Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It was at this point, too large to control, so he really just leagalized it, not so much converted to it.

I'll edit that, thank you.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Well, I believe that Constantine's vision was true..
I mean, there is no other explanation for such a U-turn by a Roman Emperor..
Everyone hates the Christians and suddenly Constantine decides to make Christianity the principal religion of his Empire..
It doesn't mean that God spoke to him. I've seen crosses in my dreams too, it's not such a strange thing..

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

He did not make it the principal religion, he simply legalized it and let it take it's own course. The principal of everyone who believes in jesus would live happily in an afterlife was popular, and it quickly caught on. Also people didn't have to spend mony trying to get the favor of the gods anymore.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Well, I believe that Constantine's vision was true..
I mean, there is no other explanation for such a U-turn by a Roman Emperor..
Everyone hates the Christians and suddenly Constantine decides to make Christianity the principal religion of his Empire..
It doesn't mean that God spoke to him. I've seen crosses in my dreams too, it's not such a strange thing..

well u-turn...I mean his mother was christian and he seems to have had a preference towards more "monotheistic" cults like Sol before. He isn't quite clear in the period after 313 when his inscriptions speak of "the deity" a.s.o.

Seems a bit like he still had a typical Roman mindset, where gods are interchangeable. And he was a soldier, who grew up among soldiers...that is something we shouldn't forget. Roman soldiers were notoriously superstitious. If he thought a god had helped him, he was indepted to that god.

And Constantine did not make Christianity the principal religion of the empire. Galerius legalized it (why do people always ignore that?) and he supported it. That's about it.

Of course this had an effect, especially among courtiers, as many higher people converted to please the emperor (how deeply they were convinced of it is another question). His sons were active in making christianity stronger but still it needed the harsh Theodosian laws to force more people to convert.

[charles the hammer]

well u-turn...I mean his mother was christian and he seems to have had a preference towards more "monotheistic" cults like Sol before. He isn't quite clear in the period after 313 when his inscriptions speak of "the deity" a.s.o.

Seems a bit like he still had a typical Roman mindset, where gods are interchangeable. And he was a soldier, who grew up among soldiers...that is something we shouldn't forget. Roman soldiers were notoriously superstitious. If he thought a god had helped him, he was indepted to that god.

And Constantine did not make Christianity the principal religion of the empire. Galerius legalized it (why do people always ignore that?) and he supported it. That's about it.

Of course this had an effect, especially among courtiers, as many higher people converted to please the emperor (how deeply they were convinced of it is another question). His sons were active in making christianity stronger but still it needed the harsh Theodosian laws to force more people to convert.

Yep and those forced conversions and conversions of convienence had really negative effect on Christianity.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

And the second Ecumenical council of 381 to get rid of the Arians

[ray243]

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.

Although martial virtues did survive in other parts of the Roman Empire. Illyria and Gaul were quite well known for the martial virtues.

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).

I thought that all those engineers that help the Huns are doing so because they were captives in the first place?

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

Which simply leads me to ask another question, why wasn't the Romans able to find another figure that is capable enough to repel the enemy.

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.

But the Eastern Empire continued to suffer even greater defeat and losses during the 11th century for instance after Manzikert, where they were lost even more lands, and was still able to recover from it. The lost of Asia Minor is somewhat similar to Western Empire after the lost of Gaul. Hell if anything, the Western Empire should have a better chance of survival given that the richest terrorities of the Roman Empire are easy to defend from the barbarians.

Africa and Spain for instance are not areas that can be easily reached by barbarian invaders and Africa can certainly be protected if Spain and Italy is firmly in Roman hands.

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

Well, there are different recruiting pools available to the Romans for a pretty long time. The Empire simply shifted to another recruiting pool if the cultural and social habits of the Romans in Italy makes the Italians a poor recruit for the Roman Empire.

However, it seems that the Romans is still able to find recruits as long as they are able to support their own Roman army via the riches of Africa.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Noy necessarily, At the time of Adrianopolis each empire had a total field force troop count of 90000, and even after the loss of Africa Aetius was able to maintain a rather large Army... Somewhere around 50000 men. Ricimer dominated the politics, and wouldn't let them appoint a second flavius aetius.

[Caesar Germanico]

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.

stupid persian campaign? julian lost very few men and entire sassanaid armies were destroyed

[Caesar Germanico]

the persecutions of the pagans was a huge problem too

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

And Adrianople was an Eastern Empire army, The western Empire was still at full strength.

[charles the hammer]

stupid persian campaign? julian lost very few men and entire sassanaid armies were destroyed

What are you talking about? That campaign was a disaster that the army was nearly destroyed and julian died.

[Boyar Son]

Mainly because I thought you were trying to argue that the pulling back of troops is the cause of the barbarian invasion to begin. My view is that the civil wars were a symptom of the invasions, not the other way around.



Because the Romans has recovered from civil wars numerous times, and there is also the fact that Eastern Roman Empire continued to experience civil wars and yet still managed to survive for almost 1,000 years after the fall of the western Empire.




What short peace? I highly doubt that you can say that the reign of Diocletian and Constantine to be short.



I don't recall any incident where the Romans gave away their lands to the barbarians after a civil war.



And that never happened towards the end of the Republic? Non-Romans troops were used by the various generals in the civil wars.

Also, I don't recall the campaigns of Trajan happening as a result of defeating a rival ( Given that there wasn't a rival to begin with). Furthermore, what does that got to do with the fall of the Roman Empire?


Assuming that your theory is the right reason for why the Western Roman Empire fell, how are you going to explain how the Eastern Roman Empire managed to survive based on your theory?

Interesting counter-points Ray! I'm going to learn alot from this debate.

Rebuttal:

Mainly because I thought you were trying to argue that the pulling back of troops is the cause of the barbarian invasion to begin. My view is that the civil wars were a symptom of the invasions, not the other way around.

No, my view wasn't that, it was mainly me trying to say that the civil wars gave foreign enemies much easier access into the empire to raid and destroy. Shapur's victories instantly comes to my mind, his victories coming from a distracted and slightly vulnerable Roman empire defending against barbarian raids, struggling through murders (or killed in battle) of important leaders and officials which halted any progress until a new successor came and took his place.

Because the Romans has recovered from civil wars numerous times, and there is also the fact that Eastern Roman Empire continued to experience civil wars and yet still managed to survive for almost 1,000 years after the fall of the western Empire.

Yes they recovered, but how much? everytime they did the Romans lost a part of their own army, several important officials that led an area of an empire may have died siding with the losing pretend-emperor and his entire family executed! (which was usual) so there wouldn't be any reprisal.

What short peace? I highly doubt that you can say that the reign of Diocletian and Constantine to be short.



I don't recall any incident where the Romans gave away their lands to the barbarians after a civil war.

I doubt you can call that peace anything but peace under the reign of a strong emperor (from ataining the title until death). they lived until natural death (Diocletian and Constantine), but this was uncommon compared to the rest of the emperors lifetimes.

You're wrong? they gave it away, they gave it to foreign kings who attained the title from the emperor or state for service, it may still be part of the empire...until it secedes by another or the king ultimately makes it a part of his kingdom by conquest on another tribe settled within. such as zenobia after her husbands death, or the creation of the visigothic kingdom when goths were allowed to settle in Aquitania.

Honorius enlisted the help of foreign kings and tribes (trying to repel vandal invasion), the goths were rewarded with land somewhere in gallia aquitania.

Soo, point is moot? What I said to begin with wasn't wrong at all (civil wars being a major problem), unless all this is because you think that I think civil wars was the only problem?

Assuming that your theory is the right reason for why the Western Roman Empire fell, how are you going to explain how the Eastern Roman Empire managed to survive based on your theory?

if i had to give a half assed answer in 2 minutes becuase right now i'm about to go eat lunch, it is more roman pretenders in the west, and a much larger front for barbarians to invade, and the western roman empire was not bordered with fortresses like the eastern empire had against the sassanians.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Western Empire had fortresses all the way down the rhine and danube, it was the withdrawl of those troops in support of Constantine III that allowed the barbarians to cross the rhine in 406. And Flavius aetius kept the barbarians well under control. At any given time he had at least 10000 men to couter an incursion, all of which were well equipped and experienced. The visigoths usually sieged narbona and arelate with a force 3 or 4 times the size of the garrison. That's about 5000 vs a 1000 and Aetius would arrive with 1000 men and turn the entire situation inhis favor in the middle of a battle.

[ray243]

Interesting counter-points Ray! I'm going to learn alot from this debate.

Rebuttal:

No, my view wasn't that, it was mainly me trying to say that the civil wars gave foreign enemies much easier access into the empire to raid and destroy. Shapur's victories instantly comes to my mind, his victories coming from a distracted and slightly vulnerable Roman empire defending against barbarian raids, struggling through murders (or killed in battle) of important leaders and officials which halted any progress until a new successor came and took his place.

Got it.

Yes they recovered, but how much? everytime they did the Romans lost a part of their own army, several important officials that led an area of an empire may have died siding with the losing pretend-emperor and his entire family executed! (which was usual) so there wouldn't be any reprisal.

Depends. Some commanders were forgiven for siding with the enemy. Also, the Romans did manage to rebuild the Roman army despite losing troops in the civil wars. One only has to remember how the reign of Diocletian essentially expanded the size of the Roman army.

I doubt you can call that peace anything but peace under the reign of a strong emperor (from ataining the title until death). they lived until natural death (Diocletian and Constantine), but this was uncommon compared to the rest of the emperors lifetimes.

What about the reign of Valentian I? Theodosian I? Also, just because an Emperor died an unnatural death does not mean it is the end of a peaceful era. Julian died before his time, and yet the Roman Empire did not experience a massive civil war as a result of his death.

You're wrong? they gave it away, they gave it to foreign kings who attained the title from the emperor or state for service, it may still be part of the empire...until it secedes by another or the king ultimately makes it a part of his kingdom by conquest on another tribe settled within. such as zenobia after her husbands death, or the creation of the Visigoth kingdom when goths were allowed to settle in Aquitania.

Yes, I know that the Romans did gave lands to barbarians in return for proving troops to the Empire. What I am asking is whether there are any instances of the victor of the civil war rewarding the barbarian troops by giving them lands to settle.

Zenobia was a special case, as Gallienus wasn't rewarding a part of the Empire to her husband. It was due to Gallienus being tied up in the West and being unable to handle the war in the east as a result.

Neither is the creation of the visigoth kingdom a result of a winner of a civil war rewarding them with a place to settle.

Honorius enlisted the help of foreign kings and tribes (trying to repel vandal invasion), the goths were rewarded with land somewhere in gallia aquitania.

Which is why I ask for examples of civil war winners granting lands to barbarians for their support. Honorius did not reward them for helping him win a civil war, he was already an Roman Emperor before that.

Soo, point is moot? What I said to begin with wasn't wrong at all (civil wars being a major problem), unless all this is because you think that I think civil wars was the only problem?

No, I do not believe that the civil wars was the only problem. My view is that the civil wars is a symptom of the problems.

if i had to give a half assed answer in 2 minutes becuase right now i'm about to go eat lunch, it is more roman pretenders in the west, and a much larger front for barbarians to invade, and the western roman empire was not bordered with fortresses like the eastern empire had against the sassanians.

The problem is that whether those having a larger frontier alone is even a good enough supporting reason to explain the fall of the western Empire. It won't be that much of an issue if the Western frontier has more troops defending it than the number of troops defending the Eastern frontier.

Looking at the concentration of troops, any barbarian crossing the lower Daunbe would have to face 4 main field armies. There were the two Praesental army, the Thracian field army and the Illyricum field army that is able to respond to any barbarians that cross the lower Danube. Together with the Limitanei troops located at the border regions, the Romans has quite a lot of troops to ensure they don't lose control of Thrace and Constantinople to the barbarians.

If needed, the Romans could always move some more troops from the Oriental field army.

On the other hand, there is only the Gallic field army available to defend the Gallic provinces and there is no other field army that exist in the Western Empire. The number of troops available to the Comes Britanniae is rather small, and I highly doubt that the troops under the Comes Hispaniarum would be able to send enough troops in time to help the Gallic army.

Also, I find it unlikely that the Italian Praesental army would be deployed to Gaul, given that the Emperors would definitely want to keep an army near in in Italy to protect him and Italy from any potential usurpers and barbarians.

In the analysis of the Notitia Dignitatum done by AHM Jones on the size of the late Roman army( pg 679 - 686,LRE) , he has shown that the grand total of the Eastern Roman army is about 355,000 men, if we include the Scholae as well.

The western Roman Empire on the other hand, is a mere 252, 500 men after taking into account of the Western Scholae unit.

Which is interesting, because one would assume that the Western Roman army was bigger than the Eastern Roman army given that the WRE has a much larger frontier to defend.

This just shows that saying that the west having a larger frontier is not good enough of a reason for why the western Empire encountered more seriously difficulties in defending their borders. Having much lesser troops than the Eastern Empire, together with the location of the Emperors affecting the defence of the border regions is a much bigger reason as to why the Western Empire faced more military difficulties in holding their Empire together.

Hell, and it's not like the western army didn't do its job in defending the borders. According to Peter Heather ( pg 246 to 248, 2006) 47.5 percent of the Western field army was destroyed from time Honorius ascended to 420. With a much smaller army, and facing so much threats, one just have to wonder how did the Western Empire manage to last that long.

[diegis]

Although martial virtues did survive in other parts of the Roman Empire. Illyria and Gaul were quite well known for the martial virtues.




I thought that all those engineers that help the Huns are doing so because they were captives in the first place?



Which simply leads me to ask another question, why wasn't the Romans able to find another figure that is capable enough to repel the enemy.



But the Eastern Empire continued to suffer even greater defeat and losses during the 11th century for instance after Manzikert, where they were lost even more lands, and was still able to recover from it. The lost of Asia Minor is somewhat similar to Western Empire after the lost of Gaul. Hell if anything, the Western Empire should have a better chance of survival given that the richest terrorities of the Roman Empire are easy to defend from the barbarians.

Africa and Spain for instance are not areas that can be easily reached by barbarian invaders and Africa can certainly be protected if Spain and Italy is firmly in Roman hands.




Well, there are different recruiting pools available to the Romans for a pretty long time. The Empire simply shifted to another recruiting pool if the cultural and social habits of the Romans in Italy makes the Italians a poor recruit for the Roman Empire.

However, it seems that the Romans is still able to find recruits as long as they are able to support their own Roman army via the riches of Africa.

Well, i am not sure about what martial virtues of Ilirya and Galia you say, and in which period? For ex. in Notitia Dignitarum around half (or even more) of the troops of eastern roman army was rised from danubian provinces (Thracia and Dacia).
However, i talk about the "old school" roman army, very disciplined, excelent trained and equiped, who fight for Patria (and for SPQR and emperor etc) and with soldiers who realy feel like that, and who had a sense of pride and superiority of being romans.

The ones who helped Attila as engineers is possible to be captives, the ones who helped him from the inside to conquer a city surely wasnt.

And roman internal fights and endles plots and court conspiracies and battle for power among them make the western empire to not have many good generals.

About western vs eastern empire, well, clearly the eastern one was in a much better position, for trade, for economy, and even geographicaly. Africa and Spania even if theoreticaly was in a better position, was invaded more easily, and was much hard to be defended. It was far from western empire center, and its rather weak and increasingly smaller army wasnt able to re took them. It was Belisarius (from eastern empire) who partialy recover them but again romans wasnt able to keep them for too long.
As any other empire, romans falled from whitin, it was shreded by internal fights for power, endless corruption, bad beurecracy and fall of economy in large parts of it (especialy in west). Then changings who occured in society wasnt too helpful either (i mention tehm previously), and then a swarm of diferent enemies coming almost all in the same time give them the final blow, in fact shortening the agony of an already dying empire.

The east manage to survive for much longer period, but was just a shadow of the former glory, more a symbolic presence. The last real moments when romans regain their status was during Iustinian and his general Belisarius conquerings and battles. After that, it was more just a survivng matter

[ray243]

Well, i am not sure about what martial virtues of Ilirya and Galia you say, and in which period? For ex. in Notitia Dignitarum around half (or even more) of the troops of eastern roman army was rised from danubian provinces (Thracia and Dacia).
However, i talk about the "old school" roman army, very disciplined, excelent trained and equiped, who fight for Patria (and for SPQR and emperor etc) and with soldiers who realy feel like that, and who had a sense of pride and superiority of being romans.

The late Roman army was still a disciplined, well trained and equipped force. Just that the massive losses suffered by the western army as a result of wars make it hard for the Romans to maintain the standards by the fifth century. The late Roman army in the third and fourth century was still a very capable force that could rival the army of the principate.

The ones who helped Attila as engineers is possible to be captives, the ones who helped him from the inside to conquer a city surely wasnt.

Are you talking about Alaric or Attila?

And roman internal fights and endles plots and court conspiracies and battle for power among them make the western empire to not have many good generals.

Which is something that is still happening in the Eastern court at the time.

About western vs eastern empire, well, clearly the eastern one was in a much better position, for trade, for economy, and even geographicaly. Africa and Spania even if theoreticaly was in a better position, was invaded more easily, and was much hard to be defended. It was far from western empire center, and its rather weak and increasingly smaller army wasnt able to re took them.

Which is why I wondered if the Empire can hold on for a longer period of time if the Emperors after Theodosius were actively campaigning in Gaul and personally leading the Roman army. After all, having an active Roman Emperor actively campaigning in the trouble frontiers often did help in ensuring safety for the people living Gaul for instance, like what happened to Gaul under Julian.

It was Belisarius (from eastern empire) who partialy recover them but again romans wasnt able to keep them for too long.

Which isn't really surprising, considering the sheer number of potential threats the Romans faced in many of their old provinces.

As any other empire, romans falled from whitin, it was shreded by internal fights for power, endless corruption, bad beurecracy and fall of economy in large parts of it (especialy in west). Then changings who occured in society wasnt too helpful either (i mention tehm previously), and then a swarm of diferent enemies coming almost all in the same time give them the final blow, in fact shortening the agony of an already dying empire.

Many of the internal fights only resulted from Emperors that was not able to project their authority onto the Roman army and ensure that the army is loyal to the Emperor first and foremost. Also, things like corruption and beauracy wasn't a big issue if you consider that the same sort of problems has always existed throughout the existence of the Roman Empire, and continued to be a problem for the Eastern Empire.

The east manage to survive for much longer period, but was just a shadow of the former glory, more a symbolic presence. The last real moments when romans regain their status was during Iustinian and his general Belisarius conquerings and battles. After that, it was more just a survivng matter

But the fact that it survived after numerous disasters makes one wonder if the Western Empire can recover from all those disasters during the late 4th and the 5th century.

Emperors like Basil II did managed to reconquer many lost provinces lost in the Arab invasion, which meant the Eastern Roman Empire wasn't in a state of simply fighting for its survival.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The western Empire had plenty of quality generals - Aetius knew which ones were and weren't. thats why he Promoted his would-be replacements (Marcellinus and Aegidius, who knew what Ricimer was doing to the empire) and Demoted the Corrupt ones, Ricimer, to be Specific, he fired basically.
Also Illyria was a major Roman Recruiting center. Half of Aetius armies were probably Illyrian.

My belief is that the huns learned Roman siege tactics from Aetius and Theodoric. They primarily came to relieve sieges and occasionally to place one, like Litorius' failure at Tolosa. The troops would come back and tell attila about the siege and they'd take the plans for siege equipment with them. Why do you think attila didn't attack the east until After aetius was done with the huns?

The Western Roman Empire was able to Recover. Ricimer took over and Wasted the Armies away, destroying all that Aetius had rebuilt.

the western Roman army was also well trained and well equipped in the 5th century. Otherwise battles like Mons Colubrarius and Chalons would have been lost.

[Ludicus]

Are you seriously trying to say there was no Roman recovery?

No, read the whole post:

"Some of the "barrack" emperors were sucessful in temporarily 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"

I have yet to read any modern historians that specialise in the history of the Roman Empire that still supports this view

For instance, J. Lewis, in "Rome, the Autobiography", recently published (2010) page 123:

"…For in the 160´s, German tribes began to pour the Danubian frontier and even penetrate into Italy itself. The Emperor negated the incursions, partly through military means, partly by allowing some tribes to settle the empire. But as was obviously to all the barbarians would come again. The death of Marcus Aurelius was regarded as a national disaster…after Commodus’s assassination in AD 180 the empire was sold off at auction. The long and spectacular decline of Rome had begun".

According to Grant, in The Fall of the Roman Empire, the invasions from outside, and the weaknesses that arose within, finally reduced the Empire to total paralysis. Grant writes "the empire.. became subject to a sort of internal paralyses..in the end they felt that their goverment did nothing for them, and so they did nothing to help it"

Florus, c AD140:

From the time of Caesar Augustus down to our own age there has been a period of not much less than two hundred years, during which, owing to the inactivity of the emperors, the Roman people, as it were, grew old and lost its potency, save that under the rule of Trajan it again stirred its arms and, contrary to general expectation, again renewed its vigour with youth as it were restored.

After Hadrian and the Antonines, the slow decline, and finally, the progressive stupor, the internal paralysis (as Grant put it) and the coma. As Constantine Cafavy, a Greek poet, writes, in 1904:
Waiting for the Barbarians- the poem is about the last days of the Roman Empire

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
The barbarians are to arrive today.
Why such inaction in the Senate?
Why do the Senators sit and pass no laws?

Because the barbarians are to arrive today.
What laws can the Senators pass any more?
When the barbarians come they will make the laws...

[SigniferOne]

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.

1) because of paying off the barbarians.

2) none of the barbarians, unlike in the West, had a tremendous interest in settling in the Byzantine lands.

3) because of deus ex machina, which was greek fire. This enabled much inferior Byzantine armies, which didn't exemplify any civic virtue, to come out on top because of a technological advantage.

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

Of course it did. That's what the transition to the Empire was all about.