Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

There were many problems that led to Rome's collapse but I think mass migration has to be the biggest contributor. Rome simply could not keep up with it's rapidly increasing enemies. The weaker Roman army could no longer control an enemy that was constantly multiplying through migration. They would defeat a band of barbarians on one day and the next day another band would appear somewhere else to challenge them. The process was endless and the weakened empire was doomed.

"Mass migration" it was uncontrollable but the other factors could be controlled. In second place "bad emperors" although that was controlled through assassination.

I think the biggest contributer is not on your list: a failure to have a system of succession to the throne. All empires have issues with this, but Rome seems to have a specially difficult time with civil war.

Two of the largest factors - first and foremost was the creation of the empire by Augustus. After that, poor leadership corrupted what good the empire could have become. The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy. With those three combined, the barbarians were able to overrun the empire and finally ransack Rome herself.

The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy.

I disagree. I think Christianity turned out to be valuable in the end.

The final touches was Christianity, which really caused the tumultuous overthrow of the Roman idealogy.

 

I disagree. I think Christianity turned out to be valuable in the end.

Some people say that. Constantine blatantly used christianity as glue to prop up the empire after his civil war had wrecked it. Its also said that christianity 'softened' Rome because of its beliefs. I actually doubt that believing in Jesus changed the roman character alone. Rome was changing for a number of reasons, most of which are in the poll. Remember that our view of christianity is a little limp-wristed compared to earlier forms - it would have been even more true back then, particularly since the earliest bishops of Rome were clearly out to extract cash from their flocks.

I think Favonius has a point. The principate's central flaw was in succession of leadership. Augustus assumed it would always go to one of his relatives, but he didn't count on Nero killing off the rest of his dynasty. From that failure arose the civil wars. The civil wars took troops from border defenses and weakened the empire. When the victorious general won, he had to mint coins to pay his troops, which caused inflation. It was a vicious cascade effect.

Another problem is that empire was too large and unprofitable. The costs of the empire exceeded the benefits. For instance, in the short term Britannia provided some valuable metals to the empire, but in the long term it tied up three legions that could have been put to better use elsewhere. If the Empire had not expanded beyond its essential Mediterranean nature, it probably would have been better off in the long term.

As for Christianity, you can make an argument that the priests and the monks were leeches, and sucked resources from a Western empire whose wealth was already vanishing. Monks don't do anything but pray all day, so why feed them? But at the end of the day I think this was simply one factor among many and not the central factor. The very Christian Byzantine Empire did quite well for itself.

The mighty Roman empire had fallen victim to poor government and barbarian invasions. Centralized government deteriorated and countless petty chiefs set themselves up as lords.

As to Christianity, it was one of the reason too, because Christianity began to govern on the Roman power.

IMHO: It's impossible to point at one reason, Roman Empire had got a lot of issues.

In the Real World of Money is power: Rome simply ran out of states to plunder, enslave and tax. The Domination of the Roman Capitalist lead to a decline in civilized states for the Empire to trade with fairly. They simply created in their own success the means to thier own end. Christianity was really Buddism and Judeaism , Mithraism and these ideas were compelling ones in a world dominated by the slavery of the empire.

regards,

Probably economics and then deseases or combination of both. Malaria, plaque and perhaps lead based deseases are well documented in this period. Think most historians have become enlightened enough to realize the the migrations occured because of this decline and before that they were repulsed for a long time. Do not forget the empire was huge and strecthed out and still had the power to repulse. (they had revolts all over the empire) Many modern historians have discounted what many German historians have written (practically all of moden data concerning /German Roman realtions) because it had elements of superior barbarians over running the inferior Roman army. We all the know the truth now. The barbarians were kept out and when they did raid they were punished severely and many of the most important German tribes were made part of the empire. Also, Roman incursions(except the over rated Tuetinberg delemna, Aryan historians made it out to be biggest Roman loss ever, not even close!) all the way to the Elbe and the crushing of revolts (Batavia,etc.) showed Roman superiority many times over.

After all if the 'mass migrations' could have occured at an earlier time they would have! They tried many times, but Rome was economically strong and proved its legionaires could defeat them regardless of enemies numbers and how stretched out the empire was. So the real reason has to be either economic decline (cannot defend) or deseases which caused an inabilty to have enough manpower. We know the late Romans had difficulty getting enough manpower to be sure.

Much like the dabate about when (and if) Latin "died," this debate also cannot be answered simply. Obviously, the seperation of power in the mid-4th century played a huge role, but looking at things the population drop during the 4th century tells us a great deal as well. In Rome, many folks were drinking and eating from lead cups and plates, while in the Eastern Empire, folks were still using ceramics.

What I have been taught to believe is this: Ask an average Roman on the street in, say, 470 AD if Rome had fallen recently and they would have had no idea what you were talking about. The Western Empire did not fall, it simply became the Catholic Church. The resources that had been available to the civic government of Rome were handed over to the the religious governement. Augustulus Romulus and Odoacer had their little thing, but it really had far little to do with the state of the power of the Roman empire.

Rome did not fall. It evolved.

There were many problems that led to Rome's collapse but I think mass migration has to be the biggest contributor. Rome simply could not keep up with it's rapidly increasing enemies. The weaker Roman army could no longer control an enemy that was constantly multiplying through migration. They would defeat a band of barbarians on one day and the next day another band would appear somewhere else to challenge them. The process was endless and the weakened empire was doomed.

Yes there was, however mass migration was not one of them. It should be noted that several major 'settlements' of barbarians was at Rome's request and the treaties drawn together with Rome being in the position of strength not weakness. Rome suffered FAR more from her civil wars and infighting. An example being when an ineffective ruler was in power, and the provices felt he was not protecting them enough, (Honorius), they raised thier own man to the purple to protect them, (Constatine III), and Imperial Forces, instead of dealing with Vandals and Alennai(?) who were invading over the Rhine, instead turned north from Italy and fought the ursuper instead of trying to push back the barbarians. This is a perfect illustration on how Romans were far more concerned with fighting each other than defending the provinces. Rome was not sacked because of an increase in Germans, but because of the aristocracies backlash at having Germanic people in power/charge of positions and a number of them in the amy, (despite many of them being loyal), so Alaric, his chief opponent gone and now the Imperial Army destroyed by it's own infighting and purges, flocked to him. Another major problem in the late empire was that East and West were on the brink of war with each other at various points during a 15 year period. There was back-stabbing, and political manevuring which would hurt one half, but save another and there was no consideration at all about the other half, except for a handful of men like Stilicho and Fravitta.

I think the biggest contributer is not on your list: a failure to have a system of succession to the throne. All empires have issues with this, but Rome seems to have a specially difficult time with civil war.

And I agree completely.

Much like the dabate about when (and if) Latin "died," this debate also cannot be answered simply. Obviously, the seperation of power in the mid-4th century played a huge role, but looking at things the population drop during the 4th century tells us a great deal as well. In Rome, many folks were drinking and eating from lead cups and plates, while in the Eastern Empire, folks were still using ceramics.

 

What I have been taught to believe is this: Ask an average Roman on the street in, say, 470 AD if Rome had fallen recently and they would have had no idea what you were talking about. The Western Empire did not fall, it simply became the Catholic Church. The resources that had been available to the civic government of Rome were handed over to the the religious governement. Augustulus Romulus and Odoacer had their little thing, but it really had far little to do with the state of the power of the Roman empire.

 

Rome did not fall. It evolved.

I'm not a fan of the lead issue... but I do agree with your comment that to Romans of the day... things went on as usual. In fact, the last true Emperor in the west was Theodosius, (when he ruled jointly). After him the west was ruled by the generals of the army. And it can be argued that the West, collasped because of they allowed control of the military to leave all civic hands while in the East, they prevented any one general from becoming to strong or powerful, while thier army suffered and they had almost no performace of any notation, they retained control of it using the civic authorities and used diplomacy more so than anything. Of course other factors play into this, but I think that;s what it boils down too. The West used the hammer in all instances, while the East used the pen. The breakdown in military organization, in control and a long list of ineffective rulers who based thier power on Generalissimos broke what was left of the West. The East, where the military was margainalized, kept in check, (purged of forces from time to time and who killed off many generals who could have had thier success go to thier head), and with effective rulers saved the East from the fate of the West.

And yes, Rome did not fall she evolved, I am of the same school of thought. "Rome" in the West did not fall until the 6th century IMO.

Rome did not fall. It evolved.

While I agree in part with the evolution theory (the church, cultural ideals, even economic conditions from slave to serf, etc.)... we cannot dismiss the actual fall of an imperial state. Doing so would be failing to recognize that borders were shattered and redrawn, centralized government was replaced by feudal lords (despite the continuation of some Roman practices) and the legions that once conquered and then defended an empire were simply no more. Though admittedly perhaps a century or more before the Visigoths (Alaric in 410), the Vandals (Gaiseric in 455) and then the Ostrogoths (Odaecer in 476) took the eternal city itself, Rome's army fell while the rest of Roman civilization marched on and evolved. We know that the empire continued in the east, and parts of the west even came back under the imperial fold at times, but from a military and governmental perspective Rome had fallen in the west.

Much like the dabate about when (and if) Latin "died," this debate also cannot be answered simply. Obviously, the seperation of power in the mid-4th century played a huge role, but looking at things the population drop during the 4th century tells us a great deal as well. In Rome, many folks were drinking and eating from lead cups and plates, while in the Eastern Empire, folks were still using ceramics.

 

What I have been taught to believe is this: Ask an average Roman on the street in, say, 470 AD if Rome had fallen recently and they would have had no idea what you were talking about. The Western Empire did not fall, it simply became the Catholic Church. The resources that had been available to the civic government of Rome were handed over to the the religious governement. Augustulus Romulus and Odoacer had their little thing, but it really had far little to do with the state of the power of the Roman empire.

 

Rome did not fall. It evolved.

Rome the 'Empire' most definately fell. If you ask that same average Roman on the street if the empire had failed compared to it's earlier days, I'm pretty sure he will say yes. We have the benefit of hindsight so we know it collapsed.

The second most important reason would have to be economic decline, throughout it's history Rome relied heavily on the loot that was plundered from various invasions which helped finance their army, city construction etc. I think there mistake was not relying enough on Roman agriculture which was heavily taxed, they simply were not self sufficient.

As far as the system of succession, there was one in place, the emperor would name his heir, it didn't work well but I don't think that was one of the major factors for Rome's collapse.

Mass Migration did not exist on the same level that it did in terms of massive barbarinan activity from the east during the republic or the early empire, unfortunately in the late empire it did.