Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[Neos Dionysos]

The biggest military plunder was in 369Ad when the eastern emperor named Valens decided without waiting for help from Emperor Gratian from the West to attack the Goths alone knowing full well that he was seriously outnumbered. This military plunder by Emperor Valens literally wiped out 2 thirds of the Eastern Roman army. Which resulted in the very weakening of the army and the army was never fully able to repair from this tragic event.

 

Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West.

 

Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus.

 

The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry.

 

Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did.

[sullafelix]

I have put it down to economic collapse. However, I have a close run second which is not up there, and that is the policy of defence in depth..what does anyone else think?

 

[Neos Dionysos]

I have put it down to economic collapse. However, I have a close run second which is not up there, and that is the policy of defence in depth..what does anyone else think?

 

 

 

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely?

[tflex]

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.

 

Alright you give it a name then. You can call it the Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, Imperial state etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about, so don't pretend that you don't. If you don't here is the definition of "Imperial".

 

"Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.

Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.

Having supreme authority; sovereign..." Answers.com

 

Now count from 27 BC the date which the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title "Augustus" all the way to 476 AD the traditional date of when the western Roman empire fell. Thats 503 years to be exact, so I think I'm sticking to the facts. Maybe you were not aware of these dates.

 

You need to stop ignoring facts and you should stop telling people how to make their arguments. I don't need to state obvious facts in detail which you already know, especially after we've debated this same topic before in other threads. Furthermore, I don't need to use matmatical formulas and exact numbers everytime I debate a Roman topic. I'm sorry but mathmatics don't reflect the whole story, you stick to your own methods and I'll stick to mine. I've used facts to support this same argument 10 times before.(Sorry Cato thats not an exact number)

 

Getting back to topic most members voted for Roman Disunity/Political Infighting. There are many instances in Roman history of infighting and disunity, but Rome somehow always recovered from it's bloody civil wars and illegal power transfers etc. I think it's ability to recover had a lot to do with the health of it's economy. The decline of the economy played a big part in fueling tensions and corruption, and the civil wars were simply too costly for an already weakened economy. If you add on top of that massive barbarian activity it's a recipe for disaster. Thats why I think the primary reasons for Rome's collapse are Mass Migration and Economic Decline.

Edited February 25, 2006 by tflex

[coolgolfer]

I'm not challenging the so-called intelligence on whether Goths had 10,000 men or 40, 000. Also, I will admit that I inadvertenlty listed the battle by stating 369AD, when it was really 378AD.

 

The defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire's Army was indeed a major blow to the Roman Army. I disagree with you that Valans was not outnumbered. He was outnumbered. Also, what played a big part in the battle was the battle tactics of the Goths. The Goths effectively used their calvary as a potent weapon against the Roman Infrantry solders. Therefore, The Roman army was no longer the deadly machine it had been, discipline and morale were no longer as good, Valens' leadership was bad. The surprising return of the Gothic cavalry was too much to cope with for the Roman army, which was already fully deployed in battle, and hence it collapsed.

 

It was not any effect of heavy Gothic cavalry which changed the battle in the barbarians' favour. Far more it was a breakdown of the Roman army under the surprise arrival of additional Gothic forces (i.e. the cavalry). Once the Roman battle order was disrupted and the Roman cavalry had fled it was largely down to the two infantry forces to battle it out among each other. A struggle of which the Goths won.

 

Rome was never able to recover from this loss. Eventhough they still had a strong military thanks to strong leadership of Theodusius, Stilicho was one of Theodosius's trusted general. Because of him, the romans was able to stay strong. But mentally, the romans ddin't have the military might it used to have. They knew the barbarians knew it too. That's why the romans play better politics then thier eastern couter-parts did. The only way Rome was able to recover was by making political treaties as Theodosius did with the Goths and other tribes. Not to mention the the fact that other emperors did the same in regards to the Huns and visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was able to last longer thanks to the wonderful world of politics. The Western Roman Empire basically ultilized their ability to play one group of barbarians against the other's.

 

 

The biggest military plunder was in 369Ad when the eastern emperor named Valens decided without waiting for help from Emperor Gratian from the West to attack the Goths alone knowing full well that he was seriously outnumbered. This military plunder by Emperor Valens literally wiped out 2 thirds of the Eastern Roman army. Which resulted in the very weakening of the army and the army was never fully able to repair from this tragic event.

 

Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West.

 

Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus.

 

The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry.

 

Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did.

[Neos Dionysos]

I'm not challenging the so-called intelligence on whether Goths had 10,000 men or 40, 000. Also, I will admit that I inadvertenlty listed the battle by stating 369AD, when it was really 378AD.

 

The defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire's Army was indeed a major blow to the Roman Army. I disagree with you that Valans was not outnumbered. He was outnumbered. Also, what played a big part in the battle was the battle tactics of the Goths. The Goths effectively used their calvary as a potent weapon against the Roman Infrantry solders. Therefore, The Roman army was no longer the deadly machine it had been, discipline and morale were no longer as good, Valens' leadership was bad. The surprising return of the Gothic cavalry was too much to cope with for the Roman army, which was already fully deployed in battle, and hence it collapsed.

 

It was not any effect of heavy Gothic cavalry which changed the battle in the barbarians' favour. Far more it was a breakdown of the Roman army under the surprise arrival of additional Gothic forces (i.e. the cavalry). Once the Roman battle order was disrupted and the Roman cavalry had fled it was largely down to the two infantry forces to battle it out among each other. A struggle of which the Goths won.

 

Rome was never able to recover from this loss. Eventhough they still had a strong military thanks to strong leadership of Theodusius, Stilicho was one of Theodosius's trusted general. Because of him, the romans was able to stay strong. But mentally, the romans ddin't have the military might it used to have. They knew the barbarians knew it too. That's why the romans play better politics then thier eastern couter-parts did. The only way Rome was able to recover was by making political treaties as Theodosius did with the Goths and other tribes. Not to mention the the fact that other emperors did the same in regards to the Huns and visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was able to last longer thanks to the wonderful world of politics. The Western Roman Empire basically ultilized their ability to play one group of barbarians against the other's.

 

I never said the Romans were not outnumbered... you originally made it seem they were outnumbered 10-1.

 

Secondly I am not arguing the fact that the 'Gothic' cavalry, (again Alans and Huns), shocked the hell out of the already exhausted and deployed Roman legions... that was the essence of thier victory, not the fact the sun had set on heavy infantry. Also, I will agree that Valens was not a good general; however, it didn't help the fact that there were 5 other generals at the battle as well.

 

The East, not the West, is what played politics and hence was able to survive... the West used more military power than politics to solve thier problems. The army was crippled for some time after the Adrianople incident, hence the settlement with the Goths and why Alaric and the Goths were not destroyed, of course another important reason is that just as much as they had to deal with thier threats and raids, they also needed them as a military force, and the Goths of Alaric acted much more as a mercenary force not a migration of people, since every single settlement or treaty made with them never once stated another about settling down on land and each time Alaric which either to have his troops be given annoae as was the usual provisions given to armies of Rome and also, Alaric several times stipulated that he wanted to be in command of regular roman forces, not just Germanic ones.

 

A point to note, the dealings of the East, (mainly through Rufinus), prevented Stilicho from dealing the death blows to Alaric...

 

Anyway, my point is, while Adrianople hurt Rome badly, it did not cripple her, since she rebounded and her armies were still quite formidible though now Rome more and more pulled back into herself and ignored many of the outlying provinces, and only focused on Italia and the central provinces for protection.

[tflex]

Anyway, my point is, while Adrianople hurt Rome badly, it did not cripple her, since she rebounded and her armies were still quite formidible though now Rome more and more pulled back into herself and ignored many of the outlying provinces, and only focused on Italia and the central provinces for protection.

 

One point that should be mentioned about the long term effects of the Battle of Adrianople, is that it seriously raised the morale of the barbarians and put a permanent dent in Roman invincibility. Recruitment became difficult after this defeat.

Edited February 26, 2006 by tflex

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Anyway, my point is, while Adrianople hurt Rome badly, it did not cripple her, since she rebounded and her armies were still quite formidible though now Rome more and more pulled back into herself and ignored many of the outlying provinces, and only focused on Italia and the central provinces for protection.

 

One point that should be mentioned about the long term effects of the Battle of Adrianople, is that it seriously raised the morale of the barbarians and put a permanent dent in Roman invincibility.

 

I don't think the morale made a difference because the Goths were still in a desperate situation where they couldn't survive, which is why they agreed to be assimilated into the Roman army.(that is until Alaric)

Edited February 26, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Neos Dionysos]

One point that should be mentioned about the long term effects of the Battle of Adrianople, is that it seriously raised the morale of the barbarians and put a permanent dent in Roman invincibility. Recruitment became difficult after this defeat.

 

It was a morale thing and from then on Alaric troops, (even though perhaps only a handful of the original survived), would later claim until the day they were finally settled in Gaul that they had defeated the Roman Army of Valens.

 

This did not make recruitment harder, recruitment was already a VERY hard thing to do, so hard that 10 years prior, Valens was so desperate to raise troops he forced monks who had gone and sought asylum in abbeys to join the ranks. The East had a real hard time recruiting, (unlike the West which could make 3-4 units to every 1 in the East), so Adrianople didn't make things harder, things were already as bad as they could get recruitment wise before the battle anyway.

 

 

I don't think the morale made a difference because the Goths were still in a desperate situation where they couldn't survive, which is why they agreed to be assimilated into the Roman army.(that is until Alaric)

 

They were never really part of the army though, (unless you are counting auxilia troops etc), for the most part they would fight as federate troops or laeti troops, and Alaric used his force not as a migration of people, (they evolved into that), but more of a mercenary army that got as much out of the Roman state as they could when the oppurtunity permitted. I always found it ironic, how exactly 25 years passed from when Alaric began his revolt, (which went on and off), lasted some 25 years before they were finally settled on land to farm, which was a first farming was mentioned in any negoatiations. 25 years being the same span of time a Roman Soldier would need to serve before retiring... so it begs the question how much of a mentality did Alaric and his forces consider themselves soldiers...

Edited February 26, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[caldrail]

I have put it down to economic collapse. However, I have a close run second which is not up there, and that is the policy of defence in depth..what does anyone else think?

 

 

 

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely?

 

I'm a little confused. I thought defense in depth was something the romans did earlier, not later. It was during the empire that perimeter defense became the norm surely? Or did that that change toward the end?

[Philhellene]

Rome the 'Empire' most definately fell. If you ask that same average Roman on the street if the empire had failed compared to it's earlier days, I'm pretty sure he will say yes. We have the benefit of hindsight so we know it collapsed.

 

He won`t say "yes". What do you think why the citizens of Byzantine empire called themselves "romans" and Byzantine writers began their "Histories" from the foundation of Rome?

[sullafelix]

I have put it down to economic collapse. However, I have a close run second which is not up there, and that is the policy of defence in depth..what does anyone else think?

 

 

 

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely?

 

I'm a little confused. I thought defense in depth was something the romans did earlier, not later. It was during the empire that perimeter defense became the norm surely? Or did that that change toward the end?

 

 

Sorry just to clear this up. defence in depth was a policy initiated under the Antonines. It was further refined by the Severi and at the end it was the norm. It works like this you fix and fortify you borders then split the army into two types. Legions stationed at strategic points within the empire and limitanei or frontier troops manning the defences. The advantages are that you have a highly mobile army. The disdavantage is that half your army is rotting on the frontiers slowly becoming more farmer than soldier while the barbarian hordes ravage across huge swathes of the frontier. It also means that you have legions stationed in Italy from where they pose as much threat to Rome as they do the enemy.

[coolgolfer]

I'm not challenging the so-called intelligence on whether Goths had 10,000 men or 40, 000. Also, I will admit that I inadvertenlty listed the battle by stating 369AD, when it was really 378AD.

 

The defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire's Army was indeed a major blow to the Roman Army. I disagree with you that Valans was not outnumbered. He was outnumbered. Also, what played a big part in the battle was the battle tactics of the Goths. The Goths effectively used their calvary as a potent weapon against the Roman Infrantry solders. Therefore, The Roman army was no longer the deadly machine it had been, discipline and morale were no longer as good, Valens' leadership was bad. The surprising return of the Gothic cavalry was too much to cope with for the Roman army, which was already fully deployed in battle, and hence it collapsed.

 

It was not any effect of heavy Gothic cavalry which changed the battle in the barbarians' favour. Far more it was a breakdown of the Roman army under the surprise arrival of additional Gothic forces (i.e. the cavalry). Once the Roman battle order was disrupted and the Roman cavalry had fled it was largely down to the two infantry forces to battle it out among each other. A struggle of which the Goths won.

 

Rome was never able to recover from this loss. Eventhough they still had a strong military thanks to strong leadership of Theodusius, Stilicho was one of Theodosius's trusted general. Because of him, the romans was able to stay strong. But mentally, the romans ddin't have the military might it used to have. They knew the barbarians knew it too. That's why the romans play better politics then thier eastern couter-parts did. The only way Rome was able to recover was by making political treaties as Theodosius did with the Goths and other tribes. Not to mention the the fact that other emperors did the same in regards to the Huns and visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was able to last longer thanks to the wonderful world of politics. The Western Roman Empire basically ultilized their ability to play one group of barbarians against the other's.

 

 

The biggest military plunder was in 369Ad when the eastern emperor named Valens decided without waiting for help from Emperor Gratian from the West to attack the Goths alone knowing full well that he was seriously outnumbered. This military plunder by Emperor Valens literally wiped out 2 thirds of the Eastern Roman army. Which resulted in the very weakening of the army and the army was never fully able to repair from this tragic event.

 

Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West.

 

Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus.

 

The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry.

 

Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did.

 

You know, why are you reminding me of when the battle of Andronople took place. If you read my first two lines listed at above, I admitted that I listed the date wrong and said it was in 378AD. My opionion obvious is not the same as yours. I've read many different versions/opinions how much of an impact the batttle played on Roman Military.

 

Again, I see things a little different on what impact the battle at Andrianople played on the Roman empire/Army. I do agree with 80% of your assescement. But I think, the idea of saying the West didn't care what happened in the east is ridiculous. Emperor Gratian may had his own reason to pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them.

We will never know what Gratian's intentions were. Gratian may or may not felt that the Goths were a serious threat at the time, until after the battle.

 

I don't see the relevence on comparing the battle of Cannae and Carrhae to the Battle of Andrianople. Yes, those battles were just as worsed or costly, but the Roman didn't have the recruitment issue they had dureing the 370's AD compared to the time of Carthage/Hannibal. The Roman's at that time period were very agressive and proud people very united. Their strength was for glory of Rome, and of course Greed is what drove them to find to fight the Carthagian's. Greed for power, and to wealth is waht drove them. The Roman's wanted to be the dominate power in the area.

 

Now, before you respond and accuse me of saying the Roman's were not just as proud as their predecessor were during the time Hannibal, I'm not saying that. I just feel that the Roman's were not united as they were back in the time of Carthage. The Roman Empire's split into quasi halfs in my mind, weakened the Roman Army. They were not united. It just seems that someone is playing politics over one another. East cared about itself and who cares if Rome is being threaten more then Constanople. As long as the enemy was focused on Rome, and Constanople was left alone, who cares . Rome felt the saem way towards their couter-parts in Constanople.

[Neos Dionysos]

You know, why are you reminding me of when the battle of Andronople took place. If you read my first two lines listed at above, I admitted that I listed the date wrong and said it was in 378AD. My opionion obvious is not the same as yours. I've read many different versions/opinions how much of an impact the batttle played on Roman Military.

 

Again, I see things a little different on what impact the battle at Andrianople played on the Roman empire/Army. I do agree with 80% of your assescement. But I think, the idea of saying the West didn't care what happened in the east is ridiculous. Emperor Gratian may had his own reason to pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them.

We will never know what Gratian's intentions were. Gratian may or may not felt that the Goths were a serious threat at the time, until after the battle.

 

I don't see the relevence on comparing the battle of Cannae and Carrhae to the Battle of Andrianople. Yes, those battles were just as worsed or costly, but the Roman didn't have the recruitment issue they had dureing the 370's AD compared to the time of Carthage/Hannibal. The Roman's at that time period were very agressive and proud people very united. Their strength was for glory of Rome, and of course Greed is what drove them to find to fight the Carthagian's. Greed for power, and to wealth is waht drove them. The Roman's wanted to be the dominate power in the area.

 

Now, before you respond and accuse me of saying the Roman's were not just as proud as their predecessor were during the time Hannibal, I'm not saying that. I just feel that the Roman's were not united as they were back in the time of Carthage. The Roman Empire's split into quasi halfs in my mind, weakened the Roman Army. They were not united. It just seems that someone is playing politics over one another. East cared about itself and who cares if Rome is being threaten more then Constanople. As long as the enemy was focused on Rome, and Constanople was left alone, who cares . Rome felt the saem way towards their couter-parts in Constanople.

 

My comment on the date of Adrianople was in response to an older comment... so... please disregard it...

 

 

The fact is, Gratian and Valens had issues. Valens was clearly the senior Augustus but Gratian would not be the junior and both were 'equal', so this caused tension, another aspect is that Gratian did not return the legions Valens had sent West earlier for his brother when they were doing nothing but sitting in Illyria during the Gothic rebellion, and so Valens had to do with what little troops he had until he could build an army. All help sent from the West was miniscule and of very poor-qaulity despite the pleadings of Valens and of Gratians own general Sebatianus. Gratian then took his time to finally assemble a force which he told his uncle was coming, and what caused Valens to wait a whole month for him, allowing his enemy to grow in strength and continue chaos since it was in the Eastern provinces and not the West.

 

The West and East were on the brink of war from 395/400-408AD, and acted against each other in many ways, making peace with an enemy without informing the other, allowing an invasion to occur and not informing the other of a possible threat, threatening forces of the other side to leave their lands, (mainly this is Eastern actions against the West), and then Stilicho imposed trade embargo on the East. Once Stilicho though was dead, relations quickly repaired themselves and the East actually sent a force to assist Honorius in Ravenna against Alaric, albeit it was very small, it was still a very strong gesture. During the time following Theodosious' death though, my point is, (as I am sure you realize), the bickering and attacking of one another and the Romans pre-occupation with destroying ursupers rather than dealing with barbarian incursions, (Constantine III being a great example), shows how detrimental the situation was for the military and the society as a whole and why they could not recover.

 

My point of comparing the battles was to give examples, that after every major Roman defeat, Rome bounced back, regardless the army recovered, while it was not immideate, the Roman army recovered from Adrianople, the civil wars though is what caused her final breakdown from which she could not repair. Recruitment in the East was very hard, but not the West, so losses could be replaced, just not with Romans or provincials, mainly federate or germanic troops, but this was nothing new in the West.

[Kathleenb]

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?