Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[Neos Dionysos]

I don't think I can add much to the discussion of the myriad contributing causes of Rome's fall (for those who agree that Rome fell). Perhaps I might add a question though?

 

At what point did the fall of the empire become (more or less) inevitable? When was the "no turning back" point?

 

Well the government of the West fell... that we all agree on...

 

 

Personally... I'm gonna go with the very latest date being 454ad when Aetius was killed since this left the West no longer controlled by a strong, powerful Roman... soon after his death court intriuges would be used left and right and claimed the life of the emperor and then the succeeding rulers were all truely puppets, (that is if you do not think the previous emperors of the West weren't 100% puppets ), of Germanic Leaders in command of the Roman Western Army...

 

Another time could be said at the assasination of Stilicho... and the same type of scenario occurs... though Rome was kinda able to recover, but I think at this point she was trying to apply a bandaid to a ruptured artery...

[Kathleenb]

Well the government of the West fell... that we all agree on...

 

Ah, yes, it's all in the proper wording and definition of the problem/question, isn't it?

[coolgolfer]

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD

In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

[Guest dov2005]

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD

In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

I know I am doing this wrong but I can't figure out how to answer the question. Excuse me. If someone could give me a quick tutorial on wheree and how to reply that would be much appreciated. Dov

[coolgolfer]

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD

In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

I know I am doing this wrong but I can't figure out how to answer the question. Excuse me. If someone could give me a quick tutorial on wheree and how to reply that would be much appreciated. Dov

 

 

You can either hit th eoption reply on the message that you want to answer too, or you can hit the option on the very top of the page called new reply. It' up to you.

[Primus Pilus]

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD

In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

I know I am doing this wrong but I can't figure out how to answer the question. Excuse me. If someone could give me a quick tutorial on wheree and how to reply that would be much appreciated. Dov

 

 

You can either hit th eoption reply on the message that you want to answer too, or you can hit the option on the very top of the page called new reply. It' up to you.

 

And if you are simply talking about answering the poll.. unfortunately once you make a post, you are no longer allowed to vote. A quirk we are aware of

[caldrail]

Political instability was inevitable after Augustus. Had his descendants survived and a 'royal' dynasty achieved acceptability with the senate and plebs, then Rome would have likely have avoided the mess that came later. Given the roman character and the competitive side of roman culture, it still might have collapsed in anarchy had that dynasty become weak at any stage.

[Philhellene]

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD

In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

 

You think Julius Majorianus wasn`t worthy ruler? According to Procopius of Caesarea, "he was more dignified man then all other Roman basilees that reigned in the West" (B.V. I, 7, 4) and "he was tireless in work and at the time of war he was completely fearless in battle" (B.V. I, 7, 5).

[Gaius Octavius]

It would seem that there are a myriad of causes that led to the 'Fall'. If one were to consider only one or a half dozen of these causes, it would beg the question: Would the Empire then have fallen? I feel that it was the conjunction of all of the above mentioned causes, and then some, that led to the 'Fall'.

 

It seems to be the opinion of many, today, that lead was not a significant problem for the Romans.

 

So many of these causes can be boiled down to simple greed. The citizen no longer felt that his primary obligation was to the state as in Republican times. It was to himself. So many of the patrician class went so far as to amputate the thumbs of the right hands of their sons to exempt them from military service. These same turned their 'clients' into serfs, thus extirpating their loyalty to the state. What did it matter to the serf who his oppressor was - a Roman or a Goth or an Arab (in later times)? The serf had become nothing more than a source of taxes and riches for the patricians and poverty for himself.

 

The legions ceased to be Roman or Italian and at one point became 95% 'barbarian'.

 

The inflation and debasing of the coinage of Deocletian's time and thereafter, should be added to the causes.

 

Gaius

SPQR

[suzhannah]

this maybe an over simplification but i think it expaned too far, just like Alexander. stretched beyone the bounds of being able to control it, police it and feed it.

[coolgolfer]

You really can't compare the Roman empire to Alexander the Great's empire.

Alexander's empire was really focused on one personalilty and that was Alexander himself.

 

Once Alexander died, his empire collapsed into fiefdoms or divided up by his loyal generals to rules amongst themselves. Plus they fought each other too.

 

The Roman empire eventhough it expanded enormously lasted a very long, long time.

 

 

this maybe an over simplification but i think it expaned too far, just like Alexander. stretched beyone the bounds of being able to control it, police it and feed it.

[Julia C]

The Roman Empire fell when it stopped being Roman. When it became this monolithic thing that only had a name to it. This happened long before the fifth century.

[suzhannah]

hi

any empire can be compared to Alexander and the Romans, just choose, ie, otterman, mughal, persian, british.

 

my feeling still remains in simplifyed terms only (not to include personality or charater), was to suggest that they all went the same way-overexpansion. a step too far.

 

spread too thin on the ground and therefore too difficult to manage and rule efficiently or control i feel is a better word.

 

[Julia C]

hi

any empire can be compared to Alexander and the Romans, just choose, ie, otterman, mughal, persian, british.

 

my feeling still remains in simplifyed terms only (not to include personality or charater), was to suggest that they all went the same way-overexpansion. a step too far.

 

spread too thin on the ground and therefore too difficult to manage and rule efficiently or control i feel is a better word.

 

 

How can you say that when the majority of its expansion occured in the Republic, when it still had half a millennium to go? The Empire reached its greatest height in 117 and still had three centuries to go.

 

When those other empires got 'overstretched,' they didn't last too much longer. Certainly not three centuries.

[tflex]

Agreed, you can't compare the other empires to Rome. Rome was successful in holding it's empire together for over 600 years, if you start counting from the time when the Italian Peninsula was consolidated and the beginning of the Punic wars right until the fall in 476AD.