Fall of Roman Empire

[unmerged(5627)]

Why do you think the Roman Empire fell? Do you think it was because of religion? Perhaps corruption or to many enemies for the legions to fight? Outdated military tactics? Or perhaps just running out of money.

What do you guys think?

 

[unmerged(7307)]

corruption

 

[driftwood]

The empire fell in the west largely due to poor political leadership. Better leadership allowed the eastern half to survive for another thousand years.

In the year 395, the west looked impregnable while the east was denuded of men and money. Yet very quickly the east made an economic recovery while the western government showed itself uninterested in events outside of Italy, so long as they didn't threaten Italy.

The great magnates, who existed on a scale the eastern emperors had not allowed, ignored the imperial government while writing cultured letters about how great Romanitas was. They wanted to be left in peace to run their estates in essential autonomy, and the arriving barbarians, who wanted nothing more than to be accepted into their social and economic class, were much more willing to oblige them than Ravenna was.

The barbarians were not in a militarily dominant position, although the empire was not in a good one either, mostly because the barbarians were the most attractive form of manpower, and so destroying them was an option the emperors went out of their way not to exercise. The problem in the west was that the economic linchpin of Africa, lost after several weakening concessions, made it impossible to resist future concessions.

There's no reason to think corruption was any worse in the 5th century than in the 4th or 6th. The most significant religious changes had occurred a century before, during a period of extraordinary prosperity and security for the entire empire. And religion would prove to be an enduring and strengthening thread of romanitas in the coming centuries.

Money was an issue in the west, in part because large magnates were allowed to gather immense estates and then stop paying taxes on them. The loss of N. Africa in particular, but any provincial area, exacerbated the problem by continually reducing marginal revenue sources and putting extra stress on the few reliable sources.

The only tactical military failure of the Romans was a strategic one, when the Emperor Valens attacked an army that greatly outnumbered his. The mix of infantry and cavalry that had evolved in the 3rd and 4th centuries continued to enjoy success in the 5th century and beyond.

In short, the fall of the West was not inevitable, but given the decisions that were made, it's not surprising either.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(5627)]

Thanks for the info Driftwood. ^^_^^

 

[driftwood]

No prob

driftwood

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Isn't it inevitable that all empires fall??

There comes a time when factors arise that will cause an empire's collapse, regardless of the best intentions of the empire's government and population.

 

[unmerged(5627)]

Brycon, that certainly seems to be the case in history, so far at least. ^_^

 

[driftwood]

If empires rise and fall based on the decisions of certain people, then it's true that all empires fall. But since there are always new problems, different challenges, and changing conditions, any empire can fall at any time. So while the Roman Empire would have fallen at some point, the debate is why it fell then, instead of earlier (the 3rd century) or later (the 15th century, in the case of the surviving fragment of the eastern empire).

Suppose America had had undeniably awful leadership in the 1960s (regardless of what you think of the actual leadership, imagine it significantly worse). It's not unthinkable that the country would have collapsed in 1968 under the various pressures. Perhaps in 200 years, there will be a similar situation when the country does "collapse", and then historians can have a field day wondering why 20th century America survived when 22nd century America did not.

They'll probably trace the decline to the rise of time-consuming online discussion boards.

driftwood

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Lord xEnderx
Why do you think the Roman Empire fell? Do you think it was because of religion? Perhaps corruption or to many enemies for the legions to fight? Outdated military tactics? Or perhaps just running out of money.

What do you guys think?

Disease played a major part, starting with the plagues of Marcus Aurelius reign, which exacerbated a manpower crisis. Citizens in the later empire no longer saw the army as a career choice-this trend begins in Italy in the first century as an examination of surviving records shows. As an area became more "Romanised" it seems the people were less willing to participate in their own defence.............

This led to an increased "fragility" of the later army-the militias, the training cadres no longer existed, so that a catastrophic loss of trained manpower could no longer be easily replaced. Hence the long term impact of Adrianople, or the collapse of the Rhine frontiers. This led to the large scale employment of barbarian "nations" rather than the pre-existing use of barbarian "groups"................with fairly inevitable consequences.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

Did the Roman Empire fall at all? A couple of things I have read make me think there might have been a smooth transition from classical Rome into medieval Europe. The Emperor gradually grows weaker, the provincial armies grow stronger politically and become more germanized, the populations grow more germanized. Is this nonsense, or is it the standard view?

For example Agelastus, what are the "inevitable consequences" of letting whole barbarian nations through the borders? Is it that they were no longer interested in being citizens of the empire?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Pishtaco
For example Agelastus, what are the "inevitable consequences" of letting whole barbarian nations through the borders? Is it that they were no longer interested in being citizens of the empire?

The "personal" nature of oaths and contracts in such societies. Previously such troops had been Roman officered as part of the regular army-tribes that settled within the frontiers were kept to the frontier regions of the empire. "Barbarian" units hadn't been taken on as effectively "nations in arms" with wives and families along. The first leader might be loyal to Rome, or more appropriately the commander/emperor who employed him, but what happened when that Roman died, or that particular Barbarian leader died? The answer is that they often started following their own agendas, carving out new kingdoms-and where were the troops to stop them, since they effectively were the army now?

Although what became of the "Notitia Dignitatum"'s Iberian field army is a bit of a mystery.................

Still, the point about them becoming "Romanised" over time is a good point. However, how many Frenchmen etc. consider themselves "Roman" today? The "culture" of being Roman may have evolved and survived, but the "idea" of being Roman didn't (despite the later pretensions of rulers such as Charlemagne.)

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Wait, Rome fell? I thought it was called the EU?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Pishtaco
Did the Roman Empire fall at all? A couple of things I have read make me think there might have been a smooth transition from classical Rome into medieval Europe. The Emperor gradually grows weaker, the provincial armies grow stronger politically and become more germanized, the populations grow more germanized. Is this nonsense, or is it the standard view?

There has been a shift in historiography in recent years away from a model of "Decline and Fall" towards one stressing the continuity of law, religion, economics, and politics. However, this shouldn't be confused with the political (western) Empire not falling, which it obviously did; it's just that the successor states in most of its territory are considered to have sustained its traditions. Although there are still considered to have been significant economic and demographic changes in this region, they're believed to have occurred after the complete collapse of the western Empire, and thus wouldn't be directly related to barbarian invasions and changes in political boundaries.

 

[driftwood]

Well-spoken, Dark Knight.

In 5th and 6th century France, for example, the Frankish aristocracy intermarried with the Gallo-Roman aristocracy and quickly adopted most of its cultural mores. The Gallo-Romans were more than happy to meet them halfway, and they all settled down in a contented, deliberately archaic, demi-literacy.

The interesting thing about Rome's method of dealing with foreign groups, basically paying for the cultural reeducation of the elites, was so successful that it continued even when the barbarians were taking money rather than being given it as gifts.

So even if the personal relationship between Theodosius I and Alaric turned out to be just that - a personal relationship, not an interstate one - after the former's death, the entire upper caste of the barbarian groups was Rome-oriented. There's the famous quote by Theuderic (or whoever) in ~420 when he married whichever Roman princess he had on hand (I'm tired, and all the details are escaping me ): he said that originally Gothia had sought to replace Romania, but now it sought to save Romania.

In many ways, the greater shift between late antiquity and the middle ages occurred in the 6th and 7th centuries, when enduring Roman traditions of education and trade, for a variety of reasons, died out. Even then, rulers remained very conscious of Roman precedents and the legal superiority of the Emperor in Constantinople, as the sole and undisputed sovereign of the Imperium (which was a thing that could expand, geographically, but could never shrink, even if de facto control "temporarily" passed out of Roman hands).

driftwood

 

[unmerged(6303)]

Originally posted by driftwood
In 5th and 6th century France, for example, the Frankish aristocracy intermarried with the Gallo-Roman aristocracy and quickly adopted most of its cultural mores. The Gallo-Romans were more than happy to meet them halfway, and they all settled down in a contented, deliberately archaic, demi-literacy.

The interesting thing about Rome's method of dealing with foreign groups, basically paying for the cultural reeducation of the elites, was so successful that it continued even when the barbarians were taking money rather than being given it as gifts.

So even if the personal relationship between Theodosius I and Alaric turned out to be just that - a personal relationship, not an interstate one - after the former's death, the entire upper caste of the barbarian groups was Rome-oriented. There's the famous quote by Theuderic (or whoever) in ~420 when he married whichever Roman princess he had on hand (I'm tired, and all the details are escaping me ): he said that originally Gothia had sought to replace Romania, but now it sought to save Romania.

Very interesting posts. What exactly is meant by "Rome" though, as in "Rome's method of dealing with foreign groups"; does this refer to a central government, the traditions of local government, the way the laws worked, or just the aristocratic families who had lived inside the empire for a long time? And where there major differences between the Frankish and the Gallo-Roman aristocracy? Or were they all, say, above all latin speakers with a military background?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Pishtaco
Very interesting posts. What exactly is meant by "Rome" though, as in "Rome's method of dealing with foreign groups"; does this refer to a central government, the traditions of local government, the way the laws worked, or just the aristocratic families who had lived inside the empire for a long time? And where there major differences between the Frankish and the Gallo-Roman aristocracy? Or were they all, say, above all latin speakers with a military background?

Rome almost from its' founding had been remarkably "inclusive" in terms of its concept of citizenship, and tended to grant it to the leaders and prominent citizens of even relatively freshly conquered or allied cities, tribes and nations. The "follow the leader" model of cultural and political imperialism-and it worked, even as stated when Rome was the supplicant rather than the dominator.

In many ways what is meant by "Rome" is a collection of cultural and political traditions rather than the implementation of any radical or decisive policies from the central administration.

Integration in the areas of former Roman Gaul held by the Franks was aided by the common religious ground of the Franks and the Gallo-Romans (most of the other invaders were espousers of the Arian heresy.) Even in these other areas though integration occurred-not really surprising since the law of these areas tended to retain distinctions between those subject to "Roman" law and those subject to "Germanic" law. Since the larger component of the population by far was the non-Germanic elements, and the early kings made little effort to introduce uniform law codes (this was mainly a development that occurred when the integration of the disparate population elements of the former regions of the western Empire had been more thoroughly assimilated/integrated with each other), this led to the persistence of a large and vital "Roman" stratum in the barbarian kingdoms that succeeded the western Empire.

 

[driftwood]

I would further add that Roman policy, in terms of domestic and foreign laws and attitudes, was absorbed and continued by the successor states with remarkably few changes. Theodoric the Great, ruler of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy, was technically the eastern emperor's viceroy for the western empire, and as such officially promulgated all the laws passed in Constantinople. This doesn't mean that they were given precedence, in practice, or that "viceroy" was anything more than a nicety, but it is a potent symbol.

The law codes of the successor states are also interesting, because they came fairly early, usually in the 5th century. Their purpose was to, mostly, affirm the rights of the non-barbarian population and also to put in writing the current practices among the barbarians themselves. So, for instance, the kings weren't claiming any right to adjudicate disputes between rivals rather than letting them feud, but they were stating the sanctioned times, places, and limits of feuds, as the current culture had determined them.

Later, in the early middle ages proper and then in the high middle ages, kings warmed to their legislative roles (for a variety of reasons), and took a more active stance on actually reforming their legal codes, usually in imitation of the Justinianic Code (the notable 12th century exception being Henry II of England).

driftwood

 

[Basil II]

I believe that internal forces brought down the Western Empire.

The Empire was at that time made up of "fat happy lazy" citizens who wouldn't produce, and wouldn't even defend themselves. A product of too many years of prosperity and "bread and circuses".

Similar to what is today bringing down the United States.

The barbarian invasions of the 5th century were no worse than those of the second and third centuries, it's just that by that point the Western Empire lacked any ability to defend itself. The system had become so corrupt and decadent to even make successful defense impossible.

Example: the murder of Stilicho by Honorius.

The East was more prosperous, and had been civilized much longer than the West. It was better suited to adapt and survive.

 

[driftwood]

The barbarian invasions of the 5th century were worse than those of the 2nd century, though not catastrophically so. Somewhat so.

The fat, contented aristocracy was not a new innovation, either, although it became more entrenched during the course of the 4th century.

I see most of these changes, culminating in such events as the murder of Stilicho, as symptoms of the more general political malaise. A rich, self-interested aristocracy didn't spell doom in the East or during other periods in the West. But it may just be a matter of semantics between our views.

driftwood

 

[Jayavarman]

The Battle Of Adrianople of 378 decided the fate of the Roman Empire. It was the worst defeat the Romans had since 9 AD in the forests of Germany. It allowed the victorious Goths to remain where they had settled with their weapons and encouraged other German tribes to settle within the Empire. Also, the main Roman army in the East was now destroyed. The Goths (later known as Visigoths) revolted later agian and sacked Rome in 410.