Why Did Rome Fall? It's Time for New Answers

[Viggen]

I found an article from Prof. Peter Heather thats pretty interesting...

 

There is a strong sense, therefore, in which imperial Roman power and wealth created its own nemesis, by generating opposing forces which were powerful enough to match its military might. And here, if nowhere else, the fall of Rome might still have lessons which modern Empires would do well to ponder.

 

to the article

[Ursus]

The Empire

[caldrail]

Ghetto's existed in rome, and I notice that many provinces weren't so romanised as you might expect. Northern britain was one case, parts of africa, judaea etc. Places with strong local identities and particularly those whose territory had history of conflict with rome. Both america and britain have similar problems in assimilating foreign immigrants and their faster increasing numbers. I would say this was a diluting effect upon roman-ness, much the same way that these immigrants form social groups amongst thenselves with limited contact with the indigineous population. I'm not aware of any particular rioting problem though.

[Klingan]

Against all expectation, the fourth century

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys. America, the great melting pot, would be in fact a counter-example for this thesis , as it has tolerated perfectly well (emphasis in perfectly) the "inmigation pressures" of Irish, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, German and a lot, lot, lot more.

[sonic]

Salve, guys. America, the great melting pot, would be in fact a counter-example for this thesis , as it has tolerated perfectly well (emphasis in perfectly) the "inmigation pressures" of Irish, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, German and a lot, lot, lot more.

 

Not sure I agree with you there. America may have attempted to absorb different cultures with complete toleration, but I don't believe that that will continue much longer, mainly because, being so large, different areas of the states have different cultural leanings. The question now, as for the Romans, is whether or not the geographical and cultural diversity will lead to a decline in unity should pressure be put upon the whole country. We'll have to wait and see!

 

I believe that, for the Romans, one of the factors in the disintegration of the West and the continuation of the East was culture. The East, was based largely upon the unifying properties of large cities that had long histories of spreading culture and awareness to their hinterlands. Furthermore, before the Romans arrived the area had been accustomed to being part of large Empires (Hittites, Macedonians etc), and thanks to Alexander's conquests had a long history of speaking Greek in local politics and international affairs.

 

Therefore, when the Romans arrived the indigenous peoples changed one master for another, yet life probably still went on much as before, with the role of Empire being assumed by a different master. Moreover, the Romans had early begun to adopt Greek manners, customs and language, and so their impact upon the East for the majority of the inhabitants may have been small. In this context, it is interesting to note that shortly after the Fall of the West the East dropped Latin and officially adopted the Greek language in court business.

 

In the West, the situation was different. Unused to being part of a larger empire, the inhabitants of Gaul, Spain, Britain and elsewhere appear to have clung to a greater or lesser degree to their own cultures and, in some cases, even languages. Once the Empire ceased to maintain a tight control of these areas, it is interesting to note how many rebellions were launched in the West, and not surprising that the inhabitants would be prepared to submit to strong, 'local' rulers who would defend their small area from the outside world. The small, insular, local customs of the inhabitants would lead them to embrace anybody who would defend their local customs and beliefs.

 

However, before I sign off, please note: this post only represents my first thoughts. They are liable to change when people present me with convincing arguments to the contrary!!

 

So come on folks, let's argue!!

Edited July 17, 2007 by sonic

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys. America, the great melting pot, would be in fact a counter-example for this thesis , as it has tolerated perfectly well (emphasis in perfectly) the "inmigation pressures" of Irish, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, German and a lot, lot, lot more.

 

Not sure I agree with you there. America may have attempted to absorb different cultures with complete toleration, but I don't believe that that will continue much longer, mainly because, being so large, different areas of the states have different cultural leanings. The question now, as for the Romans, is whether or not the geographical and cultural diversity will lead to a decline in unity should pressure be put upon the whole country. We'll have to wait and see!

 

Salve, S! OK, until now, ALMOST perfect (emphasis in almost) as far as I know.

[Onasander]

Simply, its stupid simple. The route between the black sea and the caspian sea was completely fortified, and the barbarians who normally went south went west. Constantanople stood, Attila and the Goths became the top dogs of the migratory trail, and everyone bum rushed the west.

 

Many microfactors can be claimed, but with 100% certainty, it was military failure that caused the western empire to implode.

 

When the west was briefly revived under Narsus and Belisarius, Narsus being the more politically savy and long lived suffered from one flaw that prevented him from starting a dynasty, he had no nuts. Literally, no nuts. Everytime the Almond Joy commercial would play, he would cry. No nuts = no dynasty. The plague, and then later Islam, insured what remained of the western holdings would remain merely provincial holdings and not the seat of power.

 

Rome got conqured from the north, the persians and byzantines held. Simple stupid obvious.