Please explain the Fall of the Roman Empire

After playing Age of Empire/The Rise of Rome for a while I started thinking about the Fall of the Roman Empire and I realized that I don’t much about (this particular) history.

I searched here and on the net. There is a six volumn book about the subject that everybody seems to love but I don’t want to read a six volumn history but I also don’t want to get my history from the movies either.

So could someone explain (in slightly simple terms) why Rome fell.

I imagin there were several causes all working together so if you want to break it up in to say economic, political, miltary, social, ecological(?) reasons that would be cool as well.

Web links to this sort of information are also welcome
Thank you in advance for fighting my ignorance.

I’m sure the experts will be around shortly. In the meantime, you can read this:

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/faq.html#romefall

The Roman Empire fell because those guys who went on the Fourth Crusade couldn’t pay their fares to Venice.

Why? Because a bunch of barbarians invaded and the Romans (in the West) couldn’t deal with it. You could go and read up on all sorts of theories about lead-poisoning, loss-of-ethics, the ‘renting-of-barbarian-armies’ etc. etc. Almost all of these theories are MAJORLY flawed. Mostly they fail to explain why ‘the West fell’ but ‘the East didn’t’.

Think of it this way (in the West): your army moves REALLY slowly, the border is in excess of a thousand miles long and there are THOUSANDS of mean barbarians invading into all over and no one really there to defend.
(in the East): you are protected by deserts to the East, Mountains to the North, rocky coasts + water to the West and NOTHING to the South (the Barbarians are coming from the North). You have many times the population in a much smaller area. It’s a wonder the Roman empire didn’t move to Byzantia (Constantinople) before Constantine.

-j.

Zebra: The answer to your question is WAY too detailed to answer in a forum such as this. In fact the answer would quite likely lend itself to a Great Debate :wink: .

In brief it was a complex mix of geography, inertia, internal corruption, civil strife and succession struggles, a flawed system of centralized, near-absolutist rule undermined by a long series of weak and ineffectual leaders, the slow decay of the Roman military system ( which ties in with changing economic and political factors and is a complex question in of itself ), and the increased movement of semi-nomadic peoples on its borders ( another long one ).

But IMO, at least, it wasn’t inevitable. Basically the West went into free-fall after 395 and terminated in 476, but complete collapse may have been avoidable with a lot of luck ( the right people taking charge at the right time, fewer internal squabbles, etc. ). As thechao pointed out, the East Roman Empire never did go under ( though much of the Balkans were lost and only intermittently regained ). A lot of that was geography, again as thechao mentioned. But part of it was due to some solid leadership and some internal reform. It wasn’t until the East Roman/Byzantine state ( they pretty much separate with the death of the Emperor Maurice in 602 ) went through as series of devastating wars and internal upheaval ( religious controversy, coup, rebellion, overthrow, invasion by the Persians, counter-invasion of Persia, etc ) mostly following Maurice’s overthrow, that they became weakened enough that the Arabs crushed much of the remaining Roman state in the 7th century. As it was Byzantium recovered and remained a major power ( and the most advanced Christian state ) until Manzikert in 1071. Even then it went through a series of partial recoveries until terminated by the Ottomans in the 1400’s. A pretty good run, all in all.

  • Tamerlane

Dubya :smiley:

It’s obvious that the primary force behind Rome’s demise was that it was prophesied in the Bible and God made it happen.

[sub]d&r[/sub]

What Tamurlane said. Ok, we’ve got an empire…it’s big…stretches from Britain to Africa, from Spain to Syria and Arabia. On the borders of the Empire, the imperial hand sits lightly…most of the power is held by large landowners, with the only imperial presence a tax collector and an Imperial garrison. This is especially true in the north-west…the empire has mainly focused on exploiting the rich lands around the Mediteranean. Most of those who sit on the imperial throne aren’t qualified to rule. An emperor takes the throne with the help of the military and pretorian guard, and then in a year, or a few years, he himself is overthrown by the same military and same pretorian guard. Meanwhile, the east is resentful of the west…the richest towns of the empire lie in the east…Byzantium, the gateway to the Black Sea, Alexandria, guardian of the Nile, Antioch, Tarsus, Ephesus…the eastern cities have come to resent the west, their riches syphoned off to fight the civil wars of the west…to pay for plot and counterplot…and to pay for mercenaries. Oh, the mercenaries! The Roman soldier is no longer Roman. How can a general recruit men for his armies from Roman citizens when too many of them work on the lands of the large landlords…how can he trust that their loyalty to Rome is greater than their loyalty to their masters? Barbarian mercenaries are hired, because they have no political ties, but mercenaries cost money. Facing the risk of revolt from the East, the Emperor agrees to split the empire up into two administrative districts, with the western capital in Rome and the eastern one in Constantanople, which Byzantium has been renamed. This helps to pacify the east, but it deprives the west of revenue. Meanwhile, on the steppes of what will become Russia, the tribes are stirring. Poor rains have caused some to abandon their ancestoral grazing lands, moving west, where they run into other tribes who are themselves displaced. This domino effect continues, until tribes spill into the Empire itself, sometimes warlike, sometimes peaceful, but always hungry, always envious of the wealth of the empire, and always aware of their children, who cry out with hunger. Sometimes they raid, and sometimes they become mercenaries themselves, but either way, they strain the empire’s capacities. Complicating things further is the question of religion. The empire has become Christian, but what kind of Christianity will it be? Dissent thrives, as people come up with new conceptions of G-d and the role of the church, and the Empire declares them heretics. The empire is about to break, and finally, over a period of time, it does, as soldiers are withdrawn either to fight the barbarians or support some would-be emperor, and more and more barbarians pour into the empire, striking the unstable, defenseless western empire. Seeing this, the east withdraws further into itself and waits…it has neither the desire, nor the resources to help. It will survive for a thousand years more, but finally fall to its own barbarians, as out of the deserts of Arabia a new religion forms, and send out armies that hope to conquer the world in the name of their G-d.

There was a program on TV about the Coliseum in Rome and other arenas around the rest of the Roman Empire. It said that the Coliseum was the Empire in reverse. In the real world Rome was surrounded by barbarians and wild animals. In the coliseums the Romans surrounded the barbarians and wild animals.

thanks for your replies.

Are there any good nonsix volumn books on the subjet?

If it wasn’t Cecil, then it must have been Joel Achenbach of the Why Things Are books who pointed out that you first have to define when you consider Rome to have fallen. If you want to be really picky, the “Holy Roman Empire” lasted until something like the 1800s.

I believe it tripped over the barbarians and broke a legion or two, upon which it uttered the immortal phrase: I’ve fallen and I can’t get up! :wink:

As Voltaire pointed out, the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

It’s just that the Secular German Loose-collection-of-states doesn’t have quite the same ring to it…

For many years it has not been possible to mention the Holy Roman Empire without bringing up Voltaire’s inevitable quip . . .

But in any case that entity could not trace itself further back than Big Chuck (Carolus Magnus). Between it and the real Roman Empire there’s still a discontinuity of a few centuries.

They fucked up!

Having Senators run the show.

The only successful (long lasting) political systems have always been dictatorships. Read your history.

How long is long lasting then? The Republic and the Empire lasted something like 500 years each didn’t they? The kings preceding the Republic ruled for a few hundred years or so I think. Even that beats the 225 notched up by America which is a good inning s in itself.iY

Uhh, wasn’t the Roman Empire a dictatorship?

In Roman times, a dictator was the absolute ruler of Rome for a short, specific period of time. The Senate would get together and appoint one of their number to this office in times of severe emergency for the state. They were promised amnesty for any of the deeds they carried out during their tenure as dictator. This was so they could have a free hand to carry out unpopular but necessary measures without fear of reprisal from the Senate when Rome returned to democracy (albeit Roman style). So, no, I don’t think Rome was strictly a dictatorship during the Empire. Once crowned as emperor, it was a job for life short as it may be. It was also the way things were meant to be done and not just as a state of emergency measure.

The short periods of dictatorshi p by guys like Sulla and Cæsar were the exception, definitely not the rule.o

Zebra asked if there were any good non-six-volume books on the subject.

Penguin (I think they may be called Viking or Viking Penguin in the US) put out an abridged version of Edward Gibbon’s classic “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Not only is this a surprisingly scholarly work for its time it’s also a damn good read. I strongly recommend it. Yes it is possible to find problems with it and yes Gibbon is a bit prudish in places, but it’s still the best literary account of the fall of the Roman Empire.

My version (Australian) says it was first published in the US as “The Portable Gibbon” by Viking in 1952.

My version is the 1985 edition I strongly suspect that it will still be in print

  1. Roman descendents became decadent and could no longer put up a good fight.

  2. Roman Empire was too big.

  3. Huns.