Why Did The Roman Empire Fall? The reasons for its decline and fall

[adriantc 0]

YOu could also say Romans fell due to the fact of greed. every man in rome probably wanted to be and emporer and every man in rome probably had the money and poeple to do that so they fought against each other. not in the sence of blood shed and huge armies but small bickerings that slowly resulted in deaths of leading poeple.the roman leadership was always unstable i dont think there was a time when it was actuly safe?

Yeah but you see... if there wasn't for the competition only weak emperors would have ruled Rome. Not as if there where a lot a great emperors... only a few could be in the hall of fame.
I have read somewhere on the internet another theorie that I would like to discuss with you. It is said that the Roman Empire fell because it's economy was based on plunder and slaves. Those two things were of course provided by conquest. That wasn't a problem until the empire became to big to defend and to weak to conquer further. Romania, the place where I live, is the old roman province of Dacia, the last province to be conquered (it marked the very peak to territorial conquest) and the first province to be abandoned. So you see everything was well until they could not conquer anymore... the enemies where to many, the frontiers to large to defend, the army to small and ill prepared to further conquer. As nomore plunder and slaves came to Rome the economy started to decline, starting a chain reaction that would end only with the Empire's fall. This theorie suggests that the Roman Empire was doomed from the very beginning, because it was built like an extremly efective war machine (maybe the most efective of all times), but once it was stoped there was no way to start it again. But why did it stop!?

[iGuest 3]

Seriously do not blame Christianity for the fall of Rome. They crucified Gods one and only son. Wake up blinded humans! I Call me crazy but its Satan's wish that you don't think he exists. Well.. he does! When god takes his people there is going to be a man who comes proclaiming peace..

[linekill 1]

I guess it's just a reality that most empires (well, we still have to wait for China to fall) will have to fall, someday, one way or the other. When you have eaten most of the world, what's left to eat than yourself? It's true for most empires. Egypt Empire, British Empire, Rome, etc. Each have their own specific reasons but somehow, the old ways fell and the empire crumble. Ozymandias.

[Lyon2 0]

Julius C. was the leader, the backbone of the roman empire, without him, after his assassination of course, perhaps by coincidence or not, the roman empire started to fall, in my opinion, because there was not a single leader or even a politician thas had the same dream as Julius C. which, in my opinion, was to create a world where he could develop and control, besides, he had a lot of enemies, even if there was others with power and with the same ideas, there was so many enemies of him and his ideas that no one had the courage to fight to keep the roman empire alive and safe from the the other enemies, the outside enemies of the roman empire.The reason, if i had to simply answer just like that, it was the death of Julius C., he was the heart and soul of it all, obviously, despite the fact that he was so much like hitler in the matter of killing inocent people/enemies, but it was another age.

[adriantc 0]

Julius C. was the leader, the backbone of the roman empire, without him, after his assassination of course, perhaps by coincidence or not, the roman empire started to fall, in my opinion, because there was not a single leader or even a politician thas had the same dream as Julius C. which, in my opinion, was to create a world where he could develop and control, besides, he had a lot of enemies, even if there was others with power and with the same ideas, there was so many enemies of him and his ideas that no one had the courage to fight to keep the roman empire alive and safe from the the other enemies, the outside enemies of the roman empire.
The reason, if i had to simply answer just like that, it was the death of Julius C., he was the heart and soul of it all, obviously, despite the fact that he was so much like hitler in the matter of killing inocent people/enemies, but it was another age.

I'm sure that most of the things that happened during the time of the Roman Empire still happen today, but most of them never get on TV or in the newspaper or on the Internet. Besides there has been time to unveil most of the secrets. Who knows? Maybe in a thousand years some scientist will discover that 9-11 has been done with the full cooperation of the US government. Besides you can hardly compare Julius Caesar to Hitler since the second was a genius (at least in the first part of his political career) but an evil one and the first could be named a military genius.
Julius Caesar is the builder of the Roman Empire but the one that has taken it to new heights was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Augustus (as he was known) is known for the policies he implemented which lead to a period of great prosperity (most think it was the greatest) known as Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. As I have said many think that after this 40 year period (which essentially had small wars) of peace the Empire started to slowly but surely decline. This 40 year period could be called the peak of the Roman Empire, after which everything started going wrong.
What Julius Caesar didn't realize is that by naming itself dictator and completely disregarding the institution of the senate he sealed his fate. As history shows Augustus hasn't made the same mistake, he kept the senate even if only as a facade. Many centuries later the same "traditions" are kept. Many dictatorial regimes call themselves democratic and even organize elections. I guess Julius Caesar didn't understand the importance of legitimizing his rule... But I don't think that if he had lived the assassination history would have taken a much different turn.

I have a theory and I would like to hear you opinion on it. I think that the fall of an empire is directly proportional to the time it took to be built. Do you think that is right?

[happy_cube 0]

My reasons are the following 1. The empire was overwhelmed by barbaric European tribes2. The empire grew too large and there where not enough soldiers to protect it.3. The soldiers where loyal to the local area and not to Rome4. Over time the empire became a bit more peaceful and they where overwhelmed by more powerful enemies.5. Mistakes and foolish emperors weakened the empire and/or the government.

[Skyfalling 0]

From what I know, the empire ended at Romulus Augustus (ironic, seeing as Romulus was the founder of Rome and Augustus considered one of the best emperors). I thought it was something like Romulus Augustus gave up the crown to Odovacer, the barbarian warlord of the time. Also, I do agree with the army beginning to fall apart. Since a certain emperor (I forget who) allowed non-Romans to become citizens, then the non-Romans joined the army. Because they were not originally from Rome they wouldn't be as faithful as previous generations of that beautiful army (like during the Punic Wars).

[Lyon2 0]

Can you explain a bit more your theory adriantc?How and why exactly you think that happens to an empire? Lets say there is an empire that was built in 10 years, lets call it the Xisto empire for instance, is it correct that the time the Xisto empire will take to completely fall, if it will in fact, it will take also 10 years or how much time to fall?Exaplin a bit more if you please, so that i could give you my opinion on it, and correctly. Thanks.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Lyon2 (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

Can you explain a bit more your theory adriantc?
How and why exactly you think that happens to an empire?

Lets say there is an empire that was built in 10 years, lets call it the Xisto empire for instance, is it correct that the time the Xisto empire will take to completely fall, if it will in fact, it will take also 10 years or how much time to fall?

Exaplin a bit more if you please, so that i could give you my opinion on it, and correctly. Thanks.

Yes... that is my theory and it has been verified for many empires... the Roman Empire, the Third Reich... right now I can't think of other examples that contradict my theory. Think of an empire like a house. A house built fast, with prefabricated parts, will crumble just as fast as it built. Of course on the larger scale of an empire the building materials are the citizens, the institutions and the army. The strength of an empire and it's institutions come from the process of trial and error. A strong empire must grow exactly like and organism... it must have an infancy, before growing to become adult. The Roman empire grow from virtually nothing to almost everything.
First of all an empire in it's infancy conquers (historically it is military conquest, recently economic conquest) and the basis of it's power are the citizens - without their support it doesn't stand a chance. A conquered nation cannot provide that support since at first it will oppose the conquerers. It's citizens won't join the army since it's not their fight... Beside that, a conquered nation may not have the same institutions so it requires time to adapt. Before committing to the goal of the conquering empire it's citizens must feel part of the empire and that too requires time... It's all about cohesion! And that cohesion can only be archived by developing the conquered nations not only by using up all their resources.
The Third Reich never stood a chance because it employed a "terror" strategy. The Nazis, with their stupid theory that they where the master race ignored the conquered nations, using them as slaves. Maybe the Germans are smarter (my own opinion) and they deserve to rule us all, but not like master vs. slave, but equals sharing the same goal.
I think my theory can be applied to the current ruler of the world... the "American Empire". It was built very fast, on the basis of two world wars. Maybe they don't admit it, but their fortunes represented the death and horror of millions. If there weren't for the 2 World Wars America would not rule the world this days. It is as simple as that. The "American Empire" is not focused on people, but rather on money. It doesn't control the world military, but financially - a fact that makes it weaker. It was built in 50 years, it shall end just as fast. And, as another personal opinion, it's downfall has started some years ago...
Edited April 1, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

[dre 0]

A house built fast, with prefabricated parts, will crumble just as fast as it built.

A house built with crap will fall even faster. Sort of like the US, but silly me, it's not an empire...

[adriantc 0]

A house built with crap will fall even faster. Sort of like the US, but silly me, it's not an empire...

Now I would go that far... USA is some kind of a modern empire as long as they can do whatever they like on Earth... They said down with Afghanistan - no one protested most supported; then came Iraq - most protested, no one did anything... And I guess that sooner or later we will see the same story being played all over again with Iran or North Korea. I would be surprised if it wouldn't happen... So the USA is an empire; but not an empire like the British Empire was; or like the Roman Empire for that matter. The main difference is that the USA does not want territory, but wealth (can be read as "oil"). Because it is know that however controls the oil flow controls the world!

[Joshua 0]

It has been two weeks since I returned from a trip to Rome (among other cities). It was one of my dreams to visit the eternal city of Rome, the city that was once the center of the civilized world. Many of my friends didn't like Rome, because, as they said: "there are only a bunch of stones to be seen". I totally disagree with them. It's hard to express what I felt when I saw the Colosseum, the Imperial forums or Trajan's Column, so much history and power in a single city. It is amazing to think that I stood on the same spot where, 2000 years ago, stood the emperors of the world. It was also hard for me to understand, seeing today's italians, how they managed to conquer most of the known world.In recent years I started having a passion for history. For my history is made up of 3 parts: Alexander The Great (considered one of the most successful military commanders in history and the world's biggest empire builder), The Roman Empire (the world's biggest empire and the most important of them all) and The Third Reich (Drittes Reich, Tausendjähriges Reich "Thousand-Year Empire").
As I stood among the ruins of ancient Rome I started thinking... how could the italians conquer the world since they are like my own people, the romanians (we are half latin) - very lazy and uncivilized (at least compared to some other countries). But the roman 2000 years ago couldn't have been lazy or uncivilized, they were the flower of menkind.
What follows is my very own opinion... it is not to be considered professional or 100% true. It is just my opinion!

There are a bunch of reasons why the Roman Empire fell. I will discuss them in the order of their importance:

1. Tyranny - When Julius Caesar killed the too corrupt Republic he had replaced a form of bad government with one, which at that time, seemed good. On the short run (~180 years) the empire was better then the old republic, but on the long run it was to be the core of the rotten empire. A long series of emperors had nothing to do with the well-beeing of the empire, they only saw their own interests and vices. Internal crisis weakend the imperial army which was no longer capable of defending the empire.
2. No more practice of virtues. In the time of the republic the romans built the empire step by step, discipline was a common word, law and order reigned everywhere. The barbarians where not (yet) afraid of the mighy legions. When the republic turned into the empire, it was near its peak. Pace came and there was no more need for a well disciplined army or brillliant generals; people mixed and the roman blood was no longer pure (it is strongly related to the difference I wazs talking about: ancient roman- modern italian). The barbarians where now afraid even when they heard the name of the Roman Empire. So on the base of peace and prosperity (the Pax Romana) the empire started to slide downwards. Soon the barbarians started to realise that the mighty roman army was not what it used to be. While they were attacking the boders of the empire the internal crisis decimated the flower of the roman army. And the fall was only at the beginning. Diocletian was the last good emperor to realise that the empire could no longer be governed by one person... At this point there was no turning back...
3. Christianity - some may not agree with me but I (and other people way smarter then me) think that Christianity is one of the most importnat reasons of the decline of the Roman Empire. Christianity told people that the life on earth is, for the most part useless. The material world is only temporary, so people no longer practiced the virtues and simply waited for the kingdom of heaven. The army was no longer considered a priority, because God will not reward the brave man of the legions. As I see it Christianity corroded the very pilars of the Roman society. As there was no more wish to fight, the end was no longer a problem of if, but of when.

I should state that I have been impressed (and probably heavly influenced) by Edward Gibbon's (arguably the most influential historian to write in English) History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a book which I strongly suggest reading to all those interested in this topic.

Hope you had the patience to read my long post. I would be happy if you would post you're own theories or even theoriesthat you have heard and agree with. Criticism is also welcome!

Ooh, history stuff! I like some of the points, but for different reasons than what you give.

For example, I think the decline of morals led to the fall of the empire not because it weakened the army, but because it led people to rise up against Rome. With Rome they'd feed people to lions and stick heads on stakes and kill anyone who got in their way. With some of those insane emperors, there was simply no justice to be seen. Rome's dictators could be as bloodthirsty as any English monarch and that resulted in a lot of people wanting to see the empire changed or else crumble.

With Christianity, that's a related issue. The people saw their friends and neighbors being killed peacefully for what they believed, that couldn't have influenced patriotism for Rome. Also, I would suggest that God actually destroyed the Roman empire for playing a part in the killing of His Son and persecuting His people. If you read Daniel 9, it actually predicts the Romans would destroy the temple of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) after Jesus (the Messiah) came. If God punished the Jewish leaders for killing their Messiah, how much more the pagan nation who participated?

Also, I would propose an interesting theory of mine... what if Rome didn't die? What if it just changed? Roman Catholicism is essentially a merger of the two forces that killed Jesus, Jewish Pharasaism and the Roman Empire.

I don't buy that Rome's empire suddenly adopted Christianity. The Christianity adopted was a warfaring religion with nothing in common to that of Jesus' where we're called to love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. Rather than distancing from idol worship the way Paul and the early Christians, it embraced paganism wholeheartedly.

I believe Roman Catholicism was a fake Christianity. Rome couldn't defeat Christianity by killing all the Christians because more kept coming to Christ. So instead it made a fake Christianity that it then used to declare as heretics all the real Christians. If you look at the early history of Roman Catholicism in destroying 'heretics', it's very similar to how the Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians.
Edited April 12, 2008 by Joshua (see edit history)

[Kraiser X Astral 0]

its really hard to control an empire and you cant make things perfect in organizing that kind of thng

[adriantc 0]

Ooh, history stuff! I like some of the points, but for different reasons than what you give.
For example, I think the decline of morals led to the fall of the empire not because it weakened the army, but because it led people to rise up against Rome. With Rome they'd feed people to lions and stick heads on stakes and kill anyone who got in their way. With some of those insane emperors, there was simply no justice to be seen. Rome's dictators could be as bloodthirsty as any English monarch and that resulted in a lot of people wanting to see the empire changed or else crumble.

With Christianity, that's a related issue. The people saw their friends and neighbors being killed peacefully for what they believed, that couldn't have influenced patriotism for Rome. Also, I would suggest that God actually destroyed the Roman empire for playing a part in the killing of His Son and persecuting His people. If you read Daniel 9, it actually predicts the Romans would destroy the temple of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) after Jesus (the Messiah) came. If God punished the Jewish leaders for killing their Messiah, how much more the pagan nation who participated?

Also, I would propose an interesting theory of mine... what if Rome didn't die? What if it just changed? Roman Catholicism is essentially a merger of the two forces that killed Jesus, Jewish Pharasaism and the Roman Empire.

I don't buy that Rome's empire suddenly adopted Christianity. The Christianity adopted was a warfaring religion with nothing in common to that of Jesus' where we're called to love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. Rather than distancing from idol worship the way Paul and the early Christians, it embraced paganism wholeheartedly.

I believe Roman Catholicism was a fake Christianity. Rome couldn't defeat Christianity by killing all the Christians because more kept coming to Christ. So instead it made a fake Christianity that it then used to declare as heretics all the real Christians. If you look at the early history of Roman Catholicism in destroying 'heretics', it's very similar to how the Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians.

I can't say I agree with you... I'm an atheist so by nature I like to put the blame on the church... For some time I believed that Christianity was something, if not invented, but at leased sanctioned by Rome to empower it further, since it is a known fact that religion is the easiest way to control the masses. But it wasn't the time to control because the romans were, for better or for worse, pretty intellectual, a big part of them alphabetized (knew to read). At least in Rome's golden time. A people aware of themselves would be very hard to control. It was shown during the Dark Ages when lack of culture meant a much powerful church. So the fortunes of the church are strongly related to the (un)fortunes of the people. That's why Christianity wasn't something planned... although a few centuries later it was used for the first time by the emperor Constantine who was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers. But by that time the empire was already weakened.

As for your theory - it is worth discussing... It's actually a pretty common theory. Many historians think that the Roman Empire was never entirely destroyed, or at least that it did only centuries later then the official date. I have a book discussing this theory - it's called The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins. In the book he uses archiological evidence to show that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a tragically event for all of it's inhabitants. What he finds shocking is the collapse of complexity of the Roman society. Most of the things the Romans took for granted dissapared completely after the fall of the Roman Empire. One thing was so shocking I remember it even today... The scientists too ice samples from the poles and from the ice they measured the amount of CO2 in the air. What the amount of CO2 shows how developed was the industry. What they found out after the measurements was that the industry never reached the same level as the Roman Empire period until the industrial revolution - some more then 1000 years after! Basically what that means is that because of the fall of the Roman Empire the European world (and most of the rest of the world) stagnated for over 1000 years. The trade levels of that period, compared with ones from other periods also suggest the same conclusion. The decline of the quality of life was so big, so fast that only a destruction could explain. What do you think about that?

[iGuest 3]

opinion on fall of the roman empire.Why Did The Roman Empire Fall?

I don't believe for a moment the blame was in the hands of Julius Caesar, he was just being a strong leader and if you want controll you need to take out the competition which is still done today all the time, he had obviously studied his Machiavelli, I believe the fall was because of christianity, the soldiers and the people lost hope and reason to fight because it was said there was not place for them in heaven. You cannot lead an empire without the heart, the courage, and the bravery of your people.

-reply by iceGT