When was Rome doomed?

[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.

[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

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?

[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

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! I'm going to apply for the Jet Programme 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.

@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! I'm going to apply for the Jet Programme 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

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

[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"

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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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!

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

[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.