Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[suzhannah]

err,

i did say over simplification for arguements sake.

 

the mughal empire lasted for 300 years

the british from 1600 to 1947 ish. and so on. i

 

t wasnt a matter of time but a matter of too much expansion not enough reliable man power is my view for the fall of the empire eventually. that and what else did they have to conquer and with what.

 

and i am just suggesting, so pls, if you reply, keep it civil, its only my one humble opinion and not a invitation for battle

[Germanicus]

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.

 

 

I think Suzhannah was saying that most acquisitions that lasted - were gained in the republican period, seems true enough to me. My UNRV map tells me that much.

[Pantagathus]

I think Suzhannah was saying that most acquisitions that lasted - were gained in the republican period, seems true enough to me. My UNRV map tells me that much.

 

I'd also support that assertion

[Skarr]

In my opinion, the key turning point for Rome was its victory over Carthage and the subsequent expansion into Greece and Macedonia. That, followed by victories in Africa, Spain and later, in Gaul under Caesar's leadership, really cemented Rome's position. Octavian's annexation of Egypt not only secured grain for the subsequent Empire but also provided the much needed wealth that was needed to pay the legions.

 

I think the Republicans, from Scipio to Caesar, created a springboard for the continuing imperial expansion of Rome, with its military might virtually unchallenged by another civilization in the Mediterranean. Who could resist the formidable legions, their discipline and finally, their culture / civilization and also their superb administrative abilities.

 

They were masters at organization and setting up infrastructure, where none existed before. Most peoples they conquered tended to be nomadic or migratory, especially the "barbarians" who typically settled in one spot and laid waste to the land around them until they literally ran out of resources. This forced the long migrations that Rome dreaded and which, in time, proved deadly for them, particularly in the Western Empire.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Skarr

[Nerva]

Well, I've brought this thread back from the dead it seems.

 

I chose economic decline. While any of the factors taken individually, couldn't bring down the Empire, when all combined into a perfect storm, spelled doom for the Western Empire. I picked economic decline because over time, it left the Empire in a weakened state. A wealthy Empire should not have had to strip troops from the border regions on the Rhine to fight the Goths in Italy as Stilicho did (or tell Britannia to defend themselves as best they could). They simply couldn't field enough forces to defend themselves.

 

And the economic decline itself is the result of several factors. The Roman economic machine was driven by plunder. The minute Rome stopped expanding, the booty stopped flowing into the economy. Moronic acts by Emperors like doubling the legions' pay didn't help matters, or staging lavish games, or building churches with state money. Disease is also a factor in the poor economy. Tax payers dying because of plague isn't going to help your economic base and we see a depopulation in the Empire in the 3rd century because of disease. Crippling taxes only stifles the economy and encourages tax evasion and barter. I think at some level, the Roman leadership understood basic economics, but there was too much pressure to simply raise taxes or mint more money. The quick answer was usually the one chosen because Emperors with the mob and hostile legions at their throats have to take quick action, so just mint more coins.

 

Civil Wars existed all throughout Roman history, so that wasn't much of a change, but in the weakened state of their economy in the 5th century, they just couldn't afford the luxury of fighting each other. But why change? It was the Roman way. They had been conducting business like this for 1000 years. I don't think they realized that the Empire could really fall if they continued in the same manner.

[DecimusCaesar]

I've decided to go with mass migrations. If Romans suffered from internal conflicts from within they would have been able to over come these problems and survive, like they did after the age of anarchy in the third century AD.

 

The invasions of the Goths, Huns, Vandals and other barbarians caused to much stress on the empire's borders, and they collapsed, leading to the end of the Western Empire.

[Ursus]

I've decided to go with mass migrations. If Romans suffered from internal conflicts from within they would have been able to over come these problems and survive, like they did after the age of anarchy in the third century AD.

 

The invasions of the Goths, Huns, Vandals and other barbarians caused to much stress on the empire's borders, and they collapsed, leading to the end of the Western Empire.

 

Agreed.

[Neos Dionysos]

I've decided to go with mass migrations. If Romans suffered from internal conflicts from within they would have been able to over come these problems and survive, like they did after the age of anarchy in the third century AD.

 

The invasions of the Goths, Huns, Vandals and other barbarians caused to much stress on the empire's borders, and they collapsed, leading to the end of the Western Empire.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm inclined to say economic collapse, but in my opinion it is tied to the barbarians. (I am changing my old vote from internal fighting).

 

My point is, once Rome lost control of the mediterranian, it was the end for the West. It is all on one's opinions on what is acceptable to be "an empire" still and giving swaths of land away, but so long as Rome controlled the Med, I think shw could have lingered on and still be a potent force. Some sources state into the dying days that to teach or assist barbarians in learning seafaring knowledge is punishible by death, of course once Africa was lost these became mute points yet, the Vandals taking of Africa was a two-fold blow, #1, the loss of revenue of the realitively unscathed African provinces which was the main source of income for the West, and #2, Gaiseric's brilliance in realizing true power lay in controlling the Med. and in doing so cutting the very throat of Rome.

 

So, economic collapse is my vote... with babarian migrations being the cause of the economic crash.

[edgewaters]

Well ... I've always thought that the decline of the economic importance of the City itself was a major factor. The Roman worker had to be increasingly subsidized to compete against cheap provincial (slave) labour. And with economic importance migrating away from the central nexus, so did authority; as the powerful latifundia owners began to expand their holdings and drive out the free Roman farmer/settler, they were able to secure the offices of provincial administration and cement their power by making those offices hereditary. Not only was there a trade deficit with the provinces, the central authority was losing its teeth to its own provincial producers and adminstrators. There was a dissipation of power happening, I think, even before the migrations were really a factor.

[Kosmo]

Economy obviously suffered because of increased goverment spending, but this spending was always driven by internal political problems and the need to buy social peace. Increased salaries for soldiers, games and distributions for plebs, unproductive public buildings etc drain resources from producers and this is why taxation had to increase, but public spending was also a key for economic life in many areas.

 

Economy of the late empire was different of the Antonines one especially in regard of trade, but archeolgical evidence shows that the empire was still active and undoubtly rich. The decline in urbanisation in the West from the III C did not diminish trade and crafts. The economic decline of the empire before 400 AD still has to be proven especially in the Med region.

 

The same must be said about demography. Border regions exposed to raiding suffered a reduction of rural population but before 400 Ad romans were largely succesfull in defending the empire. Balkan region that suffered the most from goth and other attackers remained roman long after unafected Spain was lost. Epidemies were a normal occurance and I know no extremly severe epydemy between Marcus Aurelius and Justinian.

 

I see the fall of the West as a result of mounting pressure from internal conflicts towards a inefficient political system, of military defeat against goths and the vandal group and as a result of splitting the empire depriving the West of acces to the rich resources of the East. After some "barbarians" settled the empire their use of roman internal conflicts prevented a reconquest by a state with dwindelling resources. So, I generally agree with Peter Heather.

 

The fact that local populations were not very fond of the overtaxing and always in crisis empire was often expressed thru rebellions and accepting of barbarians and this was also a problem.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Rome had dealt with mass migrations and barbarian invasions a number of times before, not to mention full scale wars with opposing powers since its earliest days. Just the same they had political infighting since the days of the late republic and all through the principate as well as having bad emperors from the start (Caligula, Nero). The uncommon denominator durring the late empire that caused its fall was economic decay. The Roman system was at its core unsustainable. Soldiers were discharged early on with grants of land, but when the new sources of land dried up they were given cash pensions; when the plunder dried up because the empire had stopped conquering new lands, taxes had to be raised, or more often the emperors simply devalued the currency leading to inflation and lack of trust in government coinage. The effect of the plague of the late second century I think as well is often greatly underestimated as it weakened population in an empire that required a steady flow of tax revenue to support its army. The crisis of the third century really started off no differently than the civil wars of Caesar and Pompey or the year of the four emperors. It was able to continue for so long only because at this point the soldiers were so utterly dependant upon their commanders for their well being, even more so than in earlier times because of the drying up of resources. The lack of a system of succesion which is so often cited never had any realistic chance to take hold in a country without real absolutist tradition and where the situation on the ground gave so much power to individual commanders.

 

So, while the barbarian movements undoubtedly brought an end to the Western Empire, the Roman system that provided its people with security and a higher standard of living was effectivley gone when Diocletian's dominate reestablished order in the late third century. At this point the citizens were really no better off than their descendants in the middle ages; tied to the land in exchange for protection from a local lord. So while the empire as a political enitity lasted until the late fifth century in the West, economic decline brought about by the unsustainability of the Roman system ended the real advantages enjoyed by citizens in earlier times.

[M. Porcius Cato]

So, while the barbarian movements undoubtedly brought an end to the Western Empire, the Roman system that provided its people with security and a higher standard of living was effectivley gone when Diocletian's dominate reestablished order in the late third century. At this point the citizens were really no better off than their descendants in the middle ages; tied to the land in exchange for protection from a local lord.

 

In the main, I agree with this assessment: Diocletian's reforms created the feudal system and were an economic disaster. For all that, however, do recall that the material comforts of the Romans (and their livestock!) even in the third century were much better than those found after the Germanic invasions, when life in the provinces returned to Iron Age levels of subsistence farming.

 

Also, the analogy between Caesar's war on Rome and the civil wars of the third century seems to miss a crucial factor, one that is entirely relevant to the topic on the single biggest contributor to Rome's collapse. What's missing is that Caesar was attempting to circumvent the legal mechanism for the transfer and supervision of power, whereas--after Caesar's success--that mechanism no longer existed. Indeed, if you count up all the consuls of the republic and all the emperors after the fall of the republic, you will find that only about 5% of consuls held their positions through extra-constitutional means, whereas fully 50% of emperors attained their positions through the murder, suicide, or military defeat of their predecessor. The principate was an inherently unstable system and was doomed to collapse.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

In the main, I agree with this assessment: Diocletian's reforms created the feudal system and were an economic disaster. For all that, however, do recall that the material comforts of the Romans (and their livestock!) even in the third century were much better than those found after the Germanic invasions, when life in the provinces returned to Iron Age levels of subsistence farming.

 

Also, the analogy between Caesar's war on Rome and the civil wars of the third century seems to miss a crucial factor, one that is entirely relevant to the topic on the single biggest contributor to Rome's collapse. What's missing is that Caesar was attempting to circumvent the legal mechanism for the transfer and supervision of power, whereas--after Caesar's success--that mechanism no longer existed. Indeed, if you count up all the consuls of the republic and all the emperors after the fall of the republic, you will find that only about 5% of consuls held their positions through extra-constitutional means, whereas fully 50% of emperors attained their positions through the murder, suicide, or military defeat of their predecessor. The principate was an inherently unstable system and was doomed to collapse.

 

Granted, the standard of living did not plummet as drastically as it would later, but the significance of Diocletian's economic reforms were that there really no longer was any advantage to being a Roman citizen, evidenced by the empire's inability to supply the neccesary manpower for the army. This is a huge difference from earlier times and in my opinion marks a critical turning point in history.

 

I do think that the analogy of Caesar's wars to later wars holds, though. Although you are correct in pointing out that he was circumventing the system of power, it must be remembered that the system the republic had created was not suited to deal with the empire that Rome had forged, and for many decades before Caesar men had circumvented the legal system in pursuit of power. The republic's elections were a mockery at this time, with offices sold to the highest bidder, and everyone- including the Plebs knew it. The figure that only 5% of consuls gained their position through extra-constitutional means covers a period of hundreds of years, the majority of which the republic controlled at most Italy, Carthage and some territory in Spain. The vast majority of the empire was forged in a relatively short time near the end of the republic, and during this time period we might see just as much extra-constitutional power struggle as during the empire. We must then conclude the the late republican period had more in common with the empire then the early to middle republic.

[caldrail]

I'm going to be controversial, just for a change

 

I think the biggest contribution to roman collapse was becoming a conquest state. No nation or state can conquer indefinitely - eventually it becomes impossible to guarantee their own borders and those borders get disproportionately bigger along with conquered territory. Looking through the history books I see a number of conquest states went the same way. A nervous initial expansion, then going for it when their confidence increases. This is followed by a period where expansion becomes too difficult during which the costs of running the new found empire increase.

 

Then it either deflates under its own weight or collapses under external pressure. Rome actually did both at the same time I think as a result of their imperial gains.

[caldrail]

Ignore this one... Multiple post.

Edited May 22, 2007 by caldrail