Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[caldrail]

I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

 

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.

 

No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved.

 

The two are different.

 

I would argue that 'evolve' suggests it improved. It didn't. I would say.... decayed.

[Pertinax]

I have to go with the "disunity" vote-that being the prerequisite for the actual egress of inward migrations. The constant theme in Britain's relationship to the centre of empire and its "romanness" is the desire of the Romanised to stay "onside " as best as possible whilst rival Imperial candidates slug it out for the top job.In some ways Brittannia was spared by its relative remoteness , but was a useful strategic base for anyone wishing to be a "gallic" usurper.It was of course "lost" in the Gallic Imperium for quite a while.The waste of good troops fighting each other is the key.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Pertinax

[Neos Dionysos]

I wonder why Constantinople is not an option?

In my opinion they are responsable for the collapse. It was them who installed people like Odoaker and Theoderic in the west and went into a pact with the Lombards to help them defeat the East-Goths (ostrogoths) and to be rewarded with land in northern italy. The split of west and east was the beginning of the end. And the east being to powerful but to incompetant.

 

The Western Government was already dead by the time of Theodoric the Great and of the pact with the Lombards to defeat the Ostrogoths.

 

The last Emperor in the west to actually rule w/o having someone of power loom over them was Theodosius and this was for a very short time when he united the empire. His sons were both loomed over by Stilicho in the West and Rufinus, (followed by others right after his death), in the East.

 

Odaovacer and those like him were seen as a way to control the Western govenrment, for decades, East and West were playing the other side off and trying to gain control, (if not direct then indirect), over the other, men like Odaovacer were needed, though the East could not stop them from becoming to powerful and from doing as they pleased as Odaovacer showed. Theodoric on the other hand, united the Goths and was seen by Zeno in the East as a good alternative to an archaic rule in Rome, he was able to say in way Rome was still Roman and under Roman authority, (which now only resided in Constantinople), if Theodoric was in control and I might add Theodoric saw himself as Roman and in a role of protecting the Roman way of life, system in Italy going so far as to educate his daughter into the mold of a Roman aristocratic woman, (which would have implications later down the road and would give Justinian his casus bellum).

 

The split of East and West was total and complete in 395AD, and there was no hope of re-uniting the empire short of one half dominating the other, and the West had a much larger and I would argue stronger army than the East until the 450's-460's. Now I am not saying it's a 'Roman Army' but our standards, (it did have a large following of federates and allied states with it,) but by Late Empire standards it was. The East was stronger in civic adminstation and more politically sound and this is what saved them, not a grand army or some great general fending off the chaos of the West.

 

I would argue that 'evolve' suggests it improved. It didn't. I would say.... decayed.

 

To decay is to evolve though. From one state of being to the next, I have never stated it was a good thing it evolved or that Rome and the West was better off with it happening, (in fact I'll argue the collaspe in the West hurt us very badly to this very century). Rome evolved from what happened to her and ended up in a state of decay and ruin until she was able, (like the rest of Western Europe), to bring herself out of the chaos that reigned from the collaspe of centralized authority and protection.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[caldrail]

I would like to add that the 'civilisation' of the roman soldier is a bit of a misnomer. Toward the end the legions were nowhere near the standard they had been, with german mercenaries en-masse, many of whom bullied the locals as a matter of course. Few italians would have liked life in the army by then, and most avoided it at all costs including a big increase in the practice of cutting off one's thumb so a sword could not be held.

[LEG X EQ]

I would like to add that the 'civilisation' of the roman soldier is a bit of a misnomer. Toward the end the legions were nowhere near the standard they had been, with german mercenaries en-masse, many of whom bullied the locals as a matter of course. Few italians would have liked life in the army by then, and most avoided it at all costs including a big increase in the practice of cutting off one's thumb so a sword could not be held.

 

Disagree, there were still plenty of Italics in the army, but all were in Italica, The Army of stilicho against the Visigoths was entirly italic, the Army of Aurelianus against the Alemannics was entirly italic. Records and documents are being hold in the Communale Library of Milan and Piacenza and in the Cathedral Archive of Arezzo.

Further More The Germanic mercenaries were also very discaplined, and were not known as troublemakers.

 

@ Neos dionysos

 

Yes, i know all about these events, and you have only written the correct historic events. That i am informed about. But whats your opninion? I mean all these historic facts prove that Constantinople was responsable for the collapse because they weakend the west all by themselves, and in the end lost it to the Lombards because of their pact with them. And with that they lost the total control of the west. Because the great Lombard king Alboin was smart enough not to go into agreement with the sneaky byzantines. And the Lombards were a blessing to the North of italy.

Edited February 7, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Neos Dionysos]

I would like to add that the 'civilisation' of the roman soldier is a bit of a misnomer. Toward the end the legions were nowhere near the standard they had been, with german mercenaries en-masse, many of whom bullied the locals as a matter of course. Few italians would have liked life in the army by then, and most avoided it at all costs including a big increase in the practice of cutting off one's thumb so a sword could not be held.

 

Disagree, there were still plenty of Italics in the army, but all were in Italica, The Army of stilicho against the Visigoths was entirly italic, the Army of Aurelianus against the Alemannics was entirly italic. Records and documents are being hold in the Communale Library of Milan and Piacenza and in the Cathedral Archive of Arezzo.

Further More The Germanic mercenaries were also very discaplined, and were not known as troublemakers.

 

And what is your definition of 'Italic'? Mine for the period would be anyone from the province of Italy, and thus by that they are also Roman Provincials and Citizens. Stilicho's army was not and could not be entirely made up of 'italics', (unless you count his thousands of germanic soldiers Italic). After Stilicho's death and the sudden anti-Germanic purges in Rome and Italy, many Roman soldiers of Germanic origin were killed, driven off or had thier families slaughtered by angered, frenzied mobs. The idea that all of Rome's troubles were due to Germans overal and Stilicho was purposely not destroying Alaric and was in some kind of conspiracy to see all of Rome fall etc., (which he was, but not to see Rome fall, he was attempting to work with Alaric against the East and unify the empire and the reason he was unable to early on destroy Alaric was precisely because the East signed a treaty with the Goths and since they were in Epirus and in Eastern territory, he was told to leave and not to engage. but I am side-tracking.)

 

My point is, when this sudden anti-Germanic paranoia set in, and Stilicho was dead, 30,000 of his troops went over to Alaric. These are his germanic troops pre-dominately though I am sure Romans were among them, but they were not entirely Italian. These were the troops who had thier families killed and with thier general gone, had no where else to go except to Alaric who then used them to sack Rome a few years later in 410. Most of the regular army, under Sarus, left Honorius and Italy to fend for themselves following these events and actually joined with Constatine III in Gaul who was a a rival emperor rasied by local authorities there. Are you calling those 30,000 Germanic troops 'Italic'? If not, then your statement is false.

 

@ Neos dionysos

 

Yes, i know all about these events, and you have only written the correct historic events. That i am informed about. But whats your opninion? I mean all these historic facts prove that Constantinople was responsable for the collapse because they weakend the west all by themselves, and in the end lost it to the Lombards because of their pact with them. And with that they lost the total control of the west. Because the great Lombard king Alboin was smart enough not to go into agreement with the sneaky byzantines. And the Lombards were a blessing to the North of italy.

 

The West collapsed because they had no strong civic leadership and had pressure from many other factors. The fact that Romans would rather kill themsevles and back-stab eachother rather than coming together to fight a common enemy is the #1 reason for her fall, and while Constantinople played a part in setting the stage for people like Alaric to cripple the West, it was IMO Rome's own fault for what happened. Before Stilicho was killed, the West was still realitively quite strong, (stronger than the East militarily, and around the same level in monetary wise I might add), it was after these events that caused the West to have no hope for the future.

 

Think of it this way, the fighting and politically actions of both the East and West kinda broke each other's legs, each was wounded, hurt, but surely not out of the picture and not completely out of the prospect of coming back to some form of greatness. The West's final actions though, cut thier own throats, or you might argue cut open thier Aorta vien, they'll try a tourniqet during the 450's with Aetius but then once again, they will make sure that wound does not close, and so the West killed themselves.

[LEG X EQ]

@Neos Dionysos

You are mixing things up now, you are talking about two different things. The Murder of Stilicho and the slaughter of the Gothic families and story of the 30.000 goths. Is something completely different than what i was reffering to.

1. Yes, Italics are the people that originate from the Province of Italica, these people are outcome of the mixture of Rasenna (etruscans), Italic and North Adriatic Veneti tribes. These people formed the early republic and the early empires army.

2. The goths you are reffering to that lived within the province of Italica, are the families of the Foederati Goths, that were more or less stationed outside of Italica.

3. No these goths are not considered Italic.

4. What thousands of Germanic people served under Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona???

This army of pollentia was composed of Soldiers from modern day Milan Piacenza Turin Asti. Sources

are the Communale libraries of Milan and Piacenza and the Cathedral archive of Arezzo.

5. I was specifically reffering to these two battles.

 

Think of it this way, the fighting and politically actions of both the East and West kinda broke each other's legs, each was wounded, hurt, but surely not out of the picture and not completely out of the prospect of coming back to some form of greatness. The West's final actions though, cut thier own throats, or you might argue cut open thier Aorta vien, they'll try a tourniqet during the 450's with Aetius but then once again, they will make sure that wound does not close, and so the West killed themselves

 

Yes, i agree. But i disagree with your claim that the East was hurt and damaged. It was exactly than, were the east had to step in and help and restore the west. But they were simply incopetant to do so. They than finally installed Odoaker, and than back stabbed him with Theoderic. Adding more problems, that the west had to pay for, by turning it into the battle field of the Gothic wars.

[Neos Dionysos]

@Neos Dionysos

You are mixing things up now, you are talking about two different things. The Murder of Stilicho and the slaughter of the Gothic families and story of the 30.000 goths. Is something completely different than what i was reffering to.

1. Yes, Italics are the people that originate from the Province of Italica, these people are outcome of the mixture of Rasenna (etruscans), Italic and North Adriatic Veneti tribes. These people formed the early republic and the early empires army.

2. The goths you are reffering to that lived within the province of Italica, are the families of the Foederati Goths, that were more or less stationed outside of Italica.

3. No these goths are not considered Italic.

4. What thousands of Germanic people served under Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona???

This army of pollentia was composed of Soldiers from modern day Milan Piacenza Turin Asti. Sources

are the Communale libraries of Milan and Piacenza and the Cathedral archive of Arezzo.

5. I was specifically reffering to these two battles.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your original reference, those soldiers of that battle were then of the regular army I was referring to the army as a whole.

 

Yes, i agree. But i disagree with your claim that the East was hurt and damaged. It was exactly than, were the east had to step in and help and restore the west. But they were simply incopetant to do so. They than finally installed Odoaker, and than back stabbed him with Theoderic. Adding more problems, that the west had to pay for, by turning it into the battle field of the Gothic wars.

 

The East was hurt during the period of 400-420's. After that they were stablized very well and were then later on able to install the previously stated individuals to power in the West and I will agree they were strong enough to impose those people on the West, but I was merely referring to a certain period of time. Again, perhaps I misunderstood your statement for being a specific point instead of after the fact.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[LEG X EQ]

I will agree they were strong enough to impose those people on the West

 

East Rome turned Greek and became Byzantium. The Byzantines (in my opinion) didnt really care about Rome and the west anymore. They should have let Odoaker stay as the Rex Italiae and not relocate the gothic problem from the Balkans to italy. Theoderic rebuild the west and made it powerful again. But than it became to powerful and to gothic for Byzantium. And thats what i am saying is the fatal part for Byzantium. When the west was weak they installed one Barbaric Leader after the other, but once it got powerful again they wanted to control it.

They should have never let Italy become Gothic in the first place, they shouldnt have been such cowards and instead of relocating the problem they should have dealt with it straight away.

Dont get me wrong, Theoderic and the Goths were a blessing for Italy, but than Byzantium should have accepted that Italy was Gothic and not try to regain it from the goths.

All of these criminal policies of removing Odoaker and the little games they played with the Goths and their idiotic pact with the Lombards, sealed the total collapse of Rome.

 

Because with Odoaker, The west could have been the great Roman West, it once was.

Edited February 7, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Neos Dionysos]

Because with Odoaker, The west could have been the great Roman West, it once was.

 

I'd be more inclined to say that had Theodoric had good successors it would have, all he had was his daughter, (which was a perfect person to rule in her own right IMO, but the Goths would not follow her), and the whole theory and conspiracy with her death etc. is just more of the East interfering in the affairs of Rome.

[drussus]

I think the east was just into poltics and I heard that Narses might have been involved with the collapse of the west too. Not sure how but rumors he made a deals with the Lombards. Also, I am confused with the Roman anti Germanic riots. If I am correct by now the Roman army and the Italian pennsisula had to be a huge ethnic mixture. The original Romans had to ethnically dissapear by now. Rome had so many prisoners/slaves and others mixing in for so long and the generations were short back then, ,plus soldiers stationed all over then their children sent back to Rome. Most of these had to be Celtic or Germanic because these were the greater population groups not the original Roman. Confusing.

[LEG X EQ]

The original Romans had to ethnically dissapear by now. Rome had so many prisoners/slaves and others mixing in for so long and the generations were short back then, ,plus soldiers stationed all over then their children sent back to Rome. Most of these had to be Celtic or Germanic because these were the greater population groups not the original Roman. Confusing.

 

No, the province of Italica at that time was still pretty much the same Cultuarly and Ethnicaly than a millenium ago.

Yes, The Romans made millions of slaves. But only a small fraction of them were shiped to Italica. Mostly as Houshold slaves or Gladiators. But slaves had no rights, so they were not allowed to marry and the majority died alone. Only as small percentage was granted freedom and an even smaller one remaind in italica. The majority of slaves were brought to north africa or iberia were all the mining was, or to Gallia and germania inferior where Towns roads and bridges needed to be build. The Slaves were important for the empire but not for the Province of Italica.

But slaves had no rights in every part of the empire and so the majority died without spreading their seeds.

The Foederati families lived in segregation in the countryside.

It was not until 476 AD and Odoaker and his army of germanic foederati soldiers that mixed with the local Roman population. During East-Gothic rule the reamainders of Odoakers army were considered as part of the Roman locals, with the same rights. So the entire remains of Odoakers army mixed with the locals.

 

The Slaughtering of the families of the Gothic soldiers, was an act of insanity. were authorities in the west got paranoid. They also murdered Stilicho and numerous other Generals in the Roman service. And basically crippled themselves, with that act of insanity.

Edited February 8, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[caldrail]

I would like to add that the 'civilisation' of the roman soldier is a bit of a misnomer. Toward the end the legions were nowhere near the standard they had been, with german mercenaries en-masse, many of whom bullied the locals as a matter of course. Few italians would have liked life in the army by then, and most avoided it at all costs including a big increase in the practice of cutting off one's thumb so a sword could not be held.

 

Disagree, there were still plenty of Italics in the army, but all were in Italica, The Army of stilicho against the Visigoths was entirly italic, the Army of Aurelianus against the Alemannics was entirly italic. Records and documents are being hold in the Communale Library of Milan and Piacenza and in the Cathedral Archive of Arezzo.

Further More The Germanic mercenaries were also very discaplined, and were not known as troublemakers.

 

 

 

Well, I freely admit the final days aren't my strong point, but I have seen records of some very undesirable behaviour of germans. They weren't 'roman'. Some clearly couldn't care less, although I would expect many did want to be. Standards of behaviour simply weren't up to roman standards. But I accept your correction about the numbers of italics with good grace sir.

[coolgolfer]

Two of the largest factors - first and foremost was the creation of the empire by Augustus. After that, poor leadership corrupted what good the empire could have become. The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy. With those three combined, the barbarians were able to overrun the empire and finally ransack Rome herself.

 

 

I have to disagree with you in your view on why the roman empire collapse. First and foremost, the creation of the empire by Augustus was not view as the reason why it failed. The creation of the empire by Augustus was a good thing for Rome. The old republic before Augustus created the empire was not proven to govern Rome proper. You have to understand the transformation from the Repbulic version of government to the empire /Imperial version was understandable in the sense that Augustus knew and understood that Rome needed change in the sense that Rome was no longer a city-state, but as Rome acquired more land/territory Rome needed to governed with the sense that it is now responsible now for civilizations that are not Roman. Rome's new government structure allowed it to better manage/administer lands it conguered. This concept og government worked very good. Now back to why I disagree with you. Poor leadership in a way does play a part of downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Every nation in todays world will have good and bad leaders. The idea that Christianity was the final touches, I disagree. Religion had no part in this. What really hurt the Roman empire, was the political instability that occured after Emperor Commodus was murdered in 192AD. From 192AD to 284AD when Diocletion became emperor, the Roman Empire went thru so many emperors due to political infighting. The political infighting over-time drained so much energy from the Roman army that it was no longer political united. There was always Roman Legion or legions supporting one governor or general for the title of Augustus/Ceasar/Emperor. Plus not to mentioned that the Roman army was so distrated with infighting and killing each other for the emporership, this allowed the enemies of Rome exploit this weakness. In the end by the time Diocletion became emperor and restored order, the damage that was already done in the matter of 100years, Rome was never able to repair it. Finally, what hurt them was Diocletions version of politcal reform. he created for the western part and the eastern part two Augustus's and two ceasars. This in my opinion, eventhough Diocletion's intention was to bring politcal reform & better management to the empire was a good try. Diocletion in the end really created more headaches for Rome. now you had the Augustus for the western part of the empire competing with the eastern Augustus and the same goes with their second in commands which were called Ceasars. Plus, the loyalty of the Roman Imperial Army bacame even more divided. Over-time the empire was really developing in what would eventually become the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. This rivary also created mismanagemnt and military plunders that added to the decline of the empire during this period. The biggest military plunder was in 369Ad when the eastern emperor attack the Goths. This military plunder litterly wiped out 2 thirds of the Eastern Roman army. This is part of the reason why the roman empire never recovered from this event. I truly feel being that I'm a Roman Empire fan and from reading many articles, that if the Roman Empire didn't experience a good 100 years of constant civil war from 192AD to 284AD, the Roman Empire as a whole would have lasted much longer then 470AD and it would've been able to suppress and control the barbarians.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Two of the largest factors - first and foremost was the creation of the empire by Augustus. After that, poor leadership corrupted what good the empire could have become. The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy. With those three combined, the barbarians were able to overrun the empire and finally ransack Rome herself.

 

I have to disagree with you in your view on why the roman empire collapse. First and foremost, the creation of the empire by Augustus was not view as the reason why it failed. The creation of the empire by Augustus was a good thing for Rome. The old republic before Augustus created the empire was not proven to govern Rome proper. ... What really hurt the Roman empire, was the political instability that occured after Emperor Commodus was murdered in 192AD. From 192AD to 284AD when Diocletion became emperor, the Roman Empire went thru so many emperors due to political infighting.

 

I agree with Scerio--this political infighting was a direct result of there being no mechanism of succession such as existed during the republic. Moreover, civil war and unconstituional transfers of power long predate this period. There was no legitimacy to the rule of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; the civil wars after that were also an effect of the fact that Octavian failed to develop a mechanism of accession; and the only way that subsequent emperors could keep a lid on the simmering civil wars was to engage in systematic poltical murders. Hence, "at Rome the slaughter was constant".

 

Yes, there were a handful of good emperors who managed to secure the rule of an adopted successor. But if you count up all the emperors who served during the principate, nearly half died of unnatural causes or were deposed violently. That's not a sign of a healthy political system.

 

So, no--Octavian's scheme was a disaster for Rome.