Fall Of Rome

[bovismaximus]

so im working on a research project, and i thought id get some different opinions...

 

what do you think were the three main causes for the fall of rome, and why?

[Hamilcar Barca]

Three reasons is quite limited, given the magnitude of the question you asking. But to answer it quickly i'd say:

 

1. Poor leadership and protocol on behalf of the Emperors

2. Barbarian incursion and incorporation within the Empire

3. Countless civil wars

 

Read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

[Primus Pilus]

There are just so many (however many are closely tied in with one another), add...

 

Economic collapse

 

Religious collapse (the destruction of the pagan culture had a ripple effect that undermined the social order)

 

There are even some who blame lead poisoning

 

Hand in hand with barbarian incorporation is the barbarization of the Roman Legion. By the 5th century all traces of the army that conquered the western world had been replaced by what might as well be considered mercenary foreigners.

[Ursus]

Civil wars, economic decline, and barbarian immigrations ... all of which reinforce each other in a vicious cycle.

 

I could also add a general statement: Imperial Overstretch. The costs of maintaining the empire began to outweigh the benefits, and only the richer and more defensible East survived intact. I think Imperial Overstretch is the grand cause of which the other three items I mentioned are manifest symptoms.

[Viggen]

Dr Robert Sallares, of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology has a theory that one of the contributing factors were a malaria epidemy...

 

more info here

[Primus Pilus]

While I certainly agree that any plague or disease outbreak would have a detrimental effect on the ability of the Empire to withstand other pressures; I believe that the fall of the west was bound to happen within that general time frame anyway. While disease would certainly hasten matters, and cripple the potential for resistance, Rome as it was known in the early imperial period, in its prime size in the mid 2nd century, or even in the resurgance in the early 4th century, was gone.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I hope no one actually takes the lead poisoning theory seriously...

 

Because lead pipes and paints were used well up to the 1800s.

[Incitatus]

I believe Hadrian caused the fall. By giving up and defending the empire. This would have given the tribes courage (wimpy) and Hadrian forgot 'the best defence is a good offence'.

 

Brutus also caused the fall by cutting short best generals life in history.

(DO NOT CONTRADICT ME, HE IS MY HERO)

[Segestan]

<<<<<<Three reasons is quite limited, given the magnitude of the question you asking. But to answer it quickly i'd say:

 

1. Poor leadership and protocol on behalf of the Emperors

2. Barbarian incursion and incorporation within the Empire

3. Countless civil wars>>>>>>

 

 

I'll 2nd those.

 

Only add: Internal stability was always the weak under belly of Rome.

As Rome grew from a village to an Empire it became , by default, less Roman.

 

Hadrian for example; actually returned many of the earlier conquests back to the enemies of Rome. He did Not simply take a defensive posture.

I would have to say the number one weakness that caused the Fall of Rome.... No leader arose who would or could Hold what was Roman. Some men like Aurelius tryed.

regards,

[DanM]

1. Economic failure that was brought about by failures in tax policy and administrative corruption.

2. Civil wars that drained the manpower and financial resources of the government.

3. Pressure on the Germanic tribes to leave their lands as Asiatic tribes moved west. This resulted in massive migrations of Germanic tribesmen into Roman territory that simply would not have happened otherwise. For example, look at the movement of the Goths into the Balkans.

[Incitatus]

I still maintain the view that Hadrian ruined Rome with his attitude.

[DanM]

Thats cool. I am pretty set in my opinion that Justinian ruined the later Empire so I guess we are all entitled to our views.

[Primus Pilus]

I still maintain the view that Hadrian ruined Rome with his attitude.

15250[/snapback]

 

Personally, I feel Hadrian's brilliance is that he understood the Augustan principals of defining and maintaining tenable borders. An army can still conduct punitive operations regardless of whether or not its actually occupies enemy territory. The ever expanding borders proved to be wildly problematic.

[WotWotius]

The disaster at Adrianople in 378 AD.

 

As well as a physical defeat, this was also a psychological defeat as it caused a great loss of morale throughout the empire.

[Plautus]

What do my fellow citizens think of Gibbons theory that the building of the Great Wall of China caused a cascading migration west of Central Asian peoples that pushed the Germans and Goths onto the decaying Roman Empire? Causing what Germans call Die Volkwanderung, the Wandering of the People?