Causes for the collapse of the Roman Empire

[charles the hammer]

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.



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

I just have to say 3 could not be more wrong.

[Caesar Germanico]

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

what are you talking about?

julian fought 1 big battle in persia, ctesiphon (failed to win a decisive victory for the lack of siege equipment and flavius victor being wounded) and various small battles and sieges
he won all of them,with very few losses

julian was forced to retreat because the army was tired,the supply line was too distant and procopius did nt show up
but we never would know what would have happened if julian was still alive when procopius finally arrived, the roman army was tired and ill supplied but still could have won a decisive victory if shapur decided to figth in an open battle

it was indeed a bad campaing,for sure did nt influence the size of future armies (adrianople did)
the romans just lost a couple ofl provinces,few forts (very important ones but still the sassanid empire would go to the offensive only 150 years later)

[ray243]

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"

Care to cite examples?

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".

From what I can gather, j. Lewis isn't even specialising in Roman history, and it seems that his book is written for the general public rather than his peers. I'm talking about historians that actually specialise in the Roman history that still holds on to the view.

Mainly because it seems that such a view is no longer upheld by any member of the academia nowadays. Most books that was published by a University Press or some other Academic Publishers like Blackwell for instance always point out to us that.

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"

Err...didn't Michael Grant wrote a book called "The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire" as well? It would be hypocritical to write a book that is entitled the recovery of the Roman Empire if you are going to argue that there was no recovery.

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

In 410 AD, the Roman Empire was still alive and did last for almost another half a century.

1) because of paying off the barbarians.

Which makes one wonder why didn't the West pay off the barbarians...

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

Maybe it is because they find it harder to deeper into the territories of the Eastern Empire?

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.

You don't even know anything about Byzantine history do you? Name me one historians that actually manage to argue that Greek fire was the leading reason why the Eastern Empire did not fell.

Also, it is clear that you have no idea about the limited use of Greek Fire.

So stop pretending you are a real historian.

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

Stop acting like a five year old. The fact that the Roman government transformed into the Empire means that the Roman state survive. The Republic did not survive, but the Roman nation did survive as an Empire.

[charles the hammer]

what are you talking about?

julian fought 1 big battle in persia, ctesiphon (failed to win a decisive victory for the lack of siege equipment and flavius victor being wounded) and various small battles and sieges
he won all of them,with very few losses

julian was forced to retreat because the army was tired,the supply line was too distant and procopius did nt show up
but we never would know what would have happened if julian was still alive when procopius finally arrived, the roman army was tired and ill supplied but still could have won a decisive victory if shapur decided to figth in an open battle

it was indeed a bad campaing,for sure did nt influence the size of future armies (adrianople did)
the romans just lost a couple ofl provinces,few forts (very important ones but still the sassanid empire would go to the offensive only 150 years later)

All right I exagerated some but you did also not sassaind armies were destroyed very little damage was done to either but the campaign was a waste of manpower. (I do not know the exact amount lost) and a stupidly thought out campaign for no real reason.

[diegis]

You don't even know anything about Byzantine history do you? Name me one historians that actually manage to argue that Greek fire was the leading reason why the Eastern Empire did not fell.

Also, it is clear that you have no idea about the limited use of Greek Fire.

Well, i think the so called "greek fire" played a major role in battles against arabs. It wasnt said for nothing that was gived by an angel. Romans/byzantins used with great succes in naval battles to destroy the arab navy, which played a big role in succesfull defence of Constantinopol. If the city fall back then, i think eastern roman empire was almost sure doomed and disapering as state.

[charles the hammer]

Well, i think the so called "greek fire" played a major role in battles against arabs. It wasnt said for nothing that was gived by an angel. Romans/byzantins used with great succes in naval battles to destroy the arab navy, which played a big role in succesfull defence of Constantinopol. If the city fall back then, i think eastern roman empire was almost sure doomed and disapering as state.

I do not believe constantinople was sieged by the arabs. They never got to far in to anatolia. Still he said it helped the army which is untrue land use of greek fire was extremely weak near useless. Plus he ignores that the Romans of would reach several high points before they fell.

[diegis]

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.




Are you talking about Alaric or Attila?



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



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.



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




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.




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.

I agree that roman army from III and IV century was still able to do its job, i was refering more to V century in west, and increasingly more and more in east too, after that.

And i read somewhere that one of the cities in eastern roman empire, conquered by Attila was due to fact that he was helped from the inside. And ofcourse someone from the inside opened the gates of Rome for Alaric too.

I agree as well that probably in east was more capable emperors and generals (in west, after the death of Aetius, who was from eastern roman empire too and one of the best of both late roman empires, they didnt had other good one).

The western empire i dont think was capable to recover as the eastern one because had the same internal figths for power and court plots, a less capable economy, less capable emperors, smaller army and not as good as eastern one, and the same birocracy and corruption (if not bigger) but applied to a poorer peoples and land, and who wasnt as well drived by the same patriotism and pride as romans of Republic or ones of the (early and even middle) Empire

[charles the hammer]

I agree that roman army from III and IV century was still able to do its job, i was refering more to V century in west, and increasingly more and more in east too, after that.

And i read somewhere that one of the cities in eastern roman empire, conquered by Attila was due to fact that he was helped from the inside. And ofcourse someone from the inside opened the gates of Rome for Alaric too.

I agree as well that probably in east was more capable emperors and generals (in west, after the death of Aetius, who was from eastern roman empire too and one of the best of both late roman empires, they didnt had other good one).

The western empire i dont think was capable to recover as the eastern one because had the same internal figths for power and court plots, a less capable economy, less capable emperors, smaller army and not as good as eastern one, and the same birocracy and corruption (if not bigger) but applied to a poorer peoples and land, and who wasnt as well drived by the same patriotism and pride as romans of Republic or ones of the (early and even middle) Empire

I would like to clarify something. The Roman who surrendered rome had no choice. The city was sieged for a long time and there was no food, and no relief army was coming. It was either surrender or wait till everyone died.

[diegis]

I do not believe constantinople was sieged by the arabs. They never got to far in to anatolia. Still he said it helped the army which is untrue land use of greek fire was extremely weak near useless. Plus he ignores that the Romans of would reach several high points before they fell.

I was reffering to naval battles, when was used with great effect. Without their navy to resuply them or to enforce a blockade to Constantinopole (or even make a landing from them to invade the city), arabs wasnt able to made a succesful siege and to advance further or to inflict a crushing and definitive defeat to romans/byzantines.

[charles the hammer]

I was reffering to naval battles, when was used with great effect. Without their navy to resuply them or to enforce a blockade to Constantinopole (or even make a landing from them to invade the city), arabs wasnt able to made a succesful siege and to advance further or to inflict a crushing and definitive defeat to romans/byzantines.

I know but outside the sassies war of 602-628 I do not think it came into play until near the end when destruction was inevitable and they were only prolonging their destiny.

[ray243]

I was reffering to naval battles, when was used with great effect. Without their navy to resuply them or to enforce a blockade to Constantinopole (or even make a landing from them to invade the city), arabs wasnt able to made a succesful siege and to advance further or to inflict a crushing and definitive defeat to romans/byzantines.

Didn't Pryor & Jeffreys make a note on how it has a limited effect even in Naval warfare? And I am aware that there are more crucial reasons as to why the Arabs failed to take Constantinople.

Greek Fire alone would not have help the Byzatnine last for so long, just like why those wonder weapons invented by Nazi-Germany would not be able to swing the war into their favour.

[diegis]

Didn't Pryor & Jeffreys make a note on how it has a limited effect even in Naval warfare? And I am aware that there are more crucial reasons as to why the Arabs failed to take Constantinople.

Greek Fire alone would not have help the Byzatnine last for so long, just like why those wonder weapons invented by Nazi-Germany would not be able to swing the war into their favour.

I am sorry, i dont know what Pryor & Jeffreys said.
However, from what i read, the so called "greek fire" was the main reason of naval succes of roman/byzantine navy against arab navy. And without a navy to resuply them, to block the Constantinopole (and even make a landing there) arabs wasnt able either to make a succesful siege.

I know there was other reasons too for the failure of arabs, but the naval defeat play an important role. With its big and impenetrable (at that moment) walls and with a navy who dominate the seas and able to reinforce and resuply the defenders of the city, romans/byzantines was able to resist the siege

[hellheaven1987]

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.

Not true. In reality, ERE is far harder to defend than WRE. Unlike WRE, which could rely on Alp and Rhine as its natural defence, ERE had to guard a desert border with a highly organized Persia, which was far more challenging than disorganized Germanic tribes. Such challenge may able to balance by the wealth of ERE, but we also have to remember that Sassanid Persia also had large amount of wealth to do so.

[Barbarian Nobility]

A number of unfortunate decisions made in dealing with the 'Barbarians'. The Modus Operandi of large tribal confederations immigrating into Roman held territory, particularly Gaul and the sub-Danubian balkans was 'safe' land to settle their people pushed west-wards by the encroachment of the nomads. The Goth's specifically did not innitially want to raid the balkans; infact they offered to settle in Pannonia as vassals, with the Gothic king only wanting soveriengty over internal gothic issues such as the settling of law. The decision by the Romans to go to war instead would be most unfortuitous. It set the future pattern of Barbarian tribes routinely raiding the Empire in order to extract tribute, bleeding an elephant one small cup at a time if you will. Of coarse once all of the significant barbarian federations such as the Visigoths, Vandals, Franks, Chatti, Ostrogoths, Huns and Gepids quickly bled the Western Empire of its wealth. The loss of North Africa especially deprived the WRE of its grain supplies, and thus its major tradeable commodity.

Edit: Odoacer's Ostrogothic kingdom NEVER claimed independence as a state, but stewardship of Italy. All of the 'roman' institutions remained for some time.

[ray243]

I am sorry, i dont know what Pryor & Jeffreys said.
However, from what i read, the so called "greek fire" was the main reason of naval succes of roman/byzantine navy against arab navy. And without a navy to resuply them, to block the Constantinopole (and even make a landing there) arabs wasnt able either to make a succesful siege.

I know there was other reasons too for the failure of arabs, but the naval defeat play an important role. With its big and impenetrable (at that moment) walls and with a navy who dominate the seas and able to reinforce and resuply the defenders of the city, romans/byzantines was able to resist the siege

Although that does not explain how the Romans are able to reconquer parts of the lands lost. The reconquest under the Macedonian dynasty or the recovery of the Empire under the Komneos dynasty certainly did help to prolong the life of the Roman Empire.

SigOne citing greek fire as the main reason why the Byzantine Empire survived is a disingenuous. Mainly because there is no way to even prove that the Eastern Empire would have fell if they did not discover Greek Fire. Greek fire would not defend the Empire if there is no army available to make use of it.

Greek fire alone would certainly not prevent the fall of Constantinople when the Turks besieged the city.

Not true. In reality, ERE is far harder to defend than WRE. Unlike WRE, which could rely on Alp and Rhine as its natural defence, ERE had to guard a desert border with a highly organized Persia, which was far more challenging than disorganized Germanic tribes. Such challenge may able to balance by the wealth of ERE, but we also have to remember that Sassanid Persia also had large amount of wealth to do so.

Most of the desert border won't be a big problem considering the difficulties of supplying an army via those routes.

Are you really suggesting that the Persians made use of the Arabian peninsular to invade the Roman Empire? Most of the time, the invasion route available to the Persians is to invade via the Euphrates.

The western provinces of the Eastern Empire was much harder to defend, considering the sheer number of times the barbarians invaded the Roman Empire by crossing the Danube. Attila for one did invade the Eastern Empire via the Danube.

[diegis]

Although that does not explain how the Romans are able to reconquer parts of the lands lost. The reconquest under the Macedonian dynasty or the recovery of the Empire under the Komneos dynasty certainly did help to prolong the life of the Roman Empire.

SigOne citing greek fire as the main reason why the Byzantine Empire survived is a disingenuous. Mainly because there is no way to even prove that the Eastern Empire would have fell if they did not discover Greek Fire. Greek fire would not defend the Empire if there is no army available to make use of it.

Greek fire alone would certainly not prevent the fall of Constantinople when the Turks besieged the city.





Most of the desert border won't be a big problem considering the difficulties of supplying an army via those routes.

Are you really suggesting that the Persians made use of the Arabian peninsular to invade the Roman Empire? Most of the time, the invasion route available to the Persians is to invade via the Euphrates.

The western provinces of the Eastern Empire was much harder to defend, considering the sheer number of times the barbarians invaded the Roman Empire by crossing the Danube. Attila for one did invade the Eastern Empire via the Danube.

I recognize that my area of interests was more the ancient Rome and not as much the "medieval" period of so called Byzantium. However, i do think that naval victories over arabs, when "greek fire" played a major role, helped the romans to survive at that point.
Yes, because of economy the eastern romans managed to build new armies and weapons, and reverse sometimes the tide, but they wasnt anymore a dominant power like in ancient times.

As well during the siege of Constantinopole by ottomans, a new weapon was present, gunpowder and huge guns, who destroyied the big walls of the city. Arabs on the other hand was not able to do that (nor exist such weapons back then). So they tried by sea too, to enter or block the Constantinopole, but having their navy burned and sink, with less and less suplies, far from their lands, without reinforcemnts, with winter coming, they was forced to retreat.

[charles the hammer]

I recognize that my area of interests was more the ancient Rome and not as much the "medieval" period of so called Byzantium. However, i do think that naval victories over arabs, when "greek fire" played a major role, helped the romans to survive at that point.
Yes, because of economy the eastern romans managed to build new armies and weapons, and reverse sometimes the tide, but they wasnt anymore a dominant power like in ancient times.

As well during the siege of Constantinopole by ottomans, a new weapon was present, gunpowder and huge guns, who destroyied the big walls of the city. Arabs on the other hand was not able to do that (nor exist such weapons back then). So they tried by sea too, to enter or block the Constantinopole, but having their navy burned and sink, with less and less suplies, far from their lands, without reinforcemnts, with winter coming, they was forced to retreat.

That is untrue. Under the Macedonian line (epecially Basil II) and Alexios and his successors they were the dominate powers in the area. (well not at the beginning of Alexios reign but near the end.)

[hellheaven1987]

Most of the desert border won't be a big problem considering the difficulties of supplying an army via those routes.

Are you really suggesting that the Persians made use of the Arabian peninsular to invade the Roman Empire? Most of the time, the invasion route available to the Persians is to invade via the Euphrates.

The western provinces of the Eastern Empire was much harder to defend, considering the sheer number of times the barbarians invaded the Roman Empire by crossing the Danube. Attila for one did invade the Eastern Empire via the Danube.

It depends. The problem was (and good news for Roman) Persian generally prefered invasion instead raid, unlike Goths on Danube (and Germanic tribes on Rhine). It did ease the eastern front problem but still, Persian did make Roman pay very dearly each time.

[Xellos_Moon]

That is untrue. Under the Macedonian line (epecially Basil II) and Alexios and his successors they were the dominate powers in the area. (well not at the beginning of Alexios reign but near the end.)

Your right. Basil II and Alexius were excellent emperors. However before alexius' reign the empire had lost Anatolia which was the empire's primary source of food and man power. Without the backbone of Anatolian soldiers the imperial armies became a mercenary based army.

What Alexius did considering the fact that he didnt have a capable army to begin with was genius. Although he managed to steward the empire quite well, without Asia minor there could be no long term survival.

[charles the hammer]

Your right. Basil II and Alexius were excellent emperors. However before alexius' reign the empire had lost Anatolia which was the empire's primary source of food and man power. Without the backbone of Anatolian soldiers the imperial armies became a mercenary based army.

What Alexius did considering the fact that he didnt have a capable army to begin with was genius. Although he managed to steward the empire quite well, without Asia minor there could be no long term survival.

Yes but they recaptured anatolia and kept most of it for about 200 years.