| Author |
Message
|
| Pendragon |
 Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:54 pm Post subject: Why did Rome fall? |
 |
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
Why did the Roman Empire fall? There are lots of different theories: from internal decay to rising barbarians. What was the crucial factor in tackling Rome?
And another thing: did the Roman Empire live on in Byzantium, or was that a totally different empire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| goodgod3rd |
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 899
Location: Donegal Ireland
|
i think the main reason was the rise in the " wild barbarien  " ,
but another small reason, they got gready, the caser/(to my knowlage)/ got progressivly more and more power seaking, thus getting into more and more bother, 
_________________
Stumble through life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
I think the barb's indeed played a big role in tackling Rome, though not in the way we see in the movies.
Usually the idea is that the empire had a static border, with Romans on one side and the barb's on the other. In reality Rome invited germanic tribes to enter the empire from about the early 3rd century. They were given some land by the Romans, payed tax and protected the empire against other tribes. In that way a limited number of tribes recieved a 'special deal', creating the situation of barb's fighting barb's at the border of the empire.
This tactic worked out fine, until the empire weakened in the 4rd, 5th century. To get more money and soldiers, the Roman emperors invited more and more tribes to cross the border. In that way the gift of being part of the empire, the 'special deal', was given away at anyone who cared to recieve it. In time some tribes entered the empire which didn't play along nicely, like the Visigoths and the Vandals. After the Romans tought them how to fight orderly and make forts, they used it against the Romans themselves. The Vandals for example besieged Rome in the way the Romans themselves had tought them. The Romans had distributed nukes at random, and now they were used against them.
Or that's at least one theory  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Beryl |
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
Arrogance. They thought they couldn't lose, they got too wrapped up in conquest, they spread themselves too thing, and... no more Roman Empire.
No big loss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| j |
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 446
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
| IThis tactic worked out fine, until the empire weakened in the 4rd, 5th century. To get more money and soldiers... |
So why did the empire weaken?
Simple [that's a joke] economics; over-expansion combined with poor upper management.
Rome had a standing army; in order to maintain a standing army, a government must treat the soldiers well [college degrees, 50 hectacres of rich farmland, whatever]; Rome could afford to treat her soldiers well while she was conquering; conquering brings in wealth new to a government.
When Rome stopped conquering places, she still had to maintain the army, but was not bringing in new wealth. Fixed costs, decreasing revenues. Not good.
I believe the situation was accerbated by a series of rapid successions; each sucession required a hefty "gift" to the legions; I could be wrong about this.
BTW, the Roman policy for conquest, "Conquer and absorb" is, in general, amazingly sucessful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jacques.X |
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 196
|
| Beryl wrote: |
Arrogance. They thought they couldn't lose, they got too wrapped up in conquest, they spread themselves too thing, and... no more Roman Empire.
No big loss. |
I definetly agree with this theory. They got greedy and power-hungry, always a formula for failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
were they not greedy and power-hungry in their golden ages? If they were, then we still haven't explained why the empire crumbled in the 4th-5th century.
And what if their opponents were equally greedy and power-hungry, shouldn't they have suffered the same fate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jacques.X |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 196
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
were they not greedy and power-hungry in their golden ages? If they were, then we still haven't explained why the empire crumbled in the 4th-5th century.
And what if their opponents were equally greedy and power-hungry, shouldn't they have suffered the same fate? |
Good question, but I think the reason greed was a problem in the 4th and 5th centuries was because of the size of Rome. As it got bigger, more politicians got greedier and in turn led to the downfall. Their adversaries were not half the size of the Roman Empire, they were small tribes were one person being power-hungary didn't really affect such a large area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| Consider the implications of climate change, its impact on agricultural production, % of vessels lost at sea, pressures on barbarian tribes to move. Lessons with ramifications to the present. Remember Santayana's admonition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cosmictraveler |
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 598
Location: Key West, Florida, Earth
|
| Greed, stupidity and becomming to big. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Brian Foley |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:31 am Post subject: Re: Why did Rome fall? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 31
Location: Australia
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
| Why did the Roman Empire fall? There are lots of different theories: from internal decay to rising barbarians. What was the crucial factor in tackling Rome? |
My opinion was that Rome as a city could not take advantage of the lucrative Silk Trade route . So the city of Rome became redundant , and more or less was thrown to the barbarians .
| Pendragon wrote: |
| And another thing: did the Roman Empire live on in Byzantium, or was that a totally different empire? |
Correct Rome lived on in the new Byzantium afterall that is where Emperor Constantine decided to found this new city . Byzantium was situated in the optimum place to take advantage and control of the commerce between the Mideast and the Slik Trade Commercial route with China . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
Interesting idea Brian, but was the silk trade with China really so crucial for the balance of power in Europe? Rome failed to profit from it, but so did it's mayor opponents (if the german and gallic tribes were indeed Rome's mayor opponents). So relatively there doesn't seem to be a change.
But according to some it was the steppe peoples like the huns and mongols who initiated the demise of Rome (like the turks, also nomadic steppe peoples, ended the Byzantine empire), and those peoples may have had more opportunity to profit from the trade with China. So I think the link is an indirect one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| j |
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 446
|
| The failure to control new trade opportunity sounds more like a sympton that a cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| I suggest that until and unless one has read Gibbon's Decline and Fall in the unabridged version, then cogitated on it for a handful of decades, then any responses one makes are likely to be trite and wrong. (As opposed to Gibbon, who was scholarly and wrong.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
