ChatGPT "Tell me about the Fall of the Roman Empire"

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Entered: "Tell me about the fall of the roman empire" 

 

The AI response is below...what do you think folks? 

 

The fall of the Roman Empire is a significant historical event that took place in 476 CE. It marked the end of Ancient Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages in Western Europe. The Roman Empire was one of the largest and most powerful empires in history, spanning three continents and controlling much of the Mediterranean world. However, several factors contributed to its decline and eventual collapse.

One of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire was economic decline. The empire was facing increasing financial difficulties, which were exacerbated by rampant inflation and a declining currency. Additionally, the empire's vast size made it difficult to maintain a strong central government and to effectively defend its frontiers from invaders. The Romans faced threats from various Germanic tribes in the north, as well as from nomadic tribes in the east.

Another factor in the fall of the Roman Empire was political instability. The empire was ruled by a series of weak and ineffective emperors, many of whom were overthrown by their own military leaders. The lack of strong leadership and the frequent changes in power made it difficult to maintain a stable government and to effectively deal with the empire's problems.

The final blow to the Roman Empire came in the form of invasions by Barbarian tribes. In 476 CE, the Germanic King Odoacer marched on Rome, captured the city, and deposed the last emperor, Romulus Augustus. This event marked the end of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe.

In conclusion, the fall of the Roman Empire was a complex and gradual process, brought about by a combination of economic, political, and military factors. Its legacy continues to be felt in modern times, with the Roman legal system and its architectural and engineering achievements still influencing the Western world today.

[CPK]

Not bad.

[Furryfrog02]

Fall of the Roman Empire happened in 476? The Byzantines would beg to differ 😛

[AussieCollector]

Remarkable... we have filled the internet with such Western Roman Empire focused rubbish, that the smartest AI in the world falls for it.

[Sulla80]

1 hour ago, AussieCollector said:

Remarkable... we have filled the internet with such Western Roman Empire focused rubbish, that the smartest AI in the world falls for it.

[Steppenfool]

People have already mentioned the 476 gaffe which is a persistent anachronism.

Paragraph 2: I have a problem with "Germanic tribes in the North, and Nomadic tribes in the East" as it presents a false dichotomy. The main nomadic threat was obviously the Huns, and they certainly caused problems in the East, but they wreaked havoc all over the Empire invading Italy and Gaul. I suppose they arrived from an Eastern direction so it's not a horrific error.

Paragraph 3: "A series of weak and ineffective rulers". I feel this point is quite overstated when it comes to the acute fall of the Empire and puts the cart (or court in this case) before the horse. The whole Western Empire truly began to unravel during the reign of Honorious which spanned 30 years. It was under him that the central government collapsed and led to factional infighting among members of the Imperial court. Honorious has Stilicho put to death and massacres the foedorati 15 years before he dies. I feel Honorious created a situation where a politically unifed Western empire was impossible.

Paragraph 4: It is much more complex that Odoacer capturing the territory therefore that's the Romans eliminated as if it's a video game. Odoacer was considered both by himself, the senate and the Eastern Emperor Zeno as a Roman client king. Odoacer's successor Theodoric was actually acting Zeno's orders when he defeated Odoacer and enjoyed a similar (and more equal) collegiate standing with the Eastern Emperor.

The conclusion is fair, although we certainly inherited much more!

[Ed Snible]

It all depends on the questions you ask.  I asked "Which Roman philosophers would have viewed the Byzantine Empire as a continuation of the Roman Empire?"

Quote

One Roman philosopher who would have likely viewed the Byzantine Empire as a continuation of the Roman Empire is the historian and senator Cassius Dio. In his work "Roman History," Dio refers to the Eastern Roman Empire, which later became known as the Byzantine Empire, as the "Roman Empire" and continues to write about it as the continuation of the ancient Roman Empire. Similarly, the philosopher and historian Procopius of Caesarea, who lived in the Eastern Roman Empire during the 6th century AD, referred to the Byzantine Empire as the "Roman Empire" and viewed it as the legitimate successor to the ancient Roman Empire. Additionally, the philosopher and statesman Boethius, who lived in the late Roman Empire and early Byzantine Empire, wrote a treatise called "The Consolation of Philosophy," in which he refers to the Byzantine Empire as the "Roman Empire" and encourages his fellow Romans to accept their new circumstances and to find solace in philosophy.

 

[John Conduitt]

I think it has been quite well-established that the current AI bots are not very good at nuance or fact checking. They present everything as true with no mention of counter-arguments unless explicitly asked to do so. Google's AI bot made such an error and $170bn disappeared from the company's value, although I don't know how much that tells us about AI bots or the ignorance of the people splashing our pension cash around in the stockmarket casino.

In that way, AI bots aren't much different to people. I've read a lot of news articles written in the same way. Before long, AI bots will be presenting us with new emperors they discovered through conjectural coin evidence.

[CPK]

3 hours ago, Ed Snible said:

It all depends on the questions you ask.  I asked "Which Roman philosophers would have viewed the Byzantine Empire as a continuation of the Roman Empire?"

 

Well, there is a blatant error. Cassius Dio's history only extends to the reign of Severus Alexander in the early third century, and the formal division of East and West did not happen until 50 years later with Diocletian's Tetrarchy, when the Imperial power was divided between himself and Maximian. Cassius Dio wasn't even alive at the time.

These new AI chatbots are interesting and entertaining, but they are neither infallible, objective, nor unbiased, and I view their exploding popularity with concern. There is a huge potential for dishonesty and misuse by those who control them. However, that is an off-topic subject not for this Forum.

[Ryro]

[DLTcoins]

5 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

Paragraph 2: I have a problem with "Germanic tribes in the North, and Nomadic tribes in the East" as it presents a false dichotomy. The main nomadic threat was obviously the Huns, and they certainly caused problems in the East, but they wreaked havoc all over the Empire invading Italy and Gaul. I suppose they arrived from an Eastern direction so it's not a horrific error.

The Huns first came to the notice of the Romans when the former crossed the Volga in southern Russia. Turkic elements in the bits of Hunnic language that have survived suggest an origin in what is Mongolia today. They are associated with the Xiongnu, a tribal confederation which faced off with China in the 3rd century BC.

Archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence places the origin of the Germanic tribes in southern Scandinavia about the 6th century BC. They were first encountered by the Romans in the 1st century BC along the Rhine frontier.

Agreed, the AI is overly simplistic but there's only so much that be expected when condensing such a vast topic into a few sentences.

Edited February 11, 2023 by DLTcoins