Aside that Rome isn't invaded until it got all corrupt and broken from the inside at around the 3rd to 4th century (with a large potion of it which can be contributed to Jewish ideological and direct infiltration) like you mentioned.
So, which Jewish or Christian figure was responsible for convincing Marcus Aurelius (who I dare say was one of the wisest men to have ever lived, certainly one of the wisest to rule Rome) to insist on his son Commodus succeeding him? Do you think Jews or early Christians bioengineered measles/smallpox in Seleucia, a Parthian city, just so the Roman legions attacking said city could pick it up & spread it back home as the Antonine Plague? Can you name any Jew or Christian who advised the Severans in their twilight years, immediately preceding the Crisis of the 3rd Century (which is when the barbs took advantage of Rome's civil war near-death spiral to invade in force)?
We know the names of people like Theodor Herzl, Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), Bernardine Dohrn, Noel Ignatiev, George Soros and Benjamin Netanyahu today, as we know the names of disreputable courtiers & puppet-master sorts like Sporus, Hierocles and Eutropius from back then; there's no excuse for any secret engineer of the Roman Empire's downfall to have stayed hidden after all this time. You'll understand if I can't exactly accept a vague 'the Joos did it but I can't tell you who, when, why or what exactly they did' as an answer to the 'who caused Rome to fall' question.
They declare all humans to be subject of "original sin" and consider ego, desire, the urge to fight back against harm and not working 7 days in a week until your back breaks a sin. Not just excesses of to a detriment,
(which would truly qualify as sin), all of them. And the only way to absolve yourself from sin is to renounce your humanity to become a man-husk and endure some of the most inhuman conditions in human history.
This isn't exactly anything I'll call "cherishing life".
When civilization revived itself only because the new Christians dropped this mindset entirely, which led to the renaissance era.
To minimize religion sperging from my end in this thread, I'll try to keep this limited to 1-3 paragraphs. The doctrine of original sin (understood by most Christian denominations to mean the innate tendency within human nature towards spite & evil acts, not 'ego, desire, urge to fight back against harm and not working 7 days a week') wasn't consolidated into a recognizable form until Augustine of Hippo came along almost a century
after Constantine's victory on the Milvian Bridge (thus, presumably centuries after your imagined Jewish subversion of Rome began) and had plenty of Church Fathers arguing about what exactly it was and how it might have constrained humanity, with guys like Origen hewing toward the side of free will & universal reconciliation; even after Augustine's triumph over Pelagius, the last big mainstream anti-Original Sin advocate, many sects still reject his proto-Calvinist views to this day.
And no sect teaches that you can absolve yourself from Original Sin, if that were possible you wouldn't need Jesus at all. Further 'becoming a man-husk who renounces humanity' certainly doesn't meet the qualifications for salvation provided by any sect, in fact it's antithetical to them: 'simply having faith in God alone' (sola fide - basic Protestant doctrine of justification), 'manifest your faith in God through good works for your fellow man' (Catholic & Orthodox teaching), etc. nobody says 'lol become a soulless husk to reach God'. The early church so heavily favored the preservation of God's world and creations, extending to the believers' very bodies, that they banned self-castration and mutilation in response to some retards thinking they could purify themselves of sexual sin by becoming eunuchs.
You know what I say isn't 'cherishing life'? Abandoning babies to die or outright killing them yourself just because (not just because the baby was deformed, maybe you just didn't want one at that time or it was a girl when you were hoping for a boy), which was entirely the right of a Roman
paterfamilias (not even necessarily the baby's father, just the household patriarch) until 374.
You know what I call the Christians coming in to stomp that shit out by law in 374 AD? A triumph of life over death. You're also out of your motherfucking mind (more-so than usual) if you think
the Renaissance was a time when people were abandoning ideas like Original Sin, considering how much harder-line the Protestant denominations which emerged at that time were on the concept relative to the Catholics (who themselves solidified their position on the subject and related ones, ex. requirements for salvation, in the Council of Trent), or if you think that for example the art of the
Counter-fucking-Reformation was devoid of a religious mindset.
