Climate Change and The Fall of the Empire

[Ursus]

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143758/could-climate-change-have-led-to-the-fall-of-rome

 

Rome may have fallen hundreds of years ago, but much of the civilization the Romans built still dots the landscape today. One team of scientists recently unearthed a different kind of Roman artifact that may hold a surprising clue to the empire's downfall.

 

 

[Macerinus]

http://www.npr.org/2...he-fall-of-rome

 

Rome may have fallen hundreds of years ago, but much of the civilization the Romans built still dots the landscape today. One team of scientists recently unearthed a different kind of Roman artifact that may hold a surprising clue to the empire's downfall.

 

 

 

That's quite an interesting find.

But I can not imagine it would have a major impact on the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

It would be interesting to read more about this research project, like in what part of Europe/The Empire did these fluctuations occur.

Or is it just some anti global warming propaganda...

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Intersting theory but surely if there had been such a massive change in the climate, causing famine, drought, severe weather conditions etc to ravage the land and be serious enough to play a big part in the fall of the Empire, then surely we would have read about it in the writings of the ancient historians of the time. I mean, something as cataclysmic as this would surely have been recorded??

 

I don't doubt the fact that there were massive climate changes during the 300 year period mentioned, the trees dont lie! But big enough to cause the collapse of the empire?? I'm not so sure

 

All the same, it is an interesting theory and I'd like to read more on the subject. Thanks for posting it Ursus!

[Ursus]

Personally I feel the empire fell because 1) the Romans liked to fight amongst themselves 2) the barbarians liked to set up kingdoms on Roman soil during the confusion.

 

But if the climate were changing rapidly in the latter centuries, certainly it may have added to the confusions and the problems the empire was facing.

[DecimusCaesar]

I once recall reading that climate change had led to failing crops and famine which kick started the mass migrations of barbarians into Roman territory, but this was several years ago and unfortunately I can't recall the source. it's an interesting idea concerning the reason for the Barbarian invasions, but it doesn't take into consideration that barbarians had been trying to settle in other lands for centuries (the Teutons and the Cimbri during Marius's consulships for example c.110 BC).

 

This new idea that it might have led to problems within the empire itself is interesting though.

[Guaporense]

According to modern research the classical warm period spanned from 200 BCE to 100 CE, the period that corresponds to the greatest economic prosperity of classical civilization, according to the proxy economic data available from archaeological research. During this period incomes increased, while mortality rates decreased as the population had access to better food and sanitary conditions.

 

After that there was a colling period, that reduced agricultural productivity and combined with increased population, meant a drastic decline in real per capita incomes. The empire became poorer in per capita terms, and this increased the difficulties in maintaining professional armed forces. Proxy data also support the thesis of a continuous decline in economic prosperity after the first century CE. However, I think that there also other important factors involved in the decline and fall of the roman empire. This process wasn't the product of only 1 factor. And yes, the barbarians weren't superpowerful tribes that managed to defeat the powerful Roman Empire: the classical civilization was much weaker in the 5th century than it was 300-400 years earlier, the barbarians only took advantage of the dying state of the empire.

 

Other factors that I think were important to explain the fall of the empire:

 

1 - Inflation. High rates of inflation served to reduce the use of money as a means of exchange. Without money, civilization losses productivity due to increased transaction costs.

 

2 - Price controls. Instead of responding to the threat of inflation by curbing the increase in money supply, the authorities simply put price controls in effect. These price controls simply killed the markets for those goods, as the production costs rose with inflation of the money supply but the selling prices didn't increase, as they were frozen.

 

3 - Division into two empires. The division of the Roman Empire into two separate empires meant that the richer eastern half of the empire couldn't support the western half in times of emergency. Traditionally, the eastern provinces of the empire paid the taxes, while the western provinces consumed these taxes in the form of legions to protect the frontier, the British province was an example, it had 3 legions (nearly 10% of the Roman Army) but only 1% of the empire's population. With the division of the empire, the western half couldn't draw into the vast eastern resources anymore. The eastern half survived for many centuries more.

 

4 - Increased bureaucracy. The costs of increased bureaucracy in times when the empire had less resources than in their once glorious past were a cost the empire couldn't afford.

[abvgd]

Failing crops in northern Europe as well as a harsher climate on the central Asian steppes probably provided the necessary impetus for the population migrations that put pressure on Rome. Additionally, as a result of the colder climate the Rhine and the Danube rivers freezed over during winter for the first time in a very long time according to chroniclers, which facilitated the breakdown of the Roman border defence system in Europe. In Asia, the Persian threat also became more serious around the same time time period due to the ascendance of a more aggressive dynasty there. Additionally, less gold and silver was available after the 1st century AD when the output from the Roman silver mines in Spain decreased and spoils of war became increasingly rare. So, less revenues and greater military expenditures border defence. The internal instabilities didn't exactly help either...

[caldrail]

Some interesting points, and ones I would like to add to. Firstly, the Romans were well aware of the impending approach of hunnish raids and built a wall in eastern europe which was intended to impede them (though it obviously failed). Although the huns are usually quoted as the major villain of migratory pressure on the empire, bear in mind this was compounded and directly affected by the gothic migration southeastward from their hypothetical scandinavian homeland, which leaves an intriguing possibility of a third party pushing them out.

 

it is also worth pointing out that the Romans were keen to defuse these migratory pressures, and it was more a case of the overt exploitation of them immediately after admittion into the empire that provoked a rebellion. In that sense, the Romans incited the goths to turn against them.

 

Secondly, whilst the harsh winter did indeed facilitate the crossing the Rhine, it must be remembered the Romans had done themselves no favours on the Geraanic border prior to that. Although the German tribes weren't entirely innocent, Roman soldiers had raided them just as easily. In any case, intermittent warfare was an ongoing feature of the various german tribes and sooner or later they werte going to make inroads. The fact the Rhine froze over and let them cross was not an overly significant event.

 

What was more significant was the increasing cooperation between German tribes. No doubt many of the germans employed in the Roman legions brought ideas on organisation and strategy back with them but notice this was not an immediate effect, but rather a growing development and sophistication of a more primitive people (a term I use advisably) in contact with a more developed civilisation, a situation we sometimes see elsewhere where the less developed people are not conquered and instead learn to compete with their neighbours.