Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: ES Article - Death of an Empire

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default ES Article - Death of an Empire

    Death of an Empire - By the Walrus

    With MTW2 coming out I decided an article detailing the fall of the Roman Western Empire would be appropriate. The fall of the Western Empire had many effects. Western Europe went into the period known as the “dark ages”. There were many reasons leading to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire. http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/...ire395west.jpg
    Map of western roman empire at 395

    Background

    The Roman Empire of the fourth century A.D. extended entirely around the Mediterranean Sea, including modern day Turkey, Israel, Egypt, and North Africa. Modern France (called Gaul) and modern day Spain and Portugal (called Iberia) were entirely Roman. Modern day England not Great Britain was Roman (Great Britain is considered England, Scotland, and Ireland. Scotland and Ireland were not held by the Romans). The northern borders were the Rhine and Danube Rivers. The lands north of these were occupied by variety of “barbarian” tribes of Scandinavian descent. The Romans called these people Germans. Rome engaged in skirmishes with these people many times. Strong emperors would occasionally conquered the territory across the rivers but then have weak emperors lose them. The bigger and more organized threat was the Persian Empire to the east. The Persian Empire occupied modern Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Rome was ruled by an Imperator(emperor). While this was good with good emperors it was horrible with weak emperors. The rules for succession weren’t clear which often led to civil wars. As time continued the bureaucracy in Rome was becoming more corrupt. The wealth gradually went into the hands of a few minority with a large population of slaves did most of the work. The borders themselves where a strain on Rome’s resources. Roman conquests had ceased in the second century A.D. bringing an end to plunder and slaves. Taxes increased and work production decreased. A plague may have killed twenty percent of the empire’s population in the third and fourth century further reducing trade and production.

    The Split
    http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320His...mpiresmall.JPG
    Map of Eastern and Roman empire

    In the late third century, the Roman Empire was split into eastern and western halve in an attempt to make controlling the empire easier rule and control. In 323 Constantine became emperor after a civil war and established his capital at Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople(modern day Instanbul) During the next century, the differences between the two halves increased. The western halve was predominantly Latin while the eastern halve was Greek(they claimed to be Roman). The eastern halve survived their western counterpart because they had more population, money, better emperors, and better navy and army. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...man_empire.jpg
    Map of eastern empire

    The Beginning of the End

    The traditional date for the collapse is September 4, 476 A.D. when Romulus Augustus, the emperor of the western empire was deposed. There are many theories and reasons for the decline. One is Christianity. You could argue that Christianity made the Romans pacifists making it harder to face Barbarians. You could say it was public health. At this time rich people had water coming through lead pipes. This caused lead poisoning. It also didn’t help that they had contact with people on the street leading to disease spreading. The decline of moral values was also a cause. Crime rate was high in bigger cities. Emperors like Nero and Caligula became famous for spending loads of money on lavish parties where the guests ate food until they became ill. Political corruption was also a problem. One of the problems was choosing an emperor. The Romans never made an effective system for choosing an heir. It was often open to debate from the senate, emperor, Praetorian Guard, and the army. It eventually went into the hands of the Praetorian Guard. They would sell the throne to the highest bidder. During the next 100 years, Rome had 37 different emperors-25 whom were removed by assassination in office. This gradually weakened the Empire. Another cause was unemployment. Rich people owned huge estates called Latifundias which were ran with slave labor. Small farmers couldn’t compete with this and had to sell their farms. They moved to the city where the Emperor fed them. With nothing to do, they caused trouble and contributed to crime. Inflation was a problem. With no land being conquered, no gold was coming in. Yet much gold was spent buying luxury items. This meant there was less gold to use in coins. As coins had less gold in them, merchants charged more to make up for it. Eventually, people bartered and where paid with clothes and food. Taxes started to be collected in fruits and vegetables. Military spending was also harsh. It took a lot of money for the empire was a constant strain. Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the empire. The empire had to recruit/hire from the poor and foreign country soldiers with led to a poor army and higher costs. They had to increase taxes which led to even higher inflation.

    The End of an empire, the start of darkness

    For years, the disciplined legions kept the Germans at bay. Then in the third century A.D. the Roman soldiers were pulled back from the Rhine-Danube frontier for a civil war. This left the border exposed and gradually the Germans took over Roman lands in Greece and Gaul. Then in 476, the Germanic chieftain Odacer or Odovacar overthrew the last of the Roman emperors. The western empire was now ruled by this Germanic Chieftain. Roads and bridges were left in disrepair and fields left untilled. Pirates and bandits made travel unsafe. Cities could not be maintained without goods from the farms. Trade and business disappeared, and with it, Rome in the west.
    Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
    - Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54

  2. #2

    Default Re: ES Article - Death of an Empire

    Very interesting writing. I read something similar here

  3. #3

    Default Re: ES Article - Death of an Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by SK_CROW
    Very interesting writing. I read something similar here
    Interesting read. I'm planning on adding battles that also led to the downfall of the empire.
    Whoever gives nothing, has nothing. The greatest misfortune is not to be unloved, but not to love.
    -Albert Camus

  4. #4

    Default Re: ES Article - Death of an Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by .Hister
    Strong emperors would occasionally conquered the territory across the rivers but then have weak emperors lose them.
    Augustus was a "weak emperor"?


    The eastern halve survived their western counterpart because they had more population, money, better emperors, and better navy and army.
    The East definitely had a larger population, much more money and resources, a larger tax base and, when it counted, some shrewd guys on the throne. But it did not have a "better navy and army". Its forces were equipped, trained and led in much the same way as those of the West. They were also roughly the same size as the forces of the West. Both the Western and Eastern Roman armies were highly effective fighting forces, it's just that the Empire of the Western forces crumbled and collapsed politically and economically around them. The Western Army defeated the invaders in virtually every encounter it had with them - the collapse of the West had little to do with the quality of its armies.

    One is Christianity. You could argue that Christianity made the Romans pacifists making it harder to face Barbarians.
    Except this argument fails the key test of any theory about the fall of the Empire - why did the West fall while the East survive? The East was every bit as Christian as the West, in fact more so, yet it didn't seem to have this "pacifism" problem.

    You could say it was public health. At this time rich people had water coming through lead pipes. This caused lead poisoning.
    And that theory fails the same test. The use of lead plumbing was as common in the Eastern Empire as it was in the West, so why did this lead poisoning affect the West and not the East?

    The idea that lead poisoning played any major role in the collapse of the Empire in the West is a myth. Lead piping was used, but wooden and terracotta pipes were just as common. And the build up of a calcite coating on the inside of lead pipes, caused by tiny fragments of limestone from the aqueducts, soon insulated the water in lead pipes from the effects of the lead. Archaeologists have found no evidence of abnormal lead in the bones of Romans, apart from ones who worked in lead mines or lived near lead smelting works.

    The decline of moral values was also a cause. Crime rate was high in bigger cities.
    Exactly how you measure "moral values" to determine if they have declined is hard to say. The period where you saw sexually depraved, murderous, insane and spectacularly immoral Emperors was when the Empire was at it's height. The guys ruling when it fell weren't saints, but they were like Amish farmers next to guys like Caligula.

    And this one also fails the East/West test - if "moral values" declined across the Empire, why did only the West fall?

    The empire had to recruit/hire from the poor and foreign country soldiers with led to a poor army and higher costs.
    The army increased massively in size between the late Second and early Fifth Century. It was by far the biggest expense the Imperial administration had to cover and placed a massive drain on the economy, especially the weaker economy of the Western Empire.

    Recruitment was a problem as the benefits of service declined and the rigors of duty increased, but there was no great change in either the classes etc the army recruited from (it had always recruited amongst the poor and foreigners) or in the quality of the troops recruited.

    For years, the disciplined legions kept the Germans at bay. Then in the third century A.D. the Roman soldiers were pulled back from the Rhine-Danube frontier for a civil war. This left the border exposed and gradually the Germans took over Roman lands in Greece and Gaul.
    That was over 150 years before the fall of the West. It's not like the Empire left the borders unguarded for 150 years. It was political turmoil, civil wars and a collapsing economy that stripped troops from some provinces (Britain) and key borders (especially the Rhine) at important points in the Fifth Century. The events of the Third Century had nothing to do with this.

    For two excellent, recent books on the fall of the Western Empire check out Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians and Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Both are by leading historians in the field, both were published just last year and represent the latest research and analysis and both are great reads.

  5. #5
    Ringeck's Avatar Lauded by his conquests
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: ES Article - Death of an Empire

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
    The idea that lead poisoning played any major role in the collapse of the Empire in the West is a myth. Lead piping was used, but wooden and terracotta pipes were just as common. And the build up of a calcite coating on the inside of lead pipes, caused by tiny fragments of limestone from the aqueducts, soon insulated the water in lead pipes from the effects of the lead. Archaeologists have found no evidence of abnormal lead in the bones of Romans, apart from ones who worked in lead mines or lived near lead smelting works.
    Yeps. And lead-lined piping was also common after the fall of the empire - in fact we have more surviving medieval lead-lined piping (and any other form of piping, for that matter) than roman lead-lined piping, and much more early modern lead-lined piping than the two combined! Also, even if the lead lining had not been calcified (which doesn't really require limestone, it just requires chalcy water, which is common all over continental Europe, and the reason aqueducts often were covered by thick slabs of smooth chalk-slate deposits used in later times for decoration) the lead amounts people would get by drinking water are relatively harmless. Unless you coat your cooking pot with lead, you're fairly safe. Still not recommended, but fairly safe.
    -Client of ThiudareiksGunthigg-

    tabacila speaks a sad truth:
    Well I guess fan boys aren't creatures meant to be fenced in. They roam free like the wild summer wind...

Posting Permissions

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