How and why did the western Roman Empire fall????

[Constantius]

The battle of Strasbourg 357 12000 of the Emperor Julians Romans routed an army of 30000 Alamanni .Wthin 20 years the Goths arrive on the Danube asaking to be let in to the mighty Roman Empire ,the Romans broke with tradition and allowed them in unsubdued !!!2 years later the Emporer Valen lay dead along with 2 thirds of his army at Hadrianople .
Go forward a hundred years after the first Gothic refugees ( Tervingi and Greuthungi )crossed the Danube and the Emperor Romulus Augustulus is deposed by a barbarian warlord comanding the last "Roman" army in Italy .
How did these events happen ?? Lets hear your opinions on the fall of the Roman empire of the west !

[von Lüttwitz]

the western empire had not much of an income and not a good system like the east plus it was seen as a easy target for plunder from barbarians plus the government was corrupt

[julianus heraclius]

I think Peter Heather put a good case in that certain circumstances coupled with bad leadership created the conditions which ultimately led to the West's downfall. He actually argues that the West wasn't in that bad a shape in the late 4th Century.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

IMHO, I think it can be summed up like this (from least serious to most):

1-the migration of the outside tribes

2-lack of manpower

3-lack of money (especially after africa)

4-selfish military leaders quarreling over the powerful posts (e.g. Boniface and Aetius)

5-stupid/incompetent emprerors incabeable of holding all these forces in check, especially in the critical early years of the 5th century AD.

[M. Licinius Ibeii]

It's actually much more compolicated than this - hence the reason why academics still argue over it. For instance, Boak's arguments re. manpower were essentially discredited in the '80s and '90s, though certain aspects of his argument remain valid.

Heather's argument is a good one, and best reflects one current orthodoxy which I kind of subscribe to.

For me, the best way of looking at it is to view the Roman Empire as a chaotic system, in the Mandlebrot scientific sense. Everything is held in a delicate equilibrium which keeps working as long as nothing upsets it. Then, the system gets hit by a combination of barbarian migration and pandemic disease which upsets that balance, exacerbated by various emperors' (& Magistri Mulitum's) ham-fisted attempts to put it right. This creates a chaotic spiral, occassionally slowed by the likes of Diocletian or Theodosius, though even their efforts contribute to the long-term weakness of the Empire (Diocletian's Price Edict, for example, or the way he forces sons to follow the professions of their fathers).

I would also argue that there was no real difference in structure between the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire. Heather's argument here holds valid - the WRE was essentially in a similar condition as the ERE until the late C4th/early C5th. The one big advantage that the ERE has which the WRE does not is that it can shunt the more unruly barbarian migrations east (eg. Alaric). This keeps destabilising the West's equilibrium and contributing to its downward spiral.

However you look at it, you cannot get away from the influence of the barbarians. After all, the official 'fall' of the WRE is the deposition of Romulus Augustulus by Odovacer, and this simply personalises a trend that has been going on for centuries. But i'd be the last person to argue that the barbarians 'caused' the fall of the Empire.

Put simply: you can't put it simply.
M<

[M. Licinius Ibeii]

...And for some inexplicable reason, I just typed 'Theodosius' instead of 'Constantine' - I must have had the ERE in my head at the time - d'oh!

As you can see, I think the rot started in the C3rd, but that's hardly surprising when you consider my background.

M<

[Valentinian Victor]

This is a very complex question that has a multitude of complex answers!

Some may argue it was Constantius II who caused the decline. He punished the inhabitants of Gaul and Britain for their support of the usurper Magnentius by letting those provinces fall into decline. It was Julian who started the rebuilding of the Western Provinces, and Valentinian I completed the rebuilding.
I believe that the one thing we can point to as really starting the rot setting in was the Battle of Adrianopolis in 378AD. Although it was the Eastern army that was destroyed, along with the death of the Eastern Emperor Valens, it was the West that felt the repercussions.

The Goth's attempted to attack Constantinople but found its defences far too tough. They turned westwards where they found richer pickings. Theodosius recruited thousands of Goth's to assist him in his various wars, and it has been argued that because of this the Roman army began to become 'barbarianised'. I'm not entirely convinced of this as the Roman Army in the East anyway appears to have been just as strong as it was upto when Aetius took charge of the forces. But, it cannot be denied that the Romans became increasingly reliant on 'barbarian' recruits who may well have formed units that fought in their native styles. It's interesting to note that those Goth's who were with Alaric when he was a 'loyal' Roman officer quickly reverted to their native styles of warfare and dress once they left Roman service when Alaric became disenchanted.

One mystery that is never quite resolved is that the Western army did not suffer much damage as a result of Adrianopolis, perhaps just a few cavalry and auxilia units being lost, and was largely intact when Gratian turned back to Gaul after his uncle Valens was killed at Adrianopolis. Yet, just 32 years after Adrianopolis the Goth's sacked Rome, plus a number of other Western Empire towns and cities.

Of course the effects of not only the Goth's streaming over the borders, but successive waves of further Goth's, Gepids, Alan's, Huns, Vandals, Burgundians, Allemanni, Franks etc cannot but have put an enormous strain upon the already stretched Roman forces in the West. In the end nothing could stop these tribes settling where they chose to settle and the Western Empire all but ceased to exist.

[Companion Cavalry]

It was a combination of several factors, including state corruption, crippling infighting, civil wars, and unrest, gradual transformation of most Romans from pious fighting men to indulgent misers, the exhaustion of many major mines hampering the metallurgy, and over-dependence on foreign aid from potential enemies.

[-Traiano-]

One of the most important factors that caused west disaster has been the Adrianople's defeat, even if in the battle was eastern army to get most of huge casualties, that episode forced Rome to allow Goths "camping" on Roman imperial balcans provinces. After some years of military service and alliance with romans Alaric got angry for Honorius stupid policies (like killing Stilicho, Alaric's roman best friend) and sacked Italy and Rome, in the same time most of roman west army was blocked defending rhine limes, in those years which goths ran across the hearth of western empire sacking and killing the "great" emperor Honorius enjoyed the lucky life of Ravenna's imperial court, hidden behind epic walls...then after about ten years romans gave Aquitain to goths which formed the first barbaric reign inside the western empire frontiers...this meant less taxes paid to Rome, and then the end was no longer so far....

[legio_XX]

i realy dont think thats why aleric did what he did. the goths where already angry at the fact there men where the first line of attacks AE trying to thin the goth ranks . then he was passed up up for promotion as well as not being aloud to settle anywhere they where starving agian. i think that was how it was becuse the goth revoalted every time somthing went worng they ravaged greece i think tiwce.

[Constantius]

The key to answering this complex question is whats changed ? manpower has been mentioned ,the army always gets a mention ,but its essentially the same professional army its always had is it not ? The army has always used auxillaries or foederati .What about leadership around the time the goths cross the Danube we have in power ,to quote John Julius Norwich "Thus the empirehad three rulers to carry on the government a malformed , middle age sadist devoid of wisdom or judgement ,a delightful sixteen year old boy and a child barely out of its cradle on those three the empiredepended at one the most critical times in its history "

The western army before Hadrianople had gone on punitive raids against thevAlamanni and arrived late for the battle ,so remained intact .The following year it defeated a divided Gothic force in Pannonia and then a certain Theodosius was raised to the purple .But the blame for Hadrianople must lay with Valens and after that the armys air of superiority and invincibility had goneforever .
Enjoying reading everybodies views on this complicated question .It really does have many answer s doesn't it ?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

there is a good thead on this here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=256421 but the main problem was the deep set finacial problems that were around in the early 2nd century but crisis was avoided through the quality of the emporers at the time but in the 3rd century the finacial problems developed into a crisis which caused huge damage to trade networks and the general economy in the west from which it never recovered. The cause of the finacial problems were the fact that to pay their troops fast increasing wages they cut the valuable metals for coins with less valuable ones this caused massive currency devaluation and hyperinflation.

[littlejim13]

I personally think there were many reasons.

Poor leadership the main. With every Constantine there were 6 Honorious', with a Dicoleation came a Valentinian, or Caracalla. Imagine say the United states being lead by Jimmy Carters' , George Bushs' and Will Ferrell's' with an average ruling period of two years. Now imagine them being our leaders for nearly 300 yrs. Diposing of all there sucessfull subordanites (Stilicho? and Aeitius). Leadership was poor they didnt look to the future they just lived for there own pleasure.

[Julianus Flavius]

I think the church held too much power and was just another beuracratic organization stuffing up the empire. Also chirstianity degraded Roman virtues and martial pride, making the army weaker. Coupled with a changing world and a hundred other things, the world basicly conspired against the empire

[nopasties]

The Sassanids. Rome finally met it's match! The threat of the Sassanids were one of the reasons why the Empire split in two. No emperor could manage affairs of the state and war against the Sassanids. Constantine's move to Constantinople was a serious indication of where the interests of state lay. The east was subsidizing the west to a certain extent, there is evidence I've read that the West was relatively proseperous until the barbarian invasions. It's arguable that if the decentralized Parthian's had still existed then Rome would not have had to commit such a considerable amount of money, manpower and resources away from the Western frontier. There is also simple things like Germania incorporating the use of iron plows for agriculture. The lack of this simple technology in germania during the early empire created a subsistence life, culture and society that for Romans weren't even worth conquering. When Rome was still expansionist Germania was nothing more then a heavily forrested backwater with no significant settlements. By the 300's many areas of germania were using the iron plow which caused large populations and hence horde's that could not be managed by the limitanei. This is of course an incomplete arguement but I'm just contributing to the complexity of what caused Rome's fall

[Rogue]

I think the church held too much power and was just another beuracratic organization stuffing up the empire. Also chirstianity degraded Roman virtues and martial pride, making the army weaker. Coupled with a changing world and a hundred other things, the world basicly conspired against the empire

The much more heavily Christianized Eastern empire was able to field effective armies during this time period, and indeed was to last for nearly a thousand more years. Further, the Western armies generally performed competently - the "scourge of God", Atilla, was defeated at Chalons by the Western army and the mostly Arian Goths - it was more the fact that the West was much weaker economically and its armies were turned on itself in the later years with alarming frequency, as well as some terrible emperors such as Honorius.

[Ihatemonday]

Rome paid the price what she did when rising.They were an imperialist empire took many slaves and killed many people and never been so important in worlds scientific and philosophic history except spreading the greek mythology and philosophy.As much as greeks thought the romans fought.Thats why you can find a little philosophers and artists in roman era.

[Fritigern]

Agree with most of what has been said. The challenge is to separate what is true from what is important. Money problem in the West is true, but perhaps not critically important. Combined with your armed forces being made up almost entirely of (mostly Germanic) barbarians means that you are being defended by a bunch of people whose loyalty only lasts whilst the money is flowing. In the East the money flowed relatively unabatedy, in the West, being poorer this was more problematic. You can only drop a vase so many times before it breaks. Good leaders would have found ways to deal with it, but oh dear. It is fair to say that the barbarian invaders never intended to destroy the Roman empire, it just fell apart in the various power struggles.

[Terafis]

The fall of the Roman Empire comes down to basically one thing - birth rates

In a parallel to today's society we see a decline in birth rates as people become more educated and more well off. The strata of Roman Society which provided the backbone of roman armies throughout the history of the empire was the Roman middle class. Conversely we see a very high birth rate from barbarian factions both inside and outside roman borders.

This all equaled a much higher percentage of roman armies being made up from the barbarian races, and a lower percentage of that 'backbone', sons of the Roman middle classes. Not through a change in policy by the roman's in how they formed their armies, but simply through birth rate changes resulting in population proportion flux

A roman citizen travelling from say 50AD to 350-400AD would have been stunned to notice the proportion of non-roman people in the Empire, and in the Empire's army, compared to his own times

[tigger_t]

The much more heavily Christianized Eastern empire was able to field effective armies during this time period, and indeed was to last for nearly a thousand more years. Further, the Western armies generally performed competently - the "scourge of God", Atilla, was defeated at Chalons by the Western army and the mostly Arian Goths

that battle ended in a draw. attila went on burning rome lands the following year. pope leo in fact convinced attila or bribed him well after the battle chalons when rome was in trouble from the huns again. but i agree with the rest of your post. alot of people say that about the church in the west never understand why when you look at the more Christianized ERE