Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[coolgolfer]

I have to disagree with your statement that it was Constantinople's fault that the

Roman Empire collapsed as we know it.

 

It was expected that once the Roman Empire split into two parts as it did in 395AD, the Western and Eastern parts would eventually evolve into its own individual way of life and identity. For example, after American colonist rebelled against England, America became a separate nation with the ability to govern itself and over-time we as a nation develop & evolved into a great society today based on principles and so forth.

 

In my opinion, over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

[tflex]

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

 

Again Cato we've been down this road many times before, you just can't have a disasterous scheme that lasted almost 500 years. You simply cannot hold such a large empire for so long if the system was disasterous. If thats the case then it should have lasted as long as Alexanders empire.

[coolgolfer]

Well, your response may be true in the sense that it has some merit. But, I still have to disagree both with you and Scerio. You stated the following "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."

 

Your statement in your mind may be true back in the days of the republic. But that has nothing to do with Octavian's vision for Rome and it's empire. The mechinism of political change at the time allowed to be think and govern as a nation with many people and cultures instead of ruling itself as a city-state. Octavians political change allowed Rome to grow and establish itself as a super power both, politically, economically, and Militarily. Octavian brought to Rome stability for many decades. Now, Yes, I will admit that the mechinism of succession had it's flaws, but it was much better then the days of the so-called Republic.

 

You fail to recoginze the true reason and facts as to why Rome collapse. Again, succession played a part, but a very small part. over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

[Primus Pilus]

Now, Yes, I will admit that the mechinism of succession had it's flaws, but it was much better then the days of the so-called Republic.

 

While I will agree that the 'Empire' may have needed authoritative individuals at times to facilitate effective government, the complete random nature of imperial succession was by no means better than the election process of the Republican period. It was different, and perhaps necessary at times, but certainly not just something to be labelled 'better'.

 

Besides, I wasn't aware that the Republic was not really a Republic. Rome's system was very much a Republic regardless of its occassional appearance as an oligarchy. What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called?

 

You fail to recoginze the true reason and facts as to why Rome collapse. Again, succession played a part, but a very small part. over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

[coolgolfer]

In regards to your questions " What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called" republic you mean? The Republic itself also experienced the same ambitious individuals as the Roman Imperial empire had. In fact you had ambitious people like Marius and Sulla, Marcus Crassus, Pompei, Ceasar, Cato, Brutus and so forth. Not to mention the many people before Marius. what I'm trying to say us that the republic form of government was no better. They had continues in fighting as well. The claim that the republic form of government was for the people and by the people was just a fake lie. The forces within the republic competing for power was constantly underminding and stabbing each other in the back. This evently led to the downfall of the republic fall of government.

 

Why do you continue to say that I'm some what admiting that succession played a role. Regardless of succession or not the form of government was good until it became corrupt over time. What a emperor needs is the entire army supporting him. If this happened then you would never had anyone challenge the emperor. But, you have to remember that people in positions became corrupt. Greed is what caused the civil wars. "Greed is drives man to want things and to take by force if necessary. It could be greed for power, money and so forth"

 

 

 

 

Now, Yes, I will admit that the mechinism of succession had it's flaws, but it was much better then the days of the so-called Republic.

 

While I will agree that the 'Empire' may have needed authoritative individuals at times to facilitate effective government, the complete random nature of imperial succession was by no means better than the election process of the Republican period. It was different, and perhaps necessary at times, but certainly not just something to be labelled 'better'.

 

Besides, I wasn't aware that the Republic was not really a Republic. Rome's system was very much a Republic regardless of its occassional appearance as an oligarchy. What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called?

 

You fail to recoginze the true reason and facts as to why Rome collapse. Again, succession played a part, but a very small part. over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

[Primus Pilus]

The claim that the republic form of government was for the people and by the people was just a fake lie.

 

The Romans never made such a claim. The Senate and People of Rome clearly delineates one from the other despite the fact that both were, in theory, working together for the common glory of the city. Government for the people and by the people is essentially a modern concept (the actual verbage coming from Abraham Lincoln) and is true of most modern democratic ideals, but it wasn't quite the same in the ancient world.

 

What a emperor needs is the entire army supporting him. If this happened then you would never had anyone challenge the emperor. But, you have to remember that people in positions became corrupt. Greed is what caused the civil wars. "Greed is drives man to want things and to take by force if necessary. It could be greed for power, money and so forth"

 

But the army wasn't always loyal (and this was in a large part because of succession issues). Is this not a failing of the imperial system that without the support of the army, the cause for the emperor was lost, or at least in doubt? How is this better than the army being loyal to the state rather than the individual? If an imperial heir was popular with the army, there were little issues with transfer of power, but more often than not, the loyalties of the armies to individual commanders over a choice of succession became a major problem. (Even cases of rebelling armies against reigning emperors were often because of political dispute, jealousy and rivalry that were in place from the moment the standing emperor 'took office' in the first place.

 

Regardless, I do completely agree that greed (and I'd add the related trait of ambition) was a major cause of the failure of both systems.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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

 

Again Cato we've been down this road many times before, you just can't have a disasterous scheme that lasted almost 500 years.

 

You're talking about the Republic I presume. The Republic, not the principate, lasted 500 years. Nice to have you as a convert to the republic trex.

 

[Regardless, I do completely agree that greed (and I'd add the related trait of ambition) was a major cause of the failure of both systems.

 

Here I have to disagree--the republic allowed for ambition to be a strength, not a threat. It was only when republican institutions were ignored that ambition became a problem.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The claim that the republic form of government was for the people and by the people was just a fake lie. The forces within the republic competing for power was constantly underminding and stabbing each other in the back. This evently led to the downfall of the republic fall of government.

 

These are non sequiturs.

 

First, the people do not speak with one voice. Some people support one candidate, others support another. Sometimes, the same candidate acquires and loses the support of the majority. Unless you have specific evidence of vote tampering, you have no basis for claiming that the candidates elected did not represent the will of the people just because you happen to think the people voted for the wrong person. There were all kinds of special courts that were dedicated to prosecuting people who engaged in fraud or bribery or other election violations, and it's quite remarkable how seldom the losers in elections ever availed themselves of these courts.

 

Second, OBVIOUSLY statesmen competed for power and worked against one another. This is true of every system of government, including the principate. Competition did not lead to the downfall of the republic for 450 years for a darned good reason--the winners took office and left office when their terms expired. It was only when the winners refused to leave office (e.g., Caesar refused to leave his post when it expired) that civil war broke out.

 

BTW, I'd love to learn the difference between a "fake lie" and an "authentic lie".

[tflex]

You're talking about the Republic I presume. The Republic, not the principate, lasted 500 years. Nice to have you as a convert to the republic trex.

 

No Cato, I was talking about the Imperial state. But one day I'm sure you will see the light and become a loyal follower of Caesar and the Imperial state.

Edited February 24, 2006 by tflex

[coolgolfer]

I disagree with your statement "the republic allowed for ambition to be a strength, not a threat. It was only when republican institutions were ignored that ambition became a problem." Republican institutiuns were never ignored. In fact Republican institutions played a big part in the ambitions of great Roman statesmen at that time. After all it was republican institutions that allowed people like Marius and Sulla to fight amongst each other and the allaince between, Crassus, Pompei and Ceasar. This as well failed in the end. due to backstabbing, and most importantly Greed. Greed is what drives man crazy and greed is what made people transformed people into ambitious people. This became a threat to the republic. Finally on another note, the reason why the republic allowed people become strong is during that time, is because of the threat the republic was facing from it's enemies during the republican period. For example cathage, Hannibal, the slave revolts, such as Spartatus, the constant threat from Gual, you so forth.

 

you can not doubt this situation the Romans were in at the time??

 

 

 

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

 

Again Cato we've been down this road many times before, you just can't have a disasterous scheme that lasted almost 500 years.

 

You're talking about the Republic I presume. The Republic, not the principate, lasted 500 years. Nice to have you as a convert to the republic trex.

 

[Regardless, I do completely agree that greed (and I'd add the related trait of ambition) was a major cause of the failure of both systems.

 

Here I have to disagree--the republic allowed for ambition to be a strength, not a threat. It was only when republican institutions were ignored that ambition became a problem.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Republican institutiuns were never ignored.

 

!

 

You really need to read more Roman history. I'm sorry, but to claim that republican insitutions were never ignored is to betray either a total lack of knowledge of how the republic worked or what happened between 133 and 42 BCE (or both) that any conversation with you on this topic is pointless until you do more reading. At that point, I'd be happy to take up this issue with you again. Until then..

[tflex]

It was only when the winners refused to leave office (e.g., Caesar refused to leave his post when it expired) that civil war broke out.

 

Somehow I think we've argued this point before, but I'll take another shot at it.

 

What you said proves that the republic was too weak to enforce its own laws and it also proves that Caesar the individual was bigger and more powerful than the republic system itself. Not good.

[Primus Pilus]

What you said proves that the republic was too weak to enforce its own laws and it also proves that Caesar the individual was bigger and more powerful than the republic system itself. Not good.

 

The problem here is that its irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yes Caesar was larger than the Republic at the time that he brought it to death's door. As Cato would argue, Caesar broke the institutional laws of that Republic to do this. This is not entirely the fault of the system (though it is in part for allowing imperators to have the loyalty of the legions), but rather it is truly the fault of the individual according to Republican institutions. However, Caesar's compliance must always be tempered by the realization that his opponents were completely uncompromising. It can certainly be argued that Caesar's political platform was better for the common man than that of the 'optimates', but it has also been argued that the destruction of the Republican constitution was the destruction of that which made Rome truly great.

 

Regardless, can we agree to disagree regarding Caesar and the fall of the Republic and bring this back to the reasons for Rome's ultimate collapse... which by the time 5 centuries had past the principate had proven its own ability to adapt and survive and its ultimate failure was by that time in spite of Caesar's and Octavian's efforts.

 

(at least in this thread anyway)

[M. Porcius Cato]

You're talking about the Republic I presume. The Republic, not the principate, lasted 500 years. Nice to have you as a convert to the republic trex.

 

No Cato, I was talking about the Imperial state.

 

There is no such thing as the Imperial state. Now you're just making up categories (as you were making up quantitative comparisons) to support your viewpoint. If you want to make an historical argument, you have to stick to the facts and be willing to let them change your mind.

[Neos Dionysos]

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.

 

Diocletian did what needed to be done to stablize the situation after such a terrible chaotic 3rd Century, I would also like to point out several great emperors came around during the crisis of the 3rd Century and Rome remained strong, the only setback being Aurelian abandoning Dacia, other than that, Rome repulsed countless invasions and large raids into thier lands.

 

There was no "great blunder" in the late empire, in 369, Valens attacked the Goths mainly because he was trying to follow the institutions and adminstrative actions set forth by his brother in the West and also because to be seen as a good and legitimate emperor he had show he was also a 'soldier-empeor'. Another major reason was because the Goths had sent troops to assist Procopius in his revolt in Constantinople only a few months after Valens was named Emperor in the East in 365. This was the time for punishment, and from these two succesive campaigns into the lands of the Goths and former Dacia, no major military blunders occured, nor were any great victories won.

 

The loss of 2/3rd's of the Eastern Army is also an exageration, it was more around 1/4th and the Eastern Army was not very large to begin with. 1/4 of it, (some 16,000), were sent to the West in 370 as per the orders of Valentinian. The total number of troops lost in the battle could not have exceeded 16-18,000 again, a bad defeat yes but not a crushingly irreversable defeat. If such a defeat spelled Rome's end why did the East survive 1000 more years while the West, which at this juncture had a very strong and potent army did not.

 

There was not constant civil war from 192-284, while it was chaotic and a drain Rome was still able produce a strong front and continued for some time after as a very formidible faction. Men like Aurelian, Gallienus, and Septimus Serveus ensured a strong Rome that would continue to endure. The civil wars during the period after the establishment of the Valentinian Dynasty was what truely hurt Rome. Before, Rome fought itself, but simply repelled any outside threats, she had the strength to do this, but slowly, more and more incurisons occured and with the army busy killing each other as well as outside threats, the empire could not hold. It should be said that the West tried to survive by fighting off and "killing off" her enemies, while the East used pure diplomacy and rarely did any military action, in fact, the military of the early 5th century in the East was a joke and they had a terrible time dealing with simple raids or banditry, the West was the military powerhouse, however, in the West the Generalissimos controlled the government, while the East was very firmly controlled by the civic administration, be it government and espeically the military, unlike the West which was reversed.