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.

[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.

[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”

[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.

@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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.