The fall of the Roman Empire

Cato

Hello there, I have a great interest in classical history and have read allot of books on this matter many of them having different theory's as to why the roman empire collapsed.

Now when i say reason, i mean specific events tat took place that contributed to its demise, not rash generalizations like "ohh they got to greedy" etc.

So ive started this thread to start a discussion on your reasons why you think it collapsed.

I believe (contrary to quite a few historians) that its demise started with Sulla's coup and ocupation of Rome, altering completely how Rome operated politically like any tyrant only serving his interests and consolidating his power, Leading the way to more civil wars which was to last 100 years there abouts.civil wars left the political establishment in disarray and open to huge corruption leading to immense power struggles and squabbling culminating in ceasar coming to power and abolishing most of the reuplics tradition politics in favor of an empire/emporer.

I think the seed for roman civilizations decay was laid with Sulla's march on Rome, effectively ending the republics tradition of leadership, after this it was able to keep itself afloat by clever reforms politically and militarily but was eventually doomed.In order to avoid this i believe they should have introduced more strict political reforms in order to avoid huge corruption that was taking place, events could have turned around i dare say if Cato or even the moderates had their chance or been stricter during ceasars rebellion.

what are your views?

Carrigart Exile

Cato wrote: »

Hello there, I have a great interest in classical history and have read allot of books on this matter many of them having different theory's as to why the roman empire collapsed.

Now when i say reason, i mean specific events tat took place that contributed to its demise, not rash generalizations like "ohh they got to greedy" etc.

So ive started this thread to start a discussion on your reasons why you think it collapsed.

I believe (contrary to quite a few historians) that its demise started with Sulla's coup and ocupation of Rome, altering completely how Rome operated politically like any tyrant only serving his interests and consolidating his power, Leading the way to more civil wars which was to last 100 years there abouts.civil wars left the political establishment in disarray and open to huge corruption leading to immense power struggles and squabbling culminating in ceasar coming to power and abolishing most of the reuplics tradition politics in favor of an empire/emporer.

I think the seed for roman civilizations decay was laid with Sulla's march on Rome, effectively ending the republics tradition of leadership, after this it was able to keep itself afloat by clever reforms politically and militarily but was eventually doomed.In order to avoid this i believe they should have introduced more strict political reforms in order to avoid huge corruption that was taking place, events could have turned around i dare say if Cato or even the moderates had their chance or been stricter during ceasars rebellion.

what are your views?

were they not also over-ran by tribes from the East and North?

sickpuppy32

i disagree, sulla's coup and then the ceasers ended the republic no doubt ( read rubicon by tom holland for an excellent description of that time) but the subsequent empire under the ceasers lasted for hundreds of years. indeed it could be argued that it reached its height under emperors such as auralius, hadrian

Cato

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

were they not also over-ran by tribes from the East and North?

by that stage they were pretty much on the way down, you have to remember they were defeating mass migrations like this for hundreds of years.

MoominPapa

Isn't that like blaming the demise of the British empire in the mid 20th century on Cromwell? Personally if you want to pick a pivotal event pre Caesar I'd pick the assasination of the Gracci bros by the Senate and its refusal to implement reforms which created the crisis that led to the rise of Sulla followed eventually by Caesar as the major precursor to the fall of the republic. I don't see any reason to believe that the republic would have been more sucessful or longer lasting than the imperial system. And within the imperial system were sown its own seeds of destruction. I believe the formation of the Pretorian guard is seen as fatally undermining the authority of the senate although this didn't manifest itself until the brief reign of Pertinax. So I think the later empire was too far removed from the later republic to look for it bane there. If there were any factors hanging over from the republic there were more factors from well after which were of greater significance

Cato

MoominPapa wrote: »

Isn't that like blaming the demise of the British empire in the mid 20th century on Cromwell? Personally if you want to pick a pivotal event pre Caesar I'd pick the assasination of the Gracci bros by the Senate and its refusal to implement reforms which created the crisis that led to the rise of Sulla followed eventually by Caesar as the major precursor to the fall of the republic. I don't see any reason to believe that the republic would have been more sucessful or longer lasting than the imperial system. And within the imperial system were sown its own seeds of destruction. I believe the formation of the Pretorian guard is seen as fatally undermining the authority of the senate although this didn't manifest itself until the brief reign of Pertinax. So I think the later empire was too far removed from the later republic to look for it bane there. If there were any factors hanging over from the republic there were more factors from well after which were of greater significance

hmm yes ive seemed to mix up the republic with the empire, my mistake

gurramok

I think the influx of Germanic tribes and above all the separate Huns contributed to the fall of the Romans in the 300ad+ period.

Interesting piece on Wiki about it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun )

BetsyGray

Yes surely the new military tactics involving horses brought by the Huns from the East had a pretty significant impact. We're talking about the whole Empire here, not just Rome. The effect of the Huns and Germanic tribes was devestating to the Roman way of life.

Mr. Presentable

Depends on how you want to define the Roman empire. By the time the Goths etc sacked Rome it was no longer the capital of the empire.

The fall of the eastern empire in 1453(?) to the Turks was the end to my belief. Until then the Empire had been reclaiming lost territories in Italy France and Spain.

convert

gurramok wrote: »

I think the influx of Germanic tribes and above all the separate Huns contributed to the fall of the Romans in the 300ad+ period.

Interesting piece on Wiki about it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun )

Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source out there...

Have you tried 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'? I'll get the author for you in a bit... Can't remember off the top of my head

I don't think it's possible to argue that the collapse of the Empire was due to just one key person or event - there were definitely internal problems which contributed to the collapse of the Empire, such as those you've mentioned above, but perhaps these wouldn't have been so serious if the threats from the outside hadn't existed. There are quite a number of good articles on the reasons why the Roman Empire fell on jstor.org

boneless

Personally, I believe the division of the Empire into two seperate political and administrative regions, circa 290 ad, by Diocletion and the Augustii led to the ultimate demise of the empire two hundred or so years later.

Orchard Rebel

Edward Gibbon wrote "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", one of the greatest history books ever written (and taking nearly all of history to read).

I wonder to what extent Christianity played a role in the fall of the Empire. It undermined the institutions of the Empire before its adoption (for political reasons) in the early 4th century. Did Christianity's struggle for pre-eminence in the Empire weaken it to such an extent that it was ultimately unable to defend itself against the tribes arriving from the East?

MoominPapa

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Edward Gibbon wrote "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", one of the greatest history books ever written (and taking nearly all of history to read).

I wonder to what extent Christianity played a role in the fall of the Empire. It undermined the institutions of the Empire before its adoption (for political reasons) in the early 4th century. Did Christianity's struggle for pre-eminence in the Empire weaken it to such an extent that it was ultimately unable to defend itself against the tribes arriving from the East?

Gibbon sure hated the Christians:D But I wonder did it really have anything to do with it. Byzantium carried on for almost a thousand years and it was just as Christian. Maybe its the bloody Catholics fault:pac:

Pgibson

Twas Aleric The Visigoth wot dunnit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I

In reality the Roman Empire never "Fell".
We use Roman numerals still and our legal system originated in Rome.

As for the Germanic Goths and the Vandals etc...they became Romanised.

The German KAISER is EXACTLY how the Romans pronounced "Caesar"

"Hail Caesar" was exactly pronounced "Heil Kaiser".

Heil Kaiser is Pure Latin.

We live in a Graeco-Roman civilisation to this very day.

.

Pgibson

P.S: Correcting myself...I meant to say that we use Roman Letters, not Numerals (They are Arabic.)

Incidentally Aleric's first attack on Rome transformed Ireland.

How?

The Roman legions withdrew from Britain to defend Italy from Aleric.
This left Britain wide open to attack.

The Saxons then attacked Britain from Germany (They stayed.)
And the Irish attacked from Ireland.


The Irish captured one kid named Patrick...the rest is history.

.

baldieman

Hi, interesting thread.
All things come to an end sooner or later and considering Rome lasted about 800 years, something had to finally give. The question is what exactly did bring down the Roman Empire in the end?
Rome was an economic power house, the developed world at the time. It was built on conquest and plunder. That conquest and expansion continued for another 150 years after the fall of the republic. In the early 2nd century AD in the time of Hadrian that expansion ended. The empire had huge wealth by then and was protected by a paid professional army from the many tribes outside its borders who wanted a slice of the action. Over the next 2 to 3 centuries the empire held its own through much internal conflict, it was pulled back together by the emperior Constantine in the 4th century. The lack of conquest and expansion possibly caused stagnation, but in the later half of the 4th century AD the Romans opened its borders a tribe known as the Goths who were refugees displaced by the Huns. Although Rome was a multi ethnic society, the Goths as a distinct ethnic group never settled effectively within the empire. In the early 5th century, the Goths, many of whom had served in the Roman army, armed themselves and went on the rampage within the empire, sacking towns and cities as they went. Their intention was not to destroy Rome, but to get a better deal for themselves.
In the year 410 AD Rome was sacked first time in over 800 years. It wasn't the end of the empire, but it was a mortal blow that the Rome could'nt recover from as the Goths would have taken most of the gold and other wealth as they moved west and settled in Spain. Rome had no longer the funds to pay the army who turned to self help, so the Roman people on the frontiers found themselves being plundered by the very people who used to protect them.
Although Rome was sacked twice again over the next 100 years, the Roman system survived until around 530 AD (not as an empire) at that time a great famine accured world wide possibly caused by a natural disaster and probably brought about the dark ages.

Belfast

I suspect that climate change at the time was a contributory factor.

Pgibson

Belfast wrote: »

I suspect that climate change at the time was a contributory factor.

What climate change?

It is fashionable now to blame EVERYTHING and ANYTHING on "climate change".

"Lost my left sock......damn climate change."


.

Pgibson

Incidentally the weather really did play a part in the fall of Rome.
In the opening paragraphs of his book "How the Irish Saved Civilisation" Thomas Cahill said this:

"On the last cold day in the year 405 the river Rhine froze solid....
it provided the natural bridge that hundreds of thousands of hungry men women and children had been waiting for ……
When the hapless Germans make their charge across the bridge of ice it is head on....
With preposterous courage they teem across the Rhine in convulsive waves...
The Vandals alone are thought to have lost twenty thousand men at the crossing....
Despite their discipline, the Romans cannot hold back the Germanic sea."

Amazon still sell Cahill's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

.

Belfast

Pgibson wrote: »

What climate change?

It is fashionable now to blame EVERYTHING and ANYTHING on "climate change".

"Lost my left sock......damn climate change."


.

It would not be the first time that a natural change in the climate lead to decline to a civilisation. climate change could have resulted in declined in food production and decline in the health of the population and the spread of disease and war.

To what extent were economic factors to blame for the deterioration of the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D?
by Julian Fenner
http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-018.html

Pgibson

Belfast wrote: »

It would not be the first time that a natural change in the climate lead to decline to a civilisation. climate change could have resulted in declined in food production and decline in the health of the population and the spread of disease and war.

To what extent were economic factors to blame for the deterioration of the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D?
by Julian Fenner
http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-018.html

Nobody blames a change in climate for the fall of Rome.

Nobody blames a change in climate for the fall of Berlin in 1945 either.

.

MadamMe

I am glad I found this thread - I watched The Fall of The Roman Empire last week and thought is was incredible - even rottontomatoes gave it 100%!!
But it has initiated an interest in the subject as well, in particular the creation of the Byzantine Empire . . .

thejamescaird

the arrival of smallpox devestated roman society exactly at the time of the germanic invasions. this is a huge factor in the decline.
also the bubonic plague made an appearance around this time wiping out huge numbers.
another vital fact left out above was the latifundae estate system which had seen the takeover of all the lands by big landlords instead of small citizen farmers who were the mainstay of the roman legions. the landlords replaced roman farmers with a huge slave population which took over much of the economic production.
when the foundations of the economy are built on such shaky and corrupt principals it caused moral decay and a fall in patriotism etc.

Pride Fighter

thejamescaird wrote: »

the arrival of smallpox devestated roman society exactly at the time of the germanic invasions. this is a huge factor in the decline.
also the bubonic plague made an appearance around this time wiping out huge numbers.
another vital fact left out above was the latifundae estate system which had seen the takeover of all the lands by big landlords instead of small citizen farmers who were the mainstay of the roman legions. the landlords replaced roman farmers with a huge slave population which took over much of the economic production.
when the foundations of the economy are built on such shaky and corrupt principals it caused moral decay and a fall in patriotism etc.

The plague did not arrive until the 6th century. It is sometimes called Justinians plague.
Climate change is a valid argument. The Romans could grow grape vines as far north as modern day Yorkshire. The climate chilled by 1 degree around the 5th Century allowing the Vandals cross the Rhine at Moganticum (Mainz), who subsequently sacked Rome (410) and then settled in Africa (modern day Tunisia). Settling in Africa was a big disaster, Rome got most of its grain from Africa.
There are lots of reasons why the empire collapsed. Too many. The combination of all of them ultimately led to its fall. Some of the reasons are as follows
3rd Century Crisis
De-urbanisation
Christianity
Economic depression
De-population
Various tribes settling various parts of the Empire
Defeat in battle
Military technology
East West schism of the Empire
Bad leaders
Political intrigue
etc etc etc

thejamescaird

yes thanks you are correct on the bubonic plague in the 6th century.

however the measles and smallpox reduced the population by half in the 3rd century AD leaving the empire much weakened.

Pgibson

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The climate chilled by 1 degree around the 5th Century allowing the Vandals cross the Rhine at Moganticum (Mainz), who subsequently sacked Rome (410) and then settled in Africa (modern day Tunisia). Settling in Africa was a big disaster, Rome got most of its grain from Africa.

I read somewhere that the word "Berber" comes from the word "Barbarian" and that the Berbers are,or were originally,the descendants of the German Vandals.

Not sure if there is any truth in that though.

.

thejamescaird

i was in morocco and have seen berbers and they sure dont look like germans:)

baldieman

To get back to the original question, perhaps the roman banking system collapsed!

ChocolateSauce

Far too many things. There was no defining moment, no decisive battle. It was decaying for hundreds of years. Lead pipes contributed, Christianity contributed, bad government and a stagnation of science contributed.

thejamescaird

Lead pipes as in water contamination?
Thats a good one where did you get it from mate?

baldieman

thejamescaird wrote: »

Lead pipes as in water contamination?
Thats a good one where did you get it from mate?

Might explain why the aristocracy had trouble producing heirs successfully, they drank from lead pipes while the plebs drank fresh water from the fountains.

Pgibson

With the world's economic system falling in on our heads right now it must have felt like that in Rome around the 5th century!

An economic empire is collapsing all around us it seems.

.

EnderValentine

The Romans effectively declined because of the insatiable desire for more land by the emperors. By continually taxing the citizens and waging war the empire spread its forces thin across its huge amount of land and when attacked by the tribes and mongoose the empire crumbled because after many years of taxation the citizens were not to keen on protecting those that had effectively robbed them to inevitably lose the empire due to the fast mongols and the tiredness that radiated from the soldiers from the many campaigns.

Kilkenny14

The decline of the Roman Empire really began when Marcus Aurelius died in AD 180. It began a century of turmoil, which included the growth of Sassanad Persia, the arrival of the Goths, poor economic performance with coin debasement and continuous civil war.

Emperors such as Constantine and Diocleitan were only able to slow the decline, not reverse it. Peter Heather's book really did a great job explaining this.

EnderValentine

While his death did cause strife one man cannot be blamed as starting the fall of one of the great civilizations. That is completely unfair and he no doubt is turning over in his grave.

dubhthach

Mod

Folks this thread was over four years old. I'm going to lock it, ye can start a new thread on the topic.