Single Biggest Contributor To Rome's Collapse

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

Actually, right before the final push of the germanic invasions, the emperor was busy fightiing off one usurper after another. If he had had a stable government, he could have concentrated entirely on the enemies of Rome instead of his personal ones.

 

Polybius remarked that one of the major reasons for the rapid rise of Rome was its internal stability. If he's right, the contrapositive must also be true: that Rome would fall (yes FALL) once it was destabilized. Only Rome could defeat Rome; and it did.

[tflex]

Actually, right before the final push of the germanic invasions, the emperor was busy fightiing off one usurper after another. If he had had a stable government, he could have concentrated entirely on the enemies of Rome instead of his personal ones.

 

Polybius remarked that one of the major reasons for the rapid rise of Rome was its internal stability. If he's right, the contrapositive must also be true: that Rome would fall (yes FALL) once it was destabilized. Only Rome could defeat Rome; and it did.

 

Failure of succession to the throne definately played a role in Rome's collapse but it was not a primary cause. Economic decline led to an increasing number of bad emperors and political infighting which in turn put more pressure on a weak system of succession. But when Rome was economically sound in the early empire, the system was also weak but Rome still managed to fend off its enemies. Therefore, the system of succession was a secondary cause. The dying economy was the primary cause internally and mass migration was the primary cause externally for the empires eventual fall.

Edited February 5, 2006 by tflex

[caldrail]

Personally I think Rome lost its dynamic fervour, and this more than anything led to the western collapse. There was less and less reward for individual initiative and less willingness to 'do your bit for Rome'. As I read about the later empire I'm struck by how little they match up to their forebears. The Rome of 476AD comes across as a pale shadow of its former self. That to me indicates that the people with influence and power had less ability and less drive. Truth is, the older noble families had died out, most later nobles were descended from slaves, and foreigners had increasingly risen to high rank. There goes the neighbourhood. Rome, essentially, became a run down area.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Economic decline led to an increasing number of bad emperors and political infighting which in turn put more pressure on a weak system of succession. But when Rome was economically sound in the early empire, the system was also weak but Rome still managed to fend off its enemies. Therefore, the system of succession was a secondary cause. The dying economy was the primary cause internally and mass migration was the primary cause externally for the empires eventual fall.

 

Funny, I actually voted for economic decline as the single biggest contributor too, but I'd add that the declining economy wasn't some irreducible primary factor, but a consequence of (inter alia) bad domestic policy (e.g., the Edict on Prices, financing spectacles and public works through debasing the currency), bad foreign policy (esp paying more to bribe the barbarians than to build bigger armies and fortifications), Christianity (in the form of spending wildly on economically worthless churches and purely parasitical monasteries), and civil war. In my view, perpetual economic decline was the thing that made all the rest a real danger instead of a mere nuisance.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Economic decline led to an increasing number of bad emperors and political infighting which in turn put more pressure on a weak system of succession. But when Rome was economically sound in the early empire, the system was also weak but Rome still managed to fend off its enemies. Therefore, the system of succession was a secondary cause. The dying economy was the primary cause internally and mass migration was the primary cause externally for the empires eventual fall.

 

Funny, I actually voted for economic decline as the single biggest contributor too, but I'd add that the declining economy wasn't some irreducible primary factor, but a consequence of (inter alia) bad domestic policy (e.g., the Edict on Prices, financing spectacles and public works through debasing the currency), bad foreign policy (esp paying more to bribe the barbarians than to build bigger armies and fortifications), Christianity (in the form of spending wildly on economically worthless churches and purely parasitical monasteries), and civil war. In my view, perpetual economic decline was the thing that made all the rest a real danger instead of a mere nuisance.

 

Funny, I don't see Caesar in your post or anything concerning government.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Funny, I actually voted for economic decline as the single biggest contributor too, but I'd add that the declining economy wasn't some irreducible primary factor, but a consequence of (inter alia) bad domestic policy (e.g., the Edict on Prices, financing spectacles and public works through debasing the currency), bad foreign policy (esp paying more to bribe the barbarians than to build bigger armies and fortifications), Christianity (in the form of spending wildly on economically worthless churches and purely parasitical monasteries), and civil war. In my view, perpetual economic decline was the thing that made all the rest a real danger instead of a mere nuisance.

 

Funny, I don't see Caesar in your post or anything concerning government.

 

There's lots on government in my post. And of course Caesar is singularly responsible for everything bad that happened to Rome--it just goes without saying!

[Caius Maxentius]

The more I read, the more I tend to agree with the transformation-of-the-culture theory instead of the decline-and-fall. I think it's hard to separate out a lot of the things discussed above, because they all contributed in concert to Rome's changing situation.

 

I'd add that Diocletian's measures to decentralize power, expand the bureaucracy and divide society into functional orders did a lot to change the nature of the Roman state, and this decentralization continued well into early Medieval times. Secular power devolved into smaller and smaller spheres, and the over-government provided by the imperial Roman state became increasingly expensive and eventually irrelevant, at least in the West.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The more I read, the more I tend to agree with the transformation-of-the-culture theory instead of the decline-and-fall. I think it's hard to separate out a lot of the things discussed above, because they all contributed in concert to Rome's changing situation.

 

What are you reading? Have you read the archaological evidence from Bryan Ward-Perkins' "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization"?

[Neos Dionysos]

The more I read, the more I tend to agree with the transformation-of-the-culture theory instead of the decline-and-fall. I think it's hard to separate out a lot of the things discussed above, because they all contributed in concert to Rome's changing situation.

 

What are you reading? Have you read the archaological evidence from Bryan Ward-Perkins' "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization"?

 

I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

[tflex]

Funny, I actually voted for economic decline as the single biggest contributor too...

 

Cato, are you trying to say you agree with me, because if you are its a cause for celebration that you finally came back down to earth.

 

I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

 

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.

Edited February 5, 2006 by tflex

[Neos Dionysos]

I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

 

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.

 

No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved.

 

The two are different.

[tflex]

I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

 

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.

 

No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved.

 

The two are different.

 

Sorry I misunderstood then.

 

Looking at the poll, I'm surprised that so far nobody has voted for the 'Civilization of the Roman Soldier'. I think maybe it's not as well documented as the other causes.

Edited February 5, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved.

 

The Roman way of life--specialization of labor, material comforts, economic activity--were all vastly reduced over a period of about 100 years. How is this evolution??

[Kosmo]

I voted for infighting because this was the direct cause, but economic decline because of overspending for public works, army, plebeans and lavish ceremonies combined with a demografic decline, huge external trade deficit and little tehnological inovation was a great problem.

Causes are connected. A new emperor with no money to start after a devastating civil war had to pay lots of money to the army, make donations and celebrations putting pressure on economy thru taxation and confiscations.

Another factor was the reduced internal trade as various "innovations" spread thru the uniform empire from East to West and South to North.

If wine was an important trade item for Gaul and Rhine regions coming from Italy thru Massalia and Narbonne after the roman conquest this areas became large producers themselfs exporting wine to other regions. Glass was produced in roman Dacia, so only high quality glass come from other areas. As a result of this uniformisation the regions became self sufficient and less money came from trade.

Other factor is soil erossion in the vital meditteranean areas caused by deforestation and intensive agriculture. Sicilly entered a slow decline after the civil wars, while Greek agriculture was in a decline since the time of Alexander. Possibly a climate change influenced this.

[LEG X EQ]

I wonder why Constantinople is not an option?

In my opinion they are responsable for the collapse. It was them who installed people like Odoaker and Theoderic in the west and went into a pact with the Lombards to help them defeat the East-Goths (ostrogoths) and to be rewarded with land in northern italy. The split of west and east was the beginning of the end. And the east being to powerful but to incompetant.

Edited February 7, 2006 by LEG X EQ