ExNavyAmerican

The reason of the fall of Rome is quite cloudy; and I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter. There are a good number of good reasons, but I don't think it's quite so simple.

What do you guys think?

I personally blame a combination of things, but I shall refrain from delving into it until more opinions are brought to the table.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Kansas Bear

1. The use of "barbarians" in Roman armies led to a decline in Rome's ability to defend itself.

2. The Western Empire ran off a plunder economy, Raubwirtschaft, without the continued expansion the empire ran out of money.

3. The Antonine Plague around 165 CE.


If you subscribe to Pirenne's theory, that the empire simply transformed; ie, Frankish kingdoms, Visigothic kingdoms, Odoacer kingdom. Which continued until the moslem invasions during the 7th century.

__________________

Till he returns...

xerxes

Very good topic, though personnally for me Rome never fell.

Though, I presume the topic is meant to be materially speaking rather culturally: meaning the fall of the Republic in the West (476 AD) on the spears of Germans and in the East by the guns of the Turks. I have read Edward Gibbson's book, cover to cover, all six volumes, thogh I skipped all chapters talking about religion. But still the topic is too grand for my tiny mind. The influence of Rome was great and august that even when the Germans roamed freely in their realm, their took Roman titles such as Master of the East etc. though in 476 the sharade was stopped and Romulus Augustus was dethroned. But i really dont think there is anything mysterious about the material fall of Rome. The impression that I got about Gibbson's work was that the decline and the decay (not the fall) was due to Roman people taking for granted their life style. The fall itself can be attributed to the geopolitical shift by that time.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

ChrisF202

Heres my thoughts:

1) Increased use of barbarians in the Legions due to Romans becoming weak and apathetic.

2) Too much political corruption and strife in the government.

3) Failure to defend Rome's borders (sounds just like another country I know of ...)

4) Massive poverty in Roman cities and the lack of basic services angered people.

Ironduke

They lacked a strong economy, money flowed out to other countries, they saw what was probably 100 civil wars from the 3rd century onwards... the reasons are numerous.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

zraver

Several reasons all played a part.

1- Roman citizens were allowed to join the auxilleries who had a far lighters term of enlistment and service than the legionares (although at only 1/3 or so the pay)

2- Plague that killed off a great many citizens in the west

3- Shifting of the remaining legions to mesopotamia to fight the persins letting the Germans invade

4- Collapse of the tax system

5- Rise of greek casuign the empire to devlop two different cultures

6- wars of imperial succession

7- religious strife once Christianity was the "offical religion"

8- Hunnish invasion

JAD_333

Fall of Rome, read fall of the Roman Empire

Roman Empire expired due to combination of several factors.

1. Constantine split the empire into two

2. Making Christianity the official religion.

3. The provinces became indefensible.

4. Subsidization of food.

5. Diminishing the power of the Senate.

6. Graft.

7. Loss of drive to remain great.

8. Growing military sophistication of so-called barbarians


Not necessarily in that order.

Tim

One possible reason is that they liked to boil wine with lead to make it sweeter and their use of it in the plumbing.

xerxes

Constantine never split the empire in two. The first to do that was Dicoltian and that was for the duel administrative purposes of Caesar-August ruling each half. After Constantin's death, the republic split into three parts, and not two. Contantine had nothing to do with that, he merely transfered the capital from Eternal Rome to Byzantuim, where he could have a closer view of Rome's richest provinces.

JAD_333

Correct. The empire was already divided into western and eastern parts.

But isn't it fair to say that administrative and security breakdowns in the western half, his moving the capital to the eastern half, and his renaming Byzantium, New Rome, created a psychological split that hastened the decline of the empire.

He made matters worse by allowing 3 of his sons to become emperors after his death. Is that the 3-way split you mentioned?

ExNavyAmerican

The empire was divided into 4 prefectures under Diocletian. Two were ruled by Augusti, and two were ruled by Caesars. There was one of each in the west, and East. The Augustus was considered the superior, and the Caesar was considered the subordinate

The Prefectures were:

Caesar Constatius (Constantine's father): Britain, Gaul, Spain.
Augustus Maximian: Italy, North Africa.
Augustus Diocletian: Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt.
Caesar Galerius: Balkans.

As you can see, there was one Caesar, and one Augustus in the West; and it was the same in the east. Though Diocletian was looked on kind of like a patron.

JAD_333

[quote=ExNavyAmerican;371695]

Re the New Testament quote at the bottom of your post, didn't that have to do with anyone not just non-Christians. I am curious where your interpretation came from. Here's the context from Matthew.

18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

ExNavyAmerican

Mine was from Luke 17:2; not from Matthew, but anyway I like the Webster quote better. But that has NOTHING to do with this thread so don't talk about it, PLEASE

Ray

Because some blokes fiddled (not Nero actually) and thought they were the Gods on Earth!

This was discussed in another thread which got closed!

That thread covered the issue rather well and there were links to historical notes rather than only on the religious issues.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA