The Roman Empire was the most powerful Empire during Antiquity. It is traditionally considered to have “fallen” in 476, when Rome’s last emperor was deposed. Many theories have been presented as to why it fell, from unsound economic and social policies to mass lead poisoning. The actual cause of Rome’s fall is the result of many factors, but was mainly caused by Rome’s poor economic policies.
A question that must first be addressed is whether or not Rome actually fell. There are two main theories which have lead to this conclusion. One is that the Roman Empire continued in the form of the Byzantine Empire until the rise of Islam in the seventh century. The other theory states that Rome’s cultural ideas spread out across Europe and Asia, and formed the basis of medieval culture. While there is much evidence for these theories (Prienne and Heather) and against them (Havighurse), they essentially only argue the definition of “fall”. The fact remains that the Roman Empire declined dramatically, split into two pieces, and that its capitol city was sacked on numerous occasions. Therefore, the rest of this essay will not deal with the largely semantic question of whether or not Rome fell, but why it fell.
One of the main reasons for Rome’s fall was the collapse of its social order. The chief and best known argument for this is that Rome’s citizens lost their sense of civic responsibility, and became socially decadent, and that the economic interests of the Romans compromised their social stability. He summarizes this by saying “private enterprise, left to itself, was proving unequal to the task of feeding the civilian population” (Walbank 72). Many Roman authors also believed Romes collapse was a result of moral decay (Augustinus) This...
... middle of paper ...
...condary/BURLAT/9*.html#7>.
Davidson, Nicholas. "The Ancient Suicide of the West." Lew Rockwel.Org. 1 Jan. 2007 .
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 2nd ed. Penguin Classics, 1996.
Havighurst, Alfred F. The Pirenne Thesis: Analysis Criticism and Revision. D.C. Health, 1958. Journal Storage. 1 Jan. 2007 .
Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford UP, 2005.
Pirenne, Henri. Mohammed and Charlemagne. Dover Publications, 2001.
Rostovtzeff, M. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Oxford UP.
Walbank, F W. Awful Revolution: the Decline of the Roman Empire in the West. Books on Demand, 1978. 71-72.
1. Tim Cornell, John Matthews, Atlas of the Roman World, Facts On File Inc, 1982. (pg.216)
T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995
Polybius. The Rise of the Roman Empire. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Penguin, 1979.
To understand the fall of the Roman Empire, we first have to analyze the influence that had
3)Gwynn, David M. The Roman Republic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Livy. The Rise of Rome: Books One to Five. Trans. T. J. Luce. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Rome was a major power because it always made certain its own military prowess was preeminent. There have been many ideas presented as to the fall of the Roman Empire. Many believe that Rome declined morally and the violence and decadence of the societal norms led to the demise. Gibbons has been credited with the theory of the influence and transference of Christianity over the Roman system of Gods and Goddesses that perpetrated the fall. Another theory lays the blame at the feet of the Emperor, that the happiness of the people and the functioning of the government was directly correlated with the personal merit and management skills of the reigning authority. This 10 page paper argues that the imperialistic tendencies of Rome over time and the pre-eminence of military expansionism in the latter stages, was the deciding feature of the "fall". Bibliography lists 7 sources.
Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Louis Voisin, Yann Le Bohec. A History of Rome. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
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
One of the most common causes of the decline of an empire results from having weak military power and martial spirit. In order for an empire to be successful, that empire must present a strong will to fight or sacrifice property and life in order to defend its state. If an empire does not possess this characteristic, it often will quickly diminish. For example, the Roman Empire became successful because of the willingness of the males to defend the state. Shortly after, the males lost their willingness to defend and the empire had to recruit unreliable mercenaries to fight in war. Unlike the successful army of the past, these mercenaries did not have true loyalty to Rome. Because of constant warfare, the Romans had heavy military spending. The Roman Empire had become too large to control effortlessly. Families and soldiers in parts of the Roman Empire adopted local customs. The Roman Empire was made up not only of natives from the Italian peninsula, but it was also made up of barbarians from the conquered lands. The barbarians were very knowledgeable when it came to Roman warfare and military tactics. Corruption became widespread throughout the Em...
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
Ultimately, the Roman Republic’s downfall lay in its lack of major wars or other crises, which led to a void of honor and leadership. War united all of Rome’s people, and provided the challenge to its leaders to develop honor and leadership by their causes and actions. The lack of war allowed the Roman Republic to stagnate and become self-indulgent. By the end of the Punic Wars, which combined these elements, Rome was sure to fail. Without a common thread uniting its society, the Roman Republic unraveled because it had nothing left holding it together.
"Rome, History of Ancient Rome From Its Founding To Collapse." World History International: World History Essays From Prehistory To The Present. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. .
The Fall of the Roman Empire." ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. .
R. Bruce Hitcher. (2008). Globalization Avant La Lettre: Globalization and the History of the Roman Empire. New Global Studies: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 2.