Fall Of Rome

[Uros]

The fall of roman empire is caused by the abuse of land by rich and the lack of a stable middle class that give to Rome the money to continue its expansion.

lack of expansion is also e cause for...well...lack of Expansion.

More Rome expande itself more is able to expand(as many other ancient societies).

The west fall also becuase it was not able to assimilate germanic components and was incapable to expell it as east did.

[Gaius Octavius]

The fall of roman empire is caused by the abuse of land by rich and the lack of a stable middle class that give to Rome the money to continue its expansion.

lack of expansion is also e cause for...well...lack of Expansion.

More Rome expande itself more is able to expand(as many other ancient societies).

The west fall also becuase it was not able to assimilate germanic components and was incapable to expell it as east did.

 

If you take your argument to its ultimate conclusion, then Rome would have had to conquer the entire world. I doubt if that could have been a possibility. Perhaps a different form of government and internal reorganization might have helped. Maybe Rome just got old and decayed and died like all organisms.

[Uros]

The fall of roman empire is caused by the abuse of land by rich and the lack of a stable middle class that give to Rome the money to continue its expansion.

lack of expansion is also e cause for...well...lack of Expansion.

More Rome expande itself more is able to expand(as many other ancient societies).

The west fall also becuase it was not able to assimilate germanic components and was incapable to expell it as east did.

 

If you take your argument to its ultimate conclusion, then Rome would have had to conquer the entire world. I doubt if that could have been a possibility. Perhaps a different form of government and internal reorganization might have helped. Maybe Rome just got old and decayed and died like all organisms.

 

Well lack of Expansion is not necesarry military one; modern day nation expand themselfes in economy or politics.

Rome has nothing of this.

The Roman ruling class is a militray one, and don't merged in economy so when military expansion become difficult the empire found itself blocked a vice-circle, not expansion possible, so no expansion.

The lacking of military expansion should be changed in a economical expansion, but middle sea never become a commercial way in modrrn term and the money never a value; instead money went fixed in land that transform flux capital in immoble and static capital, so when Barbarians invade the empireb land was lost and money too.

[Sula]

As a novice here I'm not sure what my opinion is worth, and my very little knowledge on the subject is probably very obvious, but I thought I would add something here... even if it is just a point to debate and throw away.

 

I read, or saw, some place that the declime of the Roman empire roughly matched a change in global weather paterns. ie dureing Rome's rise the weather in the mediterian was wetter so they could easily grow crops in nothern Africa. Then the weather changed and croping around the Med. came to be harder which in turn added to the troubles that the empire was faceing. I know deforitation and over croping had a part ot play but could something beyond the control of humanity at the time have contributed to their fall?

[Neos Dionysos]

As a novice here I'm not sure what my opinion is worth, and my very little knowledge on the subject is probably very obvious, but I thought I would add something here... even if it is just a point to debate and throw away.

 

I read, or saw, some place that the declime of the Roman empire roughly matched a change in global weather paterns. ie dureing Rome's rise the weather in the mediterian was wetter so they could easily grow crops in nothern Africa. Then the weather changed and croping around the Med. came to be harder which in turn added to the troubles that the empire was faceing. I know deforitation and over croping had a part ot play but could something beyond the control of humanity at the time have contributed to their fall?

 

 

I have heard of this same thoery and to expand on it, it ties into the idea that every 500 or so years there is a climate change and using a rough idea of 500 or so years you can trace back when we have records of mass migrations of people, this could be an explanation for the sudden influx of barbarians moving south when during the late republic, early and high empire there were none.

[Caius Maxentius]

Another cause often cited is the severe disaffection of the common citizen -- many just wanted the oppressive state off their backs.

 

Historian Morton Smith says,

 

"Inevitably, the peasansts came to hate both the government and the rich. Their hatred manifested itself in many ways. Sometimes, seizing upon ecclesiastical quarrels, they supported whichever faction opposed the government. In Africa, Spain and Gaul, peasants repeated supported political revolts. In Africa and Egypt, many peasants joined the marauding tribes along the fringes of cultivated land; these tribes became so populous that considerable military forces failed to contain them.

 

"Even when they remained on the land, the peasants violently resisted the tax collectors; the collectors, in turn, made ever more use of torture. By the end of the fourth century, collectors commonly had to be backed up by military force...Military expenditures rose, and taxes with them. This situation made effective resistance to the barbarians impossible. Large landowners and city authorities did not dare give arms and training to the peasantry. They preferred to risk an invasion by a few barbarians rather than a general peasant revolt. When the barbarians did break in, the peasants either took the opportunity to revolt and plunder for themselves, or joined the invaders; they rarely did anything to resist them.

 

"Not that they were unable to resist. For example, the barbarians had no difficulty overruning Spain, but the forces send to drive them from the country had less trouble with them than with peasant revolts. Moreover, when the Goths finally established themselves, their violation of a local martyr's shrine led to a popular uprising in which they were defeated. Had there been any such popular support for the Roman government, it is inconceivable that the barbarian tribes, which normally numbered about 20,000 fighting men, should have overrun Italy, France, Spain and North Africa and dominated a population of about 10 million. The Roman Empire in the west fell only because most of its subjects would not fight to preserve it."

 

This gives quite a different picture to the usual scenario of "overwhelming barbarians swarming the countryside." Maybe the empire fell because the people simply came to oppose the state's oppressive machinations.

[Gini]

I agree The armies of Aaric and Geisiric for ex were estimated at 20,000 and up to 40,000 respectively yet there were at the same time 250,000 Roman soldiers - but disputes with pay etc, taxation oppressed subjects meat that there was NO army to defend Rome against Geiseric In fact the only to meet him was pope Leo. Rome could have well dealt to the barbarians but the people were tired of corruption and extortion and the fervent patriotism of yesteryear was gone

[DecimusCaesar]

I have read that despite having a larger military than ever before (300,000 according to one ancient source, although that is how it might have looked on paper, the reality was different) the Roman's could still only field rather small armies( 1000-1200) , probably much smaller than that of the early Imperial era (5,000-6,000).

 

These armies would have no doubt consisted of large numbers of pseudocomiatenses, these were Limitanei (frontier troops) that had become attached to the Comitatenses (the Field armies) and would have lacked the training and equipment of more professional troops. Even so, the Limitanei/Pseudocomitatenses were still good quality soldiers although they were simply not up to the standards of the Comitatus and the Emperor's Palatini.

[caldrail]

As a novice here I'm not sure what my opinion is worth, and my very little knowledge on the subject is probably very obvious, but I thought I would add something here... even if it is just a point to debate and throw away.

 

I read, or saw, some place that the declime of the Roman empire roughly matched a change in global weather paterns. ie dureing Rome's rise the weather in the mediterian was wetter so they could easily grow crops in nothern Africa. Then the weather changed and croping around the Med. came to be harder which in turn added to the troubles that the empire was faceing. I know deforitation and over croping had a part ot play but could something beyond the control of humanity at the time have contributed to their fall?

 

 

I have heard of this same thoery and to expand on it, it ties into the idea that every 500 or so years there is a climate change and using a rough idea of 500 or so years you can trace back when we have records of mass migrations of people, this could be an explanation for the sudden influx of barbarians moving south when during the late republic, early and high empire there were none.

 

Climate change is continuous - it happens every year, usually in small increments. Climate is a dynamic enviroment and human memory can be very short and selective.

 

The climate has changed over the course of the empire. But also remember the coastline, so important for trade, has also changed. Ports have silted up and the northward tectonic movement of the african plate has caused the mediterranean coast to buckle. Some places have risen and fallen against sea level (and still are!). Volcanic activity resulting from this has affected local economies. Romans devastated local ecologies in trapping animals for the arena and over-farming is nothing new.

 

Enviromental factors have influenced things but the fall of the west was more to do with economic, political, and demographic change.

[Neos Dionysos]

Enviromental factors have influenced things but the fall of the west was more to do with economic, political, and demographic change.

 

Oh I know... I was merely commenting...

 

 

Political and Economic reasons, (with Economic trumping all others), I think were the main reasons for Rome's collapse. Decline of the army is not a cause, rather an effect from a declining state.

[caldrail]

The armies decline was hand in hand with the decline of the west as a state - I would say both part of the cause and because of it. The enviroment can affect a society terribly. The ancient minoans were destroyed as a culture after the explosion of Santorini caused a tsunami of epic proportions. They simply couldn't recover and devolved into cannibalistic tribes. Its just that an event of that nature never hit the romans. The pompeii eruption was nowhere severe enough. However, some people believe that an eruption of krakatoa did affect the late roman empire as a whole, and we know that increasing disease had huge impact.

Edited September 9, 2006 by caldrail

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

There were many different contributing reasons for the fall of the Western Empire, of which many have been discussed like the economic problems, military inadequacy, christianisation, influx of foreigners, even global weather patterns all of which are very valid reasons, but i think that there's another contributing factor to add to this list......Flavius Stilicho

 

At the time of the barbarian invasions Stilicho was the regent (guardian if you like) to the eleven year old emperor of the west, Honorious. Although Stilicho was a general of unusual brilliance and vigour, his career which might have saved the west for a time was darkened by two clouds, first was his hostility to the Eastern Empire, where he had already arranged for the regent of its young emperor, Rufinius, to be assasinated. The second was his unwillingness to deal with the Visigoth's new leader Alaric who had already shown his intentions by many small invasions into Italy itself, yet instead of countering against Alaric, Stilicho was too busy planning military action against the eastern goverment

Because of Stilicho decision to concentrate on the east instead of making the Rhine Barrier secure i think this was a major factor in the fall of Rome

Edited September 9, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Antonius Miles]

Speaking to the military side, a roman army of 250,000 sounds large but spread it out across western europe and it gets pretty thin. The situation is difficult, form static defenses and the concentrated german armies march through. Contrawise use mobile armies and the enemy is able to lay waste to the frontiers.

As others have stated the fall of the empire had many causes primarily the combined military threats and the economic crunch brought on attempting to deal with it. The economic system was unable to pay for the numbers of troops needed to defend the empire. This led to taxes in kind and a restriction of people's ability to move in the system, i.e. soliders sons are soliders, farmers sons etc.

There is also an element of disintegration in social unity. The newcomers into the empire were tolerated but not integrated. Especially after the 3rd century foreign tribes were settled inside the empire but they were not assimilated into roman society. In addition to all these problems you have the religious issues and the frequent civil wars caused by a nonexistant method of secession.

My question is since 2,000 years later we can barely decide why it failed could it have been saved? That's probably a question for another thread.

[caldrail]

Saved? The east tried to do that and the western roman population reacted with horror. For them it was a return to the dark days of heavy taxes and army recruitment. The wealth of conquest had long gone and everyone was paying through the nose to support an increasingly inefficient state which demanded duty with little reward. I really don't believe the west could have been saved. It had run out of cultural steam.

[Gaius Octavius]

Uros, if by 'capital', you mean 'money', when one person buys land or a fixed asset or anything, the 'money' does not 'disappear' or become immobilized, it is merely transferred to the previous owner. Foreign imports would decrease the specie (money) of the Roman nation. In those times it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for a citizen of one nation to own assets in another (as one can do today). If imports exceeded exports, then the nation would lose specie.

 

The tax system along with the un-managed greed and outright thievery of the moguls left the greatest part of the population without a care as to who ruled them.

 

I feel that the Empire, in both East and West, collapsed as a result of most of the items stated in this thread all gradually coming together to one point.