Ay can one of you grammar Nazis proofread my essay on the fall of Rome?

War is an atrocious thing any way you look at it. Yes, there are times when war is justifiable, nonetheless in any war mothers will lose their sons, brothers will lose their brothers, and friends will lose their friends. In spite of all of this though, for some strange reason, the Romans loved their war, and in the end, oh boy did they get it! Sometime around 350 a drastic change in weather in the central Asian steppes pushed a tribe of nomads called “The Huns” into western Europe. These Huns were not the type of people you wanted to mess with. As The Huns crossed through Europe, they spread terror and discord wherever they went. This pushed other barbarian tribes such as the Goths closer and closer to Rome’s borders. Some of these barbarians chose to seek refuge within Roman territory. While the Romans accepted this offer, most of these barbarians would have been better off outside of the Empire. According to historian Ammianus Marcellinus, “Roman officials even forced the starving Goths to trade their children into slavery in exchange for dog meat.”While the Romans abused their new guests to unimaginable levels they also unknowingly created enemies within their own borders. When the oppression became too much to bear for the Goths they finally decided enough was enough. The Goths revolted against Rome, in the battle of Adrianople in A.D. 378 the Goths were able to defeat the Roman Army and kill Eastern Emperor Valens. The Roman people were stunned and decided to draft a peace treaty, a very short lived peace treaty that is. In 410 the Goths revolted once more and sacked Rome. With the western Empire weakened, the outer territories of the empire were seized by local barbarian peoples. 45 years later Rome was sacked again, this time by the Vandals, and finally in 476 Germanic leader Odoacer delivered the final death blow to the Western Roman Empire, removing Emperor Romulus Augustulus from power.

*overspending
look @ the tenses first you use present then past immediately after that

While a very obvious reason for the collapse of Rome does appear with the arrival of barbarian invaders, could there have been other things that lead to the end of Rome?

>When the supply of slaves slowly dwindled down[ADD KOMMA HERE] the empire could no longer rely on the enslavement and abuse of slave labor they once did

Rome was no stranger to misfortune, yet Rome had lots more problems than just society, government, economics, and foreigners. For example, there were “natural disasters such as plagues, famines and earthquakes.” (tribunesandtriumphs.org) Also the population of Rome began to decline at a rapid pace. At it’s height the city was home to around a million people, but over time dropped to a measly six-thousand. Alongside this the once mighty Roman Military began to weaken. Rome could no longer recruit citizens from its populace emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began to recruit foreign mercenaries. These mercenaries eventually took up so much of the Roman Army that the Latin word for soldier became “barbarus”. While these soldiers were a very mighty and fierce opponent they had no loyalty to The Empire and would Turn against their benefactor. “In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked the city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while serving in the Roman legions.” (history.com) You may ask yourself, Why aren’t these considered the main causes of the collapse of Rome? Well, compared to what else was happening in The Empire, these were only minor inconveniences that may have sped up Rome’s demise, but most certainly did not cause it. You see, a nation with a strong infrastructure would be able to handle these issues. For example, there’s been plenty of natural disasters in the United States, countries like Germany have issues with a declining population, and many other countries have struggled keeping up their military.

Your tenses are fucked. Less is more.

Imagine you have a ball, that ball represents a major national emergency or conflict (earthquake, flood, plague, weakening military, etc.) you are now going to throw that ball at a stack of blocks. The United States, with a strong infrastructure, large economy (Largest Nominal GDP), and stable society. The blocks that represent America are weighted down, very stable, and very difficult to knock down. On the other hand, we have Rome, with a failing economy, poorly functioning government, and an unstable society, the blocks are very light, poorly balanced, and already falling over before you even throw the ball. Rome did not collapse because of things like natural disasters, a declining population, or a failing military. These things simply sped up the process of Rome’s inevitable demise.

As a closing remark we must all the remember that everything must come to an end. This includes Rome. With a failing economy, crippling social and governmental issues, and invasions from foreigners, it is surprising how it lasted for 500 years. Perhaps things could have been different, maybe if Rome would have stayed a republic rather than an empire they would have lasted longer than they did, but they didn’t. It’s all in the past now, and all we can do now is learn from their mistakes.

using "no stranger to" unironically

twice

Too long didnt read

Conclusion wrapped up nicely. Maybe you would want to make your introduction just as nice.

You may ask yourself, "Why aren’t these considered the main causes of the collapse of Rome?"

Opening statements are my weak point. I'm not very good at writing them.

The jews did it.

parenthesis are changes. remove the stuff in brackets. Too lazy to do the rest, but I got you started
Without a strong economy(,) a nation is nothing. (Factors such as) unemployment, inflation, and overspending by the government can all wreak havoc on a nation and its citizens (--) and Rome was no stranger to these issues. [Like all things in life] Rome’s massive army and territorial expansions came with a price. [a very high price to be more specific] These constant wars had resulted in a tremendous amount of oppressive taxation and (overspending.) This eventually (lead) to inflation and increased the wealth gap between the rich and the poor(; thus creatomg) tension (among) the people .

nice way to open with a cliche

id change that faggot. think about How Many times ur teacher has read that rome wasnt built ina day bullshit

* ;thus, creating

in saying that, open with something original that sounds like youve written it even if u quote from a source

What do you suggest then Mr. Trips?

You should always start with "Webster's defines Rome as..."

Why?

What writing style does it have to be in?

Nothing specific. For European history, not English.

anything but a cliche

eg , a short story taken from a source, but add to it like for example "augustus looked towards the bustling city of rome fromthepalatine, a city hed expanded..."

and then refer back to that intro in the conclusion with a "hanging thought", something that will leave ur teacher to think about

protip: an essay is like a short story. avoid cliches like a motherfucker

What's that quote from?

not a quote, i made it up, but u can paraphrase closely to a source and be creative

or u can directly quote, and work around it

the intro is important. make it grab the readers attention. cliches are an instant turn off

Where are the faggots screaming
>MODS MOOODS UNDERAGE MOOOODS

>implying faggot Op isnt in college

18 year old senior faggot

>overspending*
>This eventually led* to inflation and increased the wealth gap

>rich and the poor(comma) which created tension amongst the people(remove space).

How about eg , a short story taken from a source, but add to it like for example "augustus looked towards the bustling city of rome from the palatine, a glorious civilization expanded to the horizon in every direction he turned. Little did he know that within a short 500 years, due to The Empires failing economy, crippling society and government, and invasions outsiders, this view would be a thingof the past.

So bad it hurts

Never open with a cliche

"We can all agree" is fucking terrible in an essay. Never use any form of 1st person. I would read that and say "no we can't" and put your paper in the fucking garbage where it belongs.

your fifth character should obviously be a 0.

faggot

I was going to start critiquing your paper (ie ripping into it because you're a terrible writer) but when I saw you had one source which was a website, cited only as a fucking url I realized you're only a fucking highschooler and I wouldn't have enough space in a post to fix this trash.

My advice? Watch a show from the history channel about anything actually history (not hillbilly shit) and pay attention to how they phrase their arguments.

If you're not in highschool and somehow managed to sneak your way into a shitty community college may God have mercy on your gpa.

Teacher gave us a list of several links and said we could only use those as sources and to write them as I did.

Because I'm feeling nice I'll add a little more. When structuring your paragraphs keep it simple. Introductory sentence, followed by the point you want to make. Each a separate sentence. Then go into your source. Make sure it makes sense to the point you established in the sentence before, usually through a phrase along the lines of "this is evidenced through" (very lazy so think of better things). After that take a sentence, maybe two to analyze/explain why the source furthers your point. Then comes the conclusion sentence. You want this sentence to transition into the next paragraph.

General tips. Keep your sentences short. Long sentences aren't indicative of intelligence. Write like Hemingway in that regard. "However" is a great word for any essay as long as it's used correctly.

Source: graduated with highest honors from undergrad with a double major in history and political science and am now at a top 10 law school in the country. Once wrote a 25 page paper on the decline and fall on the Roman empire (I argued it didn't actually fall, just transitioned into the changing political landscape of western Europe) and got an A+ on it

What's your opinions of my reasoning?

Give me a minute to read through it again

Kk