What cause the downfall fo the Roman Empire?
Focus Fate
Active member
Admin edit: Watch it!
godofthunder9010
Active member
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.
Damien435
Active member
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.
godofthunder9010
Active member
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.
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
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
GuyontheRight
Active member
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.
godofthunder9010
Active member
This link has some good insights into it.
http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html
Their summary is as follows:
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.
http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html
Their summary is as follows:
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.
Damien435
Active member
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.
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.
GuyontheRight
Active member
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.
Damien435
Active member
And the Huns also deserve an honorable mention, it was them that forced the Goths out of Germany and into Rome.
And when I think of Rome I always think of the Western Empire, the east just started to change alot more, like choosing Christianity as their religion, that and Rome was in the Western Roman Empire, Constantinople/Byzantium/Istanbul was the capital of the East.
And when I think of Rome I always think of the Western Empire, the east just started to change alot more, like choosing Christianity as their religion, that and Rome was in the Western Roman Empire, Constantinople/Byzantium/Istanbul was the capital of the East.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Right, the problem is that its a loaded question because lots of things factored in. The fall of the (West) Roman Empire is best thought of as a long process and hitting from all direction, both internal and external.
Damien435
Active member
A guy walks into a bar, gets in a fight, gets stabbed in the chest. While trying to run home he is shot in the chest. When he gets to his house he finds that it is on fire, he runs inside, the roof collapsed on him.
What killed him? the knife? the bullet? the smoke inhalation? or the roof collapsing?
That is essentially the same thing as this question.
What killed him? the knife? the bullet? the smoke inhalation? or the roof collapsing?
That is essentially the same thing as this question.
True the Roman Empire was divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, and were "technically" the same Empire with an Emperor in Rome, or increasingly on the front or in Ravenna, and the Emperor in Constantinople. Laws passed in either Empire were binding in both Empires, as was currency. The Eastern Empire was situated better by both position and wealth/resources. The Eastern Empire was thus better able to withstand many of the internal and external pressures that the Western Empire could not. Also the Roman Army was not what it had been in previous times. It had been divided into a mobile, highly trained Field Force, and a less well trained Frontier Force guarding the borders. As the Field Forces were depleted by near constant civil wars, the generals and emperors were forced to move the Frontier Forces into combat, leaving the borders with less and less defenders.
Add in the decreasing tax base in the Western Empire, and you can see why things were continuing to decline. The government began to issue edicts tying people to the professions of their fathers, which caused a lack of motiviation for people to try to better themselves, so the tax base continued to dwindle just as more money was needed for national defense. The Army was forced to start impressing men and boys into the ranks, and many would try to avoid being drafted by cutting off their right thumb so they couldn't hold a sword. Also, many people ran to the estates of the rich to avoid taxes and military service, and in return for their complete servitude, the rich would protect them, thus depriving the government of tax revenue and manpower.
The pressures of the various tribes cannot be underestimated, but the Romans had many times defeated superior forces easily, but with the manpower and revenue shortages, and a general apathy among the populance, the government was powerless to resist their foreign invasions. Once the tribes were on Roman soil, the Romans failed to Romanize them as they had others, leaving distinct cultures intact within their borders. These potential sources of revenue and manpower that could have revived the Western Empire were instead goaded into becoming enemies by the actions of incompetent leaders of the government and military. The results were disasterous, with the Roman Army being virtually wiped out over a short period of years, leaving the government to rely on mercenaries to protect the Empire, mercenaries they could ill afford to pay.
Add to the mix the relationship between the rulers of the Eastern and Western Empires. At best of times there was some degree of cooperation, but those times were not the norm, and usually the two rulers and their Praetorian Prefects were plotting against each other. The true wonder is why the Western Empire lasted as long as it did.
While the Western Empire ceased to exist in AD 476 with the removal of Romulus Augustulus from the throne, the Eastern Empire continued until 1453 until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks. Since Odovacar returned the Imperial Regalia to the Emperor Zeno in the Eastern Empire, the division was, official, over, although the west was of course lost. Given that Nepos, who had been nominated by the Eastern Emperor Leo (457-474), still reigned, albeit in exile, there was no question of Romulus ever receiving recognition from the east.
Add in the decreasing tax base in the Western Empire, and you can see why things were continuing to decline. The government began to issue edicts tying people to the professions of their fathers, which caused a lack of motiviation for people to try to better themselves, so the tax base continued to dwindle just as more money was needed for national defense. The Army was forced to start impressing men and boys into the ranks, and many would try to avoid being drafted by cutting off their right thumb so they couldn't hold a sword. Also, many people ran to the estates of the rich to avoid taxes and military service, and in return for their complete servitude, the rich would protect them, thus depriving the government of tax revenue and manpower.
The pressures of the various tribes cannot be underestimated, but the Romans had many times defeated superior forces easily, but with the manpower and revenue shortages, and a general apathy among the populance, the government was powerless to resist their foreign invasions. Once the tribes were on Roman soil, the Romans failed to Romanize them as they had others, leaving distinct cultures intact within their borders. These potential sources of revenue and manpower that could have revived the Western Empire were instead goaded into becoming enemies by the actions of incompetent leaders of the government and military. The results were disasterous, with the Roman Army being virtually wiped out over a short period of years, leaving the government to rely on mercenaries to protect the Empire, mercenaries they could ill afford to pay.
Add to the mix the relationship between the rulers of the Eastern and Western Empires. At best of times there was some degree of cooperation, but those times were not the norm, and usually the two rulers and their Praetorian Prefects were plotting against each other. The true wonder is why the Western Empire lasted as long as it did.
While the Western Empire ceased to exist in AD 476 with the removal of Romulus Augustulus from the throne, the Eastern Empire continued until 1453 until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks. Since Odovacar returned the Imperial Regalia to the Emperor Zeno in the Eastern Empire, the division was, official, over, although the west was of course lost. Given that Nepos, who had been nominated by the Eastern Emperor Leo (457-474), still reigned, albeit in exile, there was no question of Romulus ever receiving recognition from the east.
doddsy2978
Active member
IMHO It is the natural order of things - Look at every major empire that has ever existed throughout history - they all have self destructed in the end - even our own. I believe that they become too expensive to maintain.
I just wonder who is next - USA? They seem to be growing at a rate of knots. Just don't over due it guys - or you are in for a fall. Take it from a nation that has been there. Otherwise - best of luck to you
I just wonder who is next - USA? They seem to be growing at a rate of knots. Just don't over due it guys - or you are in for a fall. Take it from a nation that has been there. Otherwise - best of luck to you
While every great civilization and empire has fallen at one time or another, it is perhaps inevitable that the US will decline over time. Does that mean we just shrug our shoulders, and accept it? No. If you look at history, every great nation's decline and fall started at home: immorality, loss of faith, out of control economy, out of control government, ect. If we see it happening, and it is, it is our responsibity as citizens to do everything to prevent it. Unlike any other nation in the world, Americans are sovereign. The government is us. If we sit back and bow to the "inevitable", we deserve the consequences. I have faith in my fellow citizens to do the right things to keep our nation strong and free.
doddsy2978
Active member
What you say is true Delta210, but - are you likely to see it - Your Government is more than capable of pulling the wool over your eyes as ours is!
Shadowalker
Active member
Stagnation, corruption ae two of the ossible factors that lead to a decline in roman leadership and hence there downfall in western europe.