made up glue of Rome was not in their experience.

[John Thomas8]

Not even today did the US know that Vietnam or Afghanistan was falling.

I'm sorry, that's abjectly incorrect. Unless the individuals instigating these "wars" were sincerely stupid it has been obviously clear that invading/controlling either of these regions is an exercise in futility, the specific instance proof of not learning from history.

The rest of your post I agree with.

[Lani]

Over about 200-300 years, the Roman Empire (primarily the Western Empire) had crisis after crisis. Due to its militarism, Rome struggled to pay the high costs and to provide needed troops and other resources to defend the empire. Much needed war treasures, which included slaves, began to dry up. Economic and civil infrastructures crumbled.

The Eastern Empire fared much better, lasting about 1,000 years longer.

The Roman population may or may not have realized that the empire was crumbling, but they certainly knew that things were going very wrong and quality of life was rapidly lessening.

I haven't thought much about comparing the US to Rome, but here's a very limited comparison.

Trying to be the boss of the world, with a huge military system that has to be fed huge amounts of money. Intervening in conflicts between other countries.

Wealthy people can avoid taxes to a great degree. The wealthy Romans left Rome to avoid rising taxes, living on property outside of Rome.

Immigrants are reviled (by some/too many), take jobs that US citizens won't do, and are paid less anyway. Nonetheless, there is a strong movement to limit immigrants. Rome depended on slaves for many necessary types of work, but the military became unable to provide the slaves. There was a significant worker shortage.

In the US and the Roman Empire, poor people bare the burden for the government's errors.

[John Thomas8]

poor people bare the burden for the government's errors.

That's the obscenity of human history, isn't it?

[neeneko]

Immigrants are reviled (by some/too many), take jobs that US citizens won't do, and are paid less anyway. Nonetheless, there is a strong movement to limit immigrants. Rome depended on slaves for many necessary types of work, but the military became unable to provide the slaves. There was a significant worker shortage.

Though one of the ironies of Rome's dependency on slaves is it also ruined their economy. Over time, slave and land ownership concentrated.. going off to war meant bring back wealth that mostly went to the people who also bought the farm you couldn't work while being a soldier. Over time Rome built an economy that, well, didn't need nor could support its middle class. The growing income gap needed a constant supply of incoming wealth to maintain itself, but left most of the population very annoyed. Sound familiar?

[Suranis]

The thing to remember is that there was no one day that was the Fall of the Roman empire. It took hundreds of years and had false dawns and people could have lived and died without realizing that much had changed.

There is an agreed date by Historians, but that was the third or fourth time Barbarians had sacked Rome so that's really for convenience. And, as has been mentioned, the Eastern Half of the Empire lasted for quite a while after the western half.