When was Rome doomed?

[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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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

[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


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

Sowweh.

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