210 Reasons For The Decline Of The Roman Empire

We had plenty of this kind, however i thought this is an interesting list from a reasonable source...

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

cheers

viggen

We had plenty of this kind, however i thought this is an interesting list from a reasonable source...

 

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

 

cheers

viggen

LOL, what nothing for W, X, Y or Z? Considering the absence of those letters, that list is clearly completely inadequate

hehe, yup, all covered, i doubt anyone can now come up with a not already mentioned theory!

cheers

viggen

Did you notice that a number of the items are very nearly identical, some being mere synonyms?

Maybe there is some shade of difference between "21. Bolshevization" and "36. Communism", and I suppose "66. Egoism" and "104. Individualism" have a tiny shade of difference that might matter in some contexts. But really!

This list is deliberately inflated by including lots of different words for the same concept. Consider the idea that Rome fell because no one cared. That idea gets 10 different entries, including:

"Apathy"

"Enervation"

"Inertia"

"Indifference"

"Lethargy"

"Loss of Energy"

"Paralysis of Will"

"Paralyzation"

"Resignation"

"Tiredness of Life"

What's the point of this gimmick anyway? Is it to make the causes of the fall appear to be so hopelessly complex that no one takes the question seriously?

What's the point of this gimmick anyway? Is it to make the causes of the fall appear to be so hopelessly complex that no one takes the question seriously?

That's the same sort of reaction I was having. Is it intended to make fun of the "this or that reason is more important than another" theory by overinflating the options, or is it simply trying to make clear through over-emphasis that Rome's fall can be at least partially attrributable to numerous concepts.

What's interesting is that the inflation could be used to make two opposite points.

The first point would be, "You think that lead poisoning caused the fall of the empire? Well, that's just one theory--there are another 209 causes that have also been posited. How does your theory deal with these 209 competing hypotheses?" The idea here is to inflate the number of competing hypotheses to intimidate anyone from coming up with any theory. That kind of tactic strikes me as dishonest and intellectually lazy.

The second would be, "I have the best theory for why the empire fell. Now I know there are a lot of crackpot theories out there--at least another 209--but I can show you not only why my theory can explain the relevant data, but also why all of the other 209 fail to explain the relevant data." Here the inflation simply works as advertising--a theory that beats 209 theories sounds more impressive than a theory that beats 9 or 29 competing theories. This is a bold tactic, but at least it's an honest one.

Bryan Ward-Perkins actually takes the second tack in his little gem of a book on the fall of the empire, but in this forum, I often see the first point being made instead.

For my part, I think the first point is sort of weaselley. "Oh don't be so arrogant to think you know better than others what caused the fall of the empire. My lead-poisoning theory (or race theory or whatever) is just as good as any! Probably the empire fell for lots and lots of reasons; it was just doomed." This argument is weaselly becauase there is nothing in principle that would falsify it, and it is ultimately vacuous. To say that X happened for EVERY reason is to say that X happened for no reason at all. It's not an explanation; those words are simply the sounds of a mind shutting closed.

By the way, I'm not advocating a kind of historical monism. Sure, it's theoretically possible that 5 things or 210 things really did cause the empire to fall, or maybe one thing that set off 5 things that set off 203 things, etc. But figuring out which of these possiblilities is actually correct requires an openness to the idea that the problem of Rome's fall isn't some intractable mystery, just a hard problem like any other.

What's interesting is that the inflation could be used to make two opposite points. ...

 

By the way, I'm not advocating a kind of historical monism. Sure, it's theoretically possible that 5 things or 210 things really did cause the empire to fall, or maybe one thing that set off 5 things that set off 203 things, etc. But figuring out which of these possiblilities is actually correct requires an openness to the idea that the problem of Rome's fall isn't some intractable mystery, just a hard problem like any other.

Maybe I'm missing something here but after reading a synopsis of one of the sources for the list--his own collection of essays--it seems he was simply making a comprehensive list of some of the causes commented on the fall of Rome since before Gibbon that dovetailed with the apparent focus of those essays. Maybe he's presenting it as "Look everybody's in the last 2,000 years has had a theory on the fall, here's some of them..."

Without any commentary on the list it's tough to tell what he was doing although I'd guess it's also a bit tongue in cheek. I did find this interesting interview with the Prof from 1999. Worth a read, he's certainly no lightweight.

Without any commentary on the list it's tough to tell what he was doing although I'd guess it's also a bit tongue in cheek. I did find this interesting interview with the Prof from 1999. Worth a read, he's certainly no lightweight.

That's a fantastic read regardless of the nature of the 'fall of the empire list'. Thanks for that.

Without any commentary on the list it's tough to tell what he was doing although I'd guess it's also a bit tongue in cheek. I did find this interesting interview with the Prof from 1999. Worth a read, he's certainly no lightweight.

Thanks for the links Virgil. Here's a relevant quote from the interview:

Gallinsky: But let me give you another salutary caveat here about the fall, because it's not just the hang-up on the moral decadence or whatever. The Roman Empire in the west falls in 476 A.D. I would say that's a non-event, because all that happens is that the new rulers come in and take over exactly the structure that they find, except they happen to be Germans or Goths or whatever. Militarily they just prevail. The other part of the empire, the eastern part, has exactly the same problems. If anything, they're weaker. There are now 215 reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. That's overkill, really, but if you go down the list, they all exist in the east as well. They're just lucky.

 

Interviewer: They didn't have the Germans.

 

Gallinsky: The Turks don't march in there until 1453. So I think that's a pretty salutary counterweight, too, before people build up these events with moral and metaphysical trappings. Sometimes it's the other guy who has a bigger gun than you, and that's just too bad.

This helps to clarify Gallinsky's perspective, but not to clarify why the list is so padded with synonyms.

Perhaps the interview should be obligatory reading for anyone starting a "Rome is USA thread".

I agree with PP , a good read in itself, but the list is everything and anything.

What a list! So many of the items seem to contradict each other at least once if not a couple of times, i.e., individualism vs communism; Christianity vs polytheism. But I am at a loss with 'hypothermia' and 'impotence'. And of course, the obligatory 'Jewish' influence. And those Greeks! Looks like a list of allusions made up for A. Hitler & Co.

What a list! So many of the items seem to contradict each other at least once if not a couple of times, i.e., individualism vs communism; Christianity vs polytheism.

...One could expand on this - Anti - Germanism vs Barbarisation, Decline of towns vs. excessive urbanisation. Some of these items cancel each other out!

Good points, guys. The list is padded--with synonyms AND antonyms!

Some of them condratrict others and many are, in my opinion, absurd.

I remember reading some of these off a list from Kathryn Welch's book 'The Romans' about seven or eight years ago. She used them to display how the beliefs and prejudices of some historians can distort our understanding of the past and how (in some cases) it's impossible to write about the Classical World without putting some of our modern views and ideas into it.

Personally a lot on that list seems to be utterly crazy and I hope that many of these aren't genuine ideas from historians.