The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians

[Northern Neil]

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.... No sign of problems in 300AD?  And all this time I thought we we discussing history as it occured back here on planet Earth.

Of course, there were problems in 300 AD - just as there were problems in 180, and in Augustan times. But in 300 there was no sign of the huns pushing germans into the confines of the empire, the struggles between pagan and christian ideology were yet to get off the ground, and the army had successfully transformed itself to adequately match new developments by the Persians and Germans. When I said that there was nothing in 300 AD to forewarn of the impending probems of the fifth century, I was actually quoting Professor Averil Cameron, one of the leading historians of the late Roman period. I would say she has a pretty good grasp of her subject.

[Tobias]

Could i ask something? When did Odovacer come into the picture, and what tribe was he?

[Primus Pilus]

He is generally considered a Vandal King because it was the Vandal host army controlling Rome that elected him. He was likely of Hunnish or Scirian background. Though he was obviously around for some time as magister militum, he becomes prominent with the revolt of the army in 476 AD and the final fall of the western empire.

[Tobias]

Ah. Thanks for that, from what i researched he was of Skyrian descent, but i wasn't sure.

He must have been an intimidating sight initially for poor Romulus Augustulus lol

From what i've read though, he eventually tidied himself up and adopted many Roman mannerisms, so that's something

[Guest kashube]

God bless the negative views of the ancient Germanic peoples.

 

First.......... The word barbarian means foriegn particularly in reference to speech.

 

Second...... Romans viewed Germanic lifestyles as odd but is found as a major topic among Roman pollitical thinkers. Germanic tribesman focused on the belief of the individual. Individualism and its pursuit, was not very accustomed to the republic thinking Romans. They gorged themselves, often drinking large amounts of beer, eating the errgot fungus, as well as sleeping alot. Trade was individulized. Germans often focused primarily on their own pursuits. Many Germanic areas were sparsley poplulated. Often large Germanic enclaves were those of the same family. In times of war the tribes would band together and fight, then the role of king/leader was democratically elected. After a war ended, so did the king/leaders role. Thus back to idividulistic pursuits.

 

Third.......... Couple Christianity with the Germanic Idividualistic ideals and the migration of Germans into Roman lands you have a silent revoultion that helped topple Rome.

 

Fourth........ Many Germanic tribes take their beliefs of warfare from early Vikings. Often their primary focus was swift guerilla tactics. They also used intimadation as a weapon. The Germans lacked siege warfare, so one wonders how did the marauding tribesman get into walled Roman towns. They were naturally stronger and larger people, due to gentics and lifestyle. This was intimadating. With the advent of many tribesman joining the Roman ranks, their reputaion as some of the most fierce warriors grew. They often ingested fungus which helped defeat fatigue on the battlefield and giving them a berzerk like rage. Thus, small roman towns were often scared. Basically they tried to extort them from there riches. If this did not work, they simply starved them and cut off their water supply. These small attacks helped reinforce the growing belief that the romans could not protect them. So why pay tribute to the republic.

 

I read a post on here talking of how the Romans sat back and developed a plan and executed it to defeat Boudicia. The Germans in their own way did the same thing. They sat back and chipped away the Roman armor until the empire was left naked. Many barbarians did the same thing. Their hedonistic approach to a life a freedom and the individual, as well as the Germanizing of the Roman countryland, was a the greatest unknowing victory of the german tribesman.

 

I know this is a pro Roman site, but we must remember who wrote the history of the time, is it biased? Does most history have spin on it? Could this lead us into beliveing that all Barbarians wore loincloths and spent their time headbutting each other?

[WotWotius]

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts. At its height in the 2nd Century AD, Rome could only be viewed as an impossible miracle come true. The Empire was colossal in size in size, and was kept alive, not because of her ability to defend her frontiers, but because her frontiers never experienced large-scale pressure. When they did (during the 3rd/4th Century), they crumbled.

 

Basically, what I am saying is that the Roman Empire was not so much weaken, more overwhelmed.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts.

 

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact.

 

That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else?

[Krackalackin]

Who ever said that slaves caued the downfall of Rome is an igonorant fool.

 

 

Hmmmm, perhaps it did. Had the roman's stuck to their old ways and kept all the vital work inhouse, manning their armies with their own people, farming their own fields, perhaps they would of stayed a vibrant, republican minded state.

 

I believe you're right. I've shortened this post because I didn't think anyone would want to read such a long impulsive post.

 

I'm gonna be frank about this. I'm convinced there are two major types of political thought and have always been. Conservative and Liberal are really just the names of the method of applying them. There are three ways to see the world, ultimately (I believe). The first is Preservation and the second is accomodation. The third is really the ideology of people who are fed up with institutions in General and has no real philosophical value. As I've learned in history, in a nutshell, preservation which often ecompasses strict rules, codes of conduct, tradition and discipline has always been the philosophy of endurance minded and strong. The belief in hierarchy, dismissal of compromise, entitlement, citizen=member of a team, etc. Basically a government built like an Army almost, very rigid. The other is the idea of human equality, accomodation, diversity, a brotherhood of man, etc. This is the wimpy democratic philosophy.

Often times, a government will be structured to reflect an ideology. A Monarchy, or appointed-heir dictatorship being the most preservation-minded (in theory, of course) and the Democratic forms, built on the idea of diversity, equality, accomodation.

I've studied politics for years, debated with experts, referred to history and I'm also convinced that each form has an inevitable built-in course that is difficult to withstand. The Preservation minded philosophy wishes to breed unity as opposed to diversity and has it's own idea on what a citizen is, deriving and building a citizen's identity ie: Roman, American, Brit, etc. This unity inevitably breeds culture but is almost always intended for internal strength. Accomodation is the idea of the tolerance of many cultures to make up the identity of the state. Diversity in thought as a strength, if you will. Your identity becomes the reflection of the simple contrasts of citizens around you. This I believe is well intentioned in most cases but is in practice, a simple dilution of a states character, if integrated. It leads to the lessening of standards, because of all the different perspectives, and impersonalizing of institutions.

Rome was originally conservative minded to the bone (although a republic replaced the Kings of Old) whom felt it was their 'doin' proper' to expand their territory to govern people whom they imagined could be and were often their enemies. They believed in the idea of a true Roman, and the Roman traditions and values were at the heart of every Roman and were of an almost religious fervor. I'm not going to go into length about the mechanics of this in context with the history of Rome but once the idea of the Roman man was forgoten because of extreme wealth, relations with conquered civilians, integration of barbaric caucasian tribes with their accomodating, out for yourself ideas, illusion of invulnerablility, etc; there were no longer an Empire with the a common identity, but masses living under the Umbrella of the Roman State. Rome got silly and nobody gave a damn.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Krackalackin

[caldrail]

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts. At its height in the 2nd Century AD, Rome could only be viewed as an impossible miracle come true. The Empire was colossal in size in size, and was kept alive, not because of her ability to defend her frontiers, but because her frontiers never experienced large-scale pressure. When they did (during the 3rd/4th Century), they crumbled.

 

Basically, what I am saying is that the Roman Empire was not so much weaken, more overwhelmed.

 

Its true the west was under pressure but the situation was actually very confused. Whole sections of the empire at grass roots were no longer keen to be roman. The great wealth of the early principate had been squandered since there wasn't any conquest and plunder to replce it. All roads lead to Rome and the massive consumer society of that city paid for imports from around the empire and beyond. Cash was disappearing abroad faster than it the profits of export. In order to pay for the infrastructure of the roman state this required higher taxes. In order to protect this state it required men enlisted in the armies, something no longer seen as a desirable profession in later times. Who will bring in the harvest this year when all our sons are defending the Danube? Many of the soldiers of the invading armies were actually roman - and many defenders were goths.

 

Therefore what we see is a decline in patriotism. Less inclination to do your bit for Rome. People were becoming more insular and in fact there were some deep divisions about religion. There were still pagans amongst the widely different christian faiths such as Monatists, Gnostics, Arians, Orthodox etc. People were worried about their future and not concerned with politics.

 

I see things as very much the opposite of your view. Roman society was losing its coherence and focus.

[Neos Dionysos]

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts.

 

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact.

 

That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else?

 

 

Sorry Cato, gonna disagree here. The barbarians had a huge impact but they merely accelerated the process of the empire falling. Barbarians invaded many points of the empire but soon after they were 'Roman' again. When they no longer became Roman was more when the land was given to germanic peoples, like the Visigoths, Burgandians and Vandals... and so then that land was no longer 'Roman' so you could say Rome was cutting itself up but this also allowed them to defeat less area since those germanic kingdoms were obliged to fight for Rome, (which they did most of the time but usually only with excellent diplomacy), and it allowed Rome to concentrate on the most important areas in the West, Italy and Africa. (Africa would be lost to the Vandals, due in no small part to the fact that the Vandals were ferried across by Rebel Romans to use as troops...).

 

What do I think was the main cause, the economy and an aristocracy unwilling to part with any of thier vast estates until they suddenly no longer had control of it. Corruption was so terrible taxes were getting to where they were needed if anyone was even being paid taxes. The people most at stake who should have been paying were the wealthy landowners. Add to this the decline of the Roman cities. It became more and more dangerous to travel roads to marketlplace, transport goods. So, villas and estates began to do things autonomously, (we have evidence of this in Gaul and Britain), and so with the decline of cities you have an overral decline then of the local economy as well, breakdown in the normal social structure and then add to that the marvelous incursions, lack of manpower to do any defending of the borders... and finally an emperor in the West who was nothing more than a puppet of his Magister Militum. These are the causes of the West's fall. Barbarians were merely added fuel to the fire.

[Ursus]

Peter Heather seems to think the Roman Empire was doing just fine until those pesky barbarian super-tribes invaded. He does present some convincing arguments that the internal rot of the Western empire is a bit overplayed.

 

If the reinvigorated Persian Empire is considered a regional superpower in its own right, and the Germanic supertribes created indirectly by Hunnish invasions are considered a regional superpower in their own right, perhaps it's simply a fact the Late Empire was caught between two regional superpowers, something it had no experience in fighting nor the resources to counter? After the floodgate broke the richer and more defensible East was simply the only part of Rome that could survive.

 

I'm trying to think if Rome ever had to fight a war simultaneously with two regional superpowers at once before the late Empire. For instance, Carthage would be considered a regional superpower but its barbarian and Hellenistic allies could barely be considered as superpowers themselves. The conclusion I am drawing is that the Late Empire simply had too many powerful enemies to fight at once.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What do I think was the main cause, the economy and an aristocracy unwilling to part with any of thier vast estates until they suddenly no longer had control of it.

How does your explanation account for the fact that different parts of the empire fell at different times? There is no independent evidence that the aristocrats in Britain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, or Asia were any more or less willing to lose their money than the aristocrats in the other regions. So why did some areas fall before others?

 

Again, a good explanation for the fall has to account for the geographic and temporal variation in the decline of the empire (i.e., why *what* fell *when*), but since all general factor explanations (decline in morality, loss of will to live, willingness of the aristocracy to lose their money, etc) haven't the temporal or geographic specificity to explain these variables, they're bad explanations.

[WotWotius]

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts.

 

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact.

 

That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else?

 

 

What I find strange is that during the fall of the Empire, Rome was unable to tap in to the vast amount of manpower that she had during the Punic War period. Was it because the Empire's populace was so disillusioned that they did not mind the transition into the Dark Ages? Or was the Empire in fact overwhelmed?

[Neos Dionysos]

Peter Heather seems to think the Roman Empire was doing just fine until those pesky barbarian super-tribes invaded. He does present some convincing arguments that the internal rot of the Western empire is a bit overplayed.

 

If the reinvigorated Persian Empire is considered a regional superpower in its own right, and the Germanic supertribes created indirectly by Hunnish invasions are considered a regional superpower in their own right, perhaps it's simply a fact the Late Empire was caught between two regional superpowers, something it had no experience in fighting nor the resources to counter? After the floodgate broke the richer and more defensible East was simply the only part of Rome that could survive.

 

I'm trying to think if Rome ever had to fight a war simultaneously with two regional superpowers at once before the late Empire. For instance, Carthage would be considered a regional superpower but its barbarian and Hellenistic allies could barely be considered as superpowers themselves. The conclusion I am drawing is that the Late Empire simply had too many powerful enemies to fight at once.

 

Peter Heather is an excellent historian and I look up to him but it seems the idea that of the "flood" of barbarians overtaking the civilized world is overdone in my eyes.

 

I would say that things were now different because Rome had never dealt with a people like the Huns. In the past, they were able to play members of the people against the other. So, a second son of a king against the elder brother, a rebel noble against the king etc. Attila though, once he took power demanded all Hunnic nobles in Roman lands returned and once that was done he executed them before the eyes of the Roman emissaries and so destroyed any chance Rome had at playing off the factions as they did so well with other Barbarian peoples. And Attila did create a massive 'nation' on his own. Just look at the destruction he did to the Balkans, razing several cities along the important military highway, creating a wasteland in his wake.

 

Even if there are "two" superpowers at this time now, the East had to deal with the Huns and Persia at the same time but were able to hold out mainly due to thier superior financial and geographical advantages. The West though only had the Huns... so they only had one superpower to deal with.

 

 

What do I think was the main cause, the economy and an aristocracy unwilling to part with any of thier vast estates until they suddenly no longer had control of it.

How does your explanation account for the fact that different parts of the empire fell at different times? There is no independent evidence that the aristocrats in Britain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, or Asia were any more or less willing to lose their money than the aristocrats in the other regions. So why did some areas fall before others?

 

Again, a good explanation for the fall has to account for the geographic and temporal variation in the decline of the empire (i.e., why *what* fell *when*), but since all general factor explanations (decline in morality, loss of will to live, willingness of the aristocracy to lose their money, etc) haven't the temporal or geographic specificity to explain these variables, they're bad explanations.

 

I say this because the new Senatorial aristocracy of the East was new and thus not as hell bent on holding onto all thier property and holdings, even if they were, the Emperor in the East had actual authority where as in the West the Emperor was a puppet of the Magister Militum or the Senate and so they could not wrest control of thier money from thier hands.

[Krackalackin]

My statement basically agrees with Dyonyso's. I know it's long so I'll do you guys the favor of the homework, and just say that his opinion is the same as mine.