Ophir

I don't think that anyone has quoted Stalin's quip yet -- 'Rome fell because solving first-rate problems was left to third-rate people'.

sealion

What I believe is, that Rome fall was dealt due to her arrogance, and its behaviour toward Ostrogoths (they were used as soldiers – slaves , they had honour and pride only as long as they were fighting and dying in the first line of the battle) . After the Ostrogoths revolution and raid, Rome never accomplish to return to its previous glory.

__________________
Solon you Greeks will be for ever kids,you forget your history and you start all over again(Plato)

Maximus

The reason Rome fell, began 200 years before its decline.

__________________
Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage.

Julie

I believe it was paranoia.

Feanor

Rome fell due to internal contradictions. It had run it's entire course as an empire. It was doomed historically because it had nothing left to offer.

Ironduke

That's a gross oversimplification. There is no "fate" in history, there are underlying reasons for why events happen history, there is no simply "they were just doomed". You should strive to qualify your answers with facts and figures.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Triple C

To elaborate one of Kansas Bear's points, the Roman agriculture relied on collectivized slave labor. Living in barack-like environment the slaves could not reporduce at a rate that kept up with their death rate. In other words the slave population could only dwindle if it was not replenished by foreign conquests. As they were forced to adopt to a defensive posture, the economy stagnated. The urban populus survived on state pension of pork, dough and cash--which would not be forthcoming without victorious and profitable wars. At the same time, the aristocrats that owned all of the land didn't pay much taxes. And the system of tax farmers was horrible for the revenue and prestige of the state, for very obvious reasons. Rome required constant expansion to fuel its economy, but its ability to generate armies was eventually overwhelmed by the empire's size. Rome ran out of rich neighbors to conquer, and ran out of the troops needed to protect itself.

I don't think Christianity per se was a cause for the fall of Rome, though the fabulously wealthy and tax-exempt ecclesiastic church very well could be.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

astralis

in addition to what triple C said,

the "barbarians" on the borders of the empire vastly enriched themselves through trade, and after a while developed both the economy and the military might needed to challenge the empire successfully.

added to that fact was the "cold war" that rome was undergoing with persia at the time- that was a huge drain on resources and troops, as rome was fighting at the end of a long supply line while persia simply drew off the huge bounty of the crescent.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

The Chap

Hubris.

It's the death of all empires.

Also - and it may be co-incidence - there was major climate shift to the cooler as the Dark Ages began.

Christanity is a tempting culprit but looking to the duration of the east ultimately unconvincing. Ditto the plunder economy.

Both doubtless were contributing factors.

I think,simply, that Rome rested upon her laurels. A new God perhaps let her forget the capricious nature of deities

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on it's liver, not it's ruddy stomach.

wajahat

no empire can survive on an mercinary army.

the empire collapsed because it's people were too lazy to fight.

now, this may sound a bit oversimplistic , but it's a fact.

lwarmonger

While the barbarians did form larger federations, even a group of those federations shouldn't have been enough to challenge the Roman Army (even with distractions in Persia). It is worth noticing that Rome didn't collapse until the barbarian tribes were brought in en masse and used to protect the empire while the Roman army (which was actually Germanic by that point, just not tribal... meaning the Germans in it were integrated and "Roman") was used up in continual civil war. After that the state became powerless against the Germanic tribes because there was no longer an army that was left to be loyal to it.

I think it is interesting that Byzantium eventually collapsed the exact same way, with shortsighted pretenders and Emperors inviting the Turks in to assist in civil war, and eventually running out of Greeks to fight with.

lwarmonger

But it ignores the fact that most of the "Romans" who were in the army while the Republic and Empire were doing most of their expanding were not in fact "Roman." They were members of conquered tribes who were brought into the Legions and trained in Roman tactics and somewhat "Romanized." That was the practice the Empire was built on, and it wasn't until the 260's that most of the army became "Roman" (and that was because all members of the Empire were granted citizenship at that point). I would make the argument that the largely Germanic "Roman" army of 395 was founded on a very similar system of recruiting to the "Roman" army of 200 BC-260 AD. Where things change is with the system of "Federates" (also in use since before the Empire... it is just the "Federates" became larger and more powerful as time went on, and thus better able to take advantage of the Empire's civil wars) and the ruralization of the Empire.

Ironduke

I forget which Emperor it occurred under, I think it was Diocletian, but at some point Romans were forced to work the occupations which their ancestors did, which was really the beginning of feudalistic serfdom that dominated the Medieval Age. I'll have to do some research as to the particular time when these laws were enacted.

Triple C

Ahh, yes. I have heard the arguement before--that Rome would have been better off with a hereditary emperor.

Kansas Bear

It 'might' have resulted in fewer civil wars. Which in the long run would have helped the Empire greatly.

__________________

Till he returns...