There were many causes of the decline, and eventual fall, of the Roman empire.
The deficient Emperor role led to the lacking
military response to invasions, civil war and peasant uprisings.
ROMAN EMPIRE AND ITS EMPEROR
Ever since the adoptive system which was installed by Marcus Aurelius
was never reinstalled after his death, effective leadership in governing Rome was
lacking. It was clearly visible that the Roman Emperor was the backbone of Roman
stability and therefore the strength of the Roman army was also crucial in
ensuing the empire's stability. But this stability was drastically altered when
corruption and “necessary” errors were committed.
ECONOMIC, BARBARIAN AND MILITARY PROBLEMS
The Roman Empire was plunged into military anarchy and raided by
barbarous Germanic tribes causing a major burden from an economic standpoint.
Emperors, feeling pressure from all directions, resorted to manners which
depleted army and citizen moral. The personal dreams of empirical leaders was
never capable of re-stabilizing the Empire after the invasions. For instance,
Constantine created a “substantial field force where he recruited many regiments
from Germany. He greatly increased the German generals” (1). “Aurelius also
introduced the German element into the Empire. He established a precedent for
settling Germanic peoples, barbarians to the Romans, in Roman territory to try
secure peace”(2). He felt the only way to preserve the Empire was to host all
those who wished to live within its territory.
These German units under Roman commanders did not easily fall to the
traditional Roman discipline and command. The reluctance to submit to Roman rule
allowed Rome to lose the tactical superiority that it once had and enjoyed over
the German barbarians. This loss of tactical supremacy destroyed the elite,
disregarding their once owned power and thus causing change on top of the Roman
Empire elite. According to Andre Piganiol,”The destruction of the elite handed
over power to a new oligarchy of the newly wealthy and of high officials who
came from barbarous elements of the population”(3). Piganiol continues to state
that”conquered nationalities had in no way lost consciousness of their origin
and many were the means of resistance to the unifying will of Rome”(4)
Economically wise, the war against the Germ...
... middle of paper ...
...th. The
Challenge of the West: Peoples and Cultures from Stone Age to 1740. Toronto: D.C.
Health and Company, 1995.
10) Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue.
Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln
Company, 1996
11) Piganiol, Andre. “The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire.” Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan.
Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962, p.88.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones, A.H.M. A General History of Europe: The Decline of the Ancient World.
London: Longman Group Ltd. 1966
Lynn Hunt, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein, R.Hsia, and Bonnie Smith. The
Challenge of the West: Peoples and Cultures from Stone Age to 1740. Toronto: D.C.
Health and Company, 1995.
Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue.
Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln
Company, 1996.
Piganiol, Andre. “The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire.” Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan.
Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962.
The year is 476 A.D. and the Roman Empire has collapsed after being overthrown by barbarians. Looking back, the causes of Rome’s decline can be separated into four categories, social, economic, military, and political. The social aspects of Rome’s fall are the rise of christianity and civil wars. The rise of christianity displaced Rome’s polytheistic roots which viewed the emperor as having a godly status. Pope and church leaders took an increased role in political affairs which further complicated governance. Civil wars also deteriorated the empire. More than 20 men took the throne in only 75 years and the empire was thrust into chaos. The economic aspects of Rome’s fall were high taxes from the government and labor deficit. The roman empire
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of christianity. The Edict of Milan legalised christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended the century if of persecution, but they also eroded the traditional Roman values. Christianity displaced the polytheistic religion which viewed the Roman emperor as having divine status, and it also shifted focus away from the glory of the state onto a single deity. This also meant the popes and church elders took and increased role in political affairs, further complicating the government. These loss of traditional Roman values lead to social outcries and civil unrest the eventually lead to bloodshed.
The Roman empire was a very large and successful empire, although like many things it had to come to an end. The three primary reasons that had most contributed to Rome's fall is foreign invasions, military weakness , and weak leadership.
For a long period of time, Rome seemed like an unstoppable empire. It conquered the majority of the land surrounding it, including Greece, Turkey, Iraq, and many of its other neighboring countries. It seemed as though Rome would conquer the entire world, as it was the center of it, until it began to decline in 476 C.E. The very aspects that made it so successful were the ones that caused its collapse. Various political, religious, and economic reasons caused its downfall. The fact that the entire economy of Rome collapsed and money became worthless was a major reason for the empire’s collapse. In addition, the loss of a common religion and lack of efficient ruling in relation to its vast territory affected the empire. The Roman Empire did not become so successful in a short period of time, and so its decline did not just happen overnight. Over several years all of these different aspects together caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
In the glory days of Rome, the empire was safe. People got along very well, large scale public works including bathhouses and aqueducts were built. A single emperor had control of one of the largest empires in history. Great games and festivities rang throughout the land. But, all glory eventually comes to an end. With the largest empire at the time, Rome had an equal fall from grace. Rome fell because of the political corruption, inflation and the decline in morals of its citizens.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford UP, 2005.
There were several strengths of the Roman Empire which enabled it to survive for more than four hundred years. These strengths included a strong foundation, having been built off of the Roman Republic; the standardization across the empire of many aspects of life, such as language, law, and especially the extension of citizenship, which made the empire more cohesive and easier to rule; and strong leaders, who were able to utilize the manipulation of the upper class and Senate, and the management of the military.
“He is said to have been tall of stature… except that towards the end.” What was it that really led to the fall of the Roman Republic? There are a lot of different factors to consider when trying to determine what caused the collapse. By examining The Rubicon, The Life of Julius Caesar, and some accompanying handouts from class, this paper will discuss how the Roman Republic did not collapse because of one factor. The collapse of the Roman Republic was like that of a game of Jenga. Factors were pulled out of the Republican system just like a game of Jenga until the Republic could not stand anymore.
The Roman Republic began in 509 B.C.E. with the overthrow of the Etruscan monarchy. In 27 B.C.E the Roman Empire began with Octavian Caesar becoming the emperor, this ended almost 500 years of republican self-government. There is much debate over why Rome became so powerful so quickly. Many think it had to do with Rome’s military strength. Others think that it was because Rome knew of and controlled most of the trade routes. Still others believed it had to do with the technology that was advanced during the Roman Republic. All of these factors played significant roles, but which one played the most important role?
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is a scholarly article written by Justin Ott about the Roman Empire and the events leading up to its fall. The article mostly focuses on the military and economy of Rome in the third century A.D. It lists in the beginning a few of the different theories people have of how Rome fell, including led poisoning and the spread of Christianity. The article seems to want to disprove these theories, showing how they are not the main causes for the collapse of Rome. “Gibbon’s arguments in these sections can be accurately summarized as “the insensible penetration of Christianity in the empire fatally undermined the genius of a great people.” The problem with this conclusion is two-fold. First of all, this explanation is too narrow as it is difficult to believe one single factor brought down the empire. More importantly, it is clear that the Eastern Roman Empire was by far more Christian than the West, therefore if Christianity was behind the fall, the East should have fallen first.” The article’s audience appears to be historians, or those who are interested in history, or just the Roman Empire. It
The Roman Republic ultimately failed due to the lack of large-scale wars and other crises that had united the Roman populous early in the history of the Roman Republic. Roman leadership and honor became compromised. In the absence of war and crisis, Rome’s leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic.
By the 1970s, Historian Peter Brown sparked an interesting debate about the Roman civilization. He dubbed a period in Roman history, ‘The Late Antiquity’, starting around 200 AD and lasting up until the eighth century, marking this was a period in time where the Roman civilization was not in decline, but in a state of transformation due to religious and cultural revolution, and causing many historians to agree or debate about this matter. Bryan Ward-Perkins, author of The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, critique the theory of ‘The Late Antiquity’ and firmly believe the decline of Roman civilization instead of its transformation influenced by its barbaric invaders. He supports his position of Rome’s Fall with evidence from the diminishing
There were many reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Each one interweaved with the other. Many even blame the initiation of Christianity in 337 AD by Constantine the Great as the definitive cause while others blame it on increases in unemployment, inflation, military expenditure and slave labour while others blame it on the ethical issues such the decline in morals, the lack of discipline of the armies and the political corruption within the Empire. Three major contributions that led to the collapse of the once great empire were: the heavy military spending in order to expand the Empire, the over-reliance on slave labour which led to an increase in unemployment, and the political corruption and abuse of power by the Praetorian Guard leading to the unfair selection of many disreputable emperors and the assassination of those not favoured by the Guard.