What cause the downfall fo the Roman Empire?




 
--
 
August 28th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 

Topic: What cause the downfall fo the Roman Empire?


What do you think caused the Downfall of the Roman Empire?

I personally think that the largest contributor was corruption and inept leadership, to many internal power struggles kept taking troops away from the front and back to Rome.
August 28th, 2004  
Focus Fate
 
Admin edit: Watch it!
August 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The power of Rome diminished over time. Its one of those very long transitional things. A lot like the English monarchy, the power of Rome just very gradually got smaller and smaller till there was no more power. Romulus (the last emperor) was a completely powerless figurehead that the Goth ruler decided he didn't need anymore. While the power of Rome was decreasing, the power of every other part of the empire increased. More importantly, the power and influence of the various Goth tribes climbed steadily until the one power replaced the other.
--
August 28th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Excuse me? Rome was named after Romulus. The two sons, Romulus and Remus, each founded their own cities, Romulous started building a wall around Rome, Remus leaped over it to mock his efforts. Romulus then killed Remus and stated "And so shall happen to all those who cross the walls of Rome!" Or something like that, Romans believed it to be true for many years.
August 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Yeah, I always thought it was ironic as all hell that Emperor Romulus was named after the legendary man of the same name. So basically, Rome begins and ends its empire with Romulus. But you seem to be in doubt of me, so look it up.
August 28th, 2004  
papatango
 
Please remember that the Roman empire was separated between eastern and western roman empire. The later being of dominant latin language, and the other with predominant greek influence. From a juridical point of view, the fall of the Roman Empire took place only when the Ottoman Turks took the city named after the emperor Constantinus, Constantinople, also known as Byzanthium.

So, empires tend to have a period of expansion, an apex and a period of decay. To avoid that decay to be complete, the Roman empire split in two. The truth is, that the split, actually worked, because even with the fall of Rome, the empire lasted for another 1000 years. A definitive case of success.

Regards
August 28th, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
Idiot actions of the Empire, pure and simple. Remeber, scholers generally classify two periods; The Decline, and the Collapse, with the collapse usually starting with Constantine the Great. The Declone is very drawn out and I wont get into that, but the collapse occured because of the actions of a certain amount of idiot Emperors, not the least of which being Valens, who let the Goth's in the Empire then used them to the point were they rebelled, then got his army slauthered at Adrionople.
August 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
This link has some good insights into it.
http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html
Their summary is as follows:
Quote:
So, the main points for the fall were
1. bad emperors
2. increasing civilization of the people of the empire (which means weaker soldiers)
3. Roman disunity, endless infighting
4. economic decline
5. plagues
6. mass migration
7. and the settlement of the Visigoths in Moesia
One the great factors in the strength of empires throughout the ages has been the 'civilizing effect', which is to say that their warriors grew soft over time due to an easier life and lifestyle. No empire did a better job of resisting this effect for a longer time than the Romans, but they too were claimed by it. Nowhere is that cycle more evident than in the history of Mesopotamia (Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks ...), but it has a clear impact on the rest of the world as well. Every explanation that I've seen of the fall of Rome mentions the fact that various Germanic people were allowed to settle within the empire. Those people, mainly the Goth tribes, are your stronger people coming for harsher circumstances. Keeping them out entirely just wasn't possible, though some tried and failed.

Additionally, the 4 emperor system instituted under Diocletian was a major factor. It only ever worked under Diocletian. Subsequently, it continued to be instituted for some reason, but only ever lead to a last man standing civil war scenario every other time it was used.

Papatango, its is certainly valid that technically half of the empire continued from Constantinople, but that doesn't change the fact that the gradual collapse of Rome left a giant power vaccuum in Western Europe. The Eastern Emperors filled that vaccuum on a couple of occasions like Justinian, but those are exceptions and were far from being long-term.
August 29th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
I think it was still because of inept leadership, think about it.

First one on the list is usually poor leadership.

Next is the Goths, most notably the Visigoths under Aleric(sp?).

So let's see, Rome was never able to conquer Germania, the reason was because troops repeatedly were called back to deal with internal power struggles, so you get rid of the power struggles and the Goths are conquered and assimialted. So you take get rid of teh first problem and the second problem suddenly becomes none existent. We could all be speaking Latin right now and fighting for Rome, since this would also greatly decrease the land border that Rome needed to protect.
August 29th, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
Do not overlook the role of the Sassad Empire In the collapse stage of the Empire. That, together with the disaster at Adronople, prohibited the Roman fighting force from defending Europe as It needed to be.