I Figured It Out; The Fall Of The Roman Empire

[Onasander]

I thought it long and hard, and came to this conclusion... they became a bunch of pussies at the end and refused to enlist, or for that matter, draft armies of decent, hardworking men. It's was every roman males fault as well as thier leadership. Blame Joe Ceasar, he took his countrymen to ruin. Just like with what almost happened in France (WW1) with the Four Coporals, you can only blame the leadership so far before you take into account the character of the people serving beneath them, and how they fed of each other to produce disaster.

 

Had good men served. good leadership would of emerged to meet the demands of the craft.

[Hamilcar Barca]

LOL. To a point I agree with you, Christianity had that effect on many Romans.

[Primus Pilus]

I thought it long and hard, and came to this conclusion... they became a bunch of pussies at the end and refused to enlist, or for that matter, draft armies of decent, hardworking men. It's was every roman males fault as well as thier leadership. Blame Joe Ceasar, he took his countrymen to ruin. Just like with what almost happened in France (WW1) with the Four Coporals, you can only blame the leadership so far before you take into account the character of the people serving beneath them, and how they fed of each other to produce disaster.

 

Had good men served. good leadership would of emerged to meet the demands of the craft.

14995[/snapback]

 

Agreed, I would prefer a bit more eloquence than your choice of words there, but there's no question that the Italian/Roman legionary was a thing of the past in the later stages of the empire.

[barca]

LOL. To a point I agree with you, Christianity had that effect on many Romans.

15001[/snapback]

 

Friedrich Nietsche (Twilight of the Idols, etc.) and Gibbon (Decline and Fall) would certainly agree with that. However there is certainly no consensus about this issue among historians.

 

Some of the early christians were quite peculiar in their beliefs compared to the christians of today--most notably the Martyrs. For them, dying in the name of their faith was a guarantee of eternal salvation.

 

It is interesting that the fall of the West did occur shortly after christianity became dominant. Yet the East survived with christianity. The gladiatorial games in the west were ablished by Honorius in 404 AD and the olympic games in the east were abolished by Theodosius in 394 AD because of the christian sentiments that prevailed. This would seem to coincide with individuals turning inward, becoming more spiritual, and less bloodthirsty. The Goths were also supposedly christian, but maybe they didn't take it all that seriously--they didn't "turn the other cheek"

[DanM]

Your explanation assumes a lot of things through omission that I cannot agree with. Simply put, this wasn't their great, great, great grandfather's Roman Army.

 

Take a modern day example. Lets say I own a company and I am a total jerk. I denegrate my employees. I blame and punish them harshly for things they did not do. I do not reward capable workers and instead give the bonuses and raises to my worthless kids and drinking buddies.

 

If my company fails, is it because not enough decent, hard working people wanted to work for me? Is it the fault of my workers who quit or stopped caring about the success of the company? Is it the fault of the new workers who would not go to work for my company because of its bad reputation.

 

The same thing applies to the Empire. When the pay of a soldier no longer offered a good living wage, fewer men joined the army. When the soldiers did not receive proper training, equipment or supplies, it became harder to even conscript soldiers. There were laws dealing with people who mutilated themselves to avoid military service. Yes thats right, the act of self mutilation to avoid military service was so widespread in the later Empire that they had to draft laws against the practice.

 

Do you really think a reasonable person would mutilate themselves if the alternative wasn't really, really bad?

 

There are just too many little pieces to the puzzle that are not addressed in your theory. Sorry.

[barca]

Your explanation assumes a lot of things through omission that I cannot agree with. Simply put, this wasn't their great, great, great grandfather's Roman Army.

 

Take a modern day example. Lets say I own a company and I am a total jerk. I denegrate my employees. I blame and punish them harshly for things they did not do. I do not reward capable workers and instead give the bonuses and raises to my worthless kids and drinking buddies.

 

If my company fails, is it because not enough decent, hard working people wanted to work for me? Is it the fault of my workers who quit or stopped caring about the success of the company? Is it the fault of the new workers who would not go to work for my company because of its bad reputation.

 

The same thing applies to the Empire. When the pay of a soldier no longer offered a good living wage, fewer men joined the army. When the soldiers did not receive proper training, equipment or supplies, it became harder to even conscript soldiers. There were laws dealing with people who mutilated themselves to avoid military service. Yes thats right, the act of self mutilation to avoid military service was so widespread in the later Empire that they had to draft laws against the practice.

 

Do you really think a reasonable person would mutilate themselves if the alternative wasn't really, really bad?

 

There are just too many little pieces to the puzzle that are not addressed in your theory. Sorry.

15028[/snapback]

 

The following article is of interest:

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/pr...belisariusd.htm

 

"The cumulative successes of those forays had an unwonted effect upon the Roman populace. Dreaming no doubt of their earlier glory, they wished to join the Byzantine soldiers in a grand attack against the Goths. Belisarius explicitly opposed the idea, because the citizens had neither the training nor fighting experience and did not even have enough armor. Still the Romans insisted, and he reluctantly agreed. "

 

"The sortie, as Belisarius had feared, was a fiasco. Sallying from a number of gates, the regular Byzantine cavalry acquitted itself well and successfully engaged the Goths. The townsmen-cum-foot-soldiers fought as spearmen and were arranged in a phalanx outside of the Flaminian Gate to the north of the city. They were held in reserve until Belisarius was content that they could engage the enemy with the least amount of danger to themselves. They then marched forward against the demoralized Goths and drove them from the Field of Nero into the surrounding hills. At that point, however, the Romans, being mostly an undisciplined rabble, broke ranks and began to loot a Gothic camp, only to be attacked by Goths who could see they were in disarray. The Roman foot soldiers were driven back in flight to the walls of Rome, only to find the populace, again fearful of the pursuing Goths, refusing to open the gates. The Byzantine cavalry intervened and extricated them. Any gain that might have come from the fight was lost."

 

 

It indicates that the Roman citizens of the 6th century were willing to take part in defnding their city. Unfortunately their lack of training made them inferior to Belisarius' professional and mercenary troops. If Belisarius had been able to take the time to adequately train these citizens, he might have been able to resurrect the Rome of old.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The conditions in the late Roman army were definantly a reason for the lack of recruits.

The lack of discipline made the army dangerous and the poor training made them unreliable.

 

When the Romans (or byzantines) changed this system to the Thema system of recruitment in which instead of drafting men to fight they gave land to the soldiers and in exchange they had to serve in times of conflict... They would be of course trained and

disciplined enough to act as an army, but the cavalry was now often more important than the common soldier.

 

This system made it sure that they had a effective and numeours defensive and offensive force. Of course it was often supported by mercenaries. Also, this system was more cheaper because the army didn't need such support as a fully-professional army.

 

The reason why Romans didn't get enough troops was because the imperial professional

army was not effective for an empire on the defensive, because it was so expensive.

 

This is what I fugured out.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I think a big part of it also had to do with the very high number of non roman soldiers in the later empire. when a big chunk of your army is spanish and german and sarmatians who are fighting to protect something that is not theirs, they will probably lose faith. i think all the guys with the big guns that knew how to use them kinda got fed up with it and decided to basically quit.

[DanM]

I think a big part of it also had to do with the very high number of non roman soldiers in the later empire.  when a big chunk of your army is spanish and german and sarmatians who are fighting to protect something that is not theirs, they will probably lose faith.  i think all the guys with the big guns that knew how to use them kinda got fed up with it and decided to basically quit.

15129[/snapback]

 

And don't forget that much of the money the Imperial government paid for equipment, pay and supplies never reached the men because greedy govenors and army officers stole it. The later Empire was a functioning kleptocracy.

 

AHM Jones' "The Later Roman Empire" has a section on the decline of the limitanei of the later Empire. By the time of Justinian, a significant portion of the soldiers on the books (and payrolls) had little to no military value.

[P.Clodius]

I agree, this was one of the main factors. "One of" being the operative phrase.

[DanM]

I agree, this was one of the main factors.  "One of" being the operative phrase.

15141[/snapback]

 

Would you care to list the other reasons you see?

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I think a big reason may have been the general attitude fo the late romans. they got a little too sure of themselves, they got too greedy, and they got too fat. i mean this in the loose metaphorical sense. when your priorities shift too much from the good of the state/empire/religion/family/whatever to the good of yourself, your particular class and your bank account you lose sight of what is important. i honestly think many romans lost touch with the real world because life got too easy for them. compare some of the prevaling attitudes of the early republic to the late empire. you can see an obvious shift from hard work and pragmatism to gluttony in every sense of the word. this isn't to say that the early days of the republic didn't have their share of gluttony and greed, but i think it hit a much grander level later on. in the end, the biggest baddest lion on the block got fat from eating too much, and everyone knows that there are no fat wild lions out there.

[DanM]

I think a big reason may have been the general attitude fo the late romans.  they got a little too sure of themselves, they got too greedy, and they got too fat.  i mean this in the loose metaphorical sense.  when your priorities shift too much from the good of the state/empire/religion/family/whatever to the good of yourself, your particular class and your bank account you lose sight of what is important.  i honestly think many romans lost touch with the real world because life got too easy for them.  compare some of the prevaling attitudes of the early republic to the late empire.  you can see an obvious shift from hard work and pragmatism to gluttony  in every sense of the word.  this isn't to say that the early days of the republic didn't have their share of gluttony and greed, but i think it hit a much grander level later on.  in the end, the biggest baddest lion on the block got fat from eating too much, and everyone knows that there are no fat wild lions out there.

15196[/snapback]

 

 

I just don't agree. The documentation shows that Cata and Cicero were just as greedy and grasping while govenors for the Republic as were the later Imperial govenors. I think much of the malaise you describe is more attributable to the evils of centralization. As the Imperial entourage and the govenors gained ever more power, their capacity to steal increased beyond the means of the Imperial economy. When you combine it with the fact that the Empire had relatively static borders after the time of Augustus, much of the booty that enriched the late Republican Romans was no longer available in the same quantities.

 

The way I see it, the fatal flaw of the Empire is that it never learned how to centralize its power in a way that was economically sustainable. Without a more even/fair rule of law and a more bearable tax structure, the Empire really never had a chance and I think it was an amazing feat that it lasted as long as it did.

[Incitatus]

I disagree. Part of the cause of the fall was the split of the empire. Also a lot of the leaders were mad or power stupid. The normal hardworking roman can't have changed that much either

[Tobias]

As i was discussing in "Wealth of the Romans", a large factor that led to the downfall was as said above. For an Empire made rich on conquest and plunder, peace did not necessarily mean prosperity. The coinage was repeatedly debased from about 170 onwards. With economic decline came political instability: in the half century after 235, there were 15 Emperors, most ruling only a few years. At the same time, Rome's enemies had become more powerful. In the east, the Parthians had been replaced in 226 by the Sassanid Persians, who sought to restore the glory of the Persian Empire 700 years before. They sacked Antioch in 253 and took the Emperor Valerian prisoner at Edessa in 260. Simultaneously, Germans raided deep into the Empire, reaching the Mediterranean at several points. The Empire's impotence prompted regional commanders to seize control in the worst affected areas. In the west, Postumus founded a Gallic Empire in 260, including Spain and Britain. In the east, the semi-independent trading city of Palmyra became the centre for resistance. Its ruler, Odenathus beat back the Persians and even sacked their capital Ctephiston. On his death in 267, his more ambitious widow, Zenobia, took power, and had by 269 conquered Roman Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

Although Aurelian and Constantine formed a strong rebuilt empire, it was now based in Constantinople, and in my opinion the feeling of tradition and maintaining the former great had waned; why defend a Roman Empire if the capital isn't even in the traditional Rome anymore?

In 375, the Visigoths, fleeing the Huns who had invaded Europe from central Asia, were allowed to settle south of the Danube. Poorly treated, they revolted in 378 and destroyed the Imperial army sent against them. With Roman subjects unwilling to serve in the army, the Empire took to replacing them with German tribes en masse, starting with the Visigoths themselves. In 395, Theodosius the great, the last Emperor of the East and West, died, dividing the Empire between his two sons. Taking advantage of the situation, the Visigoths revolted again in 395, invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 410. Meanwhile, Vandals and Sueves had invaded across the Rhine, and Britain had rebelled. The Empire in the West maintained just enough strength to repel the Huns from Gaul in 451, with help from its German allies. After that it went into terminal decline.

However, this is oversimplified, and this description says nothing of the series of defeats, confusion and decadence of the time. It may, however, be safely said that the loss of the people's patriotism and feeling of ideals and aims had by for example 451 basically evaporated.