The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Roman Empire Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Rome Fell?
Commander    3/24/2005 6:45:20 PM
I believe the cause of Rome's fall was because the Romans were to comfortable. They had many slaves to do their work for them and they were surronded by a continues flow of weak emperors. It also is the fact that the fall was the continues assasinations made by the Praetorian Guard. It is widely known that a comfortable man is a dead man. While the people of Rome was getting weaker the babarians were getting stronger.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
culprit217    RE:Why Rome Fell?   12/1/2005 12:17:41 PM
Why Rome Fell? Rome was an organized geo-political system of a singular social infrastructure which identified itself as a monolithic entity?that is Roman. It is interesting to note that Rome was founded primarily by nomadic land pirates looking for females to take pleasure with. They became victims of their own success and established the seat of power, a little wooden fort, later called Rome. Their military prowess was something more akin to later Norse tribal pillagers. But, given the barbaric nature of the environment they survived within, they had to stay sharp and mean in order to last. They based their success on simply being the baddest troopers in the land and were not at all loath to take pre-emptive actions when necessary. This naturally led them to become the best conquer tribes anywhere. Their territory and influence quickly gained momentum The sacking of Rome in 386 BC was rather a wakeup call and the empire was very fortunate to have survived it at all. Romans learned an invaluable lesson?never allow liberalism and weakness to overcome readiness and strength. As long as Rome was challenged it could easily justify wanton strength and the expense of standing Legions of armed professionals. Of course, as any good military or business leader can tell you, expansion is survival. Stagnation is death. Once Rome had expanded to a critical level, it became unwieldy. Roman citizens felt so secure they began to resist the taxes required to keep a quality fighting force. Wars were distant and never seemed to really impact the seat of power. The army was so large it hardly was affected at all by what should have been recognized as major defeats. The Carthaginian wars and the uprising of the slaves (Spartacus) actually served as wake-up calls, bringing the reality of the serious nature of the world around Rome?liberalism quickly faded and the leadership and legions were strengthened. But, prolonged periods of relative peace and prosperity brought on decay through outrageous indulgences. Leaders began to be encouraged for popularity and entertainment rather than real devotion to the preservation of the state and soldiery began to fade in popularity to such a dramatic level few Romans would serve the military. Non-Romans began to be made citizens and the Legions began to be filled with captives and conquered volunteers (being promised Roman citizenship for loyal service). Loyalty, devotion to the state and discipline quickly suffered. Roman became more identified as "hyphenated Romans than real citizens (Jewish-Roman, African-Roman, Gaulic-Roman, Greek-Roman). Slaves were even being given Roman citizenship. Eventually, Rome began to lose the respect of potential enemies and her decline was inevitable. When the end came, Romans were not even surprised...they were simply so decadent they didn't even know what was happening to them?many Romans were so disenchanted and lost in their own indulgences they actually encouraged the barbarian invaders and some even joined them. Does the above sound at all familiar in contemporary terms..Ah...like modern day America?
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Why Rome Fell?   12/4/2005 5:46:05 PM
Polybius wrote about the Romans in the second century BC. He explained to his fellow Greeks that Rome had gained ascendency over them because of Roman superiority over the Greeks. Polybius' commentary on the bases of Roman hegemony is pretty enlightening. One comment of Polybius that stands out is that the Romans were never more dangerous than when they were most threatened. The Romans finally defeated King Pyrrhus of Epirus by refusing to give up even even though Pyrrhus had whipped them badly on the battlefield. Pyrrhus had to give up on conquering Italy and go take on less stubborn opponents. Hannibal had beaten up on Roman armies one after the other and yet the Roman people did not lose their nerve when he butchered 70,000 Roman soldiers at Cannae. Later, Hannibal encamped his army a couple of miles from Rome. While he was there, the Romans were despatching newly formed armies to Southern Italy out of the city gates and down the Appian Way. And also while Hannibal was a couple of miles from Rome, the land he was standing on was bought by one of the Romans for a good price thus causing Hannibal to totally lose it when he heard this. The world had always been full of brutes but it takes character to be on top.
 
Quote    Reply

Pars    RE:CJH   12/4/2005 6:12:41 PM
The Romans Polybius met were not the Romans who lost the Empire. At the age of early and middle age of republic, Romans were the people who had very strong charecters, a people who can not be corrupted, very loyal to the government. But the Imperial age Romans were highly corrupt and did not really care the fate of the state as long as they profit.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Pars   12/4/2005 8:02:51 PM
And that's my point, i.e. that the latter Romans were indeed not at all like the earlier ones and the earlier Romans were not as culprit217 described. My thought on the subject is that Rome became too successful. The wealth that came to Rome beginning with the transfer of the treasury of the Macedonian monarchy to Rome set off a train of new trends all of which culminated in the corruption of their society in many senses of the term corruption. And the Italy which originally produced soldiers who were victorious from Scotland too the Euphrates could not field a respectable force to oppose the march Septimus Severus on Rome in the 190s AD. What amazes me about the decline and fall of Rome is that it took so long for Rome to finally fall.
 
Quote    Reply

Commander    RE:CJH   1/3/2006 3:46:42 AM
In the First Punic War Rome was strong at land while Carthage was strong at sea, the Romans defeated them. During the Second Punic War Hannibal plundered the Italian countryside for fifteen years but was soon outlasted by Rome. I would say that that the Romans during the early years were like that of World War II America. They can achieve anything as long as they put their minds to it.
 
Quote    Reply

Pars    RE:Roman system   1/3/2006 9:55:06 AM
Romans simply have the better governmental system. In 1st Punic war, Carthage had more money but Romans could outbuild them in shipbuilding race with using less money. In the 2nd Punic War, every male Italian was available for Rome to be conscripted. Carthage did have the 1/20 manpower of the Romans and buying mercenaries could not close the gap well enough.
 
Quote    Reply

Pelopanisian    RE:Why Rome Fell?   3/4/2006 9:26:11 AM
I believe Rome fell because of a few factors. First, they became to large to govern themselves effectivly and safely. Second, there was too much spending by upper class romans at the cost of the empire. Plus the barbarian invasions. But, I believe that the biggest reason Rome fell, was Christianity. Christianity made Roman soldiers too weak and harmed their martial spirit. They no longer were the great masters of their empire.
 
Quote    Reply

dogday    RE:Why Rome Fell?   3/5/2006 3:52:12 AM
I would put more money on the fact that they had no real legal secession for there emperor, and no uniting sense of themselves like the Chinesse, The Greeks were still Greeks, egyption still egyption. I don't think religion had anything to do with Romes fall, but a great deal to do with Europes recovery
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy