The Roman Empire: Victim to many things, even itself.

[Final Frontier]

The Aquila, one of the signa militaria. (A standard)

A question often pondered concerning the Roman Empire is what caused it to fall, and even more so, when and if it even fell, as it lives on through many cultural achievements over its glorious existence. Obviously, the process of deterioration took a long time; as the empire waxed and waned throughout its years, falling victim to either an internal or external threat, only to rise up against the odds and fight on to see another day, it slowly but surely began to lose the internal foundation that had kept it on its feet throughout the many centuries it lasted. But what exactly caused such a powerful and determined people to finally succumb to the changing world around them? Deadly plagues that wrecked throughout the populated (and even loosely populated) regions of the empire? Internal conflict that only tempted the outsiders, deemed “barbarians,” to come in and take something for themselves? Excessive payments by the emperors themselves to acquire material possessions found only in the corners of their world? No, a single problem can not be blamed for the fall of this civilization, but each problem must be stacked up to see how they, as a whole, achieved the ultimate demise of Roma.

The Problem of the Generals

I will use wikipedia’s picture to demonstrate the growth of the Empire from the Republic. The only thing I have against this picture is that it does not display specific regions nor show the decrease in size of the empire, but it works. To quote: “Red = 133 B.C.; Orange = 44 B.C.; Yellow = 14 A.D.; Green = 117 A.D.”

The picture above shows that the empire built itself from a strong line of generals, fierce and, sometimes, rash. One of the key thorns in the empire were its many of the generals, but mainly due to the competition between these men to gain a seat of power. (One, if I may point out, that would probably not have seen them for long before they themselves were executed in favor of yet another opponent) The fighting between men in the empire may have lasted throughout its existence, but there are some key points where the fighting had the simple citizens of the empire scared for their well-being. The first part to be mentioned is the civil war in the late republic between Caesar in Pompey, (49-44 B.C.) and then Octavian and Mark Antony. (44-31 B.C.) There were also minor contenders, but they were lesser compared to the strains between these individuals. These civil wars resulted ultimately in the creation of the Empire, though earlier Sulla had managed to become absolute dictator in 82 B.C.

The Roman Empire in 260 A.D.

Next up comes the crisis of the third century. It was a period that may have been the end for the Roman Empire because of the internal and external fighting that went on. If it wasn’t bad enough that emperors were guaranteed to have a lifespan of no more than 10 years, then the fact that the Germanic tribes and Sassanids took advantage of this was. No cities within range of the Black or Aegean Sea were safe from the Gothic raiders, who learned how to use boats to do quick strikes into Roman territory to steal whatever they could. In the near East the capture of Valerian only proved that the Empire was becoming helpless to defend its people, so one Odenathus took it to himself and his people, the Palmyrenes, took up the task of fighting back any invaders. Likewise, in the western region, the Gallic Empire sprung forth to do just the same thing, and it was lead by Postumus. (For more information about these two empires, please feel free to visit a thread in the museam that was written by me)

The successor to Valerian, Gallienus, was powerless to do anything about these two empires, and instead consolidated on defending what he had with new means of moving soldiers, such as the creation of an all-cavalry force meant to be a rapid response to threats. How did the Roman Empire manage to survive? The emperors after Gallienus, (Claudius II, Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus, Carus, Numerian, Carinus, Diocletian) made efforts to take back the lost regions and push out the invaders. They were successful, though they had lost the provinces of Dacia and Agri Decumates. (The latter would be between the area of the Rhine and Danube) If that wasn’t bad enough, the end of Diocletian’s reign saw yet another civil war, in which the victor was ultimately Constantine.

The Plague

Galen, a Greek physician who wrote about the Antonine Plague

Another major issue was the plague brought back by soldiers campaigning in the near east, during the reign of the two Antonines. It was called the Antonine Plague or Plague of Galen, and it may have resulted to five million deaths within the empire, which was no small thing. In the north, the Quadi and Marcomanni made pushes into the empire, causing war and destruction. Marcus’ death would lead into the reign of Commodus, and, ultimately, many civil wars. (For more on this particular plague, please feel free to visit the Wikipedia article on it)

There was another plague, the Plague of Cyprian, that occurred during the height of the thrid century crisis. The link provided above gives more details on that. The timing of this plague could have not been worse, and it provides further evidence of the misery that life was during the mid-third century. The fact that the Empire was able to live on after this just shows the sheer determination of those ruling. (And moreso, of those being ruled)

The Extravagant Spending

Maximus Decimus Meridius fights for his life.

Although there were many problems in the Empire, the problem of greed is the last to be addressed. There were emperors who valued the materials and animals from far off lands and would pay millions just to acquire them. Spices, arena animals, anything to appease either they or the plebian’s senses would be purchased. The movie Gladiator demonstrates the use of exotic animals, (tigers) though there were many more types of animals used.

----------

Like mentioned earlier, yes, there are many more causes for the ultimate downfall of the Roman Empire, but I cannot mention them all. (Unless I slowly incorporate the ideas into this post, something that would take too much time) Feel free to comment or even add more reasons for the destruction of Rome, for it adds to the purpose of this topic. I haven't done one of these in a long time, and I have even tried using some of the newer additions to the BBCode. (or however you'd accurately describe it )

Sources:

Wikipedia - Some pictures, backup
The Roman Empire From Severus to Constantine - Pat Southern
The Penguin Historical Atlas of Rome - Chris Scarre
The links for the pictures can be found by right clicking and choosing the 'Properties' option.

[PyrrhusIV]

That my friend, is worth much more rep I can dish out Absolutely dashing article

[Freddie]

You should add to that the collapse of the Roman economy, the hyper inflation of the 3rd centenary caused by gold coins having less and less gold in them thus making them worthless. The economy was also hampered by the fact that many Rich noble families had very low birth rates, which many arclogiocalists have blamed on the fact that lead had got into the water supply thought the Aqueducts, cups, pans, wine glasses were all lined lead which made people sterile.


I also think you being a bit hard on Gallienus. If it wasn't for him and the stability he brought in a time of turmoil the Empire would have never made it out of the third century. In fact it was under his reign that the Roman General Claudius inflicted a massive defeat on the Goths, funnily enough Claudius along with other 'trusted' aids stabbed Gallienus to death, but it was Gallienus polices and reforms that helped the Empire over come the problems it faced.


A good article though.

[hellheaven1987]

There are several reasons why Rome (especially West Rome Empire) fell...

1. The plague. The whole story was started around Second and Third Century, when the Legion invaded Persia brought back both glory and illness. The empire suffered plague several times, never seems cured from it.

2. The economy problem. The value of Rome coin had fell into nothing mainly because the emperor tried to create more coins. We all know that when there are too many coins the value of money dropped. The plague also brought some problem, as the decreasing of population caused less tax. The taxing system also had problem, but I don't really know it except I know several late Emperors tried really hard to solve this problem.

3. Barbarians. Another big problem for Rome. The barbarians I mean here are the Germanic tribes. The barbarians threat turned into the worse around Third Century, as many barbarians massively raiding into the heart of Empire. Things only turned better around the late Third Century.

4. Unstable of government. One feature of late Empire is many Emperors were rised up from generals and then murdered by their own men (both soldiers and generals). The unstable of government kept the emperors must focus on the loyalty of his own men, rather than other things.

5. Persians threat. Parthians was never a big threat of Rome, mainly because its political structure. However, things turned interesting once Sassanid came out. Sassanid Empire proved as a more serious threat compare with Parthians. Several Emperors were died or captured by Sassanid kings. However, it was not a big threat compare with Muslim later.

6. Civil War. Perhaps the biggest reason why Empire would fall. More people died in civil war than foreign invasion. Experince troops were died in civil war. Once a civil war started, troops would move away from frontier and allowed foreigners marched into Empire without oppose. The casualty in civil war also hard to replace. Hence Civil War is probably the biggest reason why Rome fell.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The economy was also hampered by the fact that many Rich noble families had very low birth rates, which many arclogiocalists have blamed on the fact that lead had got into the water supply thought the Aqueducts, cups, pans, wine glasses were all lined lead which made people sterile.

I don't know of any archaeologists or any historians who take this 'lead poisoning' idea seriously. The Romans used lead as a preservative and for cooking and eating utensils and dinner ware for centuries, so why would this suddenly become a problem in the Third-Fifth Centuries? Lead was used as extensively in the Eastern Empire as it was in the West, so why did the West collapse and the East continue for another 1000 years?

The amounts of lead used by the Romans probably did have some health affects (causing gout and aenemia in some people) but analysis of Roman skeletons from across the Empire over several centuries found that the idea they were absorbing so much lead that it would have caused chronic lead poisoning was a myth.

See "The Myth of Lead Poisoning Among the Romans: An Essay Review" (1984) by John Scarborough, Journal of the History of Medicine, 39, 469-475 and "Lead in Ancient Human Bones and Its Relevance to Historical Developments of Social Problems with Lead" (1987) by C. C. Patterson, H. Shirahata, and J. E. Ericson, Science of the Total Environment, 61, 167-200.

The fact that lead piping was used is often overstated as a cause of this (supposed) lead poisoning. Lead certainly was used for plumbing in some areas, but terracotta and wood were more common in others. And excavated Roman lead pipes show that they quickly built up a calcenous layer of limestone inside them (from limestone fragments carried in the water) which insultated the water from the lead of the pipes.

The main source of lead contamination in Romans actually came from wine, which was preserved using lead. But analysis of the quantities of wine drunk on average, the way it was diluted and the levels of lead contamination it would have caused also don't support the lead poisoning theory.

Which is why no historian or archaeologist takes it seriously. It's a neat sounding idea which simply isn't supported by the evidence.

Barbarians. Another big problem for Rome. The barbarians I mean here are the Germanic tribes. The barbarians threat turned into the worse around First Century, as many barbarians massively raiding into the heart of Empire. Things only turned better around the late First Century.

What barbarians were raiding 'into the heart of the Empire' in the First Century? And what has the First Century got to do with the fall of the Western Empire 400 years later?

[Final Frontier]

You should add to that the collapse of the Roman economy, the hyper inflation of the 3rd centenary caused by gold coins having less and less gold in them thus making them worthless. The economy was also hampered by the fact that many Rich noble families had very low birth rates, which many arclogiocalists have blamed on the fact that lead had got into the water supply thought the Aqueducts, cups, pans, wine glasses were all lined lead which made people sterile.

Ah, yes, the economy. That would be more important than the plagues and extravangances combined, but I did not add it because that would require much extensive research, of which I did not have at the time. Sure, I might have the knowledge in my head, but I like to have a good standing on things before I post them. I could add some information, plus your feedback, if you wanted.

I also think you being a bit hard on Gallienus. If it wasn't for him and the stability he brought in a time of turmoil the Empire would have never made it out of the third century. In fact it was under his reign that the Roman General Claudius inflicted a massive defeat on the Goths, funnily enough Claudius along with other 'trusted' aids stabbed Gallienus to death, but it was Gallienus polices and reforms that helped the Empire over come the problems it faced.

Is that the view I gave for him? I did not take the Gibbon view on him and refer to him as dirt, but I may have accidentally implied that. I appreciate the different changes he brought forth to help stabilize the empire.

As for the rest of the things, I have to go once again, but I'll add more when I get back.

[Kscott]

Several things to adress really.

This map is very misleading. The Visigoths and the Ostrogoths did not exist as this map shows. Gothic was really a diverse culture group and there were atleast 7 major groups. When two of them wanted to emigrate into the Eastern Empire one was refused(Names of the two groups escapes me now). The one allowed in the Empire eventually rebelled and the other group managed its way in. The merged under one leadership to form the very first gothic Supergroup. They would not become the Visigoths until they gained an additional 10,000 warriors or so leftover from Radasgius's(sp) failed Gothic invasion of Italy(yet another gothic group. The Ostrogoths did not form till much later. When Atilla died his many germanic dependents began warring for regional dominance. Eventually the Amal Led Goths would come out on top. When they moved into Thrace and joined with some goths previously settled there by the Romans the second Gothic Superpower was born, the Ostrogoths.

Now on Rome's actual fall. I can go on about this( As shown in my hugh chronicle that is far too long for people to dare to read.), but I will do this shorthand.

Rome was incredibly able at surviving, however one issue arose that it simply could not overcome, distance. Communication was far from modern and even a good emporer could only act as well as his information. Instead of all the important intrests groups being located in Rome growing population centers meant that the Empire had to accomadate to several different parties, all very seperated by distance. This issue is what caused the Third Century Crisis(along with Sassanid Persia). There were other issues, but if you look at the big picture they are either a direct side-effect of the large Empire or relatively minor. Dispite all this though Rome stood for a very long time Empire wise.

Rome and the Barbarians lived in a very intricate existance. Both were part of the same world and though there were strains it was a rather stable existance. Rome could thus be compared to a sheet of Ice. It had its weaknesses, but under its own weight it could not break. Then the Huns arrived and hammered the Germanic populations into Rome creating a wave of migrations on a massive scale. Rome had never seen anything like this and it would prove devastating. Not only did Rome have armed outsiders wagging war, but as a result it lost valuable profit veneus until it would virtually have nothing. So, where Rome was the ice the Huns must be considered the hammer, and the Germanic tribes are our anvail. The Hunnic hammer sent the Germanic anvail into the Roman Empire and it shattered. This analogy really demostrates why Rome well and I do think the Barbarian tribes thus played a much more signifigant role in the fall than commonly given credit.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

This map is very misleading. The Visigoths and the Ostrogoths did not exist as this map shows. Gothic was really a diverse culture group and there were atleast 7 major groups. When two of them wanted to emigrate into the Eastern Empire one was refused(Names of the two groups escapes me now).

They were the Tervingians and the Greuthungians. The former later went on to form the core of the Visigoths (with the addition of the remains of Radagaisus' army) and a large group of the latter entered the Empire after the break up of Attila's kingdom and became the core of the Ostrogoths.

So, where Rome was the ice the Huns must be considered the hammer, and the Germanic tribes are our anvail. The Hunnic hammer sent the Germanic anvail into the Roman Empire and it shattered. This analogy really demostrates why Rome well and I do think the Barbarian tribes thus played a much more signifigant role in the fall than commonly given credit.

Looks like someone's been reading Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire. A very good book.

[Final Frontier]

@Kscott: Excellent point, sorry for using that map. Well, it's good to have an expert on that particular subject, as I am less knowledged on that side. You also bring up two more excellent points, communication and the external pressure. As you explained above, the spacing between key regions of the empire would hamper reactions to any sudden invasions or revolts, which would always be a problem for the empire. I mentioned before that Gallienus attempted to create an entirely mobile force to face sudden incursions, but it would still not be enough. (Plus the fact that it worked only in the area around Milan, where they were stationed) As for the barbarians, yes, they played a key role in destroying the physical empire, but they preserved some of the intangible substances of the empire, such as religion. (Well, most of the invaders did) Overall, good job.

[Kscott]

[They were the Tervingians and the Greuthungians. The former later went on to form the core of the Visigoths (with the addition of the remains of Radagaisus' army) and a large group of the later entered the Empire after the break up of Attila's kingdom and became the core of the Ostrogoths.

Yep those are the two, but what do you mean by the bold part? The Amal family which was not related to the Visigoths were the core of the Ostrogoths..

Looks like someone's been reading Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire. A very good book.

yep, if you got other good sources on Rome's fall please contact me

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

"[They were the Tervingians and the Greuthungians. The former later went on to form the core of the Visigoths (with the addition of the remains of Radagaisus' army) and a large group of the later entered the Empire after the break up of Attila's kingdom and became the core of the Ostrogoths."

Yep those are the two, but what do you mean by the bold part? The Amal family which was not related to the Visigoths were the core of the Ostrogoths..

The bit that reads 'a large group of the later' should actually read 'a large group of the latter' (ie the Greuthungians). I hope that makes things clearer. I'll edit the original post.

yep, if you got other good sources on Rome's fall please contact me

Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization came out at about the same time as Heather's book last year and makes many of the same arguments. Both of them are good counters to the post-WWII trend towards downplaying the whole idea of a 'fall' and preferring to see it as a slow and fairly gentle and peaceful 'transformation'. Ward-Perkins is savagely amusing in his critique of this and demonstrates pretty clearly that it was a full-scale collapse and that it was far from peaceful.

[Kscott]

The bit that reads 'a large group of the later' should actually read 'a large group of the latter' (ie the Greuthungians). I hope that makes things clearer. I'll edit the original post.

Makes sense now.

Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization came out at about the same time as Heather's book last year and makes many of the same arguments. Both of them are good counters to the post-WWII trend towards downplaying the whole idea of a 'fall' and preferring to see it as a slow and fairly gentle and peaceful 'transformation'. Ward-Perkins is savagely amusing in his critique of this and demonstrates pretty clearly that it was a full-scale collapse and that it was far from peaceful.

I'll give it a look when I finish Tamerlane: Sword of Islam. Thanks mate

[hellheaven1987]

What barbarians were raiding 'into the heart of the Empire' in the First Century? And what has the First Century got to do with the fall of the Western Empire 400 years later?

Sorry guys! I make a mistake as I thought 200s is First Century... I don't know know the word "century" before my Secondary, as in my country we use other type of calculation... I have corrected all of them ready... Really sorry about that...

[Ringeck]

Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization came out at about the same time as Heather's book last year and makes many of the same arguments. Both of them are good counters to the post-WWII trend towards downplaying the whole idea of a 'fall' and preferring to see it as a slow and fairly gentle and peaceful 'transformation'. Ward-Perkins is savagely amusing in his critique of this and demonstrates pretty clearly that it was a full-scale collapse and that it was far from peaceful.

While I liked Perkins' book (although he is perhaps a bit too enthusiastically using archaeological finds as empirical evidence directly - a bad idea) I can't help wonder where this "gentle and peaceful transformation" actually came from, and wonder a bit if he isn't using strawmen as punching bags. I've seen studies on the microlevel that describe this sort of process - typically in rural regions untouched or not too affected by war, and I've seen studies that talk about the invaders' takeover of roman administration, but, at least inside the academia up here, the idea that these microstudies are generally applicable has never been given much credit - or even study.

[Spiff]

Definitely Musaeum material