Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing lasts forever and few if any empires have lasted as long as Rome. One thing no one is mentioning is that Rome lasted approximately 1000 yrs from it's humble beginnings to it's final fall. That's not too shabby is it? The real question should be what did Rome do to last this long?
The real question should be what did Rome do to last this long?
And an even bigger question is, why Rome at all? What distinguished that particular small city from the many other small cities seemingly just like it which were scattered up and down Italy? The Etruscans in particular would seem to have been more "logical" candidates to found a great empire, and yet they did not.
In many ways Rome's rise to power is even more baffling than its eventually fall.
Some also say early Christianity brought the demise of the empire by making Romans more pacifist which promised an afterlife if one is good compared to the Greek/Roman polytheist faiths which did not offer such promise.
I was taught at school that the Romans didn't leave Britain because the British wanted independence or anything like that, but purely because Rome was under attack from elsewhere by others namely Vandals and Goths and the troops were pulled out of Britain to help protect the areas under attack. the Roman empire was too extended and by the 4th Century they couldn't protect it all.
that may be a simplistic view of what happened but that is what we were taught.
actually I get quite bored with talk of the Romans and that is where British history began, which is quite wrong, it might be where our WRITTEN history began but we had a long and productive history on these islands long before the Romans turned up.
I was taught at school that the Romans didn't leave Britain because the British wanted independence or anything like that, but purely because Rome was under attack from elsewhere by others namely Vandals and Goths and the troops were pulled out of Britain to help protect the areas under attack. the Roman empire was too extended and by the 4th Century they couldn't protect it all.
that may be a simplistic view of what happened but that is what we were taught.
actually I get quite bored with talk of the Romans and that is where British history began, which is quite wrong, it might be where our WRITTEN history began but we had a long and productive history on these islands long before the Romans turned up.
That's how I learned it too. There were many factors as to why Rome finally fell including corruption, lack of unity, constantly having to fend off invading tribes to name a few. All of these are because Rome overextended itself in a constant need to bring in new revenues and could no longer defend it's borders.
I think all of Europe, north Africa and the Middle East all had long and productive histories before the Romans turned up but they did turn up and changed the world.
The British Isles certainly has a colorful and proud history both before and after the Romans.
IMO the main cause was internal. The legions' loyalty was with their general, not the emperor / senate / government. That's why there was constant civil war going on, at times more or less intense. The trend towards this did increase over the centuries so that eventually it became destructive enough so that the numerically and technoclogically inferior barbarians could overcome the Western Roman Empire after AD 350.
As others have said, this is a question that takes an entire semester class to understand. The empire did not "fall," it kind of faded away & collapsed internally. The empire continued on in the east.
To some extent the question itself reflects our western bias. The empire had grown too large and unwieldy by the 3rd century so it was broken into two. The eastern half was the better half, always was, so the better leaders wanted to be in charge of that part. The more established, richer, more prosperous part of the empire was always the East and it did continue on for several more centuries. The West was the the more rural, less educated, less sophisticated half.
To speak in very broad terms, it fell the same way all major powers fall -
- overextention
- internal dissension
- loss of unity among people
- resentment of lower classes against the upper, creating warlords that rally one class against another and competing for power against their rivals as well
The emperors just lost more and more control, became more and more unable to deal with the empire's problems and keep it together. Before you knew it, no one recognized the "emperor" in control of anything in the West anymore.
Another problem for the Roman Empire was crisis in succession. Rome never developed a system of a line of succession. Without a line of succession, politicians, dynastic families and high ranking Roman military officials all fought for seizure of the Roman throne as emperor resulting in expensive civil wars. Even the tetrarchy where a junior emperor assisted did not solve romes problems with governing the Empire and made civil wars more frequent.
Another problem for the Roman Empire was crisis in succession. Rome never developed a system of a line of succession. Without a line of succession, politicians, dynastic families and high ranking Roman military officials all fought for seizure of the Roman throne as emperor resulting in expensive civil wars. Even the tetrarchy where a junior emperor assisted did not solve romes problems with governing the Empire and made civil wars more frequent.
The time of the adopted emperors was the only function succession mechanism and after Hadrian chose his own son Commodus as successor it was over.
Here is my list that cuase the fall of the Roman Empire.
Christianity, which made Romans more passive.
Economics, inflation, wages began to go down, prices for goods went up, Along with taxes due to the ever expanding Empire which made collecting taxes difficult.
Technology. The Romans did not technologically advance themselves and still depended on slavery. Whatever was old worked best for Romans. Romans did not find low cost ways to improve technology and welfare of the citizenry.
Social instability. Rome itself as a city had lots of poverty. The declining economy mad things even worse.
Civil Wars during the crisis of the 3rd century.
Tetrarchy of during the beginning of the late Roman Empire. An horrible mistake by emperor Diocletian.
Regional differences. Eastern Empire was more developed, much more urban, while the Western portion of the empire was more pastoral. It did not have much cities except for Rome, Paris and London were only small Roman fortified townships.
Barbarization of the Roman Legions. Romans began to employ Barbarians into their armies via auxiliary system and adapted barbarian tactics. Also Romans used low cost military gear, effective, but was only used for defensive purposes instead of offensive.
External conflicts. Even though Romans had internal conflicts, Rome also had external conflicts which threatened the Empire, from Celtic tribes of Britain North of Hadrians wall, to German tribes oppsite the Danube and Rhone river, and conflicts with the Persian Empire. Because of these threats, Rome could no longer expand outwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
