Fall Of Rome

[WotWotius]

I'd liked to believe that....

[Ursus]

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?

 

 

Professor Eugene Weber pointed this out as well...

 

Personally I'd like to see more research on the validity of the theory. The Great Wall was built to regulate trade, not be an impassable barrier to barbarians.

 

In any event I think the exploding Germanic population would have found its way into Roman territory, with or without incentive from the Huns.

[Neos Dionysos]

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.

 

Don't forget the battle of Frigidus in 394 AD. While it was a civil war conflict, the battle did destroy most of the Western Army, and so now you have when a 20 year span, the destruction of the best troops of the East and West if you combine the problems of Adrianople.

[sullafelix]

Going right back to the beginning I would say

 

Economic collapse (caused essentially by fixing the empires borders and by never discovering the concept of fiduciary coinage)

 

The barbarisation of the army

 

that the roman empire never really collapsed but that the west ended up being sacrificed so that the east could live. Rome was geographically hard to defend and the money was in the Eastern half of the mpire where the borders were more easily defendable than the west

 

but there are plenty more reasons too

[eggers]

1) Roman army used more and more mercenaries/ barbarian troops, which once their tour of duty was done, they went back home, taking the roman system of war with them. This gave the barbarian a chance to study and overcome the best of roman stratergies.

2) Introduction of christianity (or more precisely, 1 supreme god). With paganism, there are alot of different gods, so all the different cultures within rome's border could intergrate easier. (romans did incorp. some gallic gods for example), so when one more god appeared, no-one really noticed. Then, all subjects within the empire could all then share a common goal and belief system without really changing a thing. This also made war and extermination of a group of enemies/people without causing sin easier.

3) The overall belief that rome could never fall. When you grow up in a culture, which has a long a spectacular history, you don't expect anything to change. So when some people get greedy and corrupt, they don't exactly expect the world to collapse around them. Once some people get greedy, others do too. So there is a vicious circle of greed corruption and victims (urban poor) of that corruption. Eventually mismanagement sets in, money goes missing, building get repaired less and less frequently. Eventually the system gets so weak through human nature, and enemy takes notice, and storms the place. Just like the visigoths. In effect, human nature + the fact that empires fall.

[Philhellene]

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

 

Why do you think that Rome fell? You mean the capture of Rome by barbarians? or by Romans?

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

If you mean by the fall or the city of Rome (one of the cities and regions of the Roman Empier) then I agree with all of the opinion of all you folks shared here. Especially the economic collapse and the overdependent for foreign mercenaries, because the un-willingness of their citizens to become soldiers.

 

However if you mean by the fall of the Roman Empire itself I beg to differ, because the Roman Empire trully ended with the Fall of Constantinopel in 1453.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Fox Hound

[Neos Dionysos]

Greetings,

and the overdependent for foreign mercenaries, because the un-willingness of their citizens to become soldiers.

 

They weren't mercinaries, they were Federates, who were for the most part settled peoples on Roman lands and part of thier treaty was to provide soldiers for the army. The sad reality many of these were more loyal to Rome than most Romans, since many prominent Romans were more interested in being Emperor and rich than saving Rome or the provinces of the empire. The problems came when withen a generation both the Eastern and Western Armies were decimated; the Eastern Army at Adrianople in 378 and the Western Army at Frigidus in 394. In addition you had the persecution of Federate troops by Romans following Magister Militum Stilicho's death. He was a servant of Theodious and his family and I think it more so propaganda that he was made to be this villian, once he was killed 30,000 troops were forced to go to Alaric who used them to sack Rome in 410.

 

However if you mean by the fall of the Roman Empire itself I beg to differ, because the Roman Empire trully ended with the Fall of Constantinopel in 1453.

 

I say 1461 with the fall of Trezibond.

[eggers]

They weren't mercinaries, they were Federates,

According to the research i managed to couple together, the romans were relying heavily on mercenaries, as well as the federates. If u found otherwise, by all means show me the right direction and tell me where to look.

[martianus]

hey y'all

I agree with y'all on some of the causes, although my opinion is a little different. My theory is that 4th century Rome was just not ready or willing to deal with the 4th century problems. The lead idea is good, but not the main reason. The mercenary idea, same thing. Same thing for all your ideas, I do say, however, that Rome fell because of ALL those things happening at ONCE. Think about it for a moment: bureaucratic ineffeciency, widespread vice, lack of competition/little frontier space, and other nations rising to prominence. I say the rise of the barbarians and Byzantium ended the Roman epoch and started the European Dark Age and the Byzantine Epoch.

 

This sort of thing happens for every epoch (the Pelopennesian War ended the Hellenistic period and ushered in the Alexandrian/Macedonian period, the industrial revolution destroyed the socialistic, feudal system of lords and vassals and gave way to a more "federal" system of government). I call the years between the epochs the Transistion Period, and it happens a lot in the world, but it doesn't have to be the collapse of the superpower or the assassination of a world leader.

 

Think of other times like that in history, the dark ages before the enlightment and age of exploration, America's minor political and economic decays before Jackson and the westward movement, and I agrue the current epoch as well, America's total cultural decay before the next frontier opens up the free-market space race. But then again, I'm an amateur who loves Roman history and this is my my theory on the fall of Rome and other empires throughout history.

Edited December 10, 2005 by martianus

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

You must remember that we're just stating the many problems which plagued Rome, obviously a lot of them occured regularly and maybe at the same time. But not to the least say that one of them had a greater effect, for example, I would think the Barbarian horde is hugely responsible for turning the army into something that could turn into a serious rebellion at any moment. The barbarians(not militarily) no longer helped Rome, but fed off of its resources like a parasite. Meanwhile the moral and political decay of the Romans made the government so ineffective to stand up against the barbarians. The daily functions of the government and services such as sanitation and other stuff was of unimportance, which resulted in the suffering of the plebs and easy picking for an epidemic. You've gotta remember that Byzantine is Rome, so really its more of structural decay of the West while the conditions in the East allow its to stand and prosper as it was like during the West's existence.

Side note: the use of the word Epoch can be used, but its rarely used in discussing Roman history, the word applies more to anthropology than it does Rome.

Edited December 10, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[martianus]

You must remember that we're just stating the many problems which plagued Rome, obviously a lot of them occured regularly and maybe at the same time. But not to the least say that one of them had a greater effect, for example, I would think the Barbarian horde is hugely responsible for turning the army into something that could turn into a serious rebellion at any moment. The barbarians(not militarily) no longer helped Rome, but fed off of its resources like a parasite. Meanwhile the moral and political decay of the Romans made the government so ineffective to stand up against the barbarians. The daily functions of the government and services such as sanitation and other stuff was of unimportance, which resulted in the suffering of the plebs and easy picking for an epidemic. You've gotta remember that Byzantine is Rome, so really its more of structural decay of the West while the conditions in the East allow its to stand and prosper as it was like during the West's existence.

Side note: the use of the word Epoch can be used, but its rarely used in discussing Roman history, the word applies more to anthropology than it does Rome.

I apologize about the mess up with the archaeological jargon, but I'm NOT an expert. The Byzantine Empire was NOT Eastern Rome after the 5th century, hence the name. As for your first sentence, bovismaximas was asking about our research to the different causes of Rome's fall, not just the problems.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

 

I apologize about the mess up with the archaeological jargon, but I'm NOT an expert. The Byzantine Empire was NOT Eastern Rome after the 5th century, hence the name. As for your first sentence, bovismaximas was asking about our research to the different causes of Rome's fall, not just the problems.

 

Sorry about that, its personal preference of mines to call the Byzantines Romans, which they DID call themselves. I don't like the term Byzantine. You do realize the problems are the causes of why Rome fell, so it does relate to what the topic is.

Edited December 14, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[martianus]

 

I apologize about the mess up with the archaeological jargon, but I'm NOT an expert. The Byzantine Empire was NOT Eastern Rome after the 5th century, hence the name. As for your first sentence, bovismaximas was asking about our research to the different causes of Rome's fall, not just the problems.

 

Sorry about that, its personal preference of mines to call the Byzantines Romans, which they DID call themselves. I don't like the term Byzantine. You do realize the problems are the causes of why Rome fell.

This is true, I always thought of them as 2 different civs anyway. And yes, problems do cause empires to fall.

[Philhellene]

The Byzantine Empire was NOT Eastern Rome after the 5th century, hence the name.

 

You`re wrong. You should read that: Byzantium, When was it Greek. Noone can explain me why the Byzantine Empire wasn`t the Roman Empire.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Philhellene