Did Rome Fall Because of The Gays?

Analyze the data AND THEN make statements about history based on that data. Anything else is political propaganda.

Here are the links to the video about Rome vs Greece
And the recent video about Transgender Vikings

Please check out my Patreon to support the correct and data based speech about history!

The causes of the fall of the Roman Empire are multiple, difficult to summarize
and schematize, and to this day, they are not agreed upon by all scholars of the
subject. However, one can try to construct a general discourse by analyzing
various internal and external contributing factors, starting from the first attempts
at analysis carried out by historiography.

The first to address the issue in depth was the English scholar Edward Gibbon,
according to whom the original cause of the fall of the empire was to be found
in a generalized social crisis, which was reflected in several factors, all related
to the protection of the state by its citizens.

According to Gibbon, ease and wealth would have progressively distanced Roman
citizens from military practice, who would have gradually delegated the defense of
the empire to
militias formed by barbarians. These militias, grown disproportionately in
number and influence, amid power struggles and a lack of foresight and
planning capacity, would have led the empire to collapse. Another fundamental
reason for the decline of civic sense identified by Gibbon is the affirmation of
Christianity: the intrinsic pacifism of the new religion and the certainty of a
better life after death would have further dampened both the martial drive of the
Romans and the willingness to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield for the
stability of the empire.

Gibbon's vision, while certainly offering some
interesting points of reasoning and having undeniably set a precedent for
Roman historiography, is now dated and suffers from a series of ideological
elements typical of his time: to the aversion to religion, characteristic of the
Enlightenment environment, Gibbon adds archetypal categories that we now
know to be the result of clichés and commonplaces, such as the soft and
decadent imperial Roman, now rendered effeminate and unwarlike by too much
luxury and ease, in contrast to the virile but impulsive and warmongering
barbarian.

The agricultural and industrial technology of the time was not as advanced as that of
Europe in the Late Middle Ages, making the process of resource production
much more burdensome and inefficient. Excessive taxation and the fiscal
burden borne by the productive classes, combined with the reduction of the
agricultural population due to the excessive fiscal burden, contributed to the
economic decline of the Empire.

The presence of a large "unproductive" portion
of the population, namely that assigned to the bureaucratic and military
apparatus, further aggravated the fiscal burden and reduced the available
agricultural workforce. The size of the empire, on the other hand, made an
articulated bureaucratic apparatus a necessary element for its management, and
the pressure of the barbarians at its borders made a large army equally
necessary.

The term "Barbaricum" refers to the set of territories north of the Danube and
east of the Rhine, inhabited mostly by Germanic but also Indo-Iranian peoples,
such as the Sarmatians. We are used to imagining the Barbaricum as something
wild, uncultivated, and above all antithetical and opposed to Roman civilization.
In reality, the Barbaricum was a sort of "poor periphery", albeit external to the
Roman Empire, which was constantly influenced from a technological, but also
cultural and ideological point of view by the Roman world. This is a
fundamental fact to keep in mind, because the Barbarians objectively never
wanted to destroy Rome. The idea of the barbarian rising among the ruins and
moving to demolish the foundations of the empire is the result of a romantic
imagery, but has very little to do with historical reality.

The Barbarians wanted to enter into the Roman systemThis will be a
constant in the relations between Rome and the Barbarians, and this is because
Rome was something that was not necessarily perceived in a hostile way, not a
hated model, but rather an envied one, a model to strive for, not something to
destroy. Of course, we remember figures like Arminius, Vercingetorix, and
Queen Boudica, who opposed Romanization.

#ancientrome #lgbtq #debunking

[metatronyt]

Hey noble ones, thanks for watching! As a response to a few people who said I’m building a straw man because technically he didn’t say the exact words “Rome fell because of the gays”, let me clarify.
1 - I’m being slightly hyperbolic when I say “because of the gays”, it’s my way of making fun of it, but I included the clip precisely to show you what he said so you could see I was making fun of him. (Also he said more in the full interview).

Still my points of attack against his thesis remain valid.
No serious historian considers homosexuality a factor, yet he says the opposite, that historians who are objective do (hence all others are not being objective). There is nothing objective about that statement.
2 - he talks about “rampant homosexuality”. Massive myth. Romans weren’t gay in the modern sense and the people engaging in open homosexual acts would have been a minority compared to the entire population. The “rampant” part of it makes even less sense after Christianization.
3 - When you have power and influence, if you make a statement about historical events you have to present data to back up said statement. Just like with the activists that said Vikings warriors were transgender but presented no evidence, here as well the evidence is just his opinion and he mentions "historians" without bringing in names with actual studies. history is described with evidence not feeling or personal preference.
No qualified historian puts homosexuality as a reason for the fall of the empire also because the Romans were not gay in the modern sense and the numbers of people engaging in homosexual acts was still a minority compared to the population as a whole.
I hope this provides perspective on my point of view but as usual I’ll be looking forward to your views on the matter and thank you so much for stopping by!

[oktusprime]

The water in the baths is turning the consuls gay!!!

[avitalsheva]

Metatron is working like a real roman soldier. Producing videos one after another. He must feel some special pressure nowadays.

[Dodsodalo]

Romes fall, and determining what did it, is like seeing a guy shot hundreds of times by over a dozen different guys dual wielding different calibers of weapons with hundreds of bullets, each one representing a different critically bad issue that hurt rome, all hitting different parts of Rome, and trying to figure out which magic bullet did him in.
I dont think Rimes fall was because of a lynchpin, but an unholy brutal assault by hundreds of different problems ravaging it at the same time.

[PilgrimsPass]

So what you're saying is that it wasn't the gays but the immigrants who destroyed Rome? "We must build a big beautiful wall and the picts will pay for it" - Hadrian.

[Gnomezonbacon]

So many different things brought down Rome that we still can't agree what did it.

[jimmywayne]

Most Europeans know that Rome fell because of Asterix and Obelix and their Merry band of Gauls 🤷

[legueu]

TLDR: A US politician said something ridiculous, anyway here's a history class.

[acommonloser]

Can't believe metatron just said that the real fall of rome was the friends we made along the way and then turned us all gay

[The_Kentuckian]

Maybe this is incorrect, but from what I've learned the Roman Empire didn't so much "fall" as just morph into something else.
By the time the city of Rome fell, the seat of power was in the eastern empire. The western empire had been on hard times for awhile, but they were still sitting pretty in Constantinople. They just rebranded to the Byzantine Empire.

[AdamosDad]

When I was in high school, more than 55 years ago, one of the reasons they gave for the fall of Rome was finances, the loss of hard currency.

[svarthofde]

That's one migration era tribe I never knew about...
We're they related to the Visigays and the Ostrogays?

[StallionStudios]

Love your content on your channel. You speak like a real historian who does research and tries to make arguments based on certain points. That is what I did enjoy about History classes in University because you always had to make an argument on a certain subject. I cook some classes such as on historical German culture, The American Civil War, American History, Slavery during the colonial period and the cold war.

[teIemay]

476 AD is merely a convenient date chosen for simplicity, popularized by Edward Gibbon. There are other possible dates one could consider, such as 480 AD, marking the actual deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor, Julius Nepos, in Dalmatia. Technically ousted, Nepos remained the de jure emperor, as coins continued to be minted in his name, and he retained control over an army and part of the territory, unlike Romulus, who was a child with no real power or recognition. Another significant date is 486 AD, the fall of Soissons to the Franks, marking the establishment of a de facto state founded by Aegidius in response to the assassination of Majorian by Flavius Ricimer.

One could also argue that there was no definitive fall of Rome at all. Odoacer deposed the Western Emperor but declared himself a subject of the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, sending him the Imperial regalia. Even Theoderic, who invaded Italy and deposed Odoacer, did so under the orders of Zeno and recognized his authority. If you were to ask the Romans of the time about the fall, they would likely give you weird looks, as they had no concept of Rome's demise. The idea of Rome falling gained traction during the reign of Justinian as a means to justify his reconquest.

Perhaps most importantly, as John Julius Norwich highlights in his work, the concepts of "Eastern Rome" and "Western Rome" are relatively modern constructs by historians. At the time, there was no such distinction. There were simply Eastern and Western emperors, not Eastern and Western empires. This arrangement was akin to the republic's two consuls or the empire's multiple emperors under the tetrarchy instituted by Diocletian. From their perspective, the state wasn't divided, it was merely ruled by two individuals who focused on different regions. Considering that, it's not accurate to claim that Western Rome fell and Eastern Rome remained, rather, one line of emperors ceased, leaving only the eastern lineage. Hence, the 'state' that modern historians label the "Byzantine Empire" was not a successor state but the Roman Empire in its entirety.

What I've written barely even scratches the surface, the fall of Rome is really that complex. It's not just the reasons for its fall that historians can't agree on, there's also the matter of when it really fell and if it even fell that still leaves room for debate.

[ThomasDoubting]

The title is hilariously risky, got to respect the man for taking on this kind of subject it's got ban me written all over it.

[baronvonboomboom]

Verry well put together video, great job Raf and team!

[babilon]

08:00

Metatron (paraphrased): Rome fell because it had too mamy useless clerks and officials.

Me: thinking of our current bloated bureaucracy in Poland... :-(

[sebcw]

my understanding of the fall of rome was that it was due to too many external wars and internal corruption.

[njhoepner]

I'm not a deep expert on ancient Rome...but I have three books just here at home that contain three different sets of factors that led to the fall of the Roman Empire (or to be clear, the Western Roman Empire)...along with a couple of others that dispute the whole idea of a specific "fall." Conservative christians like Mike Johnson have not one clue...they just blame it on people they hate here in the 21st century because it's politically useful to them.
Anyway, thanks for a professional 20-minute examination of a really complex historical subject and debate.

[christopherdaffron]

Just to be clear, even though the Western part of the Roman Empire had fallen, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire continued on for another millennia afterwards.