The Romans were unable "to withstand the Europeans"? Let's see, my map shows Rome squarely in Europe. Where does your map show it to be--just outside Calcutta????
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is a complicated subject. The Romans defeated many cultures--not just the affluent Greeks. Greece fell to the Romans due to a lack of a strong central government (something many here would like us to have). If you'll recall, Greece was not a country, but a collection of small "city-states." Athens was a cultural capital; Sparta more militaristic, etc. Rome, on the other hand, organized itself as a nation, and set about to conquer the world, something the Greeks had not done (there was no "Greek Empire"). When you keep in mind that there was no such country as "Greece" back then, you can understand the situation better. The Roman invasion of "Greece" would be similar to a U.S. invasion of Quebec; there wouldn't be much resistance, but the defeat of the Quebecois wouldn't be attributable to their French-Canadian decadence.
In the later years of the Roman Empire, the central government was weakened by years of political instability, tending to lead to government decentralization and a lessening of central authority. Also, the barabarians (as the Romans called them) weren't cavemen. Many came from Roman provinces, had served in the Roman army, had trained in the use of the latest Roman weaponry. Sensing a weakened Rome, they attacked and won. I don't know whose successes the Romans were sucking up prior to this, unless you are referring to these self-same provincial barabarians. The analogy to present-day America is very weak. |
