What Caused Rome's Fall?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Hey all,

This topic has always interested me, as I just find it so amazing that an empire like the Romans' could collapse so fast in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. I am just wondering what you all think was the cause of it. DISCLAIMER: Sorry if this topic has been done before!

As for myself, I think Hadrian i in certain part to blame for it. I am fascinated by the Roman Army in every way, but I think what Hadrian did with it was what eventually led to Rome's decline. Allow me to explain. (And I am not saying Hadrian was a poor emperor, I actually think he was one of the better ones, but I think his military policy was what started Rome's decline.)

Hadrian followed Trajan as emeror, and as we all know, Trajan was quite the military emperor. He conquered Dacia and was the only Roman Emperor to reach the Persian Gulf. But when Hadrian takes over, he decided that Rome should assume a defensive policy as far as expansion was concerned, and consolidate what it had gained. He fortifies the British frontier (Hadrians Wall, duh) and the Rhine frontier. He, imho, is the guy who takes the bite out of Rome's military, and his reforms make Rome a RE-actionary and not an offensive weapon. With Rome's armies as great as they were, I feel Rome could have expanded much farther, another topic of debate, a great thread to be sure, but Hadrian kind of said "No, we're happy with what we;ve got." In years and emperors after Hadrian, his trend generally continues (the great exceptions being Marcus Aurelius and a few others) and Rome's military is on the defensive. This doesn't necessarily make them soft, but it does make them less of a potent force. Of course Rome would never have fallen without the political struggles inside it and other key factors, I just find the lapse in military readiness that develops over a century of defensive policy to be what allowed the many barbarian nations that beset Rome in the 4th century AD to take the empire apart piece by piece, although certainly the ineffectual political situation and leaders did much to help this situation.

As Napoleon said: "The only logical end to a defensive strategy is defeat!" (sorry if that's not the exact wording, but you get the idea&#33

Anyways, your thoughts!

[Cliomhdubh]

a mix of factors i belive;
1 corruption
2 the huns and germans moving west
3 the east /west split
4 the death of the roman military

1 corruption rome had become stagnat so to speak their provinces were not making as much money/food as they could when the germanic kings eventually took over they turned countries like france into an economic powerhouse well compaired to when the romans were ruling it

2 the huns were enevitible, rome could not conquer the world and there fore there would always be enemys on her massive borders
the huns started a domino effect in the barbarian tribes, the romans allowed many to settle on roman lands as a protection against other barbarians and to romanise them they only ended up opressing them and making them mad

3 constant bickering led to espionage ect between the two emporers there is even a rumour that a byzantene emporer paid the goths to sack rome

4 the roman military became a shadow of its former self in later days they were ill equiped and mostly barbarians seeking glory or money in fact the romans began to use the phrase "off with the barbarians" to describe someone joining the army

[c00lizz]

Well, I for one would argue that the Roman Empire did not fall until the Byzantine empire did as it was a direct extension of the Roman Empire.

I do agree with your point tho. Romes' millitary poweress was gained through assimilating the millitary doctrines of others into their own style of fighting and improving upon it. Once they decided that no more expansion was needed they ceased, although not completly, the gradual teaching process that warring is, even a lost battle is an experience. I'd argue that the war that helped Rome become what she was is the Hannabalic War. Without the constant evolution of the legions and officers leading those they became secondary to the armies of other nations and eventually, became incapable of winning those all important battles.

[Ringeck]

Devaluation of the currency when the silver mines of greece and spain started drying up helped as well.

The roman military during the later empire was probably waayyy better suited to dealing with the problems of its day than the "golden age legionaire" of the 1century AD would had been. At least according to Goldsworthy and Connoly.

[Pompeius Minus]

"What Caused Rome's Fall?"

1. Civil war
2. Lack of money
3. Provinces falling off (caused partly by 1 and resulted in 2)

So what about the barbarian invasions? IMHO they were a symptom rather than the cause.

Someone put forward quite an intelligent argument about this: if the barbarians defeated Rome militarily, then where are all the barbarian victories? Apart from Adrianople there doesn't seem to be any. Rome suffered more major military defeats (Cannae, the Teutoburgerwald, Carrhae....) when it was at its peak than when it was on the way down. The barbarians walked all over the Western Roman Empire in the 400s because there was no one there to oppose them. When there were any Roman troops around they usually defeated the barbarians (a bit of a misnomer since the "barbarians" often resided inside the empire).

[Pompeius Minus]

One more point about the supposed inferiority of the late Roman armies: when Belisarius and Narses reconquered Italy and North Africa in the 500s they easily defeated the barbarians. Their armies were organized in almost exactly the same way as the Roman armies in the 400s, which strongly suggests that they were not inferior.

[Invoker]

Roman-Empire.net has a brief explanation of the 7 major causes of the fall of Rome

1. Bad emperors
2. increasing civilization of the people (translated into weaker soldiers, Rome began relying on its auxiliaries too much as well.)
3. Infighting, which eventually became endless in nature
4. Economic decline
5. Plagues
6. Migrations
7. The settlment of the Visigoths in Moesia

here's the site, read it.
http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html#romefall]Why Rome Fell[/URL]

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Thanks for all the posts guys!

All very good perspectives, and certainly the fall of Rome cannot be attributed to any one factor, only which factor you think played the greatest role in its downfall. I guess that's more of what my question is.

I have to add that the leadership factor is also very important. Poor emperors were almost all Rome had in the 5th century, so that makes sense that it fell because its highest leaders werent up to the challenge. Rome certainly wouldnt be the first or last empire to fall because of that. I guess some would say this is more important than a stagnated military, as an effectual leader would reform the military and rejuvenate it. I know Constantine reformed the military during his reign, but apparently his reforms weren't enough to give the Roman military back it's old glory.

I'm not quite sure I agree with one thing on Invoker's list, and that is that civilized people can't fight as well as barbarians. I guess after Rome conquered Gaul, Dacia, Britain, etc. it had barbaric populations joining it's legions, which may have made them stronger, I don;t know...I just know that there's not much solid evidence that Roman legions fought better after an infusion of Gallic, Briton, or Dacian people...but they did fight exceptionally well in the early Republic, when all Roman soldiers were Italian yeomanry. Those were the armies of Scipio Africanus, etc...and from what I know of it, most of Caesar's legions were either Italian or from civilzed parts of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul...and they fought pretty well. It's not that I outright disagree, I guess, more that I'm wary of the assertion that barbarians fought better than civilized troops. I always thought civilized troops had discipline on their side...

[The spartan]

My class was just talking about this in Science class. My teacher said that it was because of plant desease that caused lack of food. It is very hard to matain an army without rations dont u think? Without opossion the Barbarians basicly walked in.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Originally posted by The spartan@Apr 24 2005, 11:29 PM
My class was just talking about this in Science class. My teacher said that it was because of plant desease that caused lack of food. It is very hard to matain an army without rations dont u think? Without opossion the Barbarians basicly walked in.

A science teacher lecturing on the fall of Rome?!?!? Now I've heard everything!! :lol

Haha, just kidding. I actually have never heard that story, but maybe it has some element of truth to it. I just can't be sure. If it is, I could see how it might contribute to Rome's fall, but wouldnt it have also affected the barbarians who sacked it?

[c00lizz]

That sounds somewhat plausible except that a major grain outage would have affected the invading armies even more so than it would have the Romans since they would have to deal with devastation tactics and general pillaging.

[Caius Britannicus]

Originally posted by The spartan@Apr 24 2005, 11:29 PM
My class was just talking about this in Science class. My teacher said that it was because of plant desease that caused lack of food. It is very hard to matain an army without rations dont u think? Without opossion the Barbarians basicly walked in.

I'm suprised he didn't say it was lead poisoning from the pipes.

[Cliomhdubh]

most of romes grain came from north africa so i doubt that a plant diease would affect such a huge empire it would have to be a biblical famine streaching from gaul to egypt to have any major effect on them, and the goths came into the empire starving,

you dont go to ethiopia when your hungry now do you

[c00lizz]

I belive the main grain supllier to Rome was Egypt and in the days of the republic it was Sicilly.

[hormiga]

Kind of a side question: I am reading "I, Claudius" and he keeps refering to corn..... is this a wierd European thing to call grain corn? If I am not mistaken corn (maize) was not present in Europe.

[Petronius]

Ancient corn (frumentum) is a word used to describe what we modern people know as wheat. Wheat (or corn, as it is) was one of the main rations of armies probably because of its ease of mass production.

[Shawkhan]

...The Romans declined as their society declined. The rich got richer and took land from the sturdy peasant class of Italy, forming huge slave-run plantations which operated at about 25% of the efficiency the original Roman farmers maintained in food production. Rome went from exporting food to importing foodstuffs. The peasant class, strong physically fit, patriotic with huge farm families is what made Rome what it was. Without them decline of the Roman way of fighting was inevitable. This is the basic cause of Roman decline.
...The economic decline was certainly due to the lack of further conquest. By importing everything, Rome was in the position of 16th century Spain, relying on her colonies to supply everything not furnished by the homeland(especially money) any more. When fresh conquests stopped, fresh infusions of loot and slaves stopped as well.
...It is true that the Romans copied virtually everything in their military system from other peoples, getting the pilum from the Samnites for example. Unfortunately, their traditional way of fighting relied on traditional Romans to be effective. Rather than Romanizing barbarians, Romans attempted to adapt traditional barbarian methods of warfare to fit their system, and ultimately failed.
...Roman decline was not simply one factor, but a combination of factors impinging upon their society, economy and military.
...Colleen McCullough loves to dwell on the similarities between the U.S. and ancient Rome in her books. I think she may have a point there.

[The spartan]

A science teacher lecturing on the fall of Rome?!?!? Now I've heard everything!! laughing.gif

NO,NO! i am not stupid! we were learning about plant decease! Our teacher just brought up the stuff about Rome! Jezz, thought u guys would figure that out when i was talking about the grain being destroyed...

I'm suprised he didn't say it was lead poisoning from the pipes.

what is that suposed to mean?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

No, no my friend, I was not trying to say that you or your teacher were stupid! I was just commenting on the fact that its unusual for a science teacher to talk about the fall of Rome. It was sarcasm, but i apologize, it's not easy to convey that emotion through electronic means.

[The spartan]

Apology accepted. I am sorry for over reacting:blush. I am sick today and i think i have strep throat.