When was Rome doomed?

[Raphia]

We all know Rome ended blah blah AD, but at what point was it truly finished as in never going back to its former glory?

[Olaf Blackeyes]

The final split after the death of Julian the Apostate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From Marius onwards at the latest I would say. Once the Principate got underway it was a permenant dive overall; with a few false rallies. Had Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Marcus Antonius, Brutus etc. all died in infancy it might have survived. The Republic required massive reform and the practical extension of enfranchisement to however, not a line of despots.

[penguinking]

I think he meant the empire and not the republic.

Rome became doomed when the Vandals conquered North Africa in 429 and Rome lost a huge portion of her revenue. From that point on, things just spiraled downhill.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think he meant the empire and not the republic.

Rome became doomed when the Vandals conquered North Africa in 429 and Rome lost a huge portion of her revenue. From that point on, things just spiraled downhill.

You misunderstand, Rome as a nation, Republic or Empire, was doomed from the time of Marius.

The Principate never became a true monarchy and Rome never developed beyond a city state. Instead the Empire effectively became one man's private holdings and the army his personal mercenaries. Once that happened it was going to go south sooner or later.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Surely all empires are destined to "go South". Name a single empire that has stood the test of time. Where is the British Empire now? Spanish? Mongol? Roman? Byzantine? Ottoman? All empires are destined to fall eventually.

[antisocialmunky]

When it stopped expanding and turned in on itself.

[Mulceber]

You misunderstand, Rome as a nation, Republic or Empire, was doomed from the time of Marius.

I disagree. Using your logic, you could argue that Rome was doomed from the time of Romulus because he founded it. All empires are doomed to eventually fall. And to say it was downhill from the time of Marius isn't even accurate either - Rome reached its peak during the late Principate, with a wonderful succession of rulers - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and while it had some wackos like Caligula, Nero and Domitian, the Early Principate also had some very good Emperors such as Augustus, Tiberius (or at least Tiberius in the early part of his reign), Claudius, Vespasian and Titus. No, honestly, Monarchy was a much more viable form of government than their Republic (and I mean their Republic, not ours), which was populated with traditionalists without the vision to see the inherent problem with a constitution designed to rule a city being used to rule an Empire. No, even if all the people you cited hadn't been born, the Republic would have fallen. It was inevitable.


We all know Rome ended blah blah AD, but at what point was it truly finished as in never going back to its former glory?

The Empire experienced a lot of setbacks throughout the 300's, but they also rallied a lot too. I would say that by the end of the reign of Honorius, there was no chance of them recovering - he'd inherited the western Empire in fairly good shape from his father Theodosius, but he was grossly incompetent, controlled completely by his advisers. Such incompetence didn't really inspire loyalty and a lot of usurpers and governors started revolting in the hopes of taking his throne. It was around this time that the Barbarians started invading, having been pushed out of their native lands by other barbarians, and in this time what Rome really needed was to be united in the face of this common enemy. Instead, the various Roman factions generally ignored the Barbarian threat and concentrated instead on determining who was allowed to wear a crown. By the end of Honorius' reign (which, unfortunately was a long one), Rome was completely dependent on military dictators (all of whom were either German or commanded German troops) for protection. Most of the previous setbacks were bad, but this was really the point of no return. -M

[Zues!]

Hears what I learned this year in history class:

With out details Rome was doomed when they went to war with Carthage I believe, and also when they started being ruled by poor leaders. When they split the Empire into Easterns and Western Empires Rome was already on a down fall but that made it worse....:D I know nothing compared to yall I jus like playing the game and learning about:D

[Marcus Ulpius]

First symptoms of future problems were when the army turned professional, but was bound to the commander more than to the state itself. Major problem was lack of loyalty towards Rome, not towards Caesar Pompey or Crassus. It created tons of problems later, including dismantling of the republic and in principate times - civil wars with apotheoses - the time of soldier emperors.

As for decline of the Empire, there are lots of theories for that. Some state the economic crises (as we see that the equipment of later legionnaires is worse than that of the Augustan times), the richest parts of the Roman Empire actually were at that time part of the Eastern Roman Empire, which caused bankruptcy of the treasure. This, combined with Barbarian onslaught on the Empires' western borders caused collapse.

Other theories are more controversial, like those, based on Gumilev's theory of inner energy of civilization. According to this, when the inner energy is spent we see the depopulation, sharp decline in prestige of the state (people stop asking what they can do for their country and start asking what their country can do for them), the benefits of the state are forgotten and neglected in favor of the personal gains. The loss of core ideology (such as traditional Roman paganism), which is replaced by foreign young and aggressive ideologies (like Christianity and Mythraism). According to this theory, the barbarians that attacked Rome in the 4-5th centuries were not stronger than those that Rome fought them throughout the history, it was Rome that became much weaker.

[kekailoa]

Zues!

You need a new history teacher.

[chenkai11]

Zues!

You need a new history teacher.


No, I like the idea Rome was doomed by Carthage.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

That's what Scipio thought, apparently. By destroying Carthage unnecessarily, Rome became corrupt.

[Aper]

I think he meant the empire and not the republic.

Rome became doomed when the Vandals conquered North Africa in 429 and Rome lost a huge portion of her revenue. From that point on, things just spiraled downhill.

Pure truth. Sorry, but the rest is only the usual blabla.

[oudysseos]

Peter Heather's Excellent book The Fall of the Roman Empire proposes that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of collapse, not even into the 5th century AD. What brought it to an end were the "barbarians"- centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors it called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling the Empire. The Huns drove the Goths to seek refuge inside the Empire, but the ham-handed Roman response created a conflict which they lost. The Goths won Hadrianople in 378 and sacked Rome in 410, although in the meantime Theodosius managed to come to terms with the Goths and reunite the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire by 395. If he hadn't died relatively young then what?
But the Vandals blew through Gaul and Spain before taking North Africa in 439, denying huge resources to the Romans. Then came Attila, the Wrath of God. (I'd have loved to see Klaus Kinski do Attila). All Odoacer had to do in 476 AD is pick up the pieces.

Well worth reading.

This certainly was not the end of the Eastern Roman Empire, not for a thousand years. And I think that Justinian's ambitions were not doomed to failure: Belisarius had recovered Africa and all of Italy by 540 AD. If he had truly accepted the offer to become Emperor of the West, who knows what could have happened? And even though it didn't turn out that way, his success shows that Rome was still a viable idea even into the 6th century AD.

So I'd have to disagree with PVC: if Rome was doomed from the time of Marius, why did it take 500 more years to fall? That just doesn't make sense to me.
And as far as
The Principate never became a true monarchy and Rome never developed beyond a city state. Rome developed so much beyond a city state that the city itself ceased to be central to the Empire: long before the Western Empire fell Rome had become an antiquated backwater. Even in Italy Ravenna and Milan were more important, not to mention Constantinople. The idea of 'Rome' had been exported, that is to say, had developed beyond the original city itself.
As far as Rome not being a true monarchy, I guess I'd have to know what is meant by 'true monarchy'. Many nations/empires/kingdoms from before Rome to after it experienced frequent dynastic changes and experimented with various ways of delegating authority. I don't see how the later Roman Empire, say from the 2nd century AD onwards, doesn't fit into that spectrum.

[Macilrille]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China.

As for the cause of the fall of The Roman Empire, which is what we are discussing here under the guise of chronology, I can but say that the more I learn, the more I learn I do not know. My specialisation as a historian is Danish Viking- High Middle Ages, secondarily Iron Age and Roman history (I would estimate that I have read 20k+ academic pages on Roman history), so I know a lot, but not enough to say what caused the fall of the empire. And I think that no one can ascertain it for certain, nor that it was one single cause. Nothing in history is caused by a single cause. probably internal dissention, economic weakness, demilitarisation/military weakness and some ideological changes as well that all played their role in the fall.

Were I to wager a guess about when the empire was doomed I would say 406 AD when Stilicho pulled the border garrisons away from the Rhine, allowing the Vandals, Alanss, Suebi and Burgundi to overrun the Western Empire where the Goths were already on a rampage (on New Year's Eve no less). The Empire never recovered from that, even though most of the Germanic Kings and Chieftains would gladly have settled for a high place in the Roman System and a place for their tribe to live. The Empire was deteriorating and they instead had to build new realms on its ruins, Bachrach has some insightful points about the integration of Roman and German, mostly in Gaul -> France.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I'm not sure that India and China as empires have stood the test of time. India was British possession for hundreds of years and the Chinese empire fell in the early part of the 20th Century. But it's impossible to name a single factor for any empires demise. Yes there will be key factors, but it's the whole jigsaw that represents the cause. If for the sake of argument, you wished to mark a point of no return, I'd say the final split of east and west. The West didn't have the wealth of the East and slowly died. then the East lived on for centuries.

[Ibrahim]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China.

As for the cause of the fall of The Roman Empire, which is what we are discussing here under the guise of chronology, I can but say that the more I learn, the more I learn I do not know. My specialisation as a historian is Danish Viking- High Middle Ages, secondarily Iron Age and Roman history (I would estimate that I have read 20k+ academic pages on Roman history), so I know a lot, but not enough to say what caused the fall of the empire. And I think that no one can ascertain it for certain, nor that it was one single cause. Nothing in history is caused by a single cause. probably internal dissention, economic weakness, demilitarisation/military weakness and some ideological changes as well that all played their role in the fall.

Were I to wager a guess about when the empire was doomed I would say 406 AD when Stilicho pulled the border garrisons away from the Rhine, allowing the Vandals, Alanss, Suebi and Burgundi to overrun the Western Empire where the Goths were already on a rampage (on New Year's Eve no less). The Empire never recovered from that, even though most of the Germanic Kings and Chieftains would gladly have settled for a high place in the Roman System and a place for their tribe to live. The Empire was deteriorating and they instead had to build new realms on its ruins, Bachrach has some insightful points about the integration of Roman and German, mostly in Gaul -> France.

India only achieved full unity in 1947: before hand, there were at least 2-3 empires in India, or were ruled by the British. China was repeatedly borken up (after the Han, the Tang, and that one sung dynasty).

even at the height of the mughals mind you, southern India remained independant, even in the reign of Akbar or Aurungzeb (I misspelled I know).

[Dol Guldur]

Let's look at some quotations from historians and commentators....


"Having given up the habit of controlling their children, they let their children govern them, and took pleasure in bleeding themselves white to gratify the expensive whims of their offspring. The result was that they were succeeded by a generation of idlers and wastrels, who had grown accustomed to luxury and lost ALL sense of discipline" (Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, 78-79).

Carcopino goes on to say that at the same time there was "an epidemic of divorces," and quotes Seneca as having stated, "They marry in order to divorce" (Ibid. pp. 97, 100).

He also tells us that a strong "women's rights" movement developed in Roman society: "Some wives evaded the duties of maternity for fear of losing their good looks, some took pride in being behind their husbands in no sphere of activity, and vied with them in tests of strength which their sex would seem to forbid; some were not content to live their lives by their husband's side, but carried on another life without him ... It is obvious that unhappy marriages must have been innumerable" ( Ibid. pp. 90, 93, 95).

Regarding schools he wrote:

"They undermined instead of strengthened the children's morals, they mishandled the children's bodies instead of developing them, and if they succeeded in furnishing their minds with a certain amount of information, they were not calculated to perform any loftier or nobler task...The pupils left school with the heavy luggage of a few practical and commonplace notions, laboriously acquired, and of so little value, that in the fourth century, Vegetius could not take for granted that new recruits for the army would be literate enough to keep the books for the corps" (Ibid. pp. 106-107).

"The Roman virtues - honesty, candor, frugality, and patriotism - withered and died. What was left was a people whom neither the vices of the rulers, nor the increasingly bold attacks of foreign enemies could shake out of their apathy," Myers wrote.

"In all the great cities of the provinces, the theater held the same place of bad preeminence in the social life of the inhabitants...The Roman stage was gross and immoral. It was one of the main agencies to which must be attributed the undermining of the originally sound moral life of Roman society. So absorbed did the people become in the indecent representations on the stage, that they lost all thought and care for the affairs of real life" (Myers, Rome: Its Rise And Fail. pp. 515, 516).

Turning back to Carcopino: "The thousands of Romans who, day after day, from morning till night, could take pleasure in this slaughter, and not spare a tear for those whose sacrifice multiplied their gambling stakes, were learning nothing but contempt for human life and dignity" (Carcopino, Daily Life In Ancient Rome, pp. 238, 240, 243).

T. frank in the American Historical review wrote: "This orientalization of Rome's population had a more important bearing than is usually accorded to it, upon the larger question of why the spirit and acts of Imperial Rome are totally different from those of the Republic" (July, 1916).

Immigrants (who had influxed rapidly into the Roman Empire) "did not spring from the soil of rome, their recollections and affections were elsewhere. While the statesmen and leading men wore themselves out in trying to preserve what remained of the ancient spirit and old customs, down below, amongst those classes of the population which were constantly being recruited from slavery, there was a continual working to destroy it" (Historians History Of The World, Vol. 6, p. 365).

Government started to give out free handouts. This welfarism became a "leading fact of Roman life. The evils that resulted from this misdirected state charity can hardly be overstated. Idleness and all its accompanying vices were fostered to such a degree that we shall probably not be wrong in enumerating the practice as one of the chief causes of the demoralization of society" (Myers, Rome: Its Rise And Fall. p. 523).

So, as inevitably happens when government gets involved in what should be private matters, government got involved even more to "sort out" the problems its own interference an dpolicies had mainly caused in the first place: "There were land taxes, property taxes, occupation taxes, poll taxes." As a result, "the heart was taken out of the enterprising men."

After the tex burden became so great and the business owners descreased "the government intervened and bound the tenants to the soil [the beginning of serfdom], and the businessmen and the workmen to their occupations and trades. Private enterprise was crushed and the state was forced to take over many kinds of business to keep the machine running....This led to still further strangling taxation with repeated devaluations of the currency that fatally weakened the middle class, and decimated its natural leaders. The attempt to cure the resulting disorder with the complete regimentation of the totalitarian state merely gave a temporary check to the progressive decay. Disintegration followed the stifling of initiative .... " (Haskell, The New Deal In Old Rome, pp. 216-218, 220-21, 231-32).


So what set the rot in Rome?

The same things that have set the rot in our society.

[Aper]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China.

Yeah, and oriental people like all the same...

Maybe you could mind reading some basics history of that people before posting nonsense... India has never been an unified empire, the various dinasties/empires that ruled the north of the country more often than not had little in common with each other... Same for China : different dinasties, different peoples, different cultures... a lot of political instability in some ages, unification in others... and regarding today, the current regime has NOTHING in common with the ancient traditions, apart from propaganda, obviously: actually, it fought fiercely against the old chinese ways (resulting in big cultural losses for the country)

To say that the chinese empire survived the test of time because of the modern china is like to say that the European Union is the descendant of the Roman Empire... :laugh4:

About the reasons you posted, it's not entirely true in my view: that of 406 was one of the greatest blows Rome suffered, but not a lethal one, after that western romans achieved again the goal to become at least the dominant political power in Europe, and slowly began to regained what had lost.

The point of no return was reached first with Attila, that caused an inimmaginable havoc in roman Gaul and in the already suffering Italy, and wipe out the last valuable military forces of Aetius, then with the Vandal invasion of africa, the empire lost its cash cow = no new soldiers. After that the end was almost unavoidable... almost!

A little known emperor, Majorian, gained back a lot of territories and pacified Gaul and Spain: he assembled a great army and fleet, and when everithing was ready to reconquer Africa, the fleet's officers defected to Gensericus, leading to the assasination of the politically weakened emperor. Indeed, it was a pity, and a chance lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian

And, btw, the roman empire fell or in 1204 (4° crusade) or in 1453 (Memhet II take Costantinople) , not surely in 476... or someone still believe papist propaganda?

[bobbin]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China. India was never really a political entity before modern times. It was more like what we would term Europe today ie a group of peoples who share a cultural heritage but are divided among different countries and languages.

China fits the statement a bit better but was still ruled by foreigners or divided among different empires at many points in history eg mogols, warring states peroid.

edit: bah! aper beat me to it.

[Hax]

Japan.

[Siruso]

I think it was after it stopped gaining new territory. The Roman Empire was based completely around conquering, and after they stopped gaining any new territory they began to run out of money for the armies. After Augustus, Roman territory pretty much stayed the same with a few minor increases (Trajan)

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Japan.

OWNED!!!!!

[||Lz3||]

When it was divided between 2 brothers.

[Ibrahim]

India was never really a political entity before modern times. It was more like what we would term Europe today ie a group of peoples who share a cultural heritage but are divided among different countries and languages.

China fits the statement a bit better but was still ruled by foreigners or divided among different empires at many points in history eg mogols, warring states peroid.

edit: bah! aper beat me to it.

actually, I beat Aper before he beat you. so there.:laugh4:

[Ludens]

Peter Heather's Excellent book The Fall of the Roman Empire proposes that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of collapse, not even into the 5th century AD. What brought it to an end were the "barbarians"- centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors it called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling the Empire.

Somehow, that sounds frighteningly familiar to me. Still, it's an argument, although I doubt that a single reason was solely responsible for the fall of the Roman empire.

[Krusader]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China.


Indian & Chinese culture/civilization yes, but political entity? No.

India today is united, although a few Indians might disagree with that statement as Pakistan & Bangladesh are not part of India. And Mahatma Gandhi was also very much against it.

[LordCurlyton]

Japan.

And that proves....
They've only been united for a few hundred years. Plenty of time for dissolution to set in again. Or more likely conquered by outsiders.

[Fixiwee]

My university teacher in ancient history brought us a sheet of paper which read:"Reasons for the decline and fall of the roman empire".
On that sheet of paper where about 70 to 100 terms. Economic crisis, barbarian invasion, incompetence, even weird terms like homosexuallity, but many more then I can recall right now. What she said is, that this are all terms used by historians to explain the decline of Rome. She showed us that for a simple reason, to prove that there is no exact explenation for the decline of Rome.

You people may interpret all the signs and effect, but the decline was so complexe and is far beyond grasping with the limited sources, that we will never fully understand why it happen.

Oh, and the famous historian Habsbawn made an interessting theisis about the decline. He mentions that the cours of history was often determined by civilization against barbarians. He mentions all the ancient empires that were effected by that, but only the Western Roman Empire was completley destroyed. This set out a motion throughout the history of Europe to reinvent and reconstruct the Roman Empire, most notably the Resnaissance. Thus Europe set out for a different path of history. It's a bit vague how I can discribe it, but if someone is interessted in the passage I can type it down.

[Zeibek]

Japan.
Well, TBH Japanese history is so riddled by internal strife and dynastic struggles that a Portugese commentator (Possibly Francis Xavier, I'm quoting out of memory here) called the Japanese people "the most belligerent nation on earth, who live only to fight each other." Granted, he visited in Japan during the height of the Sengoku Jidai, when things were unnatturally violent even on Japanese standards.

Japanese culture and the nation as a whole have never been conquered or properly subjected to foreign rule, but like all nations it has suffered from fighting between two transitional political entities. Empires, like all political entities, will eventually fall, but cultures can last millenia, like in China. The main point is to distinguish between a culture and it's political entity. Rome may have fallen but it's culture and customs lived on, or alternatively the "true" customs of the Pagan city-state died before the actual empire, depending on how you look at it.

Edit: Dammit, didn't realise that Krusader allready adressed this point. Now all I did was waste space.

[Hax]

They've only been united for a few hundred years. Plenty of time for dissolution to set in again. Or more likely conquered by outsiders.

Actually, their throne dates back to 550 BCE. The warring Shogunates were never (AFAIK) conquered by foreigners of any kind, and the Japanese culture was never really influenced by anything since the original occupation of Honshu and the rest of the islands, so I guess you can define Japan as one of the oldest still standing original empires. Of course, they had their changes in government and stuff, but the Emperor is still the highest entity, who held this position for over 2,500 years.

@Zeibek: No problem, of course. However, I wish to stress the point that, as you said, Japan was never subjugated by a foreign entity.

Of course, you have other lands, such as Portugal and Spain who can date their roots back to the founding of the kingdom of Leon, but they too have had their share of subjugation.

[KozaK13]

The Empire was doomed after good emperors started trying to establish dynasties eg. Marcus Aureilius, Septimus Severus, Constantine, Theodosius( arguably good emperors)
Christianity probably played apart in the empires fall aswell as germanic barbarians serving in the army and returning to thier lands with more knowledge of roman tactics, equipment and political system, meaning that germanic tribes became confederacies united due to want of roman lands and a more evovled political structure due to romman influence, and religion in some cases.

[Megas Methuselah]

By 753 B.C., it was doomed. :skull:

[Zeibek]

@Zeibek: No problem, of course. However, I wish to stress the point that, as you said, Japan was never subjugated by a foreign entity.

I see your point. However, by this definition an empire survives as long as it's underlying culture does. The British, or the Ottoman Empire for that matter, was never subjucted by a foreign entity yet it has ceased to exist. Fact is empires are just abnormally large political entities that often occupy an area of many ethnicities, and the empire is considered dead after it is reduced to the territory of it's underlying culture or is completely destroyed. In this case Japan is poor example, as the Japanese empire lasted only for a couple of decades, and never made any permanent inroads into subject areas.


Emperor is still the highest entity, who held this position for over 2,500 years. I hate being a pedant, but actually the idea of the Japanese emperor holding a position of power is a very recent one, developed by Chugoku daimyo before the Meiji Restoration in order to create a mythically legitimized opposition to the Tokugawa administration. Even during the early days when the Japanese were only colonizing Honshu and Kyushu the Emperor's state held only a primus inter pares position. Generally after the Kamakura period the emperor became little more than a pawn in the machinations of aristocratic families. He did exist, but for about 700 years he only had a secondary symbolic value to anybody. There are even stories that during the Tokugawa regime the Emperor lived in a house made of reeds and that his children ate mudcakes. These are of course exaggerations, but prove the point well enough.

[Hax]

I understand. Thank you for your enlightening :bow:

Are you Japanese?

[antisocialmunky]

...the Japanese culture was never really influenced by anything...

Well, weren't they influenced by the Chinese in the form of religion, philosophy, and other things as well as elements from the West during Sengoku Jidai and since the late 19th century?

:juggle2:

[Hax]

Well, weren't they influenced by the Chinese in the form of religion, philosophy, and other things as well as elements from the West during Sengoku Jidai and since the late 19th century?

Religion stayed pretty much with Shinto, Buddhism and Taoism, afaik.

Philosophy is pretty hard to think away from religion, but anyways; I should have noted that I meant until about 1850.

[Zeibek]

I understand. Thank you for your enlightening :bow:

Are you Japanese?

Heh, hardly. I just have a thing for that little archipelago and the wacky people inhabiting it.

[Hax]

Ah yes. I have recently been very interested in the Japanese culture. Thanks for helping me out with this stuff.

[Subotan]

India only achieved full unity in 1947:
Wrong. The Indian Sub-Continent is still divided into India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. The idea of "India" has changed over the last 60 years, with it previously referring to the whole of the sub-continent, to the now predominantly Hindu citizens of "Republic of India". Likewise, Pakistan is a totally artificial construct created by the British (Sorry: We screwed up yet another place in the world) that is made up of Indians who happen to be Muslims, whilst totally ignoring the many many cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic differences between the various peoples.

Surely all empires are destined to "go South". Name a single empire that has stood the test of time. Where is the British Empire now? Spanish? Mongol? Roman? Byzantine? Ottoman? All empires are destined to fall eventually.
I'd consider the Catholic Church an Empire. It has a lot of power and influence, it's very rich, and the decisions that the Pope makes can affect the whole world.

You misunderstand, Rome as a nation, Republic or Empire, was doomed from the time of Marius.

The Principate never became a true monarchy and Rome never developed beyond a city state. Instead the Empire effectively became one man's private holdings and the army his personal mercenaries. Once that happened it was going to go south sooner or later.
I would agree with that (Apart from the Rome being a city state bit). However, a modern, western democracy would have been very hard to maintain in antiquity, and there is also the issue of slave labour.

Japan.
M-M-M-MONSTER KILLL!!!
Culturally and politically, Japan as an entity has remained separate and independent. Yes, it's had it's strife and chaos (Boshin Wars, Post WWII).
But where we to talk about Empires that are still powerful today, and always have been throughout their existence...I don't know. The USA might take a turn for the worst now, and I suppose you could consider the EU...

Heh, hardly. I just have a thing for that little archipelago and the wacky people inhabiting it.


Ah yes. I have recently been very interested in the Japanese culture. Thanks for helping me out with this stuff.
Me too! :2thumbsup: I'm going to apply for the Jet Programme (http://www.jetprogramme.org/) after University, where I'm either going to do PPE, or International Relations and Japanese (Sorry, no history folks). I'm currently learnijng Katakana, and I've memorised all the "a"s and the "i"s

[Uticensis]

I wouldn't say that Rome was necessarily doomed by the time of Marius, but the roots of what brought it down were definitely sown in the political changes in the first century BC.

I would say that the Crisis of the Third Century, though, was when the empire started to go downhill. But still, Diocletian and his successors were able to hold it together, so I would not say it was necessarily doomed yet. As people have pointed out, once the Vandals took North Africa, the Western Empire was in real trouble, as that was the main source of grain.

However, I think even up to Justinian, the idea of a Roman Empire was still viable. The reconquest of the Empire was intially very successful. And even before that, the Vandals, Goths, Franks, ect. were very willing to become Romanized, and adopted Roman culture, language, law, ect. So if things turned out differently, I could see a Mediterranean world governed by the Byzantines, with "barbarian" Romanized states on its fringes. However, the force that really doomed the idea of a Roman Empire was Islam. It swept through the Byzantine Empire, took Egypt (the other main source of grain), North Africa, and Spain. And most importantly, the regions conquered by the Arabs rapidly abandoned the use of Greek (or, in the West, Latin) and the age-old Mediterranean culture in favor of the new, Arab culture. From then on, the culture makeup of the Medierranean changed, and even the Byzantine Empire, at least in my opinion, changed fundamentally and stopped being truly “Roman” so Roman civilization was essentially dead.

But my favorite reason for Rome’s fall is Voltaire’s: “This empire fell because it existed. Everything has to fall”

[Hax]

@Subotan: Very, very interesting. I also just found a page on Wikipedia that states that the Greek wind God Zephyr influenced the Japanese wind God Fujin.

I've done some research into Japanese mythology as well, especially on Shingon and Shinto mysticism.

[Subotan]

However, I think even up to Justinian, the idea of a Roman Empire was still viable. The reconquest of the Empire was intially very successful. And even before that, the Vandals, Goths, Franks, ect. were very willing to become Romanized, and adopted Roman culture, language, law, ect. So if things turned out differently, I could see a Mediterranean world governed by the Byzantines, with "barbarian" Romanized states on its fringes. However, the force that really doomed the idea of a Roman Empire was Islam. It swept through the Byzantine Empire, took Egypt (the other main source of grain), North Africa, and Spain. And most importantly, the regions conquered by the Arabs rapidly abandoned the use of Greek (or, in the West, Latin) and the age-old Mediterranean culture in favor of the new, Arab culture. From then on, the culture makeup of the Medierranean changed, and even the Byzantine Empire, at least in my opinion, changed fundamentally and stopped being truly “Roman” so Roman civilization was essentially dead.

Great post! Just shows how much influence one man can have in changing the course of history.



But my favorite reason for Rome’s fall is Voltaire’s: “This empire fell because it existed. Everything has to fall”

Deep. :shame:


@Subotan: Very, very interesting. I also just found a page on Wikipedia that states that the Greek wind God Zephyr influenced the Japanese wind God Fujin.

Aye, I remember seeing a post on the .org about the transformation of Zephyr through Indian/Chinese Gods into Fujin.

[Zeibek]

Me too! :2thumbsup: I'm going to apply for the Jet Programme (http://www.jetprogramme.org/) after University, where I'm either going to do PPE, or International Relations and Japanese (Sorry, no history folks). I'm currently learnijng Katakana, and I've memorised all the "a"s and the "i"s

Nice. I'm currently on completeing my first (and thanks to a tight schedule last) Japanese language course. It's kind of wierd that you're going through katakana first since it's only used in the transcription of foreign words. We've almost gone through the hiragana, though I haven't bothered to memorise all the characters. It's really cool to be taught an orthographic system based on completely different principles than our boring Latin one, I can't help but feel smart every time I mitigate a vowel at the end of a syllable or turn "ki" into "gi" by adding just two strokes on the corner of the character. Downside with all this is that we haven't studied the language itself as much as we have the writing system :shame:

But luckily I'm not even in university yet, so I'll have plenty of time to learn it later on :beam:

[Subotan]

Nice. I'm currently on completeing my first (and thanks to a tight schedule last) Japanese language course.

I'm doing it on my own, with the help of self-made flash cards (Paper slips) colour coded into the different vowels, Wikipedia, the 45 minute bus journey to school and various podcasts.


It's kind of wierd that you're going through katakana first since it's only used in the transcription of foreign words.

Yeah, I realise that now, but I've already made the "cards", so I may as well finish my "course".


It's really cool to be taught an orthographic system based on completely different principles than our boring Latin one

It's confusing at first, before you realise that each character represents a syllable, rather than a letter. Now I love it :D


I can't help but feel smart every time I mitigate a vowel at the end of a syllable or turn "ki" into "gi" by adding just two strokes on the corner of the character.

Yes, oh God yes. Likewise with "hi", with the addition of "quotation marks" or "A degree symbol", it instantly means something different. I also wondered what would happen if you mixed "bo" and "po" in a RL situation, and I came out with something in English like "I just bobbed a pupple" :smash:


Downside with all this is that we haven't studied the language itself as much as we have the writing system :shame:

I'm in exactly the same boat as you. My knowledge of vokab is limited to "Konichi-Wa".

[cmacq]

My university teacher in ancient history brought us a sheet of paper which read:"Reasons for the decline and fall of the roman empire".
On that sheet of paper where about 70 to 100 terms. Economic crisis, barbarian invasion, incompetence, even weird terms like homosexuallity, but many more then I can recall right now. What she said is, that this are all terms used by historians to explain the decline of Rome. She showed us that for a simple reason, to prove that there is no exact explenation for the decline of Rome.

You people may interpret all the signs and effect, but the decline was so complexe and is far beyond grasping with the limited sources, that we will never fully understand why it happen.

Oh, and the famous historian Habsbawn made an interessting theisis about the decline. He mentions that the cours of history was often determined by civilization against barbarians. He mentions all the ancient empires that were effected by that, but only the Western Roman Empire was completley destroyed. This set out a motion throughout the history of Europe to reinvent and reconstruct the Roman Empire, most notably the Resnaissance. Thus Europe set out for a different path of history. It's a bit vague how I can discribe it, but if someone is interessted in the passage I can type it down.


Joe's Law

Given mitigating factors the more complex a culture/civ becomes, the more likely it will collapse under stress.

I believe some have a clear view of the cause and effect. I've posted on this topic several times and if you'll want will do so again. It will clear up a lot of misconceptions.


CmacQ

[Cambyses]

Im quite interested in some of the replies here, having thought it was widely accepted that Augustus et al had managed to put a system in place that fixed many of the problems inherent with the Roman "republican" system. Obviously that view is still in dispute with many people.

I have to say though that an empire that was doomed 20+ generations before its actual collapse has some pretty impressive longetivity. Few other empires have even lasted so long from start to finish.

Among the more interesting theories that I have heard for the end of the empire was the massive increase in the number of men becoming monks, leading to decline in population etc. This theory is based on the fact that at one point apparently one third of all men in Egypt had got the weird haircut and all that went with it. Not sure how much I believe it however...

One thing to note is the Roman "virtue" of looking back in awe of their superior ancestors. This to me is a sure sign of a society in decline. Roman authors almost unanimously look back at (for them) historical times as better than where they were currently living at. This is not a healthy habit, especially as it was often not true. Debate exists over the reasons for this attitude, whether it was simply guilt, or far more complex feelings in regard to the fact their societal ancestors had conquered the world while they lived comparatively easy lives. Many Romans even idealised the lives of the "savages" they conquered, living much closer to the land and avoiding the corrupting influences of power and money.

This sort of attitdue was instrumental in forming the opinions quoted by Dol Guldor, and certainly an older, more judgemental and - dare I say it - more simplistic view of history compounded these views, condemning the Romans for destroying themselves. But when were these people writing, who were they actuall condemning?

Anyway, its an interesting topic that has been debated for 1500 years without resolution, and Im sure will be discussed for 1500 more - at least.

[Uticensis]

Among the more interesting theories that I have heard for the end of the empire was the massive increase in the number of men becoming monks, leading to decline in population etc. This theory is based on the fact that at one point apparently one third of all men in Egypt had got the weird haircut and all that went with it. Not sure how much I believe it however...

Yeah, that's a pretty old-fashioned theory. It is part of Edward Gibbon's explanation of why Rome fell (the loss of manpower was part of the "triumph of religion and barbarism" that he said brought down the Empire). Hardly any serious historian puts much emphasis on that anymore. The amount of manpower that went into the Church was only a drop in the bucket. And, anyway, the Church took over some functions of the state, starting in the time of Constantine and expanding more and more over time, so I think things evened out in the end.


One thing to note is the Roman "virtue" of looking back in awe of their superior ancestors. This to me is a sure sign of a society in decline. Roman authors almost unanimously look back at (for them) historical times as better than where they were currently living at. This is not a healthy habit, especially as it was often not true. Debate exists over the reasons for this attitude, whether it was simply guilt, or far more complex feelings in regard to the fact their societal ancestors had conquered the world while they lived comparatively easy lives. Many Romans even idealised the lives of the "savages" they conquered, living much closer to the land and avoiding the corrupting influences of power and money.

This was common in the Greco-Roman world. The people in the past were always thought to be better. This goes all the way back to early Greece: the ancestors were out with Achilles doing heroic deeds, killing crazy numbers of Trojans, blah, blah, blah. Whether its a healthy habit or not, I think all cultures do this to some extent.

I don't think this has anything to do with Rome's fall. Indeed, I don't think we should look at the fall of Rome as the people becoming weak or decadent. That's a very Victorian mindset. In all times, there a smart and stupid people, and strong and weak people. I think it is better to look at the fall of Rome as the failure of a very complex machine.

[kekailoa]

No, I like the idea Rome was doomed by Carthage.

I like the idea too.

But, I think the Second Punic War was not the beginning of the end. One could argue the destruction of Carthage, but not the second. The second was a result of two expanding powers clashing over important economic areas turning into a revengefest.

Btw, I noticed someone mentioned something about America appearing to fall. Would anyone consider America a true empire? Can anyone in this day and age have an empire like the Romans did? America dominates the world because they are the most influential and culturally widespread, not because of military prowess. Whoever America consumes the most from becomes the most powerful i.e. China. Could one consider America a modern-day Rome?

Please, no ragging on America without real input to my question. It gets old and I"m pretty sure it will get the thread closed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the British Empire was largely cultural as well to begin with. At the end of the day America has de facto control of Canada, Britain and Australia. That's a lot of muscle before you add in the lesser states surrounding them and then the EU, where control is less strong.

[Codyos Vladimiros]

Peter Heather's Excellent book The Fall of the Roman Empire proposes that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of collapse, not even into the 5th century AD. blah blah blah

Blast it, I was just about to comment about this book.

I second everything Oudysseos said.

[cmacq]

Right,

This is a copy of one of my posts from a thread about urban conscription. It includes a lot of information about the decline.

Part I
In fact forced conscription was applied by the various so-called Roman dynasties’ and governments that followed the Republic. In times of perceived emergence these conscriptions were instituted throughout the extent of the Empire. Here is an example;

http://books.google.com/books?id=920...t8Pc#PPA134,M1

Of course the most renowned case was the mass conscription imposed by Augustus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xue...aQwlt3EE4Yv4vQ

By the Late Empire Period, conscription was an everyday fact of live. Yet, throughout the Euro-Mediterranean world, economic, agricultural productivity, and population levels had dropped significantly. This was particularly marked in the more northern latitudes, which by the way included much of the West and conversely much less of the East. Thus, for increasingly fewer material and human resources in the west there were competing interests that progressively wrenched the fabric of the state. This is a very complex subject and I’ll try to abbreviate it as much as I can.

One element of the problem was that the entire demographic profile and social structure of the populations that composed the empire had been dramatically altered. Again, this was particularly marked within the West, and again this was largely because of the acute labor shortage. Overall in the West, the unskilled lower-class had mushroomed and the manufacturing/merchant middle-class had shrunk radically. It appears that Late Roman society had become more rigid and hierarchical with harsh laws that prohibited mobility and fixed everyone as to occupation and specific loci.

Another major problem, and this is the crux of the answer to your question, was the rise of not senatorial authority, rather the Senatorial Aristocracy and decline of the Principate's muscle and ability to direct the resources of the West. These traditional aristocratic families had become essentially independent of the Principate. They didn’t owe their power or prestige to the state and in fact, considered themselves superior by birth, as many late western emperors came from the lower social class associated with the military. Typically, these aristocrats had gained their status through the latifundia system and lived on their large estates paying little attention to contemporary problems, other than those that affected them directly.

This of course brings us back to the massive labor shortages in the west by the late 4th and 5th centuries AD. In the rural settings we have the Latifundia System with agricultural land concentrated in the hands of a few large landowners of the Senatorial Aristocracy, yet actually farmed by coloni, or semi-free persons whom later would be known as serfs. This system was again somewhat of a sick radical change from the slave-based system that had lead to the massive land consolations in the late Republican and early Empire periods.

These coloni of the 5th century were in fact poor subsistence farmers who managed their own small plots of land, as sharecroppers, which also contributed to the drop in agricultural productivity. In effect the Senatorial Aristocracy, by way of the latifundia would frequently defy the authority of the state, hired their own private armies, and tax collectors could rarely collect from or the military conscript among the farmers on the latifundia. Thus, large segments of the so-called Roman West passed outside the effective control of the state.

Turning to the urban setting we have the dismal Collegia System (sound familiar as it is only fitting that the modern institution suffers from more than just the same title). Because of the damans of the Roman state and urban based Senatorial Aristocracy the Collegia system did for innovation and what remained of the manufacturing/merchant middle-class, that the latifundia system did for the lower-class and agriculture.

So, to answer your question, when the army or tax man came’a callen in the West, he got not butt'a up turned middle finger, from the Senatorial Aristocracy. There is much more to this like the institutional mutilation of their coloni to disqualify them for military service, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.




CmacQ

[cmacq]

Part 2

The answer to your first question is yes and no. Yes, there was a corresponding drop in economic activity, agricultural productivity, and population levels, but not to the extend as in the West. Actually these processes are the most marked in what is modern Britain, France, and the other more northern latitudes than anywhere else in the West or East. We also have another no, in that the East reacted to these processes differently and thus the societal changes were far different.

This is where it gets very unclear. The so-called Roman Empire represents the best documented example of a long term Systems Collapse ever. However, all we know for sure is what did happened, not what the causality of the systems collapse was. I believe most historians view this as a managerial problem; as per your question's listing of 'corruption, overtaxing, and competition by big business.' I simply do not think this was the case, rather these were managerial responses to more systemic factors.

To me it appears that everything stems from the drop in the economy, agricultural productivity, and population levels, and not the reverse. Although we don't actually see clear indicators of these three processes until the end of the 2nd century AD. they become very pronounced by the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Regardless, there also is evidence not of a decline, but a gradual yet significant slow-down or decreased economic, agricultural productivity, and population growth as early as the reign of Augustus. Given that the Julio-Claudian Empire should have provided greater economy stability and promoted both agricultural productivity and population growth, this makes little sense.

I have my own very simple answer concerning the cause, but the collection of direct evidence that would prove this, remains unfinished. As to your middle class query; right, this was one reason why the military used the barbarian levy. These were made available through foedus agreements directly with the state, thus bypassing the problems associated with the Latifundia System. Here by the state I'm actually referring to the Magister utriusquae militiae and not the Principate, which was yet another diversion of imperial authority. Sorry, this answer is very incomplete as there is much to say about the Collegia System. But I must get some sleep, I can't think clearly right now.

But, here is a hint; check out the history of China and see if similar managerial responses and societal changes as those witnessed in the West, occurred at the same time. Depending how far north within China one goes, the answer can be a resounding yes.


CmacQ

[cmacq]

Part 3

Right, the urban based Collegia System, started as groups or clubs often associated with some such religious affiliation. However, by the Empire Period they had become roughly analogous to the guilds of the Euro-Medieval world. They included groups of business men and those employed within a given trade and/or industry. Technically, this system should have resulted in greater standardization, increased industrial productivity, and massive innovation. But, in fact the complete opposite occurred.

Again, the underlaying problem was the overall drop in population levels, particulary in the northern segments of the West, and the resulting labor shortages. The various arms of the government exacerbated this. First, the state (the Principate/ Dominate, Magister Utriusquae Militiae, Praetorian Prefect, Promagistrates Provincia, or other imperial officials and affiliates) came to use the Collegia System to assure that promised services and/or goods were produced and delivered. In good times, this may have occurred at or above cost, but in bad times it increasingly happened below cost. Of course, this practice adversely effected the profit motive while promoting the decline of the benefits the Collegia System may have provided. The local urban based Senatorial Aristocracy and Curia governments made similar damans, as well.

Of course the Curia governments/class/upper-middle class, or curiales referred to the wealthy merchants, businessmen, and medium-sized landowners who served their city as local magistrates and Decurions (municipia senators). They were responsible for public building projects, temples, festivities, games, and local welfare. They often paid for these themselves as a way to increase their personal prestige. Early in the imperial period the Decurions postings were actively sought as they would get a front row seat at the local theatre and be accepted into the Honestiores societies. However, by the middle 3rd century AD, with declining state revenue and increased costs the Decurions became little more than imperial tax collectors. In this period any shortfall in the local tax collection was of course taken out of their own pockets.

Now, related to this is another area were things get extremely weird as events and practice impacted the Collegia System. Right, despite the overall economic decline in the West, the budget of the state actually more than doubled; say from the middle 2nd to the early 4th century. Because, the opportunities for the state to acquire wealth, in the traditional method, as was done in the Late Republican Period (which actually was the reason the Empire came into being) were either limited or no longer available, this makes no sense whats so ever? How could this have happened? Also much of the expansion in the budget concerned the acquiring of goods produced by the Collegia System, to be consumed directly by the state.

Well, the imperial government increasingly made up the short fall of monetary intake by the practice of Bona Damatorum. The target of this was typically prominent citizens, or the Decurions mentioned above that had illegally fled their posting in an attempt to seek relief from the often ruinous burden of the office. Here is the kicker, its these Decurions that provided the capital that supported and/or fostered the manufacturing/merchant middle-class. The aristocracy and Curia likewise followed ensuite in the persecutions of the Decurion membership. The result was a massive decline in available capital and the size of the middle-class. Can anyone say exodus to the East? Next we have laws that fixed occupations and locations.

Again, this is a very complex subject and my offering only an outline. I think this may answer russia almighty's question about 'forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions.'

I also hope these posts may aid in your understand the decline. So I'm forced to agree with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla that Rome was doomed around the beginning of the 1st century BC.


CmacQ

[Uticensis]

cmacq, I definitely agree with you that economic decline had a huge impact on the fall of the Western Empire (consequently, a similar phenomenon can be observed in the East in the late Sixth, early Seventh century, especially with the loss of most productive provinces to the Muslims-only difference is the East was slowly able to recover).

But economic decline was by no means the only factor. And certain historians, especially recently, have brought up doubts about the true impact of economic decline (I would refer you to Ward-Perkins "Jones and the Late Roman Economy," and the above mentioned book by Peter Heather, who puts the emphasis far more on barbarian invasion).

And I would disagree with your statement that the senatorial aristocracy essentially crippled the ability of the Roman government to collect taxes: with the institution of the "capita" tax, the state seems to have actually become more efficient in their extraction of tax money, even if this often had to be collected "in kind." However, the problem is that this placed an inordinately high tax burden on the coloni, which led to depopulation when they fled the land, also leading to the "agri deserti" problem. At the same time, the tax burden also affected the curial class, causing them to shirk their former responsibilities, the effects of which you explained very well in your third post.

[cmacq]

Right, but again I don’t think this process was a managerial problem, rather a managerial response to a problem/stress caused by an intrinsic phenomenon.

I believe the initial stress was stagnation followed by a slight decrease in economic productivity, primarily agricultural, over an extremely long period. Over time this resulted in a slow but progressive population decline and the managerial response in the west, while temporally effective for monetary reasons, only exasperated the problem. Now, the reason for the problem is a bit more tricky. But interestingly enough the problem doesn't appear to have been confined to the temporal or geographic extent of this particular polity. Thus, I’ve long suspected the causality of the problem is environmental. And that of course, would be the oscillation from a warm-and-wet to cool-and-dry regime, within a 650±50 year reoccurring cycle, but as noted above, not all the data is in yet. Still, from what there is, I think it may have begun sometime in the 1st century BC.

Indeed theoretical and highly provocative to say the least.




CmacQ

[LordCurlyton]

It doesn't seem all that strange or provocative, tbh. I mean, what you are describing would be more of an ultimate cause rather than a proximate cause, of which economy, poor leaders, external pressure, etc. fall under. It could be (and probably was) a major reason why various tribes up and migrated en masse. Or more like the climate changes on the steppe say, which causes Ye Olde Steppe Horde to head further south and west, generally, which beings them into conflict with local tribes/states, which triggers THEIR migration which pushes them further west and/or south, bringing them into conflict, et cetera et cetera, until the cross the borders of the Roman Empire and interact with them, peacefully or not (usually not). One could argue that a more lenient policy towards the "barbarians" could very well have prevented the collapse of the Western Empire by allowing fresh blood into the system, plus a needed influx of manpower, but again, that is only a possible proximate cause.
Also looking at the geography could possibly provide an answer. For those starting to migrate from the Siberian tundra, continuing to head west is far more viable than trying to go thru the Caucasus mountains and their not-likely-to-be-friendly natives. As one proceeds further west you get the option of raiding south towards Greece but that is broken terrain with a bunch of not-to-be-trifled-with entities and later, the eastern half of the Empire, an even more daunting challenge. So you keep heading west, or one should say the people Ye Olde Steppe Horde has displaced are now heading west, between the Alps and not-agriculturally-friendly Germany (not yet, at least), leaving you with the fertile land of France and the Western Roman Empire. If the lay of the land had been different we could very well be speaking of how the Western Empire held out against all odds and carried on the legacy of Rome for who knows how long while the Eastern half got overrun by barbarians. All in all, I'd say Mother Nature in all her intangibility provides a lovely ultimate cause, but is generally not an answer that satisfies people, so much haranguing over proximate causes arises, and with good reason. Ultimate causes are meant to show broad trends and generalizations while proximate causes deal with more specific cases.
The problem with the Roman Empire is that it was big enough to be complex enough that mere proximate causes are so plentiful that you can't help but fail to sufficiently explain its failure using them. Thus the penultimate causes of economy, stagnation, mismanagement, and external pressure are used, since they are sufficiently broad that they can provide a happy medium for us persnickety humans, yet they can easily be further broken down into smaller proximate causes when detail is needed.

However, if I were to pick a single time when Rome was "doomed", I'd say when it got too successful too quickly and outstripped the capability of its government and the people in the government to assimilate the expanding borders and ethnicities being incorporated into the Republic. So anywhere between the end of the Second Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Lets say after the battle of Magnesia and the Treaty of Apamea.

[Aper]

Men, this is most interesting, but I fear this mass of infos can be confusing... and quite pointless, in relation to the topic.

I mean, most of us know, more or less, the flaws of the late roman empire, but:
1) often the principate was not better or more efficient, only differently organized
2) no ancient civilization seems efficient or well organized in modern eyes
3) WHO DAMNLY CARES about barbarization?? Until the fought for the empire, barbarians were a resource, it's ludicrous to adhere mindlessly to ancient authors and their outdated moralism... see Stilico, or the half Hun Aetius

I quote Peater Heater again, but according to ancient sources, the western part of the empire managed to recover after every blow and to gain the upper edge, until the loss of Africa crippled most severely its finances, and after that, still the empire was going to resurrect with Majorian, but a bunch of disloyal officier doomed it.

The empire was going through great tranformation in late antique, that probably weakened it... and so??? It's life baby, change never stops , sometimes strenghten you, sometimes weakens you, the important in the end is to survive, and clearly changes alone are not sufficient to explain the end of the western part, or its eventual survival, if we not take in account some extraordinary figures, most of all Attila, Aetius and Gensericus.

If the eastern part of empire had fallen in 753 agains the Caliphate armies, generations of historians would have spent their lives explaining how was inevitable the collapse of the empire against early Islam, because of greater changes in the climatic, demography, blabla... to skyrocket into greater exlanations it's a most dangerous attitude in history.

P.S.
PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT CULTURAL CHANGES THAT MADE THE EMPIRE NO MORE ROMAN!!! IT'S TOTALLY NONSENSE!!! Like if cultures can be isolated and preservated from the flow of history, what are you talking about!!! If Byzantine people still called themselves, and thought sincerely to be, Romans, and if the political entity called roman empire embodied primarily by its great eastern capital still survived at least until 1204, this should be enough for everyone. For me it is, at least.

If you choose to believe the lies of the Pope, who needed the empire to be thought dead to legalize his political power in Latium, and his project to become the master of puppets of the west, claiming a greater authorithy because of the greatest cheat in european history, the donation of Costantine, proved to be false in XV century by Lorenzo Valla, in which the emperor donated the west to the Bishop of Rome (who lately appointed the Holy Barbarian Emperor to be is political arm, in the intentions of the Pope, history went differently), well, it's entirely another matter... a matter of faith! :laugh4:


And, btw, the roman empire fell or in 1204 (4° crusade) or in 1453 (Memhet II take Costantinople) , not surely in 476... or someone still believe papist propaganda?

None want to comment? I expected some rants about this :laugh4:

[Joszen1]

Here's my take on things:

(1) The Rome we are talking about was never a fixed thing.
(2) Rather, Rome was continually reinvented as a different thing (if you look at it closely enough) with the same name.
(3) 'Rome', in this sense, ends whenever we (now, looking back) deem the new invention of it to be TOO different to justifiably call it 'Rome'.
(4) The doom of this 'Rome' is whatever proximal event precipitated the new 'non-Rome' reinvention (whether this is Augustan reforms, too many barbarians, Attila or whatever).
(5) Rome, as the notion that it is a cohesive thing, is doomed to change, from inception.
(6) You will never get anything other than a mish-mash of pretty much everything can be plausibly linked to have doomed 'Rome'.
(7) But that is not what you want to know.
(8) What you want to know are specific things like:
What stopped making it possible for groups of men (wearing red and Lorica ______ta) to be organised and fight other people for the defense of boundaries on a map? Or,
What stopped making it possible for certain acts to be procedural sanctioned through a codified set of laws in southern France? Or,
When was it no longer possible for caartographers to draw maps that included a huge red chunk covered with "ROME"? Or, whaterver.
(9) Each of these questions will have complex answers, but answers they will have.
(10) When was Rome doomed depends on how Rome is defined, and the more complex this definition (eg. all of the above) the more complex the answer.
(11) Hence there are many wonderful stories to answer 'When was Rome doomed'
(12) And life is about stories after all, and this is a good thing.
(13) Thanks for the question.

[Mediolanicus]

Here's my take on things:

(1) The Rome we are talking about was never a fixed thing.
(2) Rather, Rome was continually reinvented as a different thing (if you look at it closely enough) with the same name.
(3) 'Rome', in this sense, ends whenever we (now, looking back) deem the new invention of it to be TOO different to justifiably call it 'Rome'.
(4) The doom of this 'Rome' is whatever proximal event precipitated the new 'non-Rome' reinvention (whether this is Augustan reforms, too many barbarians, Attila or whatever).
(5) Rome, as the notion that it is a cohesive thing, is doomed to change, from inception.
(6) You will never get anything other than a mish-mash of pretty much everything can be plausibly linked to have doomed 'Rome'.
(7) But that is not what you want to know.
(8) What you want to know are specific things like:
What stopped making it possible for groups of men (wearing red and Lorica ______ta) to be organised and fight other people for the defense of boundaries on a map? Or,
What stopped making it possible for certain acts to be procedural sanctioned through a codified set of laws in southern France? Or,
When was it no longer possible for caartographers to draw maps that included a huge red chunk covered with "ROME"? Or, whaterver.
(9) Each of these questions will have complex answers, but answers they will have.
(10) When was Rome doomed depends on how Rome is defined, and the more complex this definition (eg. all of the above) the more complex the answer.
(11) Hence there are many wonderful stories to answer 'When was Rome doomed'
(12) And life is about stories after all, and this is a good thing.
(13) Thanks for the question.



I totally agree with Shaka Joszen here. Especially with points 6 and 12!

I highly doubt there is a definitive reason for the fall of Rome. Many factors were contributory and we're not going to find those factors either, because even the most trivial of things could have had a major influence on the faith of Rome.

But let the stories and theories be, it's fun and interesting to read and some people earn their money with them...

[Jolt]

Rome was doomed when the last Roman Emperor was deposed. >_>

[Marcus Ulpius]

3) WHO DAMNLY CARES about barbarization?? Until the fought for the empire, barbarians were a resource, it's ludicrous to adhere mindlessly to ancient authors and their outdated moralism... see Stilico, or the half Hun Aetius


Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

When Roman and romanized population of the Empire began to dwindle (and there's no doubt that depopulation process was under way in late antiquity in those parts of the world), it was gradually replaced by the influx of not romanized barbarians. The empire could not romanize them unlike early empire which successfully romanized most of it's conquered population. Interesting question that I can't answer is why that happened, why Gauls, Iberian tribes and many others were gradually romanized and in time become true "citizens" of the empire, while 4-th, 5-th century invaders were not. In any case, the result was that vast areas of the empire were populated mostly by non-Romans, again not merely by ethnicity, but by language, traditions and religion and it's very hard to sustain a Roman Empire without Romans. The issue is very complex, but I hope the bottom line is clear.

What you write about the Byzantians is only partially true. Yes, they still called themselves Romans, but for the most part of its history Byzantian Empire had very little in common with the Roman Empire of the ancient era. In one of the books about the Byzantian Empire I've even read that it ceased to be "Roman" after Arab sieges of Constantinople. I don't know Byzantian history well enough to comment on this with some authority, but the author says that after Arab wars the empire had undergone deep changes that made anything Roman Byzantians still had no more than just a "heritage".

P.S. There are several great posts by cmacq, but after reading them I still couldn't find out what was the cause for the depopulation, which also in my opinion was one of the main reasons for the decline of the WRE.

[Starforge]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process.

I agree with your statement here but would interject that if you filter your views through a modern intolerance with certain religions or cultures then you can draw conclusions quite easily.

Cmaq - well reasoned, informative posts as always.

[Gazius]

I will admit straight out I'm not enormously knowledgable about Roman History, and due to classes lately it's been a while since I've been able to enjoy my history. However maybe those who've actually studied the subject could reject this academically, but what about the inheritance of Pergamum? I've gotten the impression that even when they controlled part of Asia Minor, it was more of a vassal state than anything else. Only once it became a full Roman territory did it seem to lead into further expansion into Asia, and with this increasing load on governing larger distances, this to me seems like it left a lot of room for new wealth to be acquired and to raise a new class of politician that was capable of exploiting the republican system as it stood. But then maybe I'm way off my mark here, it's approaching the third day of nearly no sleep as I try to finish up assignments that taking much longer than they should do a shitty connection that keeps falling offline.

[KozaK13]

Perhaps Rome became doomed (in the barbarian department anyway) when they stopped splitting up "barbarian" settlers like the Goths under Alaric, Burgundians under Gundobad ( i think) and Franks under Clovis (i probably i have the name wrong, i can't remember who origionally lead the Franks into the empire). Also anti barbarianism (eg. Stilicho's case) probably played it's part in alienating "barbarians" within the Empire (like the goths who joined Alaric) and putting them off Romanisation, why become like those that hate you?
Plus ofcourse by the time of the fall many many "barbarians" had nice shiny roman equipment from victories on the battle field and serving in the army( as auxilia and later foderati) since the empire's inception.
Hope this is clear enough to get my point across, that Rome created formidable enemies.

I realise there was a multitude of other problems and reasons

[Uticensis]

cmacq: The environmental theory for depopulation is an interesting one. I’ve only heard of a few historians who advocate it, so if you have any good articles to refer me to, I would love to read more about it. However, I generally have found it unconvincing. For one, I’m wary about projecting modern problems, such as the effects of climate change, on the ancient world. Additionally, I’m deterred by Occam’s razor: it seems like its an unnecessary factor. There were enough problems that could effect Rome’s population and economy (major plagues, especially in Italy and Gaul in the third century; barbarian invasion, which hit the northern provinces around the Rhine pretty hard; over taxation, leading to abandonment of the land), and not enough concrete evidence, especially in the primary sources, of things that would one would expect from climate change (severe droughts happened, but no more frequently than I think can be expected).


Marcus Ulpius: I think you overstate the problem of barbarization. Its one of those old ideas of Rome’s decline that goes make to Edward Gibbon and his “triumph and religion and barbarism.”

You say you can’t understand why the barbarians of the 4th-5th century did not want to become Romanized like the Iberians and Gauls of earlier time, but they actually did. There is a famous quote about Athaulf, the founder of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul and Spain: “I longed for [The Roman Empire] to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law, a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigor, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration.”

The barbarians still looked at Rome as the ideal. The difference was, how one participated in being Roman had changed, not the desire of outsiders to become Roman. Before the barbarian invasions hit really hard, the Germanic tribes on the other side of the Rhine tried to emulate Roman ways, and archeology as shown a lot of Roman style in their material culture. But by the fifth century, becoming Roman was no longer about submitting to the Roman state like it had been in the times of Caesar and Trajan: the central state was too weak for that to be an attractive option. Instead the barbarians, as far as they wanted to be Roman, wanted to be the defenders of Roman culture. Just look at how Alaric, as he was supposedly trying to take down Rome, kept trying to accumulate Roman military ranks, even on the eve of his sack of Rome. Or how Theodoric governed the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy: maintaining Roman culture to an incredible degree, but with the Goths as a separate, semi-Romanized military class. Indeed, the barbarians did want to become Romanized, and many barbarian states adopted Roman language, law, customs, ect. Think about it: almost no Gothic survives to this day (and much of what does comes from the mid-fourth century, before the Goths entered Roman territory), and French, the language of the Frankish conquerors of Gaul, is a Romance language, not a Germanic one. Even Arianism, which became the “Germanic Christianity” for a while, gave way to Roman Catholic Christianity when the barbarians wanted to align themselves with the Roman way of life.

Edit On the issue of whether Byzantium was Roman or not (thus, whether Rome fell in 476 or 1453), I would say it fell somewhere in between. I generally consider the Arab invasions and the Byzantine Dark Age the events that separate an Eastern Roman Empire from a Byzantine Empire proper. However, as with most judgments in history, the line is subjective. In fact, one can say Rome fell in 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated. I wouldn't agree, but it's all about what you happen to think makes a state "Roman."

[Majd il-Romani]

We all know Rome ended blah blah AD, but at what point was it truly finished as in never going back to its former glory?

When Constantinople was sacked by the Ottomans in 1453

[KozaK13]

About Byzantium, surely we can't judge weather the true descendants of rome were roman or not? They didn't just claim to be roman, they were roman, even if they were hellenised. Cultures evolve, roman culture is no exception, the roman empire finally fell when it's last great city fell, Nova Roma.

Technically the roman empire may have died with the Ottomans, as they claimed to be the new roman empire..as did the russian empire aswell.

[Aper]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

Uticensis explained well what I mean for "barbarization" : germanic meatshields for the army. Despite what ancient (or modern until late XX century) reactionary authors thought, culture/administration of the empire was NEVER "barbarized": actually, all the barbarian kings who ruled west tried to present themselves as "heirs" of the western roman empire, I'm thinking in particular at Theodoricus, the ostroghotian king of Italy: roman population under his rule almost couldn't sense the difference with the previous regime.

Barbarians more often than not wanted desperetely to be part of the roman world, not to destroy it: simply, the WRE was not ready/strong enough to control this huge mass of people: but even after the end of WRE as a political entity, its cultural strenght was unchanged, proved by the fact that barbarians continued to romanize themselves, leading to that huge fake called Holy Roman Empire; the descendants of the germanic conqueror of europe looked for all middle-ages at roman empire as a "paradise lost", as the ultimate political and sometimes cultural goal to achieve.

So the entire meaning of my post was that roman culture was most important for the survival of the state, but roman culture doesn't mean that of republic/principate only!!! The attitude of isolate supposed golden age from supposed dark age is a degeneration of the academic/scientific attitude, and reflect prejudices of the author more than actual facts.

Anyway I'm very interested in critics if you want to tell me what else you don't agree with, you are welcome :2thumbsup:

EDIT: congrats to Uticensis for that clear and informative post, you explained very well what I have in mind but I can't write because of my poor english :embarassed:

[Atraphoenix]

Rome was doomed when Constantine wiped out Roman Paganism (that was rome's original identity) and abolished "Forward policy" with defensive reserve fighting sytem; I am sure you know better than me the Field Reserve Army, and frontier troops, the comitatentes and limitanei things.
also this sytem created strong general cos in german limes and in the limes of Balkan peninsula a general can get more than 4 legions, and historically that resulted in Strong General usurpers who fought with emperor for crown that triggled endless destability....


Technically the roman empire may have died with the Ottomans, as they claimed to be the new roman empire..as did the russian empire aswell.

Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.

I read all of the histories of that 3 Roman or claimed to be ones, They have common standing armies, their geoghrophical epansion nearly same, they all fought endless battles with persians,
and interestingly their standing armies became corrupted and triggered their doom...

P.S. also Pagan romans deified their Emperors, Byzatines accepted many emperors as saint, and also many ottoman sultans were accepted as Avliyah (same discorce as saint in islam) ...

just a speculation you know I do not want to divert the topic.

[Macilrille]

Well thing is, just as those scholars who are real experts, we cannot arrive at a conclusion as to what/when the Roman Empire really fell or was doomed. In fact probably the most accurate one was the Voltaire quote.

However, we see in the preceeding discussions much of the difficulty of making conclusions in history, many of the contributing factors, and lo and behold, we see that there was probably no single fact. IE no single time. Even if we ask questions of things that are happening now, we cannot necessarily say for certain, how could we then be able to do so for past events?

Anyway, there are good points here, I just do not think we will ever know why, when might be ascertainable. I would reiterate my claim that it was New Year's Eve 406, it was- after all- those same invaders who later took North Africa, but NVM, for who is to say that Belisarius' reconquests in the 6th Century could not have lasted had things gone different?

Byzantium... they called themselves Roman, they thought of themselves as Romans, how then dare we sit here today, knowing next to nothing of what was compared to those who lived in it, and say they were not Romans? That is on par with saying I am not a Dane cause I do not till my own farm, worship The Old Norse Pantheon and sail around looting in the rest of Europe. The time span between them and me is the same. I do inhabit the same geographical location, w and I am their descendant,hich the Byzantines did not and might have been, but I hope you get the point of the comparison anyway. Being that things evolve. I doubt Cincinnatus or Lucius Junius Brutus would have recognised many people of Constantine's Rome as Romans (nor the city itself). And as someone else said, Russia and the Holy Frankish-German Empire called themselves Roman far into modern times. These two latter I would judge both so culturally, demographis and geographically removed from the mediterennean world that was Rome's that they can hardly have been counted as such. They wanted to be though, for various reasons, but...
That means the question also becomes, what constitutes Roman?

It is an interesting point though that though it has for long been in fashion to claim that Islam was the upholder of learning and Greek-Roman science and knowledge through "the dark of the Middle Ages", fact is that most of what we got we got directly from its source in the Byzantine Empire which was still around with the knowledge at hand. I am no Islamophobe (though I do subscribe to Jyllandsposten when I can afford it), but credit where credit is due, political correctness where it is due- ie where the sun does not shine...


India, point taken, it has been united before, but never under one dynasty. But as for China, I reitareate my point. For the following reason, no matter who has headed the Cinese State as such, the state apparatus/administration never changed much. The vast size and complexity of this, combined with the need to keep it running smoothly in order to actually keep such a large population from squalor and starvation has made it well-nigh impossible to change, no matter who held the throne. This is indeed, I think, basic Chinese history, but I freely admit I know not much more beyond that and the Landes- Frank debate of 9-10 years ago. Should I be misinformed I would not mind enlightenment (though probably by pm or another thread as China has little to do in EB). My speciality is Danish Viking - High Middle Ages, Roman, Danish Iron Age, Middle Ages in General, French Decolonisation, WWII and Military History in general. Those are my specialities, and I shall gladly e-mail whoever told me quite rudely to read some basic history, a copy of my Master's Dissertation on Power Politics in 12th Century Denmark. It contains enough new scholarship that some twat just got a Ph.D Stipend largely by copying it :-( It is in Danish however, so I expect that most will gain little from it, but if you want, you can have it.


Anyway, I ramble, my point is that historical processes of such magnitude as this are complicated matters and probably irresolvable. But as someone else said, it puts bread on some peoples' tables and enlightenment is good. I want to thank for the Climactic change abstract, I knew it in basics, your abstract has shed some more light on it and I must admit that though it was probably a contributing factor, I am not convinced at all that it was the reason.

[Ludens]

I believe the initial stress was stagnation followed by a slight decrease in economic productivity, primarily agricultural, over an extremely long period.

Thanks for the information, cmacq. That is very interesting indeed. Would the initial economic decrease be a consequence of climate change or are there other causes?

[Atraphoenix]

rome became a symbol of power so it is normal for the later states to claim a successor of them.

and I think sembolically Rome is still alive.... :book:

[KozaK13]

The romans believed that aslong as the empire was believed in, then there was a roman empire.

Did Moussolini claim to be rebuilding the roman empire at any point? cus i get the suspicion he may have.

Also don't forget Napolean...toga, leafy crown thing, empire, triumphal arches, emperor...

Infact rome may have contined in the guise of:
the "Barbarian" kingdoms, ottoman empire, Holy roman empire(lesser extent obviously), Muscovy, Russian Empire, Napolean's empire, Moussolini's Italy and even the third riech...all aspired to be like the roman empire, perhaps aslong as that ideal lives there will be roman empires.

Romans were not even a distinct ethnic grop, anyone could have been a roman citizen, from the army or being a freed slave.

Perhap rome has yet to fall....aslong as there is the potential to recreate it then it is still there.

Sorry for being abit off topic and maybe completely wrong aswell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well it can be argued that the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Church. This is one institution which has continuity from before the fall of the Empire up to the present day. The administration of the Church is in many ways similar to that of the Empire, especially geographically.

Leaving that aside, however, something which has not been discussed a great deal here yet is the Roman psychology. I had a very specific point when I said that Rome was doomed from the time of Marius. From Marius onwards it ceased to be "For the Glory of Rome" and became "For the Glory of the General". Once you understand that the Emperor was merely the greates General the precarious nature of his position become obvious. The rebellion against Nero answered the question, "What do you do when you have another, better, General?" then when Vespasian's troops declared him Imperator on the Rhine the system was in a dive.

The insistance of Augustus that he was not King, merely high priest, Supreme Commander and People's Champion, meant that the "Emperor", as we understand him today, never existed constitutionally. This led to an instability, particually when more competant and charismatic generals were around.

Various fixes to the system were tried. Nero and Domitian killed all their relatives and rivals; Marcus Auralius tried to great a dynasty, which would have restricted legitimate claims; Diocletian tried old fashioned Roman Virture; Constantine a fusion of three new religions; and Justinian old Roman piety.

They all failed and none of the answers they tried survived them. The closest was Constantine, but the Church became too powerful and eventually excomunicated the Emperor in the East.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I totally disagree that after Marius Rome was lost. Good emperors expanded, the only problem was not all emperors were good but some were dangerous madmen or selfish glory hunters.

I think after Adrianople disaster/goths break through, the western half was lost. I would say Eastern/Byzantine Empire was lost after Manzikert or the plunder of Constantinople of Venice.

[Macilrille]

Fluvius (should that not be Flavius, "The Blonde"?), I love that endquote, it is so correct. I wish someone would do the same for MTW II.

Phillipus, I beg to differ, a state exists as long as its administrative apparatus does and runs it, whoever is head of the state. So no matter that there were struggles for the throne, Rome carried on. Something else killed it.

The bane of the Republic though, was definately its own city state constitution that could not cope with the challenges of empire, but the Roman empire continued after that, so that is another story.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

We can guesstimate, speculate, and argue all we want. The State that called itself the Roman Empire that was centered around the City of Rome fell in 476AD when its last emperor was deposed. The Eastern part of that empire which had broken away nearly 150 years earlier to form a separate empire outlasted its western counterpart for a good 1000 years further due to having more population, a better tax system, have reformed its military apparatus, and the fact that more than half of its holdings were protected from the "barbarians" that mauled the west by a single city with titanic defenses. This eastern Empire still called itself Roman until its fall in 1453AD to the Ottoman Turks, after centuries of neglect, military disasters, religious unrest, its trade moving to other places and a gradual erosion of its institutions by foreign powers, but we know it in our modern version of world history as the Byzantine Empire. THESE ARE THE POLITICAL FACTS!

Now as a symbol of culture, as a legacy, as a thing to look back on and try to recreate, the Roman empire is still with us today and will be here as long as Western Civilization exists.

[Atraphoenix]

I agree no one can deny that modern western civilization was willed from Roman cradle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipus, I beg to differ, a state exists as long as its administrative apparatus does and runs it, whoever is head of the state. So no matter that there were struggles for the throne, Rome carried on. Something else killed it.

Rome had no throne, an Emperor is not a king. I cannot stress this enough, constitutionally Rome remained a Republic until the dissolution of the Consulate in the 6th Century. This was the central problem, the Princeps was an apointed Proconsualr magistrate, who used his household staff to run his provinces. This meant that the "State" as you call it had two arms, the Senate and the Palace, except the Palace was just a "Domus", house.

As the Empire progressed the fiction of senatorial control gradually disolved, but that was as much because of general dissolusion as anything else. The Emperor was technically an extra-constitutional personage, and not supposed to be part of the state at all. To put it another way, the Principate was a fiction of a Republic, and like all fictions was very difficult to maintain.

The longest period of peace in the Principate is between Nerva and Marcus Auralius, and it is bracketed by toment, bloodshed and madness. The foundations of the Empire were rotten from the off and only the weight of the whole edifice kept it up, as soon as a big enough wind came along it toppled.

Then, I suppose I'm biased; given that my own nation died about 950 years ago as far as I can see.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

[Cambyses]

I must join those others who have expressed discomfiture with the idea of Rome being doomed from the point almost before it became a true empire, ie 2nd Punic War / Marius etc. Of course great problems for the basic Republic were created then and to some extent where never solved, but the amount of time that passed between these events and the abdication of Romulus Augustus in 476 is surely so much as to discredit this argument in its infancy. I mention 476 as its the traditional date given for the passing of the WRE and although clever arguments can maintain the Roman Empire persisted in various forms after that point, inarguably from a military perspective it had fallen from its birthplace, in the West.

Moreover, one could argue that it was part of the basic nature of the Roman Empire that intense power struggles existed between key individuals at (almost) all times througout its existence. In fact this competitive element is a key reason as to why Rome was driven from a city state to Empire in the first place. Especially as true Romans did not just feel they were in competition with their contemporaries, but often with their ancestors as well. Societal ancestors that is, ie not personal.

If the ultimate reason for the empire's eventual failure is to be one of the same reasons for its success, then I think we have drowned ourselves in a sea of overcomplication and a morass of academic cleverness.

[antisocialmunky]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

The Eastern Empire was really more of a matter of geography and money.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

The Eastern Empire was really more of a matter of geography and money.

This is true, cuz Constantinople really did protect nearly ALL of the ERE from the barbarian invasions.

[Subotan]

R
Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.
.

This.

:balloon2:

[Marcus Ulpius]

Actually, I think the right answer to the title question would be: during the reign of Honorius or shortly afterward. The question "why" is much more difficult.

Even in this thread there was a wide variety of theories starting from climate change to ethnogenesis (i.e. natural deterioration of old civilization that achieved everything it could, the deterioration that was not stopped or slowed down by good leadership at certain critical points of later Roman history).

But there's also a tendency to an unnecessary complication of the question "when" Roman Empire had really fallen. There's only one certain date that we know - 476 AD the year of abduction of the last Roman Emperor. Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two. As for others claiming to be Roman heirs, those were just claims made to justify their political ambitions. There was very little in common between the Roman Empire and the HRE, even less between Romans and Russians (btw, I suspect that claim was made to mark Russia as a successor state to declining Byzantine Empire and not to the Roman Empire proper) and Ottomans had nothing in common at all with the Romas or even Byzantians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

I'm English, and that was not to be taken entirely seriously (though there remains to this day a discourse which identifies the aristocracy as invaders. That's another topic though.

My arguement stems from a belief that the Roman system after Marius was effectively rotten, and that the Empire persisted mainly because there was no one strong enough to destroy it.

[KozaK13]

Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two.

What stops the Eastern Roman Empire being roman?

Perhaps the title qestion should be taken as when was the Western Roman Empire doomed.

[antisocialmunky]

When they divided the empire into East and West as the West was dirt poor compared to the East.

[Uticensis]

Rome had no throne, an Emperor is not a king. I cannot stress this enough, constitutionally Rome remained a Republic until the dissolution of the Consulate in the 6th Century. This was the central problem, the Princeps was an apointed Proconsualr magistrate, who used his household staff to run his provinces. This meant that the "State" as you call it had two arms, the Senate and the Palace, except the Palace was just a "Domus", house.

As the Empire progressed the fiction of senatorial control gradually disolved, but that was as much because of general dissolusion as anything else. The Emperor was technically an extra-constitutional personage, and not supposed to be part of the state at all. To put it another way, the Principate was a fiction of a Republic, and like all fictions was very difficult to maintain.

This may be true for the early Empire, but by the reign of Diocletian the Emperor was far more than an "extra-constitutional personage." There was by then a vast corpus of law that upheld the emperor's place as the official and undisputed ruler. Indeed, even by the Severan dynasty, it was accepted that the emperor was the source of all law: Princeps legibus solutus est was a legal principle established by Ulpian. So although the ambiguous nature of the emperor's position caused problems (even up to the Crisis of the Third Century), I don't really think it can be cited as a reason for the Empire's fall.


When they divided the empire into East and West as the West was dirt poor compared to the East.

A lot of people seem to be making comments like this, seemingly stating that the Western Empire fell because it was just poorer and weaker than the East. And its true that there are a number of reasons why the Western Empire fell and the Eastern one lived on. However, I think its a good idea to try to avoid seeing the way history unfolded as inevitable. Yes, the East had a number of advantages, but when the Empire separated for the last time in 395, it was not obvious that the West was not going to be able to stand. The East was exposed to a lot of barbarians from over the Danube (Ostrogoths, Huns, and eventually Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, ect, ect) and much of the lands that made it rich were exposed to attacks by the Persian, whom the Romans saw as the biggest threat to their survival.

Also, to quote Peter Brown, "To contemporaries, the failure of the western emperors in the fifth century was the least predictable crisis the Roman state ever faced. For the emperors were not economic historians: they were soldiers. For them, it was axiomatic that the northern provinces of the Latin world were unsurpassed reservoirs of manpower. Throughout the fourth century, Latin soldiers had dominated the barbarian world, from Trier to Tomi. To the Latin speaking soldiers among whom the emperors were recruited, it was the East, with its swollen cities and unwarlike peasantry, that seemed the weaker part of the empire."

[antisocialmunky]

True, but it was a contributing factor. It didn't help that the Emperors of the Western Empire didn't invest as much in infrastructure to support the empire as they probably ought to have. They also couldn't just bribe away the problems as easily. The Western Empire was also quite exposed to invasion as their border with the invaders was much more extensive. And while the Eastern Empire managed to hold its own with the Persians, the Western Empire could not take back what it had lost. The Persians and Byzantines stalemated each other because they were landed centralized governments with all the pros and cons that go with that title. The Western Empire on the other hand was dealing with masses of unsettled people moving through their land, pillaging, and staying.

At the end of the day though, the barbarians went for the easier and weaker half to take.

[Macilrille]

Closer half, it was quite a distance from Germany to Asia Minor...

[Laman]

Rome was doomed when the last Roman Emperor was deposed. >_>

Who would that be, not Romulus Augustus, that little pretender? The last western Emperor was murdered (Julius Nepos, Emperor 475-480, he was recognized by the East, and Odovakar minted coins in his name), and the last eastern Emperor died in battle.

On when Rome was doomed, after it and the rest of the little Balkan states failed to really do something against the extremely weakened Ottomans after they had been smashed by Timur at Ankara. If the Balkan states had worked together it would not have been impossible (though obviously difficult) for them to drive the Ottomans from Europe.

[Cyclops]

Rome was doomed a number of times I'd say, but managed to remake itself (or at least new states were remade in its name). Atraphoenix's point about "Muslim Rome" is apposite: "on to Rome," and the Sultanate of Iconium of Rum etc. I have a theory about the Pope being the last Roman official left (although perhaps there is an obscure office in Venice or San Marino where the duties have been handed down uninterrupted from widow Dido's day).

I'd say Lars Porsena of Clusium doomed the Royal Roman State when he conquered the place (whether he tried to return the "evil" Tarquins or actually toppled them). Likewise the Gauls (the myth of Camillus to the contrary) burned the place down, and I think the survivors effectively re-made the state to resist a repeat performance (although you could argue it was less radical than the shift to a republic). The riotous 3rd century hamstrung the empire, and the Persian and Muslim onslaught transformed the East as surely as the Gothic/Germanic onslaught unmade the West.

The Roman state enjoyed amazing continuity until its fall in 1453 AD despite the battering and the erosion of its republican constitution (so clearsightedly pointed out by P.V.C.) but I'd argue the changes were incremental rather than catastrophic and at no point before Urban's guns battered down Theodosius' walls was the game over.

However this sort of line-blurring shilly-shallying is not the point of the exercise.

As a turning point I'd say the shift to Constantinople was some sort of a death knell for the Empire as "Roman" as the Greek elements eventually swamped the Latin. How can it be Roman if they no longer worship Roma, or Romulus?

[Dayve]

I know when Rome was doomed... When dynasties were established. When the man with the most power was allowed to pick his successor and not have his decision questioned.

When men were allowed to be emperor because of who their father was, rather than put in that position due to merit and their actual abilities.

When the senate could no longer declare an emperor (or any member of government) an enemy of state because they had to tread on eggshells around a (usually) maniacal emperor who was quite probably insane due to inbreeding.

I believe Rome was born when it gained independence from the Etruscan kings and was doomed when it ceased to be a republic and power was in the hands of a single man rather than hundreds of men in the senate house.

[Fixiwee]

I know when Rome was doomed... When dynasties were established. When the man with the most power was allowed to pick his successor and not have his decision questioned.

When men were allowed to be emperor because of who their father was, rather than put in that position due to merit and their actual abilities.

When the senate could no longer declare an emperor (or any member of government) an enemy of state because they had to tread on eggshells around a (usually) maniacal emperor who was quite probably insane due to inbreeding.

I believe Rome was born when it gained independence from the Etruscan kings and was doomed when it ceased to be a republic and power was in the hands of a single man rather than hundreds of men in the senate house.
What you say, is that the Rome declined since the Julio-Claudian dynasty? It wasn't always father-son, but the first emperors where chosen by family connections (Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero). Furthermoore, most emperors in the first century after Augustus where not chosen by the senate, but by the pretorian guard.

The Flavian dynasty put men in charge that put Rome in an economical hight, so I'm not sure if your statement is differse enough.

Even Gibbon's "Five good emperors" were not adopted because they thought it might be a good idea to give people power who can actually handle it, instead of a spoiled brat of a son. They simply had no sons but had to regulate the next ruler.

Generally speaking, while there are some very interessting and valid theisis to the decline of the western roman emperors, I read a lot of vague and unspecific stuff that reads more like speculation.
I am also surprised that hardly anyone mentions the Migration Period as a serious destabilizing factor of the time.

[Dayve]

The point i'm making is, when emperors stopped being elected 'properly', as in, like they were in the old days, based on merit and their abilities and whatnot, then men who would otherwise never be emperor were given the opportunity to become emperor.

I'm not saying some amazing men weren't made emperor through this system, but the bad ones did more bad than the good ones could fix, and the only way to depose them was violently, which caused turbulence, which opened the door for other violent and unsuitable men to take the throne.

[Fixiwee]

And my point is, that no emperor from the beginning of the principat was properly elected, rather then chosen by dynasty conection and willingless of the praetorians.

[Atraphoenix]

Ottomans had nothing in common at all with the Romas or even Byzantians.
Ottomans nearly copied the theme system of Byzantines, and also many similar things.
I can confess that not totally they used this system to assimilate easily former Byzantine people.
anyway it is out of topic by the way,

Maybe the question is too broad many see the question as "When roman republic doomed" many like "when rome the city" doomed etc.

I can estimate that it is not "when the roman culture doomed" cos it has its effects still esp. in western world.

[Dayve]

And my point is, that no emperor from the beginning of the principat was properly elected, rather then chosen by dynasty conection and willingless of the praetorians.

I mean from before the principate, when power was shared and those with unevenly large amounts of power (consuls and the like) only held that power for very short terms. As soon as power stopped being shared, that's when Rome was doomed.

All the different roles of the various offices were in the hands of a single man for an indefinite amount of time. They may have changed the name of that ultimate position of power, but in reality Rome had reverted back to what they said they would never have again... a king. A king with a different name and without a crown.

You could even go one step further back and say Rome was doomed when her armies became loyal to the general paying their wages, or basically mercenaries, and would do whatever their generals demanded of them... even turn against the senate itself.

[Fixiwee]

I mean from before the principate, when power was shared and those with unevenly large amounts of power (consuls and the like) only held that power for very short terms. As soon as power stopped being shared, that's when Rome was doomed.
So you say, that Marius was the first one that doomed rome since he had like, what, 7 conulships in a row? In my humble opinion it is a little bit too vague. Saying that an empire stood for 500 (!) years and that it was doomed to crumble is anachronistic. It's easy to judge now with all the facts now, but the empire ran well many many generations. I really don't share the opinion that Rome was doomed from the point when Marius brought in political and military reforms. I do however think that Sulla shot down dead the republic by marching on Rome.


All the different roles of the various offices were in the hands of a single man for an indefinite amount of time. They may have changed the name of that ultimate position of power, but in reality Rome had reverted back to what they said they would never have again... a king. A king with a different name and without a crown.
I always like to make a difference between a monarchy and a king when it comes to the roman period. Why call the princeps a king, we could just take it for what it was; a princeps.


You could even go one step further back and say Rome was doomed when her armies became loyal to the general paying their wages, or basically mercenaries, and would do whatever their generals demanded of them... even turn against the senate itself.
I would totaly agree with you, if you would add "republic" too it. The republic was transformed into a empire for just that fact, that the most sucessfull politician was who had an army behind him.
But applying that to the whole decline of the roman empire, nah. The late antiquity problems are too diverse to apply a problem of the late republic to the late period of the empire.

Just my two cents.

[Macilrille]

I am not gpoing to reply to this any more as we are basically rehashing arguments.

BUT, Rome is still there, it is a very nice city to visit, the only major city I have yet visited that I LIKE. I highly recommend going there.

[Mulceber]

I really don't share the opinion that Rome was doomed from the point when Marius brought in political and military reforms. I do however think that Sulla shot down dead the republic by marching on Rome.

I think you and I have similar, though not completely identical views - I don't think it was Sulla's march on Rome that was what doomed the Republic. Even though I think Marius' reforms were in many ways necessary, the way in which they made soldiers dependent on their generals was bound to lead to people marching on Rome. I wouldn't blame Sulla for that - if he hadn't done it, someone else would have at some point. No, from my point of view, the Republic went south for a couple of reasons:

1. Marius' reforms made Roman soldiers more loyal to their generals than to Rome

2. The Senate, for some reason, reached a point where it perceived anyone who was truly brilliant and gained a great deal of glory as a threat. Whenever this happened, the Senate always turned on that person and made them an enemy. It happened with Pompey (which led to the creation of the Triumvirate), it happened to Caesar (no way would he have taken the dictatorship if they'd been willing to compromise at the end of his proconsulship).

3. Cato. Even Cicero, an ally of his, viewed him as a political liability. He was as stubborn as a mule, he didn't know the meaning of the word compromise, and he was too stupid to recognize the necessity of many of the reforms being expounded by the populares.

Ultimately, despite Marius' reforms, the Republic probably could have kept on going if the die-hard conservatives had been willing to compromise. -M

[Fixiwee]

I agree with your points.
What I meant is, that Sullas march on Rome marks a change in politics. Sulla sought to reform and refound the Roman republic. But by marching on Rome with his troops, he showed his later followers how you acctually do politics with the Senate.
You even mentioned it. When Pompey came back, everyone was scarred that he might do it like Sulla do fullfill his politic aims. But he came back as a private man and was deeply dissapointed by the Senate.
I like the way one of my american history teachers told me; the moment Sulla marched on Rome was like High Noon where the cowboy shoots the other, and the dead guy stands on his feet for a moment. He compared the republic with that, that though it was still a republic, it was clinicly dead already.

[Macilrille]

End of Res Publica Romana is something I have just done a lot of research in and can say for certain what caused, but remember that the end of The Republic was not the end of Rome.

Rome's constitution was made for a city state, like hundreds of others around the Med at this time. It could not cope with empire.

Problem was by and large the senate.

Manpower in Italy and thus the potential pool of recruits for the læegions was dwindling, badly because the smallholders were away warring all the time. Before they had been able to war some months, then return to their farms, Cincinnatus is an example in point. As Rome gained overseas provinces it had to keep soldiers in the field year-round and they could thus not till their land. This went fallow and was to some extent taken over by magnates who tilled it using slaves. Not the Latifundia system, this was not invented yet, nor did smallholders ever disappear entirely from Italy as some ancient writers ascertain in their rethorics. For they recognised the problem as well.

One of the Scipii (I forget which) considered proposing agrarian reform in 140 bc, but was dissuaded byt his friends. Thus Tiberius Gracchus was the one to propose it in 133 bc- and pay the price. It is important to note that he proposed it as a Plebejian Tribue and to the people, just as his brother Gaius did 10 years later when he continued and even radicalised Tiberius' policy of agrarian reform and curbing senatorial power. He too paid the price, but these two had taught the people that it had power. And at this point the Plebs of Rome was numerous and volatile- it would become worse. Note that the Senate (who would loose use of Ager Publicus) resisted agrarian reforms intensely, just as they did enfranchisment (? Giving citizenship) of Italy, leading to the Social War.

Now to another, seemingly unrelated, subject. The Cursus Honorum, as Rome got more and more provinces and riches poured to Rome(Roman aristocrats) making a name for yourself- as was necessary in politics- became more and more expensive. Building projects, Gladiatorial games and free grain became a necessity. To name an example Caesar was deep in dept to Crassus from this. This means that the aristocrats greed became larger, they needed money if they were to make a name for themselves, and they could only pay back those debts by propraetorship or proconsulship, which would allow them to skim the incomes from the province. Even honest men were caught in this trap, for all of them had generations of great men and expectations on their shoulders, they HAD to climb Cursus Honorum and do great things. Competetion thus became more and more intense and ruthless, end more and more expencive. Catilinia was a point in case, he failed and was so indebted that he had basically no other choice then try a coup. Now, remember this if you please.

Next step towards destruction was taken by Marius, he did not in fact professionalise the army as has been often ascertained, the average service time remained 6-7 years as it had been through all 2nd century BC. What he did was enroll everyone without considering the limits on income. Others had in fact done this to some extent, but he got a massive wave of volunteers who suddenly saw prospects for land when service was over. Rural Plebs, not urban, made up Marius' new army and indeed it was loyal only to him.

This brings us to good old Sulla, senate gave him command against Mithidrates of Pontus, and he wanted it cause Asia was very rich- much loot- People gave command to Marius, so Sulla used his army, made on the new model and loyal only to him, to march on Rome itself!!! and enforce the Senate's decision.
Marians took power while he was gone and repressed his followers and he exacted bloody revenge when he returned, with HIS army- loyal only to him, gained dictatorship, whith his army, gave them land and reformed some laws, etc. he then resigned and died.

The one to learn all these lessons, about the power of the people and the power of a private army was Gaius Julius Caesar, intelligent and ambitious, he used all the lessons learned by looking at Gracchii, marius, Sulla, and he gained absolute power. The Republic was dead.

But what killed it?

As should be evident, the depletion of recruits caused by the Senate's reluctance to agrarian reform and enfranchisment of Italy led to the recruiting of private armies that were loyal only to their general as only he could reward them sufficiently with land. This was one "branch of the cause".

Ambitious patricians had to spend more and more as the competetion in Cursus Honorum and provincial commands grew more intense. At the end people like Sulla and Caesar were willing to do anything, genocide, turning on Rome itself, proscriptions in Rome... to gain power, fame and a name. The Senate's stubborn resistance to reforms handed these ambitious men the ultimate tool, private armies, and with them, they killed Res Publica Romana.

All of this, recruitment for legions and the Cursus Honorum, as well as the way conquered land was shared was part of the constitution of Rome, the CITY STATE constitution that could not cope with empire and the riches it brought while taking the soldiers from the land.

Hope that helped.
In case you wish to learn more and in more detail, here is some literature on the matter.

Badian, E.: Roman Imperialism in The Late Republic, Oxford, 1968.
Beard, Mary & Crawford, Michael: Rome in The Late Republic, London, 1999.
(a) Brunt, Peter: Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London, 1971.
(b): Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971,


Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC, Oxford, 1979.


And now I shut my gob again.

[antisocialmunky]

...Nice... I take it you did academic research right? What did you study?

PS. Balloons for everyone who posted good stuff in this thread:

http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/balloon-tank.jpg

[Mulceber]

Hey, thanks! Anyway, I really like your ideas, Macilrille. I agree that the escalating competition between Patricians was another factor, and one that I hadn't considered. Another issue was the Roman constitution itself - besides being poorly put together, it was extremely vague in its delegation of powers, with the mos maiorum being the source of most specific details about what one could do and what one couldn't do. This was great as long as people really cared about the ancestral customs. This seems to have broken down in the late Republic, with many people, such as Sulla, Caesar, the Gracchi, Pompey and even Cicero disregarding the customs in order to achieve their aims. That too would have been a destabilizing influence on the Republic. -M

[Macilrille]

I have a Master's in History and Political Science, mostly Viking/medieval history bot other specialisations were Roman, Military, WWII, French Decolonisation, Danish Iron Age...

The ideas are not really mine they are generally espoused as the cause of the fall of the Roman Republic, Brunt is probably the one to put it most clearly in his Social Conflicts. I just summed them up briefly- it is more complicated and detailed than that and I just did a 15-page assignment for a friend in that exact field ;-) It is in Danish though, so not much good for you lot. You will have to make do with the short summary above :oops:

[The General]

I can name you two empires that has stood the test of time and are still around, India and China.

I call BS.

Those are (ethno-)cultural entities, not political ones (ie. empires, or whatnot).

[Macilrille]

"I call BS."

Read the entire thread if you please, before calling me a BS-er:furious3:


An interesting perspective to the reasons for Res Publica Romana falling is two statements.

*The excellent diplomat Kineas when he came back to Pyrrhos/Pyrrhus in 279 or 280 BC could report that the Romans had refused peace negotiations and had been outraged when he offered them "Bribes" (gifts were a common part of Greek diplomacy, but the uncouth Romans may not have known this), and that Rome was "a city of Kings".

*~150 years later Jugurtha called Rome "a city for sale and doomed to quick destruction, if it should ever find a buyer", the difference being the intensification of the aforementioned competetion for power and magistracies. It was always possible to find an ambitious Roman needing money.

[Subotan]

I call BS.

Those are (ethno-)cultural entities, not political ones (ie. empires, or whatnot).

What about my idea of the Catholic Church being an Empire that has withstood the test of time?

[Fixiwee]

What about my idea of the Catholic Church being an Empire that has withstood the test of time?
I don't agree here. Empires are a political or military institution. The caothlic church is a religious, sometimes mythical institution having a crossover with many nations.

[antisocialmunky]

From my experience, empires can be defined in three ways cultural(Catholic Church), Economic(Late British Empire/Modern America), or political/military(Rome).

They are not mutually exclusive and can overlap.

[The General]

"I call BS."

Read the entire thread if you please, before calling me a BS-er:furious3:



Sowweh.

Usually don't do that, but I was tired and couldn't bother reading beyond the first page that night. <.<