What Barbarians did the most to destroy the Roman Empire?

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[Alex the Great]

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

 

[stalin006]

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)

 

[El Tee]

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.

 

[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

 

[El Tee]

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...

 

[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.

 

[El Tee]

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...

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

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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.

 

[Xen]

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

 

[MCdread]

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.

 

[El Tee]

"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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

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

 

[Squonk]

Arabs and Turks and no doubt about it.

 

[test_specimen]

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.

 

[Michiel de Ruyter]

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...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

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

 

[Squonk]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.