The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians

[caldrail]

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?

 

The populace was not so willing to be roman any more. The vast wealth of conquest had been squandered long ago and taxes were raised high to pay for an increasingly heavy and inefficient administration. Draft dodging was common, press gangs were employed to get people recruited, rural communities were opting out of roman control. The whole edifice was top heavy and crumbling. Barbarians didn't rush in and destroy the empire - far from it - they wanted its wealth and power for themselves.

[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?

 

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.

 

I have difficulty understanding your reasoning at all. From "new", you get "less tight-fisted"? That's a complete non sequitur. What *evidence* is there that the "aristocracy" (who is always a scapegoat for everything on this forum) were more or less tight-fisted depending on which region they lived? It seems like you want to uphold your hypothesis at all costs.

[DecimusCaesar]

I don't agree completely with the Barbarians over-running the Empire theory . They were a massive factor but the Empire wasn't the same during it last few centuries. Ever since the reforms of Diocletian and the christianization of the Empire later on, the forces that made Rome strong in the past disappeared. The strain on the economy in order to maintain the army took it's toll on the poorer people who had to pay for it's upkeep. This lead to riots and wide spread dissatisfaction with the Empire and the way it was being run. Things had gotten so bad that when Gaiseric led the Vandals into Spain, the Romano-Iberians welcomed them with open arms as they had had enough of Roman mis-rule. This lack of Patriotism, the strains on the economy, the struggles between the classes and infighting between the christians had severly broken Rome's power. That's why Romulus Augustulus surrendered to Odoacer. Can you imagine the earlier Romans surrendering their city to the barbarians? The Senate did not hand over Rome to Hannibal after Cannae but Romulus Augustulus handed it over without a fight, showing that the old spirit and will of Rome had been destroyed by all of the above factors.

Edited September 30, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Aurelianus]

I agree with DC, although Rome fell because it was invaded, the barbarians were only successful because of the weakened econemy, army and lack of patriotism. I think another major factor was the lack of any strong leadership. There was for a long time no stable dinasty, and the Emperors were weak and inefectual. The State changed hands so many times that no Emperor could ever stamp his authority on the empire, even if he had had the metal to do so. If there had been a Theodosius, Aurelian, or some other great govenor-general, then the barbarians wouldnt have achieved it. Lack of leadership was the death of Rome.

[caldrail]

As I recall,the last western emperor was a young lad with little real power (Romulus Augustulus). He was a figurehead for allintents and purposes, and dumped when it wasn't convenient any more.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree with DC, although Rome fell because it was invaded, the barbarians were only successful because of the weakened econemy, army and lack of patriotism. I think another major factor was the lack of any strong leadership. There was for a long time no stable dinasty, and the Emperors were weak and inefectual. The State changed hands so many times that no Emperor could ever stamp his authority on the empire, even if he had had the metal to do so. If there had been a Theodosius, Aurelian, or some other great govenor-general, then the barbarians wouldnt have achieved it. Lack of leadership was the death of Rome.

 

Why did you start with four (eminently reasonable) factors--and then end with only one? Given fantastic leadership, a weakened economy, an emaciated army, and unpatriotic citizens, Rome would have been nearly as vulnerable to the barbarians as she would have been without fantastic leadership, but still with a weakened economy, an emaciated army, and unpatriotic citizens.

[Aurelianus]

Why did you start with four (eminently reasonable) factors--and then end with only one? Given fantastic leadership, a weakened economy, an emaciated army, and unpatriotic citizens, Rome would have been nearly as vulnerable to the barbarians as she would have been without fantastic leadership, but still with a weakened economy, an emaciated army, and unpatriotic citizens.

 

I was saying that the first four were results of bad leadership: even with just a strong and efficient centeral government those problems might not have occered. If, just at the very end Rome aquired a brilliant general then no it wouldnt have made a great deal of differance. I'll refrase my final statement for you: Lack of leadership over a sustained period of time was the death of Rome.

[brotus maximus]

personally i think that they brought their own downfall for they were their own worst enemy to use it in a

context that besuites me

(my language yeeesh)

[Krackalackin]

Another Perspective is the failure of recognizing the future and things to come which is still a major problem in countries today. The Romans failed to realize or gave up on the idea of the conquest of Europe which I believe was a big mistake. They gave up on this after the failed campaign to conquer and govern Germania. There were several convincing reasons to forget it's annexation as the next province. One was that it was undeveloped, meaning its economy was primitive and undesirable, and a lot of people at the time probably thought that enough was enough. I think Rome's original motivation for conquest was still very valid and the right thing to do even if the Germans were not invaders of the Republic. If Rome continued to conquer, and develop Europe like Caesar helped so much in Gaul, It could have used the stepped as its natural border. A border between the steppes and the rugged terrain of the European 'Peninsula' (for sake of argument) would have given the Romans several advantages. It would have mave given them the element of surprise if a foreign invader ever penetrated the interior of the empire and could have taken away the advantage of mounted archers.

The Romans abandoned the idea of a walled defense because they realized their army has to be mobil and cannot repel an attack from an army with thinned out numbers on a wall. They decided it was beter to protect the border with Military bases instead which seemed like a good idea. The only problem was they gave up the advantage of refusing the enemy their cavalry units. If the Romans kept to the idea of a wall defense, (without an entrance at all to the wall) backed by interior armies, the Clans of the Steppes would be attacking Structurally defended positions and not engaging in land battles where their numerous cavalry always had an advantage over the Roman's limited cavalry regiments and foot soldiers. Walls were also good because the tribesmen had no real skill or practice with seige. They lived in the steppes and had no need or knowledge of seige equipment which the Romans were masters of. The Romans could have used this to their advantage as people had for hundreds of years on the defensive and could've created an empregnable meat-grinder designed to withstand any assault whatsoever. If the Romans realized that both Military forts and walls were both essential against the enemy they faced, they could've built a massive wall across the Border of Europe and established Legionary Bases alongside it.

Ofcourse for such an undertaking to have successfully worked, it would have required an efficient and steady flow of tax-income which moreover means the Romans would've needed to understand it's imperative to develop conquered provinces to sustain the Empire.

 

What I'm saying basically is it injured the patriotism and security for Rome in the long run to concede to the idea further conquest was no longer needed and endangered it.