Why did Rome fall?

[SW85]

I am a big Roman history buff, and the question of why the western Roman empire in particular came to an end has been of big interest to me. I thought I'd share my thoughts here and see what others think.

There are a lot of theories as to why Rome fell. Gibbon blamed the decline in civic virtue and the empire's conversion to Christianity (although he was never able to adequately explain how or why the Byzantines, who were even more Christian, survived and prospered for another millennium after the fall of Rome). Richta blamed it on the superior technological innovations of barbarians. Bark and Heather suggest the empire basically died due to the toll wrought by the effort to keep it alive -- the former because of doomed reforms that ushered in the initial trappings of the feudalist system, the latter because of the disastrous toll wrought by the Romans' attempt to confront the rise of the Sassanids in the east. Pirenne and his imitators argue Rome never really fell, it just evolved into feudal Europe, although obviously Rome ceased to exist as a coherent imperial entity and so the Pirrenean thesis is not a valid explanation for why.

I have always tended to favor Arnold Toynbee's reasoning behind the fall of Rome: that the imperial system itself was unworkable, and that the whole of the imperial period was marked by the steady decay of republican-era institutions, virtues, and strengths. The fact that Rome's plunder economy effectively dried up after conquests reached their greatest extent under Trajan did not help.

Lately I've been reading The Roman Emperors by Michael Grant, and one of the things that struck me was how pathetically small most of Rome's emperors were. They were utterly pygmy; I could count the number of actually good, worthwhile rulers on my hands. The system may well have collapsed from the moment of its inception if not for the stewardship of Augustus. Things only got worse as the empire aged and its need for strong leadership grew: Honorius in particular strikes me as among the most flagrantly worthless men in recorded history, and I am convinced that his reign marked the point of no return beyond which nothing short of divine intervention could salvage the empire.

With serious reforms and competent military leadership, the empire may well have survived the economic stagnation and barbarian invasions that ultimately wrecked it (Diocletian's reforms may well have allowed the empire to survive another century). But without a capable emperor to do so -- and by the end, there never was one -- Rome had no hope of continued survival in the face of the hardships that rocked her.

One of the benefits of the republic, as with any heavily-balanced system, is that the worst excesses of its leaders are constrained by the power of other leaders. This was not true in the case of Rome. The closest thing to a check on the power of the emperor was the threat of assassination, and even that rarely served its purpose because there was a good chance the next emperor would be worst than the last. Where victories were won, they were often won by talented generals acting alone -- Aetius and Stilicho -- and not the emperors themselves.

I need to do some more research into the nature of the Byzantine empire to see if they suffered under similarly worthless rulers, but I think this thesis largely holds up.

[USMC the Almighty]

Great post. Have you ever read Vergil's explanation for why Marcellus, who was supposed to be the next great ruler, died?

[SW85]

Great post. Have you ever read Vergil's explanation for why Marcellus, who was supposed to be the next great ruler, died?

Can't say I did -- what's his take on it?

[USMC the Almighty]

Can't say I did -- what's his take on it?

I'm a little shakey (it's from high school) and so I was hoping that you were familiar with it, but from what I recall he essentially said that the Gods killed Marcellus because if he had grown up to rule Rome, Rome's power would've rivalled that of the Gods. Just an interesting aside to your thesis on the lack of good rulers...

[top gun]

I've never seen Nero and Dick Cheney in the same room together so my question is... how old is Dick Cheney and does he play the fiddle... LoL! :D

[USMC the Almighty]

I've never seen Nero and Dick Cheney in the same room together so my question is... how old is Dick Cheney and does he play the fiddle... LoL! :D

I don't get it.

[OPGhostdog]

AHH..Well Well Well USMC the Almighty. Here we are on a thread that's
speaking exactly what we was talking about on the other thread.
This information that's being talked about goes way back to 69BCs.
That was after Julius Caesar (Caesarion) death in 47BC that Cleopatra,
and her son Caeserion went to Rome.

(Bare this in mind that the BC years was counting down to the time
of Christ)

In 31 BC Mark Antony arm forces faced the Romans in a naval war
off the coast of Actium,.In which following the battle of Actium the
Romans invaded Egypt. So I believe at this point was the beginning
of the Roman Empire.

Caeserion was captured and executed, his fate was reportly sealed
by Octavian's famous phrase: " Two Caesers are one to many. "
This ended the hellenistic line of all Egyptian pharohs. I believe that
this is the point where the ruling of the Roman Emperors started.

My closing question is...How did the thread jump from the Roman days
to Dick Cheney? :confused:

[ArmChair General]

not enough cowbell

[Bunz]

I am not a scholar of the subject, but will interject my hindsight observations. It comes down to the expansionist/colonial system and not having the technology to manage it. Meaning that there needed to be a faster method of sending messages than by ship or horseback to manage it properly. The empire grew to big and fell under its own weight.

[Beetle Bailey]

There have long been many theories about the fall of Rome. Most of them more relevant to their contemporaries than to actual historical events. The specific conditions that led to Rome being susceptible to barbarian invasion can be argued by scholars. I think a good way to explore the question is to ask why the Roman empire lasted so long. And why do it's influences persist to this day. The Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church are direct decendents of this empire. The symbols and trappings of the Roman Senate are evident every where in the US Senate. We are a part of that historical continuum.

[r0beph]

Rome fell because it was built on a slippery slope.

[OPGhostdog]

Rome fell because it was built on a slippery slope.

:o That was a real sorry ass joke

[r0beph]

i know...I was bored between researching for my cinco de mayo post and cooking fried bologna.

[OPGhostdog]

i know...I was bored between researching for my cinco de mayo post and cooking fried bologna.

Okay r0beph..thanks for the warning to stay away from the
fried bologna.

However visit this url which is about the Roman Empire history,
and you should find the answers there.
http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempire.html
Check that info out (great research site). I am not a scholar
on ancident history, but I do have some great research skills,
and I do own & operate a Research firm with my Son.

We do have some good paying contracts with private and city
operated businesses. Hopefully you other posters who is the
nosey type will visit the site as well.

[SW85]

I am not a scholar of the subject, but will interject my hindsight observations. It comes down to the expansionist/colonial system and not having the technology to manage it. Meaning that there needed to be a faster method of sending messages than by ship or horseback to manage it properly. The empire grew to big and fell under its own weight.

This was most of the reason the empire was partitioned into a Roman west and Byzantine east, each end governed by two emperors (one senior, one junior) as a tetrarchy. The empire did remarkably well despite these technological limitations; again, it reached its height under Trajan in the early 100's AD, but the empire didn't fall until almost 500, by which time it was drastically reduced.

But technological limitations did become a major problem later on. Eastern barbarians brought with them technological innovations like the compass that altered the equation on which the Pax Romana was based.

[rmbarron]

Lately I've been reading The Roman Emperors by Michael Grant, and one of the things that struck me was how pathetically small most of Rome's emperors were. They were utterly pygmy; I could count the number of actually good, worthwhile rulers on my hands. The system may well have collapsed from the moment of its inception if not for the stewardship of Augustus. Things only got worse as the empire aged and its need for strong leadership grew: Honorius in particular strikes me as among the most flagrantly worthless men in recorded history, and I am convinced that his reign marked the point of no return beyond which nothing short of divine intervention could salvage the empire.

With serious reforms and competent military leadership, the empire may well have survived the economic stagnation and barbarian invasions that ultimately wrecked it (Diocletian's reforms may well have allowed the empire to survive another century). But without a capable emperor to do so -- and by the end, there never was one -- Rome had no hope of continued survival in the face of the hardships that rocked her.

I'm not too terribly familiar with this theory, but it's the most plausible one I've seen to date. It seems reasonable that the handful of good emperors may simply have not been enough to withstand the damge wrought by all the bad ones.

[SW85]

Indeed. I'm getting further into Grant's book and I am surprised to find that the good emperors were largely sandwiched in the principate, the earlier, less troubled half of the empire. Of the seven I've identified so far as mostly worthwhile rulers (Augustus, Vespasian, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius), five of them ruled back-to-back in a period remarkably devoid of trouble.

The instability of the imperial system itself seems to have been a major trouble: between the Praetorians and distant legions, emperors were constantly fighting to shore up their reign. The Crisis of the Third Century, in which something like 20-30 emperors reigned in a span of 50 years (each one arriving in Rome long enough to kill his predecessor and reign for an average of two years), resulted in Rome breaking into three distinct, although short-lived, empires -- Gallic in the west, Palmyrene in the east. This was only averted, again, by a few decent emperors (Aurelian and Claudius II 'Gothicus'), but Rome came perilously close to death in those troubled years.

[PLC1]

Rome fell because it lost control of its borders and allowed too many barbarians to enter illegally, it spent money it didn't have and tried to make up the difference by printing more, it tried to impose a pax romana on the rest of the world through force of arms, and it tried to maintain a welfare state and keep the populace happy with bread and circuses. Furthermore, it became possible to purchase a seat on the Roman senate.

Given such decadance, it is no wonder the empire fell apart. Isn't it a good thing that we've learned from the mistakes of the Romans?:D

[Beetle Bailey]

Rome fell because it lost control of its borders and allowed too many barbarians to enter illegally, it spent money it didn't have and tried to make up the difference by printing more, it tried to impose a pax romana on the rest of the world through force of arms, and it tried to maintain a welfare state and keep the populace happy with bread and circuses. Furthermore, it became possible to purchase a seat on the Roman senate.

Given such decadance, it is no wonder the empire fell apart. Isn't it a good thing that we've learned from the mistakes of the Romans?:D

See what I mean. History is always made more relevant to modern contemporary agenda than it is to actual historical events.

[steveox]

The Same way america is going to fall because people cheer on this sick ****!
http://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/309846/1692656/3749300/mvp160.jpghttp://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/309846/1692656/3749300/20061217_arm_post_inferno.jpg
Kane set MVP on fire in a ring fire match.MVP suffered 2nd degree burns how can people cheer for this ****? ITS SICK!!! Im Suiprised Vince hasnt fired Teddy Long for abusing his authority as General Manager of Smackdown.Samething its Sick People cheered on the Lions attacking christains in rome THATS HOW ROME FELL!

[9sublime]

Rome fell because of WWE... how old are you, honestly?

Your writing style and views are that of an 11 year old.

[Napoleon]

A few important factors which you missed:


1. The migration of barbarian hordes from the North and Western Europe shifted the balance of power significantly in the Western Roman Empire. Rome enlisted some of these hordes to fight off it's new enemies. In doing so, the Empire taught the barbarians all of their military tactics; a mistake which would haunt them for generations as they turned what few allies they had into enemies.

2. Disease. Many of the towns and villages in southern Gaul and northern Italy were either abandoned or the inhabitants already dead by the time the barbarians reached them. It's obviously not too difficult to conquer territories when there's no one around to stop you.

3. For all intents and purposes the Eastern portion of the Empire had abandoned the West. Despite pleas from the Pope, the Eastern Empire refused to send reinforcements using economics and fear of spreading the plague as an excuse. So, the Pope cut a deal. The barbarians could have everything but Rome. They agreed because their leaders had already been converted to Christianity.

[SW85]

Samething its Sick People cheered on the Lions attacking christains in rome THATS HOW ROME FELL!

The empire banned the sentencing of Christians to the gladiatorial arena more than a hundred years before the empire fell, and the games themselves were ended permanently not long after.

Napoleon, everything you mention is correct and is commonly cited as one of the reasons Rome fell, but I'd posit that every problem Rome suffered in its last few decades was dramatically worsened by the absence of good men to steer the empire through its troubles. For a time there in the middle of the third century it seemed the empire was simply doomed; but it experienced a military recovery under men like Claudius II and Aurelian, and they only ruled for maybe a combined decade. Thanks to them, the empire lasted another two centuries. Ditto with Diocletian, and perhaps again with the first Valentinian.

[top gun]

I don't get it.

You never heard the story about how Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

Reminds me a little of Cheney. :D