Thread: The Fall of Rome

Well it could be argued that only half the empire fell, the eastern half remaining in one form or another until the Ottomans took Constantinople in the mid 1400"s

Anyway for the western half. It was more a combination of many factors culminating with the "barbarian" conquests of roman territory. Many people atribute the fall of rome to the barbarian invasoions, but really although they contributed to it they were just a consequence of the continual decline.

Rome was an emprie with a slave economy and based on expansion and conquest, the decline in conquest in the late 100's AD put pressure on the economy as the readly avlibility of slaves started to dry up. The late 100's marks the start of the decline IMO. The military was becoming increasinly "barbarionised" with large ammounts of naturalised babarian auxalliries and mercenary troupes, add this to political instability, a series of plauges in the mid 200"s and then a series of barbarian incersions. (germans across the rhine, macromanni and alaminiin Italy, saxons in briton, goths in dacia, franks, vandels ect) All this left Rome in a very poor and fragmanted state, when finaly Attila turned up with his huns it was the last nail in the coffin

Can't it just be summed that Roman citizens were just becoming lazy, partying too much and burning too much money on superficialities ? with no "investment" in sight, they weren't planning for the future, and since their future was entirely based on acquisitions of other properties through wars, it didn't take long for them to fall when the wars stopped. The nationalization of private institutions would be a consequence of all this. The government would grap anything to keep itself afloat.

Originally Posted by njdesi

I've always found the fall of Rome fascinating. This article is pretty interesting. It argues that the decline of Rome started when it become an Empire and private institutions were taken over by the state.

If you are one of them, I'd be interested to hear your theories on the decline of Rome.

Good thread njdesi.

I too, like dabbling in history and have always enjoyed reading easy-to-read books that weren't dry, about Roman history. It's origination with Romolus and Remus on the hills allegedly to it's exapansion and later decline with the influx of Barbarians. The sacking of Rome by the Vandals is interesting to. (It was the Vandals, right?)

I also like the Byzantine Empire. I think it's not covered enough.

The concept of "Circensus et Panem," or "bread and circuses" to pacify the masses by providing them with cheap food and cheap, low quality entertainment.

Many paralles today: humans are human.

"Declining empire" theories

Generally, these theories argue that the Roman Empire might have survived, but due to some combination of circumstances didn't. Some historians in this camp believe that Rome "brought it on themselves," i.e., ensured their own collapse by either misguided policies or degradation of character.

Vegetius

The historian Vegetius theorized and has recently been supported by the historian Arthur Ferrill that the Roman Empire declined and fell due to a combination of increasing contact with barbarians and the subsequent "barbarization", as well as a surge in decadence and the following lethargy. This resulted in complacency and ill-discipline among the legions, making it primarily a military issue.

Gibbon

Edward Gibbon famously placed the blame on a loss of civic virtue among the Roman citizens. They gradually outsourced their duties to defend the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them. Gibbon considered that Christianity had contributed to this, making the populace less interested in the worldly here-and-now and more willing to wait for the rewards of heaven. "[T]he decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight," he wrote.

Von Mises

Ludwig von Mises argued that the inflation and the price controls promoted by the later emperors destroyed the economic system of the ancient world, this leading into hyperinflation, deterioration of the imperial economical basis and transfer to barter economy instead of a more advanced monetary economy. The theory assumes the hyperinflation combined with price controls undermined the economic system of the empire, and it simply went into bankruptcy, unable to pay its legions. The theory further argues that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine empire) survived for over a millennium after the fall of the Western empire because of its smaller economic decline.

Richta

On the other hand, some historians have argued that the collapse of Rome was outside the Romans' control. Radovan Richta holds that technology drives history. Thus, the invention of the horseshoe in Germania in the 200s would alter the military equation of pax romana, or a borrowing of the compass from its inventors in China in the 300s would also alter that equation.

Bryan Ward-Perkin

Bryan Ward-Perkin The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005) makes the more traditional and nuanced argument that the empire's demise was brought about through a vicious cycle of political instability, foreign invasion, and reduced tax revenue. Essentially, invasions caused long-term damage to the provincial tax base, which lessened the Empire's medium to long-term ability to pay and equip the legions, with predictable results. Likewise, constant invasions encouraged provincial rebellion as self-help -- further depleting Imperial resources.

"Doomed from the start" theories

In contrast with the "declining empire" theories, historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of its institutions. In their view, the Empire could never have lasted. The Romans had no budgetary system. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. Meanwhile the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded.

"There was no fall" theories

Lastly, some historians take issue with the use of the term "fall" (and may or may not agree with "decline"). They note that the transfer of power from a central imperial bureaucracy to more local authorities was both gradual and typically scarcely noticeable to the average citizen.

Pirenne

Henri Pirenne published the "Pirenne Thesis" in the 1920s which remains influential to this day. It holds that the Empire continued, in some form, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century, which disrupted Mediterranean trade routes, leading to a decline in the European economy.

"Late Antiquity"

Historians of Late Antiquity, a field pioneered by Peter Brown, have turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire "fell". They see a "transformation" occurring over centuries, with the roots of Medieval culture contained in Roman culture and focus on the continuities between the classical and Medieval worlds. Thus, it was a gradual process with no clear break.

Despite the title, in The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005), Peter Heather argues for an interpretation similar to Brown's, of a logical progression from central Roman power to local, Romanized "barbarian" kingdoms spurred by two centuries of contact (and conflict) with Germanic tribes, the Huns, and the Persians. However, unlike Brown, Heather sees the role of the Barbarians as the most significant factor; without their intervention he believes the western Roman Empire would have persisted in some form.

From wikipedia

I was taught that the main reason the Western empire fell, was that in the end, it relied on barbarian mercenaries.
Compared to the period when Roman citizens made up the army, discipline became lax, morale plummeted and the will to fight became less. Citizens were willing to die for their families, fellow citizens and the glory of Rome. Mercenaries were not.
I think cavalry also had something to do with it. The might of Rome was based on heavy infantry and when the Romans eventually did have cavalry, they were no match for some of the barbarian races that were taught to ride from infancy.