The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians

[Tobias]

I'm sorry, i disagree rather strongly that Rome was conquered by it's "slaves".

The internal problems of a social, economic and political nature plagued the Roman World since the late Roman Republic and these problems brought about a decline that ultimately led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. However, the invasions of the Germanic tribes, particularly those of the fifth century, were just as important in setting off the internal crises of the western empire and in significantly changing the political map of the west. .

Germanic peoples were known to the Romans since the second century B.C.E. and despite many differences, the two groups did co-exist relatively peacefully. Many Germans had been allowed to cross the border, and they settled as farmers and slaves. Some even became soldiers in the imperial army. The Germans admired what was worthy in Roman civilization and the Romans admired the physical strength and the simplicity of values of the Germans.

They were not slaves!!

[Tobias]

By the way, i'm not a german, just stating the facts

[Felix Marcellus]

After all, barbarians weren't the only ones taken as slaves by Rome. Carthaginians were enslaved, Greeks were enslaved. I know the Romans saw the Carthaginians as barbarians, but realistically they were civilized people. As were the Greeks. So, comparing slaves to barbarians isn't really appropriate.

 

 

Celts, Germanics, Iberians, etc. were not civilised?

 

Of coure not. They wore fur loincloths and spend their days headbutting each other over the domination of females. Right? Right?

Why are you quoting me on that. Did I say they weren't civilized? If I did say or imply it I meant from a Roman perspective. From a Roman perspective very few were considered civilized.

 

From my perspective, none are civilized. We're all barbarians capable of committing horrible atrocities at any time. It all depends on your environment and experiences.

[Northern Neil]

Yes, but in the context of this debate and in its original, correct form, the word 'civilisation' implies civic organisation with public buildings, culture and central government, not wether or not people commit 'barbaric' acts or are nice to each other. The original context of the words 'barbarian' and 'barbaric' meant someone who was unshaved - therefore implying a lack of culture and intelligence. It is interesting to note that this term was used despite the Antonines and Severans being bearded, along with most philosophers!

[Demson]

Why are you quoting me on that.  Did I say they weren't civilized?  If I did say or imply it I meant from a Roman perspective.  From a Roman perspective very few were considered civilized. 

 

From my perspective, none are civilized.  We're all barbarians capable of committing horrible atrocities at any time.  It all depends on your environment and experiences.

 

 

After all, barbarians weren't the only ones taken as slaves by Rome. Carthaginians were enslaved, Greeks were enslaved. I know the Romans saw the Carthaginians as barbarians, but realistically they were civilized people. As were the Greeks. So, comparing slaves to barbarians isn't really appropriate.

 

 

Believe it or not, the notion that western and northern Europeans lived as neanderthalers before the Romans came is quite widespread.

 

I agree that the Romans considered few other cultures to be civilised. But the Celtic, Germanic, Iberian societies were great civilisations in their own right.

 

 

There might be a link between the decline of slavery and the decline of the Empire. The empire was an agricultural society unified by urban administration and power. Rome seem to have prospered after wars, when there were spoils and slaves to support urban life. But when the slaves ran out, and serfdom came into play... The Empire disintigrated and the feudal age began.

[Felix Marcellus]

Why are you quoting me on that.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

Probably one of the most important reasons for the fall of the Empire was the constant infighting between the Emperors of the East and West and their various Ceasar underlings. Alot of time, money, resources, and troops were thrown against each other in order to secure various positions of power within the Empire. All that time and energy could have been put to better use. How many big name guys at the time were trying to build a new Rome of some sort somewhere in the Empire? The fall of Rome followed the classic pattern of demise for many nations around the world throughout history. Internal strife and civil wars and then invasion from outside. The question that is still being debated by the scholars is did the barbarians that had been attacking Rome in one way or another for the past thousand years suddenly get better organized and armed, or did Rome which fended the barbarians off for a thousand years finally crumble from within?

[Tobias]

i'd probably tend to believe that the internal corruption finally took it's toll

[Skarr]

I think the chief reason why Rome still dominates history today is because of what they left behind. Due to their penchant for meticulous organization and record keeping, their system of government, their buildings, monuments, etc. etc. we have one of the greatest records of any single civilization for posterity than any other which had gone before.

 

As another poster said, there were other great cultures, possibly even greater in certain respects but which have been completely swept away by the Romans, as if they never existed. It is like the Hellenization that took place in certain parts of what was once the mighty Persian empire as Alexander and subsequently, his generals, took control over various parts of the fragmented empire and changed it, in some cases, forever.

 

As to the fall of Rome, it is inevitable for any empire to feel complacent after so many centuries of dominance and the simple fact was possibly that Rome had become too large, too spread out and too secure in its own ways, somewhat like the British Empire which never thought it would crumble in so short a time. There was no sense of purpose driving Rome any more, the Republic itself had become nothing but a dim memory for most Romans. Several centuries ago, to be a Roman citizen meant something and so did a visit to the august Forum, the senate of Rome. All of these institutions had become meaningless over the centuries and I think the Romans just gave up on their idea, the idea that was responsible for its formation.

[Tobias]

As far as remaining prominent is concerned, the fact that several of our languages are descended partly from Latin and most of our laws are in Latin helps to remind of us of our Roman predecessors.

It's a bit of a shame they lost their ideals isn't it?

[Lost_Warrior]

It's a total shame. I actually refuse to compare us to Rome because the loss of the Roman ideals has removed us so far from Rome that it is an insult to the glory of Rome to compare the two. Laws, language, and architecture are pretty much all that's left.

[Tobias]

You're right, there is no comparison.

That's why it's interesting to look at those alternate history threads i.e Caesar not being murdered, Constantinople not falling to the Turks etc, and wonder what the world would be like today if the Roman Empire had sustained and not fallen.

[Lost_Warrior]

My guess is it would be much better. I miss Rome. :cry:

[Augur]

I cannot remember a string in which such blatant misconceptions and gross misunderstandings of Roman -- indeed, all of ancient history -- have been so misconstrued and mis-stated. Slaves = barbarians? Sparticus = Stilicho or was it Aetius? No sign of problems in 300AD? And all this time I thought we we discussing history as it occured back here on planet Earth.

[PerfectimusPrime]

I think the Roman Empire fell due to the post-Commodus civil wars, which caused severe damage and chaos... The Empire of Diocletian was almost a different Empire. So, The fall of Rome was not caused by corruption, lost moral values or Germanic invasion; the Germanics really didn't defeat the Empire, it was the Romans themselfs.

 

The Roman principate suffered from lack of accepted dynasty, and that caused civil wars, the civil wars, in turn, caused the destruction of highly trained and equipted legions and severe loss of infrastructure, which the Germanics could sack easily as the Romans were too busy with themselfs.

 

Yes, the Empire lasted for 130 years after the crisis and catastrophe, but it was due to brilliant minds like Diocletian. The armies of the Empire were never again to be as effective as they were under Augustus, Trajan ETC.