Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 270

Thread: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

  1. #21

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    I rather like the Heather theory. The rise of Sassanian Persia causes problems for Rome which results in the need for an expanded and expensive army in the East. Rome pays for this via stripping the provinces of their local tax revenues. Eventually the Eastern frontier settles down but local Roman life has had it's vibrancy sucked away from it, political life now shifts from the provinces and local men made good to those in Trier, Milan, Antioch and Constantinople who follow the Emperor around.

    At the same time, the best part of 400 years of contact with the Roman Empire has turned the Germanic tribes into much more evolved groupings than those of the time of Augustus. The Huns then arrive on the scene and start a chain reaction of migrations into the Roman Empire of Germanic tribes fleeing from the Hunnic advance, who wreck havoc in the Roman Empire, examples being the Vandals, Alans, Suebis and Goths. Rome is now weakened massively and continued political instability and German tribes within it's borders conspire to destroy Rome. The Roman elites having long since seen power dissapear from them and coalesce around the Emperor due to the previously mentioned tax reforms, no longer care about distant Rome or Constantinople. They by and large decide to throw their lot in with the new regimes and accept the fall of the Empire. These provincial elites will over the coming centuries fuse with their new Germanic rulers to form the nations of France, Germany, Spain, Portugal et al, while the Eastern Empire will stagger onwards until the 15th century.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In truth, the Empire was a victim of its own sucess.
    The maintenance/preservation of the empire was a massive military exercise which had political and economic ramifications. Three centuries in decline (in the west) before it fell absolutely.

    That said, regarding the portray of Roman decadence, read Tacitus, AD 100, (1) and Ammianus, AD 370 (2)

    (1) Tacitus in his Germania warned that the moral virtues ans their simple lyfestile was creating a warrior enemy that the licentious Romans would be unable to resist: " In every home the children go naked and dirty, and develop that strenght of limb and tall stature which excites our admiration"
    (2) Ammianus, sounded a similar warning in his portray of Roman decadence, 40 years before Alaric sacked Rome, about the deliquency in Rome (the rich and the poor, c. AD 370)
    Brief excerpts:
    Deliquency, the rich and the common people:

    "Some men distinguished (as they think) by famous fornames, pride themselves beyond measure in being called...and many other equally fine-sounding indications of eminent ancestry..others resplendent in silken garments, as thoug they were to be led to death..when such men, each attended by fifty servants...their houses are frequented by idle chatterboxes..parasites..comparing them with the heros of old...some of them hate learning as they as they do poison and read with attentive care only Juvenal and Marius Maximus, in their boundless idleness handling no other books than these...but the height of refinement with these men at present is, that it is better for a stranger to kill any man“s brother than to decline his invitation to dinner...some of them, if they make a longish journey to visit their estates, or to hunt by the labours of others, think they have equalled the marches of Alexander or of Caesar...some of them shrink from the name of gamblers, and therefore desire to be called rather tesserarii,persons who differe from each other as much as thieves from brigands...As Cicero says " They know nothing on earth that is good unless it brings gains. Of their friends, as of their cattle, they love those best from whom they hope to get the greates profit..so much for the Senate"
    " Let us turn to the idle and slothful commons...they spend their life with wine and dice, in low haunts, pleasures, and the games. Their temple, their dwelling their assembly and the height of all their hopes is the Circus Maximus"
    ---
    That much of the Roman population had slipped in delinquency is unquestionable, the upper classes in particular. This delinquency had also an effect in on political moral, because the aristocracy largely withdrew from publical life.
    The later Roman empire, in other words, was a bankrput militarized state, a parasitic aristocracy and a hostile peasantry; significant parts of the empire ceased to be Roman at all, as barbarians tribes settled under official imperial approval and then without no approval at all. (for instance, Geiseric)
    Some of the "barrack" emperors were sucessful in temporarely defeating the Germanic invaders (for instance, Gallienus) but they were unable to achieve a decisive victory, probably because they had always one eye on attempted/actual usurpations by rival generals.
    As Ammianus commented " What fury of foreign peoples, what barbarian cruelty can be compared with the harm done by civil wars?"

    The East Empire, when the West Empire fell, carried on business for another 1000 years; some of the enemies were paid off in tons of gold ( ex,Attila); unlike the western epire, the eastern empire had a short land frontier to defend; after garrisoning the lower Danube, it could turn its attentions to Asia; any seaborne invasion was almost impossible.
    It seems to me that Justianian was the last truly decent Roman emperor -although Justinian“s reign wasn“t entirely glorious - aided by Belisarius, he reconquered much of the old Roman empire and he created the codification of the Roman law. But all of those who occupied the throne in Byzantium after him spoke another language -they spoke greek.
    great post, +rep
    Have a question about China? Get your answer here.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by SigniferOne View Post
    Nobody mentioned just the politicians. This is as much about the common average people. If we compare the Early Empire with the Late Empire, the entire court was completely corrupted by eunichs and the countryside was ravaged by tax farmers. Common people on the street were indolent, lost all religion, lacked any of the Roman patriotism and were lukewarm about serving in the military, about rooting out governmental corruption, etc.

    But if we compare Late Empire with the Republic, yes many of the Late Republican politicians and people were similarly deeply corrupt. That's why it collapsed.

    Again, tell me why these reason didn't cause the fall of the Eastern Empire. The issue of corruption has being ongoing for a long time.

    Also, the collaspe of the Roman Republic did not lead to the fall of the Roman state. So such a comparision isn't valid.


    Where did I say it was the main reason? As far as I'm aware I listed 4 reasons, and there didn't have to be a main one among them.
    And I do not believe that reason is even valid to begin with.




    Yet those examples are dwarfed by the machinations of eunichs, the overwhelming delinquency of the aristocrats, and catastrophic shortage of native common Romans in the Roman army.
    Care to cite some actual figures?


    Quote Originally Posted by visiar View Post
    Rome never fully recovered from the Crisis of the Third Century.
    Why do you think so? Despite not being able to have a whole century of peace like what has happened during the reign of the Trajan to Commodus, the late Empire did recover in many ways. The economy has recovered from the crisis of the third century, the Roman army grew to a much bigger size and the production of arms also became more centralised as well.

    I never said 25 emperors fighting to rule at the same time. I said for 50 years between 235 and 285 A.D. 25 emperors reigned.

    I didn't say he was born in 285 B.C.
    In a number of cases, Emperors got killed thanks to disease and campaigns against the enemy as opposed to being killed by ursupers. One of them even adopted the son of the previous Emperor.

    So depicting all the 25 Emperors as ursupers that came into power because of a sucessful rebellion isn't accurate. I do hope that you read about the crisis of the third century beyond what you can find on wikipedia.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In truth, the Empire was a victim of its own sucess.
    The maintenance/preservation of the empire was a massive military exercise which had political and economic ramifications. Three centuries in decline (in the west) before it fell absolutely.
    What decline? Are you seriously trying to say there was no Roman recovery? Seriously? I have yet to read any modern historians that specialise in the history of the Roman Empire that still supports this view.
    Last edited by ray243; July 22, 2010 at 09:24 PM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Ottomans and 4th crusaders wana bees

  5. #25

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    I always see the fall of the roman empire as a result of a series of chain of events tracing back to the founding itself.

    Rome was founded by romulus which led to a successsion of kings. Which then led to Tarquin who was a tryrant that led to his dethroning and the founding of the republic. The founding of the republic allowed rome to be more politically stable than its enemies and coupled with their superior military and political skills they were able to take over the entire Italian peninsula. This of course led them to find further conquest which then led to the punic wars. Once the Rome won it left then in control over half of the Mediterranean. At this point the Romans lost something that kept them united. A worthy enemy. Once rome had conquered greece and well, everything, The aristocrasts began to describe their contemporaries with the same life or death terms that they had once reserved for foreign enemies. This of course led to civil wars which then led to the establishment of a semi-divine military dictatorship. The succession of terrible emperors led to another civil war and so on and so forth.
    http://e-sim.org/lan.126366/

    Je t'aime ma petite chou!

  6. #26

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Xellos_Moon View Post
    I always see the fall of the roman empire as a result of a series of chain of events tracing back to the founding itself.

    Rome was founded by romulus which led to a successsion of kings. Which then led to Tarquin who was a tryrant that led to his dethroning and the founding of the republic. The founding of the republic allowed rome to be more politically stable than its enemies and coupled with their superior military and political skills they were able to take over the entire Italian peninsula. This of course led them to find further conquest which then led to the punic wars. Once the Rome won it left then in control over half of the Mediterranean. At this point the Romans lost something that kept them united. A worthy enemy. Once rome had conquered greece and well, everything, The aristocrasts began to describe their contemporaries with the same life or death terms that they had once reserved for foreign enemies. This of course led to civil wars which then led to the establishment of a semi-divine military dictatorship. The succession of terrible emperors led to another civil war and so on and so forth.
    That is ignoring how the Roman Empire managed to recover from all those wars and be in power once again.

    Sigh, can people seriously start reading up more on Roman history before they give simplistic answers to a questions that divided historians and most historians do not wish to say that they know what is the leading reason as to why the western Roman Empire fell?

  7. #27

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    That is ignoring how the Roman Empire managed to recover from all those wars and be in power once again.

    Sigh, can people seriously start reading up more on Roman history before they give simplistic answers to a questions that divided historians and most historians do not wish to say that they know what is the leading reason as to why the western Roman Empire fell?


    Im not ignoring im just lazy...Thats why i said "and so on and so forth" as my last sentence because i think you guys would already get my point. Why so serious anyway?
    http://e-sim.org/lan.126366/

    Je t'aime ma petite chou!

  8. #28
    Xanthippus of Sparta's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    near Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Western Empire...

    Constant Civil Wars, and devestating political intrigue at the highest levels. Weak Emperors in the 5th century. Invasions by tough "barbarians" who wanted to be Romans, but didn't necessarily want to be ruled by Romans.

    Eastern Empire...

    Loss of extremely important territories in Anatolia, first and foremost. Trading prowess taken over by Genoa and Venice. End of the Rum Sultanate and the beginning of the very powerful Ottoman dynasty.
    Last edited by Xanthippus of Sparta; July 22, 2010 at 10:28 PM.



    "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
    -George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.

  9. #29
    Visiar's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miscellaneous
    Posts
    845

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Why do you think so? Despite not being able to have a whole century of peace like what has happened during the reign of the Trajan to Commodus, the late Empire did recover in many ways. The economy has recovered from the crisis of the third century, the Roman army grew to a much bigger size and the production of arms also became more centralised as well.
    I'm talking about internal problems. Constantine united the empire after civil war. Again in 361, Julian became the emperor after civil war. And in 365, another civil war took place. In the east and west, barbarian tribes were making their way towards the borders of the west and the eastern empires. In 378 A.D. the eastern romans were defeated at Adrianople. Attila only left when given a large amount of money.

    So if civil wars and barbarians invading are considered a recovery then yes it did fully recover.




    "I've read the last page of the Bible. It's all going to turn out all right"
    -Billy Graham
    When did you become interested in politics?
    The very instant I became old.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by visiar View Post
    I'm talking about internal problems. Constantine united the empire after civil war. Again in 361, Julian became the emperor after civil war. And in 365, another civil war took place. In the east and west, barbarian tribes were making their way towards the borders of the west and the eastern empires. In 378 A.D. the eastern romans were defeated at Adrianople. Attila only left when given a large amount of money.

    So if civil wars and barbarians invading are considered a recovery then yes it did fully recover.
    Just to say the civil war of julian can hardly be called a civil war as constantius II died on the way to battle him. Their was a civil war between valens and procopius cousin of julian but that also was harldy a civil war. The battle of adrianople was important because it was a loss of an army that was the strongest roman army in about 200 years(plus the stupid persian campaign of julian.) Their was a recovery for about a hundred years but with the loss of valens the barbarianization of the army began.
    Last edited by charles the hammer; July 22, 2010 at 10:44 PM.



  11. #31

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Why Western Empire collapsed and the Eastern Empire didn't?

    Well, I guess it's because Barbarians (Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, etc.) were allowed to establish as autonomous entities inside imperial lands. This subminated the cohesion and authority of the Emperor in Rome and made him effectively a puppet of Barbarians. In the East on the other hand, Barbarians were not allowed to settle for a long time being driven out by force, diplomacy or bribe to the West (like in the case of Visigoths).

  12. #32

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by CiviC View Post
    Why Western Empire collapsed and the Eastern Empire didn't?

    Well, I guess it's because Barbarians (Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, etc.) were allowed to establish as autonomous entities inside imperial lands. This subminated the cohesion and authority of the Emperor in Rome and made him effectively a puppet of Barbarians. In the East on the other hand, Barbarians were not allowed to settle for a long time being driven out by force, diplomacy or bribe to the West (like in the case of Visigoths).
    Yep there are three big ones
    1. East had easily defended borders (at least easier than the West)
    2. East had money West had little to none.
    3. The east had recruitment grounds in the east that kept the barbarians form dominating the army.



  13. #33

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    I think many reasons was already said here.

    First was the endles internal fights for power among diferent emperors, generals and usurpers.
    Then the economic crisis and endemic corruption of administration.
    Another cause was the fall of interest in martial virtues and even "patriotism" of roman citizens. If during wars with Carthage for ex. some patricians was able to donate their lands or treasures, or to sacrifice for the Patria, it was a reason to be very proud to be a roman and to defeat the enemies ( even up to the early principate), later on other romans colaborate with foreigners against their fellow romans

    All this make the raising of new armies harder and harder, so they need to rely on "barbarians" more and more, who was equiped and trained in roman style, make them a much more formidable adversaries when they rebelled.

    In east it was a bigger pool of recruits at some critical moments, and economy was much better as well. This and even the geography helped them to survive much longer (even have under Iustinian an attepmt to recreate the old empire borders), either by force of arms or by bribing enemies.

    In west, after the dead of Flavius Aetius, roman army practicaly colapsed, economy was falling too, peoples had no interest in wars and becoming soldiers, the empire was disintegrated from whitin, and the "barbarians" had an easy way to knock it down, it was already in an agony who was to end sooner or later (even without the presence of "barbarians")

  14. #34

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by CiviC View Post
    Why Western Empire collapsed and the Eastern Empire didn't?

    Well, I guess it's because Barbarians (Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, etc.) were allowed to establish as autonomous entities inside imperial lands. This subminated the cohesion and authority of the Emperor in Rome and made him effectively a puppet of Barbarians. In the East on the other hand, Barbarians were not allowed to settle for a long time being driven out by force, diplomacy or bribe to the West (like in the case of Visigoths).
    Then you have to ask why did the Western Empire wants to allow autonomous entities inside their lands to begin with.

    Was it really a choice that the Romans had in the first place? Or is it because they simply could not field enough troops due to the sheer number of causalities they have suffered?

    Continued warfare would have easily exhaust the resources and available men of the western Empire.

    Another cause was the fall of interest in martial virtues and even "patriotism" of roman citizens. If during wars with Carthage for ex. some patricians was able to donate their lands or treasures, or to sacrifice for the Patria, it was a reason to be very proud to be a roman and to defeat the enemies ( even up to the early principate), later on other romans colaborate with foreigners against their fellow romans
    Although a lot has to do with the fact that the most of the battles during the war against Hannibal was in Italy in the first place, and the farmers and etc has a stake ensuring they get to keep their lands. Compared to the wars that a soldier might experience during the late Empire, where he can be deployed away from his homeland to fight in some place that is totally alien to him and might not even help and protect his homeland from the barbarian invasions.

    Together with the fact that any one who signed on would have to spend his entire life in the Roman army, and the chances of him lasting 20 years of constant wars being low, there is simply no way any we can expect some sort of martial virtues.

    And also, please name me any instances of Romans actively working with barbarian invaders to act against the Roman state causing huge damage to the Roman Empire. I know of a few instances, but I want to see if you can actually bring up any examples to back up your argument.

    All this make the raising of new armies harder and harder, so they need to rely on "barbarians" more and more, who was equiped and trained in roman style, make them a much more formidable adversaries when they rebelled.
    The Western Empire did try and reverse the trend by raising more indigenous troops , but they couldn't even find enough resources to properly equip and to maintain the army in the 5th century.






    Just another important fact people needs to take into account when they are offering their ideas. We have to realise that after the fall of the western Empire, the eastern Empire faced huge numbers of enemies as well. The Arab invasion, the further migration of the barbarian tribes in the Balkans as well as the huge loss of troops in certain wars didn't managed to cause the Eastern Empire to fell.

    Because of that, I find it hard to believe that the Eastern Empire survived just because they have lesser enemies. The fact that the Eastern Empire actually managed to recover after several massive defeats and huge lost of lands, they managed to rebuild their Empire. So we should also ask ourselves why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive the Arab invasion and manage to hold on for so long after losing some of their richest provinces in the East.
    Last edited by ray243; July 23, 2010 at 03:03 AM.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    Then you have to ask why did the Western Empire wants to allow autonomous entities inside their lands to begin with.

    Was it really a choice that the Romans had in the first place? Or is it because they simply could not field enough troops due to the sheer number of causalities they have suffered?

    Continued warfare would have easily exhaust the resources and available men of the western Empire.



    Although a lot has to do with the fact that the most of the battles during the war against Hannibal was in Italy in the first place, and the farmers and etc has a stake ensuring they get to keep their lands. Compared to the wars that a soldier might experience during the late Empire, where he can be deployed away from his homeland to fight in some place that is totally alien to him and might not even help and protect his homeland from the barbarian invasions.

    Together with the fact that any one who signed on would have to spend his entire life in the Roman army, and the chances of him lasting 20 years of constant wars being low, there is simply no way any we can expect some sort of martial virtues.

    And also, please name me any instances of Romans actively working with barbarian invaders to act against the Roman state causing huge damage to the Roman Empire. I know of a few instances, but I want to see if you can actually bring up any examples to back up your argument.



    The Western Empire did try and reverse the trend by raising more indigenous troops , but they couldn't even find enough resources to properly equip and to maintain the army in the 5th century.


    Just another important fact people needs to take into account when they are offering their ideas. We have to realise that after the fall of the western Empire, the eastern Empire faced huge numbers of enemies as well. The Arab invasion, the further migration of the barbarian tribes in the Balkans as well as the huge loss of troops in certain wars didn't managed to cause the Eastern Empire to fell.

    Because of that, I find it hard to believe that the Eastern Empire survived just because they have lesser enemies. The fact that the Eastern Empire actually managed to recover after several massive defeats and huge lost of lands, they managed to rebuild their Empire. So we should also ask ourselves why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive the Arab invasion and manage to hold on for so long after losing some of their richest provinces in the East.
    Wars inside the borders of Roman empire and even in Italy was fight in late empire too, not just during Hannibal invasion.

    As well in my opinion, at first the roman soldiers come in to army for their Patria, and then for glory. When professional army was established, it was added the money and other material benefits too to that (as land for veterans). But later the first two reasons (motherland and military glory) fallen more and more, and the material part was become first by far (then eventual some glory), other citizens even disconsidering martial virtues at all.

    And roman subjects acting in the benefit of foreigns, well, during Attila invasion in eastern empire (when he reached Constantinopole), he used for sieges of roman towns war machines (battering rams, siege towers, catapults) who was cleary constructed and probably even manned by romans. I think i read somewhere that in one instance someone from whitin helped him to conquer one city. The same during Alaric sack of Rome, the ports of the city was opened for him from inside. Another case might be one of Narses, one of the main generals of Iustinian, alongside Belisarius, who probably colaborated with Lombards or encouraged them to conquer much of italian peninsula previously re-conquered by romans. And i am sure you know other case as well (as you imply).

    Western empire was too exhausted by internal fights and fall of economy to rise a proper army, and after death of one of the most capable generals, Flavius Aetius, it wasnt anybody able to made and lead in battle an army able to reppel an enemy. And Flavius Aetius died because the same internal fights and plots inside the Rome imperial court

    Eastern empire was protected by geography, and have a much better economy then in west, and this allow it to rise more armies, better equiped and trained, and with less "barbarians" amongst their ranks. Ofcourse it had a big setback at the moment of arab invasion (when in fact in my opinion we can consider that trully greek phase-or byzantine called one, started, with Heraclius). Eastern empire lost back then much of teritory, but still its position allow him to have a good economy, and some protection from invaders. But since then, it was most a battle for survive, managed quite very well in many moments, but still far from what was in the times of Caesar or Traian when Romans was in ofensive.

    Army recruiting pool was lower and lower, cultural and social habits was changed, it was hard and hard for romans to become the dominant power
    Last edited by diegis; July 23, 2010 at 04:30 AM.

  16. #36
    Manuel I Komnenos's Avatar Rex Regum
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Athenian Empire
    Posts
    11,553

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Well, the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall for a number of reasons.
    1st) The Eastern Empire had a homogeneous population. Most of them were Christians and the Greek culture and language had strong elements in every Eastern province.
    2nd) The Eastern Empire was very rich. Huge cities and ports with big revenues could be used to maintain a big mercenary army
    3rd) The Eastern Empire was always known for possessing probably the best diplomacy ever. They turned one barbarian nation to another until they slaughtered each other..
    Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
    "Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
    ~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917

  17. #37

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Manuel I Komnenos View Post
    Well, the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall for a number of reasons.
    1st) The Eastern Empire had a homogeneous population. Most of them were Christians and the Greek culture and language had strong elements in every Eastern province.
    2nd) The Eastern Empire was very rich. Huge cities and ports with big revenues could be used to maintain a big mercenary army
    3rd) The Eastern Empire was always known for possessing probably the best diplomacy ever. They turned one barbarian nation to another until they slaughtered each other..
    dont forget 2 helped 3 out alot.



  18. #38
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Yes, a topic I know a lot about!

    Crisis of the 3rd century

    In the in the 220s, the Parthian Empire was overthrown by the Sassanid Dynasty. At first the Romans would not realize the effects of this shift in power, but they were about to get hit head on. The Sassanids quickly proved to be a major opponent to roman authority in the Middle East, and their professional armies were able to overpower even the Roman legions, which were much better equipped at that day and age. Rome quickly learned she would have to adopt her tactics. On multiple occasions the Romans took their legions down the Fertile Crescent, only to be defeated and humiliated. In the 260s, the emperor Valerian was captured, and enslaved. The result of this embarrassment was that Rome had to increase the size of its armies by 1/3, and that 1/3 was entirely on the Sassanid frontier. This put much economic stress on the empire, and there was not a quick and easy solution. The Romans tried to solve this by further diluting the silver content in their coins, until the point where it was a simple silver wash over copper or bronze. The Denarii were essentially pieces of worthless metal, and the citizens were outrage. Diocletian tried to solve this dilemma by reforming the economy, using methods such as forcing the civilians to take up the profession of their father, and to stay in that profession. These methods ultimately failed, and a new, strong emperor was needed.

    Reform and Religion, 300-350 AD

    In 313, "legend" states that Constantine saw a burning cross in the sky with the words "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign thou shalt conquer) underneath, and he converted to Christianity. His reasoning for conversion is not the stuff of legend, but does have an explanation: christianity was too large to control anymore, so it was better to let it go than to try to unsucessfully regulate it. Constantine defeated his rivals, particularly Maximus at Milvian Bridge in 313, and became emperor of the western empire. Galerius than legalized Christianity with the support of Constantine. In 324 Constantine reunited both empires, and reformed the army. The new roman army consisted of Limitanei and Milites, border troops that garrisoned forts and watchtowers along the borders to drive away minor incursions. In cases of crisis within a province, the Comitatenses, or field troops were dispatched, to eliminate and scatter any barbarian threat. There were also other divisions of the military, such as the Palatine units and Scholae. Both of which also served as field forces. Constantine also stabilized the economy with a new coin: the Solidus, which was made of Gold, rather than silver.

    The Apostate, Arians, and Adrianople

    In 357, a major incursion by the Alemannii was diverted by Julian, Caesar of the western empire and a pagan. He soon after replaced Constantius II as emperor, and set out to reunite the empire not under one god, but under many. He succeeded and quickly prepared to invade the Sassanid kingdom. In 363 he set out, but disaster struck when he was killed in a skirmish by harassing Persian forces. The empire was split again, between Valentinian, and the Arian Valens. Now first let's take a step back and find out who the Arians were...
    The Arians were a sect of Christianity that believed that the Trinity did not exist. Declared Heretics to Callaenecism in 325 by the First Ecumenical council on Nicea, they became a mist controversial topic.
    In 375 and 376, a new Asiatic race of barbarians, the Huns, pushed the Grethungi and Tervingi over the Carpathians, and to the banks of the Danube. Vying for peace with the empire, the Romans agreed to let the Tervingi cross, but not the Grethungi, who would later cross on their own. The Goths were not treated well, as local Magistri were exploiting them for their own personal gain. This was pushed to the breaking point when the governor of Marciano polis tried to assassinate the gothic leaders. It resulted in a massive revolt. Adrianople was not the first defeat, and the roots of the defeat at that battle take place the previous year, at Ad Salices. The Romans left their troops out in the sweltering heat, in full battle armor, without food or water for hours, while the gothic troops were fresh and did not come out of their camp until shortly before the battle. The Romans were overconfident, and were defeated by their own arrogance. The Goths rampaged the Balkans until 381, when they were settled in Illyricum. Theodosius I, the last emperor of a united empire, later called upon the Goths to serve as Foederati. This was the beginning, of the sack of Rome.

    De Civitate Dei

    In 402, Alaric the Goth demanded that Stilicho, Generalissimo and Magister Utriusque Militum of the Western Roman Empire, give him the title of Magister Militum per Illyricium, and that his Goths become official members of the roman population. Alaric was denied his request, and Stilicho quickly defeated him twice in that year. In 406, Stilicho defeated the Goths of Radagasius at Fiesole, with the help of Uldin and his Huns. The Romans began to learn that the Huns were a potent weapon, and a young page named Flavius Aetius would soon prove it. In 408, Honorius had Stilicho assassinated, and the empire was in pieces. The Recent invasion of 406 caused Constantine III to usurp, and his British legions quickly conquered Gaul and Spain. Spain was quickly carved up into various kingdoms by the Alani, Suevi, and Hasding/Siling vandals, and the Goths were beginning their first siege of Rome. If the Romans sent the Italian field Army against the Goths, the victory was guaranteed, but Gaudentius, Magister Militum (possibly per Itallias) knew better. He knew that if he did that, Constantine III or Maximus, the ruler of Usurped Spain, would invade Italy and conquer the empire. The Goths were bribed off, but laid siege again with reinforced numbers from the Italian field army in 409. They were once again bribed off, possibly convinced to take the bribe by Aetius and other pages in the camp of Alaric, but would again lay siege. On august 24, 410 AD, Rome was sacked. It was a brief and civilized sacking, with little looting, pillage, or rape. The only building Burned was the senate building. Alaric died and the Romans were beginning to regain control of the situation. Flavius Constantius III, the next Magister Utriusque Militum, allied with the new gothic leader Athaulf, and they set out on a campaign to reconquer the empire.

    Co-emperor Constantius
    Constantius and Athaulf did well, and In 411 the usurpation of Constantius was put down. In 414 Athaulf died and was replaced by Wallia, and by this time all rivals to the throne were eliminated. Constantius Reconquered Spain, and in 418 the Visigoths were finally granted land in Aquitaine. In 421 Constantius was declared co-emperor, but he suddenly died in September.

    The Last of the Romans

    In 423, the death of Honorius and the usurpation of Ioannes tore the Western Empire apart. All of Spain was lost, most of Northern Gaul was lost, The Visigoths were all over the place, the Burgundians beginning to expand into Provence, and the Huns were in Pannonia. In October, Flavius Aetius appeared with an army of approximately 20000 Huns, 60000 including nuclear families. He would be the Savior of the empire. The battle against Gaudentius, his father, and Asparus, Magister Militum Praesentalis of the eastern Roman Empire, ended in a stalemate, and Aetius became Magister Militum per Gallias. Galla Placidia, Regent of the empire and de facto ruler of 6 year old Valentinian, began to pitch the generals of the empire against each other. Bonifacius and Felix were both killed in civil war, and this opened Africa to the vandals. Aetius was expelled from the empire, but came back at the head of an even larger Army of Huns, which he would later use to re-conquer all that was lost. But his greatest Achievement would be on the Day of June 20, 451.

    Attila the Hun

    Attila grew up amongst the Huns, and amongst the Romans. A childhood friend of Aetius, they remained Friends until 450, when Attila sacked Western Roman Sirmium. This was the Beginning, of the Invasion of Gaul. Aetius quickly scrounged up an alliance, with the bulk of the army being about 40000 roman troops, and about an equal number of Visigoths, Franks, Alans, Librones (Roman Army Veterans) and other Barbarian Groups. Attila himself had a Formidable Coalition, created of tribes from the Russian steppes to the Rhine River. The Battle was Fierce, and according to Jordanes, it played out as such:
    191) On the side of the Romans stood the Patrician Aėtius, on whom at that time the whole Empire of the West depended; a man of such wisdom that he had assembled warriors from everywhere to meet them on equal terms. Now these were his auxiliaries: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparians, Olibriones (once Romans soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces), and some other Celtic or German tribes. (192) And so they met in the Catalaunian Plains, which are also called Mauriacian, extending in length one hundred leuva, as the Gauls express it, and seventy in width. Now a Gallic leuva measures a distance of fifteen hundred paces. That portion of the earth accordingly became the threshing-floor of countless races. The two hosts bravely joined battle. Nothing was done under cover, but they contended in open fight. (193) What just cause can be found for the encounter of so many nations, or what hatred inspired them all to take arms against each other? It is proof that the human race lives for its kings, for it is at the mad impulse of one mind a slaughter of nations takes place, and at the whim of a haughty ruler that which nature has taken ages to produce perishes in a moment.


    XXXVII (194) But before we set forth the order of the battle itself, it seems needful to relate what had already happened in the course of the campaign, for it was not only a famous struggle but one that was complicated and confused. Well then, Sangiban, king of the Alani, smitten with fear of what might come to pass, had promised to surrender to Attila, and to give into his keeping Aureliani, a city of Gaul wherein he dwelt. (195) When Theodorid and Aėtius learned of this, they cast up great earthworks around that city before Attila's arrival and kept watch over the suspected Sangiban, placing him with his tribe in the midst of their auxiliaries. Then Attila, king of the Huns, was taken aback by this event and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict. While he was meditating on flight--a greater calamity than death itself--he decided to inquire into the future through soothsayers. (196) So, as was their custom, they examined the entrails of cattle and certain streaks in bones that had been scraped, and foretold disaster to the Huns. Yet as a slight consolation they prophesied that the chief commander of the foe they were to meet should fall and mar by his death the rest of the victory and the triumph. Now Attila deemed the death of Aėtius a thing to be desired even at the cost of his own life, for Aėtius stood in the way of his plans. So although he was disturbed by this prophecy, yet inasmuch as he was a man who sought counsel of omens in all warfare, he began the battle with anxious heart at about the ninth hour of the day, in order that the impending darkness might come to his aid if the outcome should be disastrous.


    XXXVIII (197) The armies met, as we have said, in the Catalaunian Plains. The battle field was a plain rising by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest. Now Theodorid with the Visigoths held the right wing and Aėtius with the Romans the left. They placed in the centre Sangiban (who, as said before, was in command of the Alani), thus contriving with military caution to surround by a host of faithful troops the man in whose loyalty they had little confidence. For one who has difficulties placed in the way of his flight readily submits to the necessity of fighting. (198) On the other side, however, the battle line of the Huns was arranged so that Attila and his bravest followers were stationed in the centre. In arranging them thus the king had chiefly his own safety in view, since by his position in the very midst of his race he would be kept out of the way of threatening danger. The innumerable peoples of the divers tribes, which he had subjected to his sway, formed the wings. (199) Amid them was conspicuous the army of the Ostrogoths under the leadership of the brothers Valamir, Thiudimer and Vidimer, nobler even than the king they served, for the might of the family of the Amali rendered them glorious. The renowned king of the Gepidae, Ardaric, was there also with a countless host, and because of his great loyalty to Attila, he shared his plans. For Attila, comparing them in his wisdom, prized him and Valamir, king of the Ostrogoths, above all the other chieftains. (200) Valamir was a good keeper of secrets, bland of speech and skilled in wiles, and Ardaric, as we have said, was famed for his loyalty and wisdom. Attila might well feel sure that they would fight against the Visigoths, their kinsmen. Now the rest of the crowd of kings (if we may call them so) and the leaders of various nations hung upon Attila's nod like slaves, and when he gave a sign even by a glance, without a murmur each stood forth in fear and trembling, or at all events did as he was bid. (201) Attila alone was king of all kings over all and concerned for all.
    So then the struggle began for the advantage of position we have mentioned. Attila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain, but was outstripped by Thorismud and Aėtius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up.


    XXXIX (202) Now when Attila saw his army was thrown into confusion by this event, he thought it best to encourage them by an extemporaneous address on this wise: "Here you stand, after conquering mighty nations and subduing the world. I therefore think it foolish for me to goad you with words, as though you were men who had not been proved in action. Let a new leader or an untried army resort to that. (203) It is not right for me to say anything common, nor ought you to listen. For what is war but your usual custom? Or what is sweeter for a brave man than to seek revenge with his own hand? It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance. (204) Let us then attack the foe eagerly; for they are ever the bolder who make the attack. Despise this union of discordant races! To defend oneself by alliance is proof of cowardice. See, even before our attack they are smitten with terror. They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamor for protection against battle in the open fields. You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle. (205) Then on to the fray with stout hearts, as is your wont. Despise their battle line. Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths! Seek swift victory in that spot where the battle rages. For when the sinews are cut the limbs soon relax, nor can a body stand when you have taken away the bones. Let your courage rise and your own fury burst forth! Now show your cunning, Huns, now your deeds of arms! Let the wounded exact in return the death of his foe; let the unwounded revel in slaughter of the enemy. (206) No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, why should Fortune have made the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this conflict. Who was it revealed to our sires the path through the Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Huns. I am not deceived in the issue;--here is the field so many victories have promised us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man." Inflamed by these words, they all dashed into battle.


    XL (207) And although the situation was itself fearful, yet the presence of their king dispelled anxiety and hesitation. Hand to hand they clashed in battle, and the fight grew fierce, confused, monstrous, unrelenting--a fight whose like no ancient time has ever recorded. There such deeds were done that a brave man who missed this marvellous spectacle could not hope to see anything so wonderful all his life long. (208) For, if we may believe our elders, a brook flowing between low banks through the plain was greatly increased by blood from the wounds of the slain. It was not flooded by showers, as brooks usually rise, but was swollen by a strange stream and turned into a torrent by the increase of blood. Those whose wounds drove them to slake their parching thirst drank water mingled with gore. In their wretched plight they were forced to drink what they thought was the blood they had poured from their own wounds.
    (209) Here King Theodorid, while riding by to encourage his army, was thrown from his horse and trampled under foot by his own men, thus ending his days at a ripe old age. But others say he was slain by the spear of Andag of the host of the Ostrogoths, who were then under the sway of Attila. This was what the soothsayers had told to Attila in prophecy, though he understood it of Aėtius. (210) Then the Visigoths, separating from the Alani, fell upon the horde of the Huns and nearly slew Attila. But he prudently took flight and straightway shut himself and his companions within the barriers of the camp, which he had fortified with wagons. A frail defence indeed; yet there they sought refuge for their lives, whom but a little while before no walls of earth could withstand. (211) But Thorismud, the son of King Theodorid, who with Aėtius had seized the hill and repulsed the enemy from the higher ground, came unwittingly to the wagons of the enemy in the darkness of night, thinking he had reached his own lines. As he was fighting bravely, someone wounded him in the head and dragged him from his horse. Then he was rescued by the watchful care of his followers and withdrew from the fierce conflict. (212) Aėtius also became separated from his men in the confusion of night and wandered about in the midst of the enemy. Fearing disaster had happened, he went about in search of the Goths. At last he reached the camp of his allies and passed the remainder of the night in the protection of their shields.
    At dawn on the following day, when the Romans saw the fields were piled high with bodies and that the Huns did not venture forth, they thought the victory was theirs, but knew that Attila would not flee from the battle unless overwhelmed by a great disaster. Yet he did nothing cowardly, like one that is overcome, but with clash of arms sounded the trumpets and threatened an attack. He was like a lion pierced by hunting spears, who paces to and fro before the mouth of his den and dares not spring, but ceases not to terrify the neighborhood by his roaring. Even so this warlike king at bay terrified his conquerors. (213) Therefore the Goths and Romans assembled and considered what to do with the vanquished Attila. They determined to wear him out by a siege, because he had no supply of provisions and was hindered from approaching by a shower of arrows from the bowmen placed within the confines of the Roman camp. But it was said that the king remained supremely brave even in this extremity and had heaped up a funeral pyre of horse trappings, so that if the enemy should attack him, he was determined to cast himself into the flames, that none might have the joy of wounding him and that the lord of so many races might not fall into the hands of his foes.


    XLI (214) Now during these delays in the siege, the Visigoths sought their king and the king's sons their father, wondering at his absence when success had been attained. When, after a long search, they found him where the dead lay thickest, as happens with brave men, they honored him with songs and bore him away in the sight of the enemy. You might have seen bands of Goths shouting with dissonant cries and paying the honors of death while the battle still raged. Tears were shed, but such as they were accustomed to devote to brave men. It was death indeed, but the Huns are witness that it was a glorious one. It was a death whereby one might well suppose the pride of the enemy would be lowered, when they beheld the body of so great a king borne forth with fitting honors. (215) And so the Goths, still continuing the rites due to Theodorid, bore forth the royal majesty with sounding arms, and valiant Thorismud, as befitted a son, honored the glorious spirit of his dear father by following his remains.
    When this was done, Thorismud was eager to take vengeance for his father's death on the remaining Huns, being moved to this both by the pain of bereavement and the impulse of that valor for which he was noted. Yet he consulted with the Patrician Aėtius (for he was an older man and of more mature wisdom) with regard to what he ought to do next. (216) But Aėtius feared that if the Huns were totally destroyed by the Goths, the Roman Empire would be overwhelmed, and urgently advised him to return to his own dominions to take up the rule which his father had left. Otherwise his brothers might seize their father's possessions and obtain the power over the Visigoths. In this case Thorismud would have to fight fiercely and, what is worse, disastrously with his own countrymen. Thorismud accepted the advice without perceiving its double meaning, but followed it with an eye toward his own advantage. So he left the Huns and returned to Gaul. (217) Thus while human frailty rushes into suspicion, it often loses an opportunity of doing great things.
    In this most famous war of the bravest tribes, one hundred and sixty five thousand are said to have been slain on both sides, leaving out of account fifteen thousand of the Gepidae and Franks, who met each other the night before the general engagement and fell by wounds mutually received, the Franks fighting for the Romans and the Gepidae for the Huns.

    Jordanes, Getica, 191-217
    Attila Retreated, and Rome was safe again. But the next year, Attila invaded Italy, and Aetius was unable to stop him, and was forced to rely only upon Marcellinus and Marcian in the East to Harass Attila. Due to plague, lack of supplies, and constant harassment by Aetius, Attila agreed to pope Leo's terms and Retreated from Italy. The next year Attila died, and as Valentinian III saw no need for Aetius anymore, He assassinated the Empire's greatest hero on September 21, 454 AD. He couldn't have been more wrong.

    End of an Empire

    The Next year Valentinian III was killed, and the vandals found the treaty void, and Rome was sacked as Italy had no defenses after Marcellinus' break away in 454. Avitus was supported for empire by most of Aetius patrons, and the Visigoths also agreed to support Avitus. But Majoran and Ricimer, the latter of which who was disfavored by Aetius, took control and had Avitus killed. Ricimer was corrupt, constantly plotting against and killing emperors, leading to weaker and more incompetent ones. This led to the disaster of the 468 Vandal campaign, and it spelled doom for the Roman Empire. In 476 AD, the last roman Emperor of the West was Deposed. Marcellinus' Illyrian rump state under Julius Nepos soon followed in 480, and then the Domain of Soissons under Syagrius, son of Aegidius, another one of Aetius' patrons, in 486. Only Mauretania remained, which managed to hold out as the Romano-Mauri Kingdom until 533.

    Sources:
    Peter heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, a new History of Rome and the Barbarians
    Jordanes Getica
    Last edited by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius; July 23, 2010 at 07:33 AM.

  19. #39
    Flavius Nevitta's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    1,747

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    In 313, "legend" states that Constantine saw a burning cross in the sky with the words "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign thou shalt conquer) underneath, and he converted to Christianity. His reasoning for conversion is not the stuff of legend, but does have an explanation: It was a political move to gain support amongst the large percentage of Christians in the empire. Constantine defeated his rivals, particularly Maximus at Milvian Bridge in 313, and became emperor of the western empire.
    Sorry, i don't want to start a discussion here, as we had a countless number of them already, but this part is not true. 1st of all the Edict was proposed by Galerius not Constantine.

    2nd it doesn't make much sense considering that the percentage of Christians was NOT large but very small, especially among the army. So he had nothing to gain from it politically. It seems Constantine really was leaning towards Christianity even if it is doubtful he really understood it.
    RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

    MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS

    formerly known as L.C.Cinna

  20. #40

    Default Re: Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by Flavius Nevitta View Post
    Sorry, i don't want to start a discussion here, as we had a countless number of them already, but this part is not true. 1st of all the Edict was proposed by Galerius not Constantine.

    2nd it doesn't make much sense considering that the percentage of Christians was NOT large but very small, especially among the army. So he had nothing to gain from it politically. It seems Constantine really was leaning towards Christianity even if it is doubtful he really understood it.
    Thats true especially as he was emperor of the west (basically) at this time which had a very small percentage of christians.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •