Why Rome Fell?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Ad RE:Why Rome Fell? 3/26/2005 10:18:09 PM

Simple answer, because the Rhine froze over. Flippant though it is and short term though it is; it is partly true.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Why Rome Fell? 3/31/2005 12:13:11 PM

Do you ever think abaut the time line? Rome's traditional founding was 754 BC. The founding of the republic was 502 BC. Rome was sacked by wandering Gauls in 386 BC. From 386 BC to 405 AD when the Vandals sacked Rome, the city never fell to a foreign army. That's 791 years!

Quote Reply

Caesar Maximus RE:Why Rome Fell? 4/5/2005 11:35:53 PM

Rome didn't fall- it moved to constantinople! As to what caused the fall of the west- depopulation; growth of the feudal class system in the roman empire; loss of the military 'edge' that was theirs in terms of technology and discipline. Why the did the city of Rome fall? It was no longer the important capital that it once had been. Its dependance on Ostia for supplies made it far more vulnerable for the emperor than Ravenna or Mediolanum. Few emperors in the later period were born in rome, and thus their perspective of the special status of rome was different to people like Octavian or Sulla. Civil war was something that was a tremendous burden on the manpower and welath of the empire. Rome (nor Constantinople later) was never able to deal with this problem in its government.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Why Rome Fell? 4/7/2005 9:44:55 PM

The fall of the Western Empire specifically is a result of a number of weaknesses. The idea that the Romans were simply comfortable is a popular and long held concept that dates back to Gibbon?s attempt to explain the fall of Rome in moral terms, yet it is hugely flawed. It was the earlier rulers who lived lives of incomparable luxury and comfort and during their reigns the Empire did very well for itself. What we see throughout almost the entire 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries are rulers who spend the vast majority of their time ruling or fighting. With each generation of emperors that passed the man himself was spending increasingly less and less time in the comfort of Rome and many emperors spent their entire reigns defending the frontiers. The artwork seems to back this up, you only have to look at the beatified and attractive busts and portraits of the early emperors and compare this with the stern, tired, almost haggard looking faces depicted in later art. Archaeology from the period of the later empire also clearly shows a decline in both quality and quantity of material possessions and luxuries; the fun and orgies of the early empire had been abandoned in order to cope with the tough times they were facing later. So clearly it was not decadence and softness that brought down the Romans in the West. As for the Rhine freezing over, well that had happened in the past during Roman rule and the Romans had fought back any incursions without suffering serious damage. Roman strength was not originally the natural boundaries it could exploit as such a strength as that can be used by anyone. Military discipline and their technological edge, firm and efficient government, massive sources of manpower and raw materials, productive civic organization, military and political unity, an army based on native professional troops and the primacy of infantry in European military operations (of which the Romans had the best infantry in the world). These were the true sources of Roman strength and all of them for various reasons declined with the passage of time, while the resources and capabilities of their enemies increased. To put things more concisely there were a few main reasons for the fall of the west. An increasingly elitist and harsh government placed crushing economic burdens on its citizens to support the army, this alienated the populace and encouraged them to dodge army service and evade paying taxes. The use of unreliable mercenaries was increasingly the result. The adoption of an almost purely defensive strategy resulted in minimal slave supplies, which were a massive component of Roman economic infrastructure. Plague, which naturally hit the urbanized and connected Romans worse than their Barbarian enemies, caused massive population loss and made the already terrible economic situation completely crushing. Civil wars, which resulted from a poorly defined system by which a legitimate government might take power, sapped the Empire of its strength. Unlike in earlier civil wars the economic restraints were now so tough that the loss of an army was a disaster rather than a setback. This is the reason the Romans under Caesar were as strong as ever after his civil war and yet the victories of Constantius II over his enemies saw the overall ability of Rome to defend its frontiers heavily depleted. Finally warfare was changing. The stirrup now gave massive new power to cavalry archers and cavalry lancers, allowing the rise of cavalry over the until-then primarily infantry based armies. The East Romans recognized this, even though it took a severe beating at Adrianople, and changed their armies to give cavalry a more central role. The Western Empire continued to provide infantry of increasingly poor quality, they failed to adapt to the changing nature of warfare and inevitably were defeated.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Why Rome Fell? 4/8/2005 12:21:14 PM

But doesn't that simply describe the effects of the moral collapse of Roman and/or Italian society on the empire? Michael Grant pointed to a great change in the character of the Roman over the generations which occurred as mentally sharp but devious slaves brought in from the Asian provinces were manumitted and climbed the ladder of Roman society. As the original leading Roman families had been wasted by the proscriptions, civil war and other causes the freedmen and descendants of freedmen became the core of patrician society. So the Romans of the third and later centuries were different people from the Romans of the republic and the beginning of the empire. This would seem to make sense. We see dominant civilzations begun by peoples who are good at taming hostile environments. They improve their societies and physical environments making them habitable for a wider range of peoples. The new environment changes the rules as to which types of people can do best in the top tier of society and the original people are pushed out over time and replaced by those who followed them. Somthing like this may have contributed to Rome's decline.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Why Rome Fell? 4/10/2005 8:24:56 PM

Firstly the establishment of a less representative government was a cause of moral decline that cannot be denied, but I would say such a factor is one not related to many of the economic difficulties facing the Empire. Barbarian society was growing rapidly in population, technological organisation and political organisation. In the East the loose Parthian nation was replaced by a more powerful and FAR more aggressive Persian threat. Lacking the Eastern developments in technology available to Late Medieval people, Roman technological advancement stagnated and outside the Empire their enemies steadily caught up. Massively destructive plagues were hitting hard from the 3rd century onwards and the heavy reliance in the west on agriculture saw a depletion in arable land due to overfarming (something not experienced quite so much in the Eastern Empire due to their reliance on trade and something overcome in the medieval west by crop rotation). All these factors developed independent of moral causes and were greatly damaging to the Empire as a whole, though slightly more so in the West. The changing nature of warfare, with greater reliance on cavalry and use of the stirrup, is also something not in any way related to moral issues. The issue of genetic stock of the leadership is totally irrelevent, unless you take the view that eastern people are genetically and culturally devious, cowardly and selfish (which is obviously not sustainable). The reason they were recruited into the civil service is simply because the typical Roman did not possess the cultural familiarity and eastern education needed to administer the wealthiest and most valuable of Rome's provinces: those of the East. It would be wrong to attribute Rome's decline to the administration of officials whose capacity for intellectual hard work and grasp of bereaucracy was often superior to that of the average Roman who enjoyed elite power purely because of the family they were descended from.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Why Rome Fell? 4/20/2005 5:54:59 PM

I think Rome fell because of a critical shortage of duct tape. how does anything stick together without duct tape, I ask you?

Quote Reply

Pars RE:Why Rome Fell? Huns, Goths and Battle of Adrianoble. 4/22/2005 1:14:40 PM

Single most important event that led to destruction of West Roman Empire was the Battle of Adrianoble. Not because Romans lost it but because Romans first time in their history compromised against a German tribe. Let's go back to 4th century. At that century Huns have entered the Europe via Urals. Their war doctrines which was unseen in Europe before had let them crush Sarmatians, Alans, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals and Gepids one by one. Visigoths instead of admitting Huns dominancy like Ostrogoths, chose to ask admittance to Roman lands. In here you can see that how high the Roman prestige at that time. Until that time Romans have crushed every German tribe that have crossed the border. So Visigoth's simply ask to be admitted as vassals of the Empire like the Empire admitted Sarmatians (very successfully I might add) to the empire. But unlike the fair treatment the Empire behaved against Sarmatians for reasons unknown to me the Empire tried to massacre the entire Visgoth tribe or at least Visigoth's believed so. So they revolted. East Roman Army stationed at Adrianoble instead of waiting more reinforcements to arrive attack probably outnumbered tribal army by itself. What the Roman tcommanders neglect was a small number of Ostrogoth exiles and a small Alan tribe were also settled nearby. Their timely arrival onto the field to help Visigoth's changed a highly likely Roman decisive victory into one of the gretest defeats of Roman empire in the history. But Romans have faced worst defeats in their history that this one. Such as Varus's defeat. But in the first time in their history; rather than seek revenge and destroy Visigoths Roman compromised. Then Rome his invincibility in the eyes of his enemies, their prestige their integrity. After that battle Rome was not an enemy to be dreaded it was a price.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Why Rome Fell? Huns, Goths and Battle of Adrianoble. 4/22/2005 7:49:57 PM

>>Not because Romans lost it but because Romans first time in their history compromised against a German tribe.<< Wasn't that the second time, counting the Teutorburger Wald, under the Roman General Varus in the reign of Augustus?

Quote Reply

Pars RE:Why Rome Fell? Huns, Goths and Battle of Adrianoble. 4/22/2005 8:25:06 PM

After Varus lost 3 legion with his life at Teotenburg wald. Emperor Augustus has opened several revenge expeditions against the tribes of this ambush. And totaly desroyed the tribe which betrayed Rome in the battle. No Rome was not an Empire to compromise against a secondary power at the time. For Romans only power in their hemisphere to negotiate on table was Parthian or Sassanid Persia.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 NEXT