Why Did Rome Collapse?

[Augur]

Why the fall? Always one of the juciest of topics, no?

 

For my part -- having been introduced to Rome by Gibbon -- I spent a decade looking for answers to this question in the history of The Empire and, yes, nutty Emperors, Germans, Christians, plagues and other issues do stand out as the obvious villians during this period. More and more, however, I began looking further back, searching for answers during the Republic -- and here Marius's military reforms, the short-sighted corruptions of the boni, the population and economic shifts in Italy and other factors seem to predetermine much of the Empire's coming woes.

 

Then about 10 years ago I discovered the historian Arnold Toynbee, who put things in an even broader context by asking: What is a civilization? How do civilizatons rise and fall, and what are the mechanisms of their birth, growth, decline and death? Helpfully Toynbee was originally a Greek/Roman scholar, and so much of his life's work "A Study of History" goes to the heart of the "Why the Fall (of Rome)?" question being examined here.

 

As many of you will know, Toynbee postulated that 21 civilizations have existed (7 still do), and that all of them have shared common phases of growth and decline. Most relevant to this posting, Rome is not one of Mr. Toynbee's 21 stand-alone civilizations, but is part of a larger "Hellenic" civilization which runs from the early Greeks through the end of the (Western) Roman Empire. According to Toynbee the entire Rome phenomenon (Kings, Republic and Empire) was all just a predictable phase (ie. the Universal State) that is experienced during the decline of all civilizations.

 

Being a lover of Rome I have always found this idea somewhat repugnant. Unfortunatley much of Toynbee's 10 volume argument is strikingly persuasive, and I cannot help but wonder if any of our members have applied this contextual framework to the juicy question "Why the Fall?

 

Any Toynbee readers?

 

[Note: for the record Toynbee's answer to the question "why the fall?" seems to be: when the creative minorty (whom the masses follow voluntarily) becomes transformed into a "dominant minority" (who lead by force/compulsion). Toynbee's read is that this occured within the Hellenic civilization in the 5th century BC.]

[Ursus]

I've never read Toynbee, though it does sound fascinating. However, I'm a practical man and I think most things have a practical explanation.

 

In modern political science terms, there is the concept of "imperial overstretch." That is empires have a tendency to expand and over exert themselves. There comes a point when the costs of maintaining an empire exceed the benefits of the empire. And of course if the non-profitable portions of the empire are not discarded immediately, the long term effect will be a drain (and eventual collapse) of the entire empire. (Look at the Soviet Empire -- its far flung assests were simply too expensive for them to hold on given their poor economy).

 

In relation to Rome, the question we have to ask is: which parts of the empire were profitable to maintain, and which were unproductive or even counter-productive? At what point did the Roman Empire expand beyond the ability to maintain itself?

 

Well, most of the real wealth was in the East. And the Byzantine Empire did survive nicely for several centuries even with enemies on all sides.

 

I'm not sure how much Western Europe was really profitable. A book I read makes the case that the areas immediately along the Mediterranean basin were easily integrated into the economy, but the rest of the Western empire was more trouble then it was worth. It would have been more profitable for the Romans to simply have traded with Gauls and Britons and Celto-iberians than to have conquered them.

 

But however you slice it, the Empire was simply too big, there were too many unproductive areas, and the long term consequence was the collapse of everything except the wealthier Eastern core.

[Marcus Regulus]

In modern political science terms, there is the concept of "imperial overstretch." That is empires have a tendency to expand and over exert themselves. There comes a point when the costs of maintaining an empire exceed the benefits of the empire. And of course if the non-profitable portions of the empire are not discarded immediately, the long term effect will be a drain (and eventual collapse) of the entire empire. (Look at the Soviet Empire -- its far flung assests were simply too expensive for them to hold on given their poor economy).

 

I believe it was Socrates that pointed out the folly of growing a state too large so as not to be able to defend it. This I think is the ultimate end for Rome. Ursus makes a great point.

I personally beleive that as a republic they expanded more and were able to hold more because they had more people to draw from to take charge of it. Empires are dicey things that depend too much on one person's leadership and resolve to maintain. It wasn't long after becoming empire minded that expansion stopped and I don't think this is accidental -- they had reached their limit. Then it became about holding on not conquest and when that change in mentality is made you are going to be doomed in the ancient world. Maybe not today but ultimately down the road.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Personally these are my views on the collapse. They will be rather cliche though.

 

Economical

Rome lacked the economical intelligence to stop the inflation in their nation. With the lack of conquest meant soldiers could not be promised land anymore, now they needed money. Many good emperors tried to stop but all they did was put in laws against the charge hikes(Maximum Price Edict in 301). But obviously this did not work. Not to mention the end of conquest meant the end of gold filled places. A silver coin was becoming less and less silver and more and more tin. There simply was not enough gold and silver to go around(the bad part of Mercantilism ), obviously this had very negative effects on prices. In many regions, such as Egypt, Roman currency was not even traded anymore. Things started improving little by little through Diocletions "pay in kind" systems.

 

Military

The later Roman legions were only a shadow of the former ones during Trajan. The populous was losing it's interest in joining the military and nationalism was dropping. Because of this, the military was becoming more and more "barbarianized". The order and discipline found in the ealier legions was dissappearing. These Germanic mercenaries were not as well trained, equiped and as stated before, disciplined. They also often fought for the Romans for a while then returned to their lands with the secrets of the Romans.

 

Internal Stife

The Emperor had become a joke. Rich men simply bought their way in through the Preatorian. None had the balls to disband the groups until Constantine finally defeated them. This had terrible effects on the Empire. Civil Wars often left the frontiers defenseless and the these "soldier emperors" who came in place used their power and treasury to fill their wants. Taxing many just so they can pay the Preatorian so they would not be replaced. This had ruined the name of the Emperor and caused massive instability in the Empire.

 

 

Barbarian Invasion

Much does not need to be said about this. Germanic movement in the empire was bringing huge problem. The influx of these barbarian tribes who were not the barbarians Rome faced in the past was too much for Rome when it was already in trouble. A perfect example of this was the Roman defeat at Andrianople. The Roman legion was completely slaugtered by these new Barbarians and the legion became useless. The east was lucky to be able to get away from destruction after this defeat and they managed to recover their loss within a few years and learn that the legion was gone. But the instability in the west had not allowed anything to improve. The East was luckily to have had good Emperors in time of need but the userpers in the West, the are in most dire need of help, did nothing to help improve. This was finally shown when Rome was sacked in 410 and again in 455. Not to mention the defeat the Western "Userper" had when he fought against the now updated "filled with Germanic cavalry" East.. The East also learned to use archer cavalry well to repel the Goths, same could not be said for the West.

 

 

Well my wrist in hurting now. I would like to continue by I better stop.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I'm not sure how much Western Europe was really profitable.

 

It wasn't. Not only that but Asia Minor had some great recruitment places. Which is one of the reasons that the Byzantines went into such heavy decline after after losing it to the Seljuk Turks Turks. That was a major recruitment and was very wealthy. Not only that but the East did not have the problems right at their door. many of the enemies came there and left. Never even bothering Constantinople.

 

*Ouch my hand* lol

[Marcus Regulus]

Skenderbeg,

Pretty good theory, better than the others I hear about this. I think that Empires have to maintain a couple of things ot keep going.

1) You have to tell your soldiers either comeback in victory or dead. There is peace only on the other side of victory over enemies.

2) You better make sure that your economy can grow.

3) Leadership has to have vision, not be a idiot that just wants more stuff for himself.

4) When barbarians come -- don't pay them off -- kill them.

 

Simple, brutal but effective -- hate to say it but that is what made Rome great in the first place and when they lost it they lost it.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

4) When barbarians come -- don't pay them off -- kill them.

 

 

Hard to do when they are constant and become more effective then your army. ROmes big mistake was not admitting that cavalry was a huge part of battle. Had they learned this ealier it could have had very positive affects on the empire and brought a better, in home, cavalry force. Whenever a legion lost to a cavalry force. Carrhea,Cannae, Trebia, Tresemine(to a lesser extent) were all battles Rome lost due to cavalry they blamed it on the general. yet Rome failed to acknowledge it. Instead they blamed the loss on the general for losing. They also did not give much merit to battle won through cavalry. Caesar put huge importance on cavalry, Scipio won Zama with the Numidian cavalry. Rome pushed the legion to the very end. Until it became absolete.

 

Final note.

Rome was built on a system of conquest. Mercantilism is what they went on. So when the mines could not be conquered anymore it brought problems. Had ROme kept conquerring(rather impossible) it would have kept going, adapting and getting richer. When conquest stopped, they declined. They were now conquerers who could no longer conquer.

[Primus Pilus]

I disagree with the 'mercantilism' concept, but otherwise its hard to argue with the general idea of your post. Roman economy was based entirely on agrarian principals. Simply speaking, everything was designed around feeding the empire. Obviously there are many facets to the Roman economy including heavy industry, but the design was agriculture.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I disagree with the 'mercantilism' concept, but otherwise its hard to argue with the general idea of your post.  Roman economy was based entirely on agrarian principals.  Simply speaking, everything was designed around feeding the empire.  Obviously there are many facets to the Roman economy including heavy industry, but the design was agriculture.

 

 

Well, I guess that why my knowledge of the Empire is still vague.

[Augur]

"When barbarians come -- don't pay them off -- kill them."

Isn't this what Valentinian III said just before he went down?

 

Skenderbed is correct about the agrarian core of Rome's culture and of its economy. The private land system, worked by the small private freeholder/soldier, was pivitol to Rome's development and accomplishments during the Republic up through the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC. In my view the seeds of most of Rome's future tragedies were planted when this central agrarian model began to be currupted by: excessive demands (duration and frequency) for military service, land accumulation by the wealthy, freehold farmers replaced by slave labor, Marius's "new" military with its new loyalties, and perhaps most importantly, violent (ultimately suicidal) opposition by the upper classes to all attempts at reform. Thus, while I credit all the listed reasons for Rome's fall, my vote goes to the earlier, less direct but perhaps more impactful combination of causes: "Other"

[Hamilcar Barca]

As Skenderbeg pointed out, heavy cavalry (which would latter become the mainstay of early and middle medieval warfare) was something which Rome did not use decissively nor find effective ways to deal with. Adrianople is my personal favourite when it comes to illustrating this point.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Then again Andrianople was a big mistake on the Roman part. They just rushed in and were completely outflanked by cavalry.

[Aquila Volo]

I agree with Scanderbeg, Christianity had little to do with the fall of the Empire. So what if they changed religions? One of the biggest problems was the economy. They went through the big economic problem that comes with capitalism; the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. Eventualy, the inflation just destroys the system.

[Ursus]

I'm not sure if the ancient Roman economy could truly be equated with modern capitalism. Most of the inflation came about because every time there was a civil war, the winning general minted new coins to pay his troops, thus debasing the currency.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The Fall of Rome was caused by the decline in the military.

 

Rome's armies after constatine looked more like germanic mob of warriors, nor just looked like it behaved like it. Military discipline was almost lost as the germanic mercenaries killed the centurions, centurions being the backbone of roman army, the enforcers of the discipline.

 

Also equipment level lowered seriously; The legionaries no longer used large shield, and short sword, but instead used spatha longsword wich was much more ineffective than the gladius. Lorica segemtata was also abandoned and replaced by the chain mail lorica hamanta.

 

And as most of the free people in rome were citizens by this time, legionaries came from everywhere and the legion de-romized completley. In every sense the legion became worse army.

 

It is stupid to think that christianity saved or destoryed the empire. In the empire there was about 8-10 per sent christians, correct me if i'm wrong. Christianity saved the roman culture, way of life in the barbaric middle ages.