# If No Barbarian Invasions, Could The Roman Empire Lasted Another 2000 Years? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952 "2011-02-20T00:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/41 "2011-02-21T21:38:36Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > A few possibilities: > -Emperor Marcus Aurelius is not succeedeed by his dipshit son, Commodous In particular, Marcus Aurelius followed the example of the previous 4 emperors, and adopted a worthy successor prior to his death, instead of choosing his son for no discernible reason other than familial ties. How would Rome have fared with a long-term tradition of emperors choosing effective successors? There’s a reason the “5 Good Emperors” were called that- they were adotped by their predecessors due to potential, not due to heredity. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/42 "2011-02-22T13:53:43Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > You have a cite for that? I don’t believe I have seen that claim before. What little information I have on her makes no such reference. His wife’s cousin was a Christian. With whom he had been on good terms with evidently. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/43 "2011-02-22T14:28:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That is, admittedly, an argument against it. Christianity did produce some changes immediately, such as abolition of infanticide and gladiator combat. I’ve heard it suggested that the chief difference between the western and eastern halves of Europe was in the balance of power between religious and secular authority. In the west, monarchs and the Church heirarchy achieved rough parity, so neither had the ability to take over and squeeze the life out of political and economic activity. In the east, the emperor still ruled and the bishops never had enough power to compete. Hence, despite some early achievements, the history of Byzantium is a mainly a history of decline. The gladitorial games did not end “immediately.” [Wikipedia suggests](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Decline) that economic factors also counted–along with Christian disapproval. Infanticide’s end came more quickly–but, again, it was not immediate. Many advocates of “Western Civilization” somehow find the long survival of Byzantium to be offensive. And one of the foulest blows against that ancient city was done in the name of Western Christendom, during the[Fourth Crusade:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade#Sack_of_Constantinople) > [@](#): > > The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. For thoughts on the end of the Western Empire, I need to locate my copy of R A Lafferty’s [Fall of Rome](http://theevitable.blogspot.com/2009/01/ra-laffertys-fall-of-rome.html). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/44 "2011-02-22T15:12:39Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > You have a cite for that? I don’t believe I have seen that claim before. What little information I have on her makes no such reference. [Here ya go.](http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1031/1031_01.asp) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/45 "2011-02-22T19:12:44Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > Similarly, Robert Silverberg has his Roma Eterna short-story collection. No real Jewish presence in Palestine, so no rise of Christianity, and Islam is stopped by a Roman official meeting Mohammed, realizing the threat that his ideas pose, and killing him. That scenario assumes that Christianity is what weakened the Western Empire to the point the barbarians could conquer it. Do historians agree? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/46 "2011-02-22T19:50:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That scenario assumes that Christianity is what weakened the Western Empire to the point the barbarians could conquer it. Do historians agree? No. But the up unto fairly recently historians were, of course, christians themselves. It’s therefore not surprising that there would be no emphasis on how Theodosius the Great spent his time praying in church for devine intervention. The army was kept inside their barracks in Ravenna while the Goths destroyed italy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/47 "2011-02-22T20:08:37Z")
Most military histories I’ve read (and to be honest, seen on the Discovery Channel) ascribe the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire to the period when they started using more and more barbarian troops in the army instead of Roman troops. My personal opinion is that the lack of limits on the excesses of emperors had a lot to do with it. No checks and balances, so a lot of really fucking stupid decisions got made, and could not be unmade. Plus there’s the whole “low hanging fruit” thing: if you look at the map of the fullest extent of Rome’s empire, it’s impressive that there are significant geographical barriers and/or not a hell of a lot in the way of slaves/riches to obtain in places like Scotland, northern Germany, the Sahara, etc. The only place that might have been a good conquest was India … and Alexander had certainly demonstrated that India was conquerable. No idea why the Roman’s didnt take India, other than projecting significant force over that distance might have been difficult … except, Alexander sure managed it. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/48 "2011-02-23T13:46:54Z")
I’m one of those who believe that Romes reliance on slaves resulted in a lack of interest in scientific progress and led to stagnation economically. But the main reason IMO for Romes fall is that because it was civilised only a certain proportion of the population were warriors, and these were trained in adulthood rather then from birth. In the barbarian peoples who overran the empire, all males were trained from birth to be fighters with the side jobs of herdsman etc. They didn’t have the comforts of civilised life but could field proportionately huge numbers of soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/49 "2011-02-23T14:24:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The only place that might have been a good conquest was India … and Alexander had certainly demonstrated that India was conquerable. No idea why the Roman’s didnt take India, other than projecting significant force over that distance might have been difficult … except, Alexander sure managed it. Alexander managed to defeat Persia _and_ pacify Persia, something the Romans never managed to do and infact from circa 250 A.D they were on the defensive. Not possible to conquer India when you are trying to hold the Euphrates. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/50 "2011-02-23T16:04:10Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Alexander managed to defeat Persia _and_ pacify Persia, something the Romans never managed to do and infact from circa 250 A.D they were on the defensive. Not possible to conquer India when you are trying to hold the Euphrates. Mmmm true, but of course Alexander never went seriously West. Different zones. I suppose that s the point here, but worth noting. > [@Lust4Life](#): > > I’m one of those who believe that Romes reliance on slaves resulted in a lack of interest in scientific progress and led to stagnation economically. > > But the main reason IMO for Romes fall is that because it was civilised only a certain proportion of the population were warriors, and these were trained in adulthood rather then from birth. > > In the barbarian peoples who overran the empire, all males were trained from birth to be fighters with the side jobs of herdsman etc. > > They didn’t have the comforts of civilised life but could field proportionately huge numbers of soldiers. Huh, what makes you advance the idea the tribes ‘"trained’" - this is pure anachronistic bollocks. The only thing one could advance re barbarian tribes is, being subject to constant inter tribal warfare, there was more individual skills. That was meaningless so long as Rome was able to financially support highly professional legions. Proportion of the population was warriors is bollocks, rahter it is the ongoing financial costs of defending the frontier and the loss of initiative when expansion stopped. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/51 "2011-02-23T16:46:38Z")
> [@bump](#): > > In particular, Marcus Aurelius followed the example of the previous 4 emperors, and adopted a worthy successor prior to his death, instead of choosing his son for no discernible reason other than familial ties. > > How would Rome have fared with a long-term tradition of emperors choosing effective successors? There’s a reason the “5 Good Emperors” were called that- they were adotped by their predecessors due to potential, not due to heredity. Most of the Emperors rose to power not by heredity but though designation, adoption, acclamation by the troops controlled, declaration of the senate or even the straight application of cash to deserving causes. Had there been a clear-cut hereditary succession whatever faults the Emperor might have would be more than compensated by the absence of rivalry for the throne by anyone feeling entitled and ensuing civil conflict. If there was one thing Romans enjoyed more than killing non-Romans, it was killing fellow Romans. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/52 "2011-02-23T19:15:28Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Right, although I wish someone who knew about the climate issue could pipe up. [Did Climate Change Kill the Roman Empire?](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=6428550) (2008) [Climate Changes Linked to Fall of Roman Empire](http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-ancient-rome-110113.html) (2011) ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/53 "2011-02-23T19:48:54Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > -Rome seems to have been a technologically stagnant culture-science was not valued > [@Gagundathar](#): > > Since the Romans weren’t really big of technological advances I don’t understand what would cause anyone to think this. Rome originated all sort of technical expedients and adopted even more. Keystone arches, aqueducts, the “crow” boarding tool they used to defeat the Carthaginian navies, roadbuilding, and a constant adjustment of military equipment – if you look at Roman armies over the centuries, the armor and weapons change, and the proportions of cavalry to infantry are frequently experimented with. Comparing them to the (later) flowering of science under early Islam, they don’t look so impressive, but you’re comparing them to a unique situation – the flowering of science under early Islam was the exception, not typical for civilizations. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/54 "2011-02-23T19:54:23Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > the tribes ‘"trained’" - this is pure anachronistic bollocks. The only thing one could advance re barbarian tribes is, being subject to constant inter tribal warfare, there was more individual skills. > > That was meaningless so long as Rome was able to financially support highly professional legions. Proportion of the population was warriors is bollocks, rahter it is the ongoing financial costs of defending the frontier and the loss of initiative when expansion stopped. This is incorrect, IMHO. In most Indo-European cultures the aristocracy certainly were ‘military’ in nature. Having weapons of the highest level available. Usually they would form the cavalry. Then there was the warrior elite forming the personal retinues of aristocratic leaders. These could be considered professionals. And they trained, besides sitting at the table of their lord and drinking his mead/beer/wine. Medieval knights were not much more than a slightly evolved form of this. The warrior elite come from the warrior class or caste, usually landholding families. They would and could take up arms as they also trained. The elite retinues were just the best from the stock. Lastly the farm workers could also be equipped by their landlord, as simple spearmen. Then, of course, you have the steppe barbarians who most certainly trained from very young in horse riding and use of the bow. No, the barbarians did not _drill_, as in performing complex manoeuvres as one , large body, although several germanic tribes could use the shieldwall and simple wedge formations. But weapons skill and endurance training was performed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/55 "2011-02-23T20:00:12Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Many advocates of “Western Civilization” somehow find the long survival of Byzantium to be offensive. The eastern half of the Empire was always where the real action was, and the western half was always a backwater. The Romans themselves were “barbarian invaders”. They started out on the fringes of civilization – the Greek-Egyptian-Persian world of the eastern Med. Through superior arms the barbarous Romans conquered the older and richer nations of the east, allowing the city of Rome itself to grow fat and wealthy off the spoils. But the western empire never developed the concentrated power of the east. There were no cities in Spain, Gaul or Britain comparable to Alexandria or Antioch. Even after several hundred years of Roman rule, the western provinces were little more than a collection of isolated tribes and villages. That’s why eventually the capital was shifted east to Constantinople. With the official recognition of where the real center of power was in the empire, the over-inflated balloon of the West quickly popped. There wasn’t enough local wealth or manpower to sustain the borders. And even when the East tried to reclaim the West, they never could make enough money off the reconquered territories to sustain the push. The idea that the Roman Empire “fell” to barbarians in the 5th century is a conceit formulated by Western European historians to pump up the importance of their minor corner of the Empire. In reality the Roman Empire died through a gradual process of decay, culminating in the sack of Constantinople in 1453, almost a thousand years after the so-called “fall”. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/56 "2011-02-23T20:29:04Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > This is incorrect, IMHO. Really, you more or less reject exactly what I was responding to - warrior elite =/= entire male population. That > [@](#): > > Having weapons of the highest level available. Usually they would form the cavalry. That strikes me as anachronistic and Romans are I-E as well… as is I think most of the following as over-generous. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952/57 "2011-02-23T20:46:02Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Really, you more or less reject exactly what I was responding to - warrior elite =/= entire male population. What I said was that it was not just the warrior elite. I was the aristocracy + the warrior elite + the warrior class (which is basically all freemen) + (if need be) also the servants. > [@](#): > > That strikes me as anachronistic and Romans are I-E as well… as is I think most of the following as over-generous. Bit of a confusing sentence. What do you consider to be anachronistic? Yes, the Romans were I-E as well, which you still see reflected in early Roman history, although Rome was, by then already getting urbanised. You still had a warrior aristocracy the _equites_, which would translate as horsemen/the cavalry. The heavy infantry was supplied by property holding citizens, iow freemen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-no-barbarian-invasions-could-the-roman-empire-lasted-another-2000-years/571952.md?page=2)