Fall of Empire

Back at the edge of the decline-and-fall, did the Roman Senate vote “Yes” to fund and arm the various Barbarians who came forth offering protection from the Even-Worse-Barbarians?  Did they get to choose their own gold-chased poison chalice?

Advertisements

About NotClauswitz

The semi-sprawling adventures of a culturally hegemonic former flat-lander and anti-idiotarian individualist, fleeing the toxic cultural smug emitted by self-satisfied lotus-eating low-land Tesla-driving floppy-hat wearing lizadroid-Leftbat Califorganic eco-tofuistas ~

8 thoughts on “Fall of Empire

  1. Sorry, Old NFO, but IIRC, toward the end of their reign (3rd to 5th centuries AD), the outer Roman colonies depended heavily on locally-enlisted soldiers, up to and including generals. So, when one of ’em turned bad, they were able to pull an inside job (like the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest, and quite possibly the Ninth Legion’s demise in Britain).
    And they did pay off barbarians solely to stay away, or to keep other barbarians away. IIRC, the Goths who sacked Rome in 410 AD had originally been bribed to hold off the (even-worse) Huns, and when the land they were promised in exchange was not forthcoming, they turned on Rome.
    Some of my details may be sketchy, because although my appetite for history is strong, my memory is weak. But regardless, the answer to NC’s rhetorical question is definitely “Yes, they did.”

    • I thought they ran out of Regular Pay for some of the Legions who were off-fighting elsewhere, and had to go to PayPal for a Quicken Senate Loan to forestall the Local Barbarians…

Comments are closed.