Fall of the Roman Empire - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Lexington
#14643413
I took a year of Roman history in college and it was, of course fascinating. Everyone has their pet theory about why Rome fell but when you dig into the complexity of Roman history grand theories about lead pipes and immigrants seem too simple to explain the entire affair.

Image

The first thing to note is that the Roman Republic created the Empire. The Republic (which one can roughly take to end with the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC) had conquered virtually all of its known world by that time - Italy, Hispania, Gaul, Greece, Carthage. Even areas that weren't formally part of the empire at that time like Judea and Egypt were client states of the Republic. Their incorporation into the Empire occurred due to being drawn into Rome's civil wars, but after the end of the reign of Augustus Rome had consolidated control over its entire region and the only civilized powers that could pose the least threat were on its eastern edges.

The Pax Romana began after that, when Roman expansion slowed (again, the most significant expansion occurred under the Republic). There was a civil war in AD 69 (Year of the Four Emperors). But things were relatively peaceful until the third century between 235 and 284 when the empire almost collapsed in decades of civil war (Crisis of the Third Century). There were repeated civil wars that followed that and ultimately led to the permanent east-west division of the empire. The Western Empire persisted until the 470s, though, and if you only look at maps, the empire was intact until very close to the end:

Image

(395 AD)

Even in 450 AD, only a few decades before the demise of the Western Empire, and having been overrun by Vandals, abandoning Britain, and some other tribes, the Western Empire was still holding most of its ground:

Image

The Eastern Empire of course persisted for another thousand years and did not collapse as swiftly as its Western brother had. The Byzantines made a good show under Justinian and retook North Africa, Italy, and parts of Hispania, but were cripped by wars with the Persians in the 600s leaving the Arabs to conquer much of their Empire. In fits and starts over the next few hundred years they withered and recovered and withered until in 1453 the Eastern Empire was a pitiful handful of territories around Constantinople and the Morea. But basically what happened in 100 years in the West took a thousand years in the east.

If I had to suppose a reason for the demise of the Western Empire, though, it would be its instability - after the third century the Roman world devolved into civil wars and chaos, leading to the east-west division. The west had been reduced to almost a client state of the East by the time of its end and much of its territory had been populated by unreliable foederati. The reason for needing the foederati was that the Roman territories had become depopulated and destitute and the Western Empire was no longer capable of populating or defending them (hence the abandonment of Britain). These territories were depopulated primarily because of relentless civil war in the third and fourth and fifth centuries and the decay of Roman governance.

One interesting contrast is the contemporary Han Dynasty in China, which lasted from 206-220 AD (ending just about when Rome's Crisis of the Third Century began). The Han Dynasty occupies a similar position in Chinese culture as Rome does in Western culture - the main ethnic group in China today calls themselves "hanren", Han people. Dynasties in Roman history don't occupy the same position as dynasties in Chinese history - although we do speak of them, we tend to think of the Roman state as more continuous than one dynasty and the next than one does in Chinese historiography. The Han dynasty came to power in China after the Qin dynasty (which had only two members, including Qin Shi Huang, the Napoleon of China). The Han Dynasty acquired an empire of comparable extent and prosperity to Rome's but was similarly wrecked by civil war until being broken up for the horrendously bloody Three Kingdoms period. China was reunited under the Jin dynasty later in the third century (much as Rome was), but like the Dominate Empire (the name given to the second half of the Roman Empire historiographically) was only a shadow of its former self. The Jin collapsed into Northern and Southern Dynasties in the fifth century, although this was not consensual as the Roman east-west division had been. The Sui dynasty finally reunified China (in brutal fashion) before giving way to the Tang dynasty, which from the 600s to the 900s was one of the most prosperous nations on earth.
User avatar
By fuser
#14643433
Lexington wrote:The Republic (which one can roughly take to end with the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC) had conquered virtually all of its known world by that time


I never liked this phrase "conquered all the known world". No one ever did that, did Romans not knew about Parthians and later Sassanids whom they were fighting all the time, was there not Germania and Scotland? Hell they even knew India and had commercial relations, how can then they could possibly have conquered the known world? By that token many many kingdoms/empires have conquered the known world. Did Incas conquered the known world?

If I had to suppose a reason for the demise of the Western Empire, though, it would be its instability - after the third century the Roman world devolved into civil wars and chaos, leading to the east-west division.


But the question is why was it so unstable? The military was basically selling and buying emperors as some exotic object in an auction during latter period of the WRE as military was still powerful but Romans were mostly unable to make them stay in foreign lands conquering and pacifying those lands while sending more slaves to feed the economy and in return military started to bleed the home provinces dry plus the seeds of feudalism were already sown. The large landowners specially in border regions were more happy to make separate deals with neighboring barbaric tribes than relying on increasingly incompetent leadership. These factors imo were the principle cause for rising instability in the empire.
#14643437
The large landowners specially in border regions were more happy to make separate deals with neighboring barbaric tribes than relying on increasingly incompetent leadership. These factors imo were the principle cause for rising instability in the empire.

Precisely. During the crisis of the 3rd century, for example, the western Empire split into three parts for almost half a century. This happened precisely because the central authority in Rome could not effectively defend the provinces from barbarian incursions. These provinces therefore started organising their own defences and stopped paying taxes to Rome. This was a de facto declaration of independence from Rome.
#14724864
The main reason, to me, is the natural evolution to a point where this large Empire was not sustainable.
It was possible when the Romans had technological advantage and were fighting disorganised tribes, but over time all these advantages faded.

Also IMO there is the huge mistake of talking about the "fall of Rome" in one piece. The real fall of Rome happened when the Eastern half fell, one thousands of years later. Not when the rump state of the Western Empire fell. This is because by then, the power had definitely shifted East.

As to the reason for the fall of the Western side, in addition to what I said above, the final nail in the coffin was demographics. The population of the Western Roman Empire was getting less/stagnant, and all of the sudden the great German migration started, and millions of Germans poored into the Empire due to Attila's invasion of Germania. Since the Western Empire was already so weak, the German tribes created their own kingdoms on Roman territory and Roman authority just made little sense.

My conclusion is that the Roman culture as an entity could have survived, if it had done the Germanic way and simply established a Roman Kingdom over Italy, uniting the Italic people only. Something akin to the modern Italian nation state. Then it could have protected its borders more effectively. Instead it had to protect thousands of km of borders, in a time when transport to the corners of the Empire took months.

It was just not realistic to maintain this Empire.
#14724935
I feel like you're getting it right. My opinion is that the Roman Empire fell because you can't sustain a system based on dominance forever. The only way to do that is to be in a constant state of war, which opens you up to failure due to domestic issues. It falls in line with the decline of the American empire. The American empire can be sustained, but the will to have an empire cannot be. Eventually, the ruling class could no longer identify as Roman and thus split apart.
#14725066
Lexington wrote:Even in 450 AD, only a few decades before the demise of the Western Empire, and having been overrun by Vandals, abandoning Britain, and some other tribes, the Western Empire was still holding most of its ground:


Sure, the least valuable areas. By this time, it was generally understood that unless it got Africa back it was finished.

If I had to suppose a reason for the demise of the Western Empire, though, it would be its instability - after the third century the Roman world devolved into civil wars and chaos, leading to the east-west division.


The importance of civil war in the fall has been greatly exaggerated. It was an occasional problem since the first century BCE, yet Roman power persisted. Even after all the internecine fighting (etc) in the mid third century, the Empire was again united and strong at the start of the fourth. The real problem was loss of support; in sharp contrast to earlier Romans, those of c 400 CE were no longer willing to serve or fight for the empire. It was forced to rely on barbarians who couldn't be trusted for long.



The west had been reduced to almost a client state of the East by the time of its end and much of its territory had been populated by unreliable foederati. The reason for needing the foederati was that the Roman territories had become depopulated and destitute and the Western Empire was no longer capable of populating or defending them (hence the abandonment of Britain). These territories were depopulated primarily because of relentless civil war in the third and fourth and fifth centuries..


Who says the latter empire was depopulated and destitute?? Not A.M. H. Jones or Heather more recently. The latter rejected that view and cited archeological evidence refuting it. In fact, that's why the barbarians attacked, to get Roman riches or richer Roman lands. The Empires(s) were targeted precisely because they were lucrative--even in the fifth century. Look at all the gold etc Alaric and Atilla extorted.

LV-GUCCI PRADA FLEX wrote:
Eventually, the ruling class could no longer identify as Roman and thus split apart.


In fact the ruling or upper class identified as Roman the longest as it had the most stake in the system. Fifth century Roman leadership was often excellent. The problem was, the masses apparently no longer identified as Roman, certainly not to the same degree that they once did. Often they scarcely lifted a finger to resist invaders.
User avatar
By MB.
#14758539
As starman has correctly pointed out, the Roman empires cultural and political legacy continued for more than a thousand years after the death of Romulus Augustulus. ndeed, the title of "Roman Patrician" is the bases of all European aristocracy.
#14758545
In fact the ruling or upper class identified as Roman the longest as it had the most stake in the system. Fifth century Roman leadership was often excellent. The problem was, the masses apparently no longer identified as Roman, certainly not to the same degree that they once did. Often they scarcely lifted a finger to resist invaders.


There were many reasons for this, but the decadence of society was one I don't think I saw mentioned in the above comments. This would make the closest parallel to what is currently happening in American society.
When your leaders are publicly known to be corrupt and decadent by the standards of the average person, then the system falls apart from apathy, and then anger. This is why I predict the US will also break into smaller entities.
#14758617
One Degree wrote:There were many reasons for this, but the decadence of society was one I don't think I saw mentioned in the above comments. This would make the closest parallel to what is currently happening in American society.
When your leaders are publicly known to be corrupt and decadent by the standards of the average person, then the system falls apart from apathy, and then anger. This is why I predict the US will also break into smaller entities.

Is there the slightest bit of evidence for this? (If there isn't , that would explain why no one has talked about it so far.) Is there anything from the time that even implies that average people had been judging powerful Romans by moral standards, and had moved from supporting them to not caring if they were in an empire or overrun by marauding nations?

It comes across more as wishful thinking - "I think my leaders are decadent, and I want a reason to predict their downfall; I know the Western Roman Empire collapsed, so I'll say it had the same problem I think my society has, and then I have a story to tell".
#14758619
There was a lot of in-fighting throughout the ruling classes in the Roman Empire. I think it started falling apart after the death of Julius Caesar.

Perhaps their immigration policies became more lax and so it was not too hard for invaders to send in spies to figure out how weak Rome was becoming, how corrupt it was.
#14758622
It comes across more as wishful thinking - "I think my leaders are decadent, and I want a reason to predict their downfall; I know the Western Roman Empire collapsed, so I'll say it had the same problem I think my society has, and then I have a story to tell".


Or it could be the traditional thought at the time I attended college was Rome's fall was due to it's own decadence. The excesses are well known and I have no interest in looking up all the specifics and regurgitating them here. It has been too long since I studied the details. I only recall some of the rough ideas. That is why I meant my post to get comments from those who are more current in their reading. I don't recall the name of the Caesar that bankrupted the empire paying off hostile tribes. I don't recall the name of the General of the West who had the backing of the people. These details are lost to time for me, but I recall the major argument was Rome's decadence.
#14758628
One Degree wrote:Or it could be the traditional thought at the time I attended college was Rome's fall was due to it's own decadence. The excesses are well known and I have no interest in looking up all the specifics and regurgitating them here. It has been too long since I studied the details. I only recall some of the rough ideas. That is why I meant my post to get comments from those who are more current in their reading. I don't recall the name of the Caesar that bankrupted the empire paying off hostile tribes. I don't recall the name of the General of the West who had the backing of the people. These details are lost to time for me, but I recall the major argument was Rome's decadence.

What kind of college? One that thought it could instill moral lessons into its customers through historical story telling? Or one that actually tried to use historical fact?
#14758635
What kind of college? One that thought it could instill moral lessons into its customers through historical story telling? Or one that actually tried to use historical fact?


Since you wish to be rude, no real historian would make the statement you made above. All the history you have read is a made up story based upon selected facts. If you think you actually know what caused Rome's downfall then you are delusional. I was extremely well versed in history, but it was a long time ago.
#14759084
One Degree wrote:Since you wish to be rude, no real historian would make the statement you made above. All the history you have read is a made up story based upon selected facts. If you think you actually know what caused Rome's downfall then you are delusional. I was extremely well versed in history, but it was a long time ago.

I never claimed to be a 'real historian'. But, then again, what you quote is not a statement - it's some questions. I think 'a real historian' would be able to tell the difference. I didn't claim to know what caused its downfall - you did:
There were many reasons for this, but the decadence of society was one I don't think I saw mentioned in the above comments. This would make the closest parallel to what is currently happening in American society.
When your leaders are publicly known to be corrupt and decadent by the standards of the average person, then the system falls apart from apathy, and then anger.

A real historian would remember what they wrote.

I notice you haven't even tried to show some evidence for your claims. You've just boasted about how much history you used to know - though you also assert that it was all made up, so I'm not sure why that should impress us.
#14759264
I notice you haven't even tried to show some evidence for your claims. You've just boasted about how much history you used to know - though you also assert that it was all made up, so I'm not sure why that should impress us.


:?: As I said in my first reply to you, the purpose of my post was to ask other posters if this was still a current theory. I noticed it had not been mentioned and wondered why. My mentioning the relationship to the current US was often used because of these similarities. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said in the thread. I was simply enjoying your views upon a part of History I had not devoted any time to for a long while.
I will phrase it as a question. Is the decadence of Rome no longer taught as a reason for it's decline?
User avatar
By MB.
#14759512
How does one quantify decadence? How does "decadence" apply to the political-economic catastrophes that resulted in the Roman Empire's military reversals? What geographic constraints does one apply to "decadence" considering the numerous post-Romulus Augustulus continuities, such as the Byzantine empire, holy roman empire, catholic church, and so forth?

Please provide some context for the "decadence" thesis. Decadence is defined as "luxurious self-indulgence"- does this apply to all social strata in the entire Roman Empire? What are the aspects of this decadence and how are they related to other social, economic, political, religious and military transformations during the thousand years from 450 AD to 1450 AD?
#14759515
Decadence would be referring to the elite of the ruling class. Caligula and Nero come to mind as examples of leaders who ignored their duties to the empire and concentrated on personal pursuits. You could argue Rome was always decadent (by our standards) and the rise of Christianity brought it to the forefront, but that would still make the decadence of the society partly responsible for it's downfall.

Again my purpose for posting was to find out your thoughts on it.
User avatar
By MB.
#14759516
Do you trace the origin of the decline of the Roman Empire to the decadence of Caligula and Nero caesar? Can you extrapolate on why the empire survived for nearly 500 years in the west and over 1400 years in the east, and over 2000 years in the form of the Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church if the "decline" began in the 1st century AD? What does a "decline" model look like that takes thousands of years to complete?
#14759518
While Imperial revenues fell, Imperial expenses rose sharply. More soldiers, greater proportions of cavalry, and the ruinous expense of walling in cities all added to the toll. Goods and services previously paid for by the government were now demanded in addition to monetary taxes. The steady exodus of both rich and poor from the cities and now-unprofitable professions forced Diocletian to use compulsion; most trades were made hereditary, and workers could not legally leave their jobs or travel elsewhere to seek better-paying ones.


The above points to the historical battle between cities and small communities. The cities came to be considered decadent by smaller communities. This is a process I believe the world is in today and it does take hundreds of years to complete.
User avatar
By MB.
#14759519
You really need to define what you mean by your decadence thesis, otherwise it is a vague word that you are using without any apparent connection to your argument.

What you just quoted suggests that socio-economic forces related to de-urbanization prior to Diocletian's regime produced semi-feudal conditions.

Is that what you mean by your "decadence" thesis?

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]