cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
A mouthful of a title. Anyway, what do you think it was? Was it terrible emperors, the switch from republic to empire, bad battles, etc?
CG
CG
What Was the Most Important Factor in the Downfall of Rome?
- Thread starter cgannon64
- Start date
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Germans. The internal problems simply softened things up for the invaders; the invaders themselves were the direct cause of the fall.
Darkness
Shadow creature
corrupt politicians...
G-Man
A One Man's War
The switch to empire and the extreme power it gave to the guards. As a result horrible leader rose, such as the army's favorite kaligula (spl) and his horse...
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
Man, have you opened a can of worms here - there are, like, a million theories on this one (the wierdest I heard was the use of lead piping by the Romans caused lead poisoning en masse in the population leaving them open to attack 
)
The one I favour is the gradual social malaise that overtook the Empire in it's later years. By the 4th Century BC the average Roman citizen only worked on HALF of the days in the year - the rest were public holidays (granted in the "good times" of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD when there was money to burn from the last of the major conquests - ie Dacia and Mesopotamia).
The richest members of society retreated from the cities towards rural villas more and more - ending the tradition of competition between local big-wigs in building/improving civic facilities for thier own glorification. Also, these people were able to negotiate/force tax concessions out of a series of weak Emperors.
The result of all this is a population whose economic activity is stagnating and a ruling class who no longer wish to contribute any form of tax revenue or meaningful leadership to the Empire - but are happy to revel in the prestige of being a Senator or whatever.
At a time when the Empire is facing invasion from the Germans and others no one (ie Roman citizens) is willing to serve in or lead the army and there is precious little tax revenue to fund it either. This results in the Empire turning to the Germans themselves for help - hired as mercenaries (in return for land to settle on inside the Empire) to keep out the rest of the barbarians. This gave the Empire some decent troops but they weren't too reliable. Further, the ruling classes were reluctant to put their whole-hearted support behind any of the various German generals and their barbarian armies who had any success stemming the flow. Time and again these internal squabbles and treachery lead to a fatal weakening of an already poor position.
Eventually the barbarians fighting on behalf of what had become a "notional" Empire, rather than any kind of concrete structure, became sick of the Emperors (who by the end were little more than puppets of the generals themselves) as a concept and the last one was deposed in 476AD. After that things pretty much carried on as before for the average Roman citizen in the West - only their rulers were now Goths, Lombards, Germans etc. The internal systems were allowed to continue and the new rulers tended to ape Roman customs etc in their own territories (mainly because they needed a system that WORKED - so why not use the one already in place?).
So, I supose you could say there was never a real "fall" of the Empire more a kind of gradual erosion.
)The one I favour is the gradual social malaise that overtook the Empire in it's later years. By the 4th Century BC the average Roman citizen only worked on HALF of the days in the year - the rest were public holidays (granted in the "good times" of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD when there was money to burn from the last of the major conquests - ie Dacia and Mesopotamia).
The richest members of society retreated from the cities towards rural villas more and more - ending the tradition of competition between local big-wigs in building/improving civic facilities for thier own glorification. Also, these people were able to negotiate/force tax concessions out of a series of weak Emperors.
The result of all this is a population whose economic activity is stagnating and a ruling class who no longer wish to contribute any form of tax revenue or meaningful leadership to the Empire - but are happy to revel in the prestige of being a Senator or whatever.
At a time when the Empire is facing invasion from the Germans and others no one (ie Roman citizens) is willing to serve in or lead the army and there is precious little tax revenue to fund it either. This results in the Empire turning to the Germans themselves for help - hired as mercenaries (in return for land to settle on inside the Empire) to keep out the rest of the barbarians. This gave the Empire some decent troops but they weren't too reliable. Further, the ruling classes were reluctant to put their whole-hearted support behind any of the various German generals and their barbarian armies who had any success stemming the flow. Time and again these internal squabbles and treachery lead to a fatal weakening of an already poor position.
Eventually the barbarians fighting on behalf of what had become a "notional" Empire, rather than any kind of concrete structure, became sick of the Emperors (who by the end were little more than puppets of the generals themselves) as a concept and the last one was deposed in 476AD. After that things pretty much carried on as before for the average Roman citizen in the West - only their rulers were now Goths, Lombards, Germans etc. The internal systems were allowed to continue and the new rulers tended to ape Roman customs etc in their own territories (mainly because they needed a system that WORKED - so why not use the one already in place?).
So, I supose you could say there was never a real "fall" of the Empire more a kind of gradual erosion.
Wow, this is a very controversial topic. I'm surprised we haven't had a discussion about it before.
I think that the downfall of the empire was a result of fewer and fewer people being involved in the afairs of the empire. Roman patriotism was during the republic, a very real thing. By the end of the empire, few people took on public service jobs or joined the army.
I think that the downfall of the empire was a result of fewer and fewer people being involved in the afairs of the empire. Roman patriotism was during the republic, a very real thing. By the end of the empire, few people took on public service jobs or joined the army.
Declining foreign possessions, due to the pressure imposed by increasingly hostile powers which sought to undermine the Roman empire. I believe this caused a chain reaction, with the economy crippling etc.. Corruption is not so much of an issue, I think. Rather erroneous composition of government bodies, and the system as a whole, nourished corruption and resentment toward the government.
A lot of fallacious incidents occured, but some are more likely than others to have caused the eventual downfall of the Roman empire.
A lot of fallacious incidents occured, but some are more likely than others to have caused the eventual downfall of the Roman empire.
naervod
My current user title
I bellieve the fall of Rome was mostly caused by increasingly hostile brabarians and the Empire expanding too far for its own good.
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
The empire was huge at a time when technology was still very primitive. Maybe the question should be how were they able to maintain such a large diverse empire for so long w/ such primitive technology?!?
The Romans were not a very scientific people, and their culture not terribly innovative. They didn't develop new technology or greatly improve their techniques -- for example, they didn't make use of draft animals. The Roman economy was based on slave labor. This in itself was limiting -- they were so successful in conquering the world, eventually they ran out of untapped large population centers to subjugate and enslave. Slavery of one's own citizenry is extremely divisive and demoralizing to a society.
As time went by their plantation owners became ever more absent f/ the farms, moving to the cities and entrusting their farms to land managers. The land managers primary goal was to produce very consistent yields, because their bottom-line focused owners would punish them for low production years and weren't particularly appreciative of greater than expected yields. In fact, the land managers actively avoided having an exceptionally productive year because it meant that the following year they would be expected to produce similar results.
There was a certain level of exhaustion in the culture. The morale of the citizenry flagged. Barbarian assaults that would have been trivial in 100AD had much more impact in 400AD because the legions were less motivated.
The Germanic tribe's populations in general were growing, despite the best efforts of the Romans. Romanized Germans made in-roads into Roman culture, and were able to exploit weaknesses the Romans were unaware of. Meanwhile, the Romans snootily clung to aging Roman conventions, ignoring such military innovations as mounted troops.
Christianity changed the culture as well. The pagan State became less appealing to the masses.
The capital was moved to Byzantium (/Constantinople/Istanbul) by Constantine -- Rome essentially became the Roman Empire's 2nd city.
Historian Carroll Quigley feels that all civilizations inevitably run out of steam. Real dynamic things happen on the edges of civilization, while the core stagnates. Eventually the periphery eclipses the core, and often conquers it. This is not well simulated in the game Civilization. The best simulation of this I've seen is Hasbro's "History of the World" board game. In Civ, the bigger and older, the better.
Essentially, the Germanic nations that conquered Rome piece by piece took advantage of Rome's entropy.
The Romans were not a very scientific people, and their culture not terribly innovative. They didn't develop new technology or greatly improve their techniques -- for example, they didn't make use of draft animals. The Roman economy was based on slave labor. This in itself was limiting -- they were so successful in conquering the world, eventually they ran out of untapped large population centers to subjugate and enslave. Slavery of one's own citizenry is extremely divisive and demoralizing to a society.
As time went by their plantation owners became ever more absent f/ the farms, moving to the cities and entrusting their farms to land managers. The land managers primary goal was to produce very consistent yields, because their bottom-line focused owners would punish them for low production years and weren't particularly appreciative of greater than expected yields. In fact, the land managers actively avoided having an exceptionally productive year because it meant that the following year they would be expected to produce similar results.
There was a certain level of exhaustion in the culture. The morale of the citizenry flagged. Barbarian assaults that would have been trivial in 100AD had much more impact in 400AD because the legions were less motivated.
The Germanic tribe's populations in general were growing, despite the best efforts of the Romans. Romanized Germans made in-roads into Roman culture, and were able to exploit weaknesses the Romans were unaware of. Meanwhile, the Romans snootily clung to aging Roman conventions, ignoring such military innovations as mounted troops.
Christianity changed the culture as well. The pagan State became less appealing to the masses.
The capital was moved to Byzantium (/Constantinople/Istanbul) by Constantine -- Rome essentially became the Roman Empire's 2nd city.
Historian Carroll Quigley feels that all civilizations inevitably run out of steam. Real dynamic things happen on the edges of civilization, while the core stagnates. Eventually the periphery eclipses the core, and often conquers it. This is not well simulated in the game Civilization. The best simulation of this I've seen is Hasbro's "History of the World" board game. In Civ, the bigger and older, the better.
Essentially, the Germanic nations that conquered Rome piece by piece took advantage of Rome's entropy.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
It hurts me to say it, but it was all the careless sex and drunken partying that killed the bastards.
But at least they went down happy.
But at least they went down happy.
MCdread
Couldn't she get drowned?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Messages
- 5,348
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.
Just my two cents.
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.
Just my two cents.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Highly correct. This totally coinsides with my view, therefore I have no need in reposting it.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
The Emporers were too corrupt, the Empire too off base for enough of its citizens to care to defend it properly.
Once you get beyond tribal lines, you have to have something that holds a nation/empire/polity together. The Empire didn't have that kind of a steering underpinning. Nobody is too keen to keep authority in place for the sake of authority.
Once you get beyond tribal lines, you have to have something that holds a nation/empire/polity together. The Empire didn't have that kind of a steering underpinning. Nobody is too keen to keep authority in place for the sake of authority.
Magnus
Diplocat
Here is awell-written article describing the factors at work in the collapse of Rome in the West:
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm
My personal opinion is the greatest factor in the eventual dissolution of the Western Empire was the decision to change form an small, elite, short-term army to a large, professional one. The early armies were loyal because once they finished their tour of duty they got some land to settle, whereas the later army was served by money and thus their loyalties were to their personal benefactor, rather than to Rome itself. Unfortunately once Rome got too big, the smaller armies were not practical, so the larger, and consquently more dangerous, method of maintaining an army was the only option. Thus Rome's collapse was an indirect result of its success!
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm
My personal opinion is the greatest factor in the eventual dissolution of the Western Empire was the decision to change form an small, elite, short-term army to a large, professional one. The early armies were loyal because once they finished their tour of duty they got some land to settle, whereas the later army was served by money and thus their loyalties were to their personal benefactor, rather than to Rome itself. Unfortunately once Rome got too big, the smaller armies were not practical, so the larger, and consquently more dangerous, method of maintaining an army was the only option. Thus Rome's collapse was an indirect result of its success!
redtom
Proudhonist
In the Civ I manual it blames the collapse of the Roman Empire on the over-reliance on slaves. Basically the Romans were getting lazy.
Another theory was that ever since the end of the Republic, Rome was becoming corrupt and inbittered; it reached its zenith under the Republic.
Another theory was that ever since the end of the Republic, Rome was becoming corrupt and inbittered; it reached its zenith under the Republic.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Part of the Downfall of the Roman Empire was the use of Lead pipes in there plumbing.
The Citizens of the Roman Empire might have gotten Lead poisoning.
Also a little scientific tid bit. The chemical symbol (Pb) comes from the Latin plumbum, meaning lead. And that is where the word "Plumber" also came frum.
The Citizens of the Roman Empire might have gotten Lead poisoning.
Also a little scientific tid bit. The chemical symbol (Pb) comes from the Latin plumbum, meaning lead. And that is where the word "Plumber" also came frum.
Similar threads
