What Barbarians did the most to destroy the Roman Empire?

The events leading to the decline of Roman power were military and political involving feuding generals and barbarian soldiers and barbarian invaders. The question might be thought of as concerning the whole Roman Empire or just the western empire.
The Roman Empire exists until 1453, so think about why the empire didn't recover.
Anyway, give reasons for and against.

I think whoever looted Rome was responsible. They did kinda destroy it:nuke: . For the Byzantine I'd have to say the Ottomans as they did take Constantinople.

well teh roman empire was pretty much dying, teh roman empire could had been able to handle them, waht was different si taht they came simmuntaneusly, therefor all were important, like 1000 ants attacking u or something, not one was more imporatnt than the otehr.

alotugh atila might had done a lot (he took rome i think)

The Romans themselves had as much to do with their demise as the barbarians. Inept leadership and infighting amongst generals, not to mention the barbarians that their military could no longer fend off. It's like someone dying of cancer while getting stabbed with a pen-knife and drinking hemlock. I haven't read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire recently (one of my favorites, btw) but I recall the factors leading to the collapse coming from several different directions.

Yep. It was the romans. If they wanna go run around chasing little gay boys and go on their homosexual sprees then that's what they deserve. Pagain piece of useless admin crap

Originally posted by Shady
Yep. It was the romans. If they wanna go run around chasing little gay boys and go on their homosexual sprees then that's what they deserve. Pagain piece of useless admin crap

Yeah, that had a lot to do with it. The whole "bathhouse/fixation on little boys/lack of what we today consider morality" issues was symptomatic of the self-destructive tendencies of what could have been an even greater empire. Well, the military defeats that were once unthinkable started occuring more frequently, and...well...

No morality was not the cause of it, and i am offended that you think so (your so called "pagin" religions did not die off, nor will they ever, I am testiment to that...) it was romans who killed the Romans, and christianity and all that it entailed was the main cause, there was more human morality in themost decadent Roman backwater than in any major medievel christin(or off branch religion there of, excluding islam), after all its only after the knowledge of my religion was rediscoverd during the renissance that the humanities returned to the western world.Sorry if i seem overly angrey, but too many pushy christians think they are always right, and use every opportunity availible to them to bash other religions, including my own which far too many belive-falselly- is dead, BTW the homosexuality was a greek mainstay thank you very much, and there are records showing Roman disdain for such practices, of which none of were institutionalized by state or religion.

Originally posted by Xen
No morality was not the cause of it, and i am offended that you think so (your so called "pagin" religions did not die off, nor will they ever, I am testiment to that...) it was romans who killed the Romans, and christianity and all that it entailed was the main cause, there was more human morality in themost decadent Roman backwater than in any major medievel christin(or off branch religion there of, excluding islam), after all its only after the knowledge of my religion was rediscoverd during the renissance that the humanities returned to the western world.Sorry if i seem overly angrey, but too many pushy christians think they are always right, and use every opportunity availible to them to bash other religions, including my own which far too many belive-falselly- is dead, BTW the homosexuality was a greek mainstay thank you very much, and there are records showing Roman disdain for such practices, of which none of were institutionalized by state or religion.

Xen - you're right, you do seem overly angry. Take it eaaasy now...:D

I'm not defending most religions either, atrocities are carried out in the name of devine beings all over the world. From what I recall of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" I related what seemed to be the indications relating to the destruction of the Empire. Certainly the ineptitude of Roman leadership and overinflated belief in their military attributed to the decline as well.

I just become a bit intrigued when people get so defensive. There are a lot of factors that have led to where civilization is today, and perhaps by reading about those who didn't survive, we can learn more about what it takes for society to function today. You'll note that I mentioned the problems that I feel brought the Roman Empire down without condemining what people believe today - whatever you want to worship, whatever you want to believe - I'm tolerant of, just don't hurt anyone else. I just don't think that using boys as coin purses/slaves is acceptable behavior.

This having been said, I didn't study that much Roman history in college, just read some books, and whatever classes I took give me something to stand on.

El Tee

Certainly the defeat of the legions at the Teutoberg Forest by Arminius of the Cimbri was important. Had they not lost, they would have conquered all of Germany (most likely) and assimilated them like the Gauls, and would have not needed to protect such a long border (stretching from Denmark or northern Germany to Ukraine instead of Belgium to Ukraine, which was a substantial border area in ancient times). Parthia, the Huns, Sassanid Persia and Pontus were also damaging in the long-term, but if it weren't for the Cimbri, they would have been able to focus on other areas in the long run.

Sorry 'bout the anger, but somtimes...arrogence in the name of religion tends to pi$s me off me off a grat deal....as for the fall of old Rome? well as far as the military went legion ceased to exist at all after constintine, a fact few peopleknow of, surprisnglly,he reorganized not for efficiency, but for better imperial control-somthing which proved more damaging in end, christianity did not help, as it seems that since in those days christians more ardentlly followed the peacefull aspect of that religion they were "reluctant" to join the army at all, and so come the reliance of not roman soldiers, but germans, and provincials, not equiped like a legionary, but like an auxillary soldir, so was there too much confidence in the military- yes, but the military no longer relied on legions, swapping them for a more easilly controled( and defeated in times of civil war) auxillary based troops, culture had very little to do with, and yes it is improper to use anyone as a slave(no matter how much fun it might be to threaten enslavement to a rowdy friend.....), nor as a sexual object(unles they want to, lol)espicalley children, but that dose not mean that the Religio Romana did such things, i'm not relly being defensive, just trying to shed some proper light on a religion, which accroding to christianity, supposedlly died out 1500 years ago

IMO, themselves by far.
I've posted the following opinion in a similar thread here and it hasn't canged, so I'm not gonna write a new text.


In my opinion the most important cause was the moral degradation of public life, especially in the élites.
The Roman Empire was not destroyed from outside, but rather from inside. The germans and huns were certainly no better than the Teutons, the Cimbrians or the Carthaginians.
On the other hand I also reject the adoption of Christianism as the cause. When Christianism arrived, paganism was already a corpse ready to be buryed, people no longer believed in it. A religion is not important because of the temples or festivities that promotes. It is important because of the moral principles that proposes and the faith it generates.

The republican aristocracy was one of the best, if not the best, ruling class of the history, but shortly after the Punic Wars it started to deteriorate. And the Romans themselves were the first to realise it: Caesar promoted the admission of country people and Gauls to the high spheres of influence, because it was evident that Rome didn't have much to offer already. But after one generation, the decadence prevailed again. Vespasian was another case of a ruler that realised that. Look at what Juvenal has to say (free translation): "Today the only good deal is a sterile woman. Everyone will be your friend, with hopes regarding the testament. She, who gives you a son, how do you know the child won't be black?"
The cause of this condition is expressed in that famous verse by Horatio: "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit" (The conquered Greece conquered its ferocius victor". It was a good thing for the world that the greek culture was preserved by the romans and transmited to our days, but for Rome it meant the begining of its destruction, because of the habits and behaviours it brought to.
What followed: the invasions, the reluctance of people to serve in the army or to contribute to the Treasury was just the consequence. The final blow was the transfer of the capital to Constantinople.

"The final blow was the transfer of the capital to Constantinople."

Yeah, they should have known: build the Forbidden Palace there!

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

I very ferventlly disagree with the statement "When Christianism arrived, paganism was already a corpse ready to be buryed, people no longer believed in it", by Mcrdread. The "cult" of Mithras was a huge contender to christianty by far, and the Greeks were always devote to what ever rligion they chose, i think the reason you say such things is because in the Roman empire there was no difference real between religion and government, as the senate itself had a alter for sacrafice, as for the morle degrading, well sadlly yes, the by the time of Constintine the nobility had no use being noble has the last vestiges of a peoples government went out with him( with out the need to seem like capable senators, as the senate had lost all power by now, why try, to be a good person, yes there were many no doubt, but the standerd of living had gotton lowerd so much that every one was scrmbaling to hord as much money as they could- very similer to the great depreesion in american history, and this gave the out look of moral decay, after all, you will find litle to no regard for individual human rights in europe until the rennissance, when classicle knowledge was rediscoverd), as far has capital trasfer goes i think it would have served little more than a blow to Roman pride, but little else as Byzantium was indeed the more stratigic location for the grand military commander that was the Emperor.

whats the big deal about the homosexuality. It was just a different cultural system back then, and cultures morph over time.

Hell, the great Plato was a paedaphile

Arabs and Turks and no doubt about it.

I'm not sure, but didn't the Huns withdraw, when Attila died? They were north of Italy by then and did not enter Rome. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Squonk
Arabs and Turks and no doubt about it.

The Western Roman empire was already dead and buried before those two groups rose to the scene. The Eastern part however...

What barbarians... perhaps the Romans themselves. The Empire collapsed upon itself and the barbarians were simply there to tip it over the edge...

Originally posted by Michiel de Ruyter


The Western Roman empire was already dead and buried before those two groups rose to the scene. The Eastern part however...

The western part wasn't gone; part of Spain, most of Italy, Africa was in imperial hands, and emperors didn't think of it as the end of their claims to the west; all the Barbarians there, except for the Franks, were recognising their nominal rule.

Originally posted by Michiel de Ruyter


The Western Roman empire was already dead and buried before those two groups rose to the scene. The Eastern part however...

Too many folk seem to think that the Western Roman Empire = Roman Empire. That of course is total rubbish. It is strange how so many have this misconception though.

Originally posted by calgacus

Too many folk seem to think that the Western Roman Empire = Roman Empire. That of course is total rubbish. It is strange how so many have this misconception though.

Sorry Calgacus, but I think tou're going a bit wrong. The hystory of Eastern Roman Empire has mainly been divided in two periods by historians, both of them not strictly depending from the capital Rome:

FIRST [from the beginning colonies, 100/50 BC, till Costantinopolis fondation, 330 AD], in which the growing Roman Empire drained resources [slaves, and one out of all them, Polibius] and cultural forms and meanings [ellenistic literature, few of greek ancient scientifical archives, etc.] from the East. Note that Ponthum and Bithinia [far from Eastern core, Greece, Persia and Egypt] was the only regiones to be military filled with stantial troops, and that roman citizenship was later extended to perimetral countries. This means that all of the soldiers in those regions were “strangers in a strange land”.

SECOND [330 AD - 1453 BC], in which decading Rome was abandoned by Emperors [Costantino wasn't the first, there has been many “warriors-emperors” in crisis period, 230-280 BC, that travelled along the borders and fighted never ending wars and almost never turned back to Rome again, like Decio or Valeriano, elected by his soldiers in Rethium] and Italy was left to barbarian blitzes.

Not to mention the rest, please check just this fact: Rome was fully bilinguist, all of the people talked latin and greek [by the way this is true only for educated ones], while the main eastern cities spoke just greek, or local indoeuropean or camitic tongues.
Latin never penetrated inside slavish eastern tribes, nor in Persia, and just later in Maghreb, inside first Christian organization [bishop Augustin from Ippona]. This means that cultural streams crossed Mediterranean area from East to West, not from West to East, along more than fifteen centuries; and so the empire went halved in two imbalanced sides, eastern and western.

This fact is fully significative about the spreading of religious influences, not only Christianity outcoming mainly from slaves imported from Palestine, but also Zoroastrism and monastic tradition, expressed by africaan middle and upper class. The first acknowledgment of this state of fact occured with the Tetrarchy of Diocletianum, in AD 293, which divided the empire in two great military sections.

I think maybe language was also more important than religion in crushing Rome.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by nini1972


Sorry Calgacus, but I think tou're going a bit wrong. The hystory of Eastern Roman Empire has mainly been divided in two periods by historians, both of them not strictly depending from the capital Rome:

FIRST [from the beginning colonies, 100/50 BC, till Costantinopolis fondation, 330 AD], in which the growing Roman Empire drained resources [slaves, and one out of all them, Polibius] and cultural forms and meanings [ellenistic literature, few of greek ancient scientifical archives, etc.] from the East. Note that Ponthum and Bithinia [far from Eastern core, Greece, Persia and Egypt] was the only regiones to be military filled with stantial troops, and that roman citizenship was later extended to perimetral countries. This means that all of the soldiers in those regions were “strangers in a strange land”.

SECOND [330 AD - 1453 BC], in which decading Rome was abandoned by Emperors [Costantino wasn't the first, there has been many “warriors-emperors” in crisis period, 230-280 BC, that travelled along the borders and fighted never ending wars and almost never turned back to Rome again, like Decio or Valeriano, elected by his soldiers in Rethium] and Italy was left to barbarian blitzes.

Not to mention the rest, please check just this fact: Rome was fully bilinguist, all of the people talked latin and greek [by the way this is true only for educated ones], while the main eastern cities spoke just greek, or local indoeuropean or camitic tongues.
Latin never penetrated inside slavish eastern tribes, nor in Persia, and just later in Maghreb, inside first Christian organization [bishop Augustin from Ippona]. This means that cultural streams crossed Mediterranean area from East to West, not from West to East, along more than fifteen centuries; and so the empire went halved in two imbalanced sides, eastern and western.

This fact is fully significative about the spreading of religious influences, not only Christianity outcoming mainly from slaves imported from Palestine, but also Zoroastrism and monastic tradition, expressed by africaan middle and upper class. The first acknowledgment of this state of fact occured with the Tetrarchy of Diocletianum, in AD 293, which divided the empire in two great military sections.

I think maybe language was also more important than religion in crushing Rome.:rolleyes:

Your post contains interesting information, but doesn't show that the Roman Empire meant only the West. The reality is that there was as much linguistic variation is the East as the West. The people who united the Empire, the Upper Classes, tended to know Latin and Greek, no matter where you went in the Empire. After 312, the whole Empire had shared Latin as the language of High administration, Greek as the language of culture, and Christianity as the official religion with barbarian dialects spoken everywhere outside of the Aegean and Italy (with the exception of the colonial cities). "Roman" was what everyone in the Empire called themselves. When the western Empire fell, the easterners still called themselves Roman.

Originally posted by calgacus


Your post contains interesting information, but doesn't show that the Roman Empire meant only the West. The reality is that there was as much linguistic variation is the East as the West. The people who united the Empire, the Upper Classes, tended to know Latin and Greek, no matter where you went in the Empire. After 312, the whole Empire had shared Latin as the language of High administration, Greek as the language of culture, and Christianity as the official religion with barbarian dialects spoken everywhere outside of the Aegean and Italy (with the exception of the colonial cities). "Roman" was what everyone in the Empire called themselves. When the western Empire fell, the easterners still called themselves Roman.

You're right Calgacus,
I apoligize mainly for my bad english. Surely I didn't want to say that Roman Empire meant only the western part [and so, till her barbaric end], I just wanted to say that it was a complex and struggling world, AND NOT SO UNITED AS WE BELIEVE.

The situation wasn't so simple. In fact [and in few words] we found the most united empire during Augustus' kingdom, and therefore, envolved in a cruel monocratic drift [Caligula, Nero], the empire was usually shattered in many regional and disqualified realities, occasionally crossed by roman and barbarian ordes [Try to figure out your or my hard life at Augustinus'time, also if we both knew latin and greek, for example].

That wasn't a united world:
In my opinion Diocletianus' Tetrarchy never ensured unity to roman world, just dreaming about that; nor succeeded in this hard work his successors, the warrior-emperors of third century. Roman borders resisted, and not so often, just because of superior army strenght.
Plus, many politicians used Eastern countries to hide from enemy influence, like Marcantonio [sorry I don't know his english name], and never thinked about, for example, to represent those countries in Rome, in the senate. They just used to drain eastern countries [for example, how many sieges sustained Jerusalem in later roman centuries? And which kind of crop you think you could get from those fired sirian and armenians terrains, burned by eight centuries of wars, before of Arab's overcome?].

I think that Western Europe NEVER re-united since August's time. Maybe just a little more with christian organization of his dioceses, during the latest latinitas.

Surely there was equal linguistic differences in the East like in the west, but, I have to correct you, East side never accepted latin for diplomatic and administration work, just used greek for it. Indeed West side conserved it [till Renaissance italian realms], and scattered greek cultural experience in a few years.
In fact, latin modern tongues [french, spanish and my italian] resist after two thousands years in the western part, with poor lexical inputs from germanic languages,
while eastern european modern tongues have almost no words from ancient latin.
Furthermore, the official language or Roman christian church was greek till the end of fourth century after Christ, and then overcome to latin after San Girolamo's translation of the holy bible in latin.

Surely, this is an interesting kind of dialogue with you, Calgacus, thank you.:)

Just one more thing, there was no upper class that united the empire; indeed - I believe - there were armies and poor people sustaining periodical looting from armies

Originally posted by nini1972
Just one more thing, there was no upper class that united the empire; indeed - I believe - there were armies and poor people sustaining periodical looting from armies

Yes there was. The senatorial and equestrian aristocracies, who filled the civilian and, in the early empire, military posts.

Originally posted by nini1972


You're right Calgacus,
I apoligize mainly for my bad english. Surely I didn't want to say that Roman Empire meant only the western part [and so, till her barbaric end], I just wanted to say that it was a complex and struggling world, AND NOT SO UNITED AS WE BELIEVE.

The situation wasn't so simple. In fact [and in few words] we found the most united empire during Augustus' kingdom, and therefore, envolved in a cruel monocratic drift [Caligula, Nero], the empire was usually shattered in many regional and disqualified realities, occasionally crossed by roman and barbarian ordes [Try to figure out your or my hard life at Augustinus'time, also if we both knew latin and greek, for example].

That wasn't a united world:
In my opinion Diocletianus' Tetrarchy never ensured unity to roman world, just dreaming about that; nor succeeded in this hard work his successors, the warrior-emperors of third century. Roman borders resisted, and not so often, just because of superior army strenght.
Plus, many politicians used Eastern countries to hide from enemy influence, like Marcantonio [sorry I don't know his english name], and never thinked about, for example, to represent those countries in Rome, in the senate. They just used to drain eastern countries [for example, how many sieges sustained Jerusalem in later roman centuries? And which kind of crop you think you could get from those fired sirian and armenians terrains, burned by eight centuries of wars, before of Arab's overcome?].

I think that Western Europe NEVER re-united since August's time. Maybe just a little more with christian organization of his dioceses, during the latest latinitas.


Surely there was equal linguistic differences in the East like in the west, but, I have to correct you, East side never accepted latin for diplomatic and administration work, just used greek for it. Indeed West side conserved it [till Renaissance italian realms], and scattered greek cultural experience in a few years.
In fact, latin modern tongues [french, spanish and my italian] resist after two thousands years in the western part, with poor lexical inputs from germanic languages,
while eastern european modern tongues have almost no words from ancient latin.
Furthermore, the official language or Roman christian church was greek till the end of fourth century after Christ, and then overcome to latin after San Girolamo's translation of the holy bible in latin.

Surely, this is an interesting kind of dialogue with you, Calgacus, thank you.:)


Mark Antony is early, early Empire!


I did say high administration. Latin, and not Greek, was used in the Eastern Empire until after the death of Justinian. What language was Justinian's code written in, may I ask? :) Although Greek ceased to be spoken in the West after the fall of the western Empire, Latin was learned by the educated Byzantine classes until the final fall of the Roman Empire in 1453, when many of them were able to move to Italy without too many linquistic problems.


The real division in the Roman Empire was between North and South, and NOT East and West. It was the semi-barbaric paople from Gaul, Spain, Britain, Thrace, Illyria and northern Anatolia (the soldier provinces) who were the outsiders to the classical culture of Italy, Greece, western Anatolia, Syria, Africa (Tunisia) and Egypt (the civilian provinces).

The Italians shared Roman culture with the "Byzantines", and had more in common with them than with the rest of the former western Empire until the Normans and the expansion of Frankish military culture in Italy. That was a new, essentially Germanic culture, not a Roman one.

The reality is that the fall of the Empire in the West de-Romanized the peoples, or at least, the aristocracies of western Europe; in the East, it remained Roman and they were never Greeks (=Hellenes=pagans), at least until the Crusades. If the East was not Roman, then no-one was.

Originally posted by calgacus


The real division in the Roman Empire was between North and South, and NOT East and West. It was the semi-barbaric paople from Gaul, Spain, Britain, Thrace, Illyria and northern Anatolia (the soldier provinces) who were the outsiders to the classical culture of Italy, Greece, western Anatolia, Syria, Africa (Tunisia) and Egypt (the civilian provinces).



Surely that argument is dependent on the time period you select.

Until the Flavians at least the those living south and east of Italy were 'orientals'
Baetica and Narbonensis were incredibly Roman as early as 2nd cent AD
Claudius got the 'Long Hairs' into the Senate

Not really, just think of the spread of "classical learning", commerce and urbanization, throughout the whole period.

Originally posted by calgacus


What language was Justinian's code written in, may I ask?

...

Although Greek ceased to be spoken in the West after the fall of the western Empire, Latin was learned by the educated Byzantine classes until the final fall of the Roman Empire in 1453, when many of them were able to move to Italy without too many linquistic problems.


Ok,
but Justinian's family came from an area of the empire where Latin rather than Greek was spoken: Justin was a native of the town of Bederiana near Nish and his sister's son, Justinian, was born at the village of Tauresium, near Scupi.

Ok,
As in Rome, till third century after Christ, greek was teached like second tongue, so in the Eastern part of the Empire [just some] people learned latin like second tongue.
But I think we need to take the focus on people: at the time of middle period of Byzantin Empire, yet so far from original roman tradition in art, literature and more inspired in roman ancient history about politics and military problems, there was so many slavish tribes scattered in Balcan area that just some traveller could arrive in Italy, and by sea, or through northern european roads. Roman and costantinopolian churches were separated because of a lot of religious councils, and used latin, by the way, only since fifth century. I don't think that early christian mass in Eastern Empire was spoken in latin... so people didn't learn latin.
The point is: in between fifth and fifteenth century how many eastern people learned latin as cultural language, as well as centuries before learned greek by the same way and finalization?
And, just joking, how many people had read Justinian's Code till 1453 AD?

...

Surely italians had more in common with Byzantines than with the rest of the western Empire, but that was the core of the ancient empire, and that wasn't still true after post-gothics barbaric invasion, the Longobards for example, which arrived in northern Italy with a lot of people talking germanic tongue. Franks arrived later, in VIII century, and just with a few families “on the road”. Italy was substantially kept off from Carlo Magno's empire. At the time of Ottonians, there was arab in Sicily that fast overcame Normans, and then it was time for European modern nations...

What you say can be true just about high administration, less for people, and - you know - an ancient empire, just like a modern country, feels it is safe if his people think the same.
Oh, just in my opinion! Very interesting your north/south division of the roman empire, but I agree also with Peri, it's a matter of time:)