Skip to comments.Why Did Rome Fall? It's Time For New Answers
Posted on 07/16/2007 5:34:07 PM PDT by blam
Why Did Rome Fall? It's Time for New Answers
By Peter Heather
Mr. Heather is professor at Worcester College, University of Oxford, and the author of The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Oxford University Press).
The Roman Empire stretched from Hadrians Wall to northern Iraq, and from the mouth of the Rhine to the Atlas Mountains of North Africa. It was the largest state that western Eurasia has ever seen. It was also extremely long-lived. Roman power prevailed over most of these domains for five hundred years -- and all this in a period where the speed of bureaucratic functioning and of military response rattled along at 45 kilometres a day, something like one tenth of modern counterparts. Measured in terms of how long it took real people to get places, the Roman Empire was arguably ten times as big as it appears from the map.
The epic scale of the Empires existence has always sharpened interest in its collapse, particularly that of the west, which ceased to exist on the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476. Since Gibbon -- while some role has always been allocated to outside invaders -- explanation has tended to focus on a range of internal transformations and problems as the prime movers in the processes of Roman imperial collapse. By the mid-twentieth century, causation commonly concentrated upon preceding economic collapse.
This entire vision of late Roman economic collapse was based, however, on assorted references to hyper-inflation in the third century and to various problems associated with the raising of taxation in the fourth. It has been overturned since the 1970s, when archaeologists developed, for the first time, a method for sampling general levels of rural productivity. Modern ploughing bites deep into long-submerged stratigraphic layers, bringing to the surface much ancient pottery. Long-term regional survey projects spent long summers collecting every fragment in the target zones, and every winter analyzing the results. Once Roman pottery sequences became so well-known that many pots could be dated to within ten to twenty years, and excavations established what surface density of pottery was likely to reflect the existence of a settlement underneath, two things became possible. Dense pottery assemblages made it possible to estimate the number of Roman settlements in any region, and the dating patterns of those assemblages then made it possible to know when precisely any particular settlement had been occupied. Against all expectation, the fourth century immediately prior to fifth century collapse - has emerged as the period of maximum agricultural activity, not the minimum as the old views supposed, for the vast majority of the Empire. Total rural output, and hence total GIP gross imperial product was clearly higher in the later Roman period, than ever before. It is now no longer possible to explain fifth-century political collapse in terms of preceding economic crisis.
What the hyper-inflation was all about, in fact, was minting enough silver coins to pay an army which was increasing in size out of all proportion to the metalwork stock of silver available. And this, straightforwardly, was the product of exogenous shock. From the 230s onwards, the Sassanian dynasty reorganized a huge region of the Near East - Iraq and Iran in modern terms - to create a superpower rival to the Roman Empire. The new power announced itself with three massive victories over different Roman Emperors, the last of whom, Valerian, was first captured, then skinned and tanned after his death. The Persian threat was eventually countered by the end of the third century, but it took fifty years of military and fiscal adjustment to mobilize the necessary resources. This narrower vision of third-century crisis makes much more sense of the overwhelming archaeological evidence for fourth-century prosperity, and, of the brute fact that, even after the fall of the west in the fifth century, the eastern half of the Empire operating with the same institutions carried on successfully for centuries. It also poses Gibbons question again. If there is no sign of major dislocation within the late Roman imperial system of the fourth century, why did its western half collapse in the fifth?
Early in the third century, the traditional cast of small, largely Germanic groupings which had long confronted Roman power across its European frontiers was replaced by a smaller number of larger entities. This refashioning prevailed all along Romes European frontiers, from the new Frankish coalition at the mouth of the Rhine, to the Black Sea where Goths emerged as the new power in the land. As another large body of archaeological evidence has now shown, much more was afoot here than mere changes of name. In the course of the Roman period broadly the first four centuries AD central and northern Europe saw its own economic revolution. There was a massive increase in agricultural production, fuelled by an intensification of farming regimes, accompanied by unmistakable signs of increasing differentials in wealth and status between different sections of society, with an ever greater prominence being assumed by a militarized segment of the male population. It is these broader transformations which underlay the appearance of the new names on the other side of Romes frontiers, and most had been stimulated by economic, political and even cultural interactions with the Roman Empire. These new entities proved much more formidable than those they replaced, operating as only semi-subdued clients of the Empire. They did contribute to imperial armies on occasion, but also required regular Roman military campaigning and targeted foreign aid to willing kings to keep them in line. The balance of power in its favor, which had allowed the Roman Empire to come into existence, was being eroded not just by the Sassanians, but also by the new structures of non-Roman Europe.
Some important contingent sequences of events also contributed to the fall of the western Empire. From c.370, the nomadic Huns suddenly exploded to prominence on the eastern fringes of Europe, generating two major pulses of migration into the Roman world, one 376-80, the other 405-8. By 440, their different original components more than half a dozen in total - had coalesced into two major groupings, each much larger than any of the groups which had existed beyond the frontier in the fourth century: the Visigoths in southern Gaul, the Vandals in North Africa, both representing amalgamations of three separate immigrant groups of 10,000 warriors plus. The immigrants had in the process inflicted great damage on west Roman state structures, by first mincing its armies and then preventing their proper replacement either by ravaging or annexing key areas of its tax base. This in turn allowed Anglo-Saxons and Franks to take over former Roman territories in Britain and north-eastern Gaul, weakening the state still further. The immigrants also acted as alternative sources of political magnetism for local Roman elites. Given that Roman elites were all landowners, and could not therefore move their assets to more desirable locales, they were faced with little choice but to come to terms with immigrants as they became locally dominant, or risk losing their wealth. In this way, the west Roman state eventually withered to extinction, if not without vigorous martial efforts to restore its fortunes, as its revenues fell away and it could no longer put effective forces in the field.
Without the contingent impact of the Huns, the two main pulses of migration would never have occurred in short enough order to prevent the Roman authorities from dealing with the migrants, which had each group arrived separately, they certainly could. The important contribution of internal Roman limitations is also clear, not least in the states inability to increase agricultural production still further beyond fourth-century levels as crisis began to bite after 400. The ability of the immigrants to detach Roman landowners politically from their allegiance also reflects the naturally loose levels of control exercised locally by such a geographically vast state encumbered with such primitive modes of communication. But even giving these points their due weight, external factors in the persons of the immigrants of 376-80 and 405-8 were the prime mover behind western imperial collapse. The Empires internal limitations only came into play because the immigrants put pressure on its structures, and there is no sign that, by themselves, these limitations none of them new - would have been enough to bring the Empire down, any more than they had been over the preceding half a millennium.
The more contingent aspects of the crisis could not have had the same cumulative effect, likewise, without the preceding transformation of Germanic society. Had the Huns arrived in the second century, the Germanic groups that might then have been set on the march would not have been large enough to survive their initial brush with Roman power. By the same token, the processes of political amalgamation required to generate warrior groupings of a few tens of thousands, on the scale of the fifth-century Visigoths or Vandals, would have been so complex, involving so many small contingents, that they could not have been completed successfully before the individual groups were destroyed by a Roman Empire, which prior to the rise of Persia, still had plenty of fiscal/military slack in its systems. There is a strong sense, therefore, in which imperial Roman power and wealth created its own nemesis, by generating opposing forces which were powerful enough to match its military might. And here, if nowhere else, the fall of Rome might still have lessons which modern Empires would do well to ponder.
Are we gonna’ rewrite ANCIENT history too?
and all this in a period where the speed of bureaucratic functioning and of military response rattled along at 45 kilometres a day,
Not true. Rome could pass messages from one end of the empire to another in a matter of days.
Rome fell for one reason only—Fred Thompson had not been born yet.
Military history ping. Previous threads on the ping list include one on Attila the Hun at the Battle of Chalons.
This answer is easy. Rome fell because the society got rich, liberal and complacent and no longer felt a strong military or decisive action was worth the effort.
Reliance on mercenaries to do their fighting, evasion of taxes needed to keep up the Republic and a general malaise that they were invincible led to their destruction.
In other words they became fat, dumb and lazy. Just like America today.
Are we gonna rewrite ANCIENT history too?
Well, to be fair, you have to acknowledge that the Ancient History we are familiar with has probably been rewritten a couple of dozen times. ;-)
Rome fell because it didn’t kill the anti-Romans faster than the anti-Romans killed the Romans.
But yes, Germanic "immigration" both internal and external (meaning military invasions) were a major league element to Rome's downfall.
It gets more complicated, but for example at the end when the city itself fell, Gibbons claims the gates were opened in the night by some inhabitants whose sympathies lay more with the forces outside than with the Roman authority inside the city.
In many ways Rome had tried to absorb the germans, or had been forced to do so. Rome was surviving in the end with a German mercenary army and with the help of German allies. Rome became weaker and the German "guests" stronger.
Modern authors don't like to mention that Gibbons also attributed the fall to the Romans becoming an unwarlike people who relied on others to do their fighting. Or that religion softened the fall because the Germans by that time had become Christians.
You’re right...what WAS I thinking?
(Apparently, I wasn’t.)
Thanks for shaking me out of my silliness!
I heard it was the lead poisoning from the plumbing they installed.
The Romans were master engineers when it came to moving water. Aqueducts, constant flow sewerage, etc.
They even invented lead pipe. Lead, which is poisonous, leached out into the drinking water.
Some say this contributed to a collective insanity among the ruling class, who enjoyed the very best in running water technology.
Then the comet hit and everything changed. Lot of effort was wasted when the Northern half of the Western Empire simply shut down (economically and socially) in or about 541 AD for the next thousand years.
“Rome fell because the society got rich, liberal and complacent and no longer felt a strong military or decisive action was worth the effort.”
You left out ‘gay’.
Not enough conquests to supply slaves to work the gold and silver mines that paid the amount of troops needed to maintain the extensive borders.
The problem is, ancient history was already rewritten.
Only Gibbon’s attempt to deny the Christian with its capital at New Rome (a.k.a. Constantinople) as the organic continuation of the Roman Empire, so as to claim the ‘glories’ of pagan Rome for an anti-Christian ‘Enlightenment’, made 476 into a significant event.
The retirement of the last Western Augustus to a villa near Naples, with the decision of the Eastern Augustus, Zeno, to assume the sole Emperorship, and allow administration of the West to be given over to Odovacer as Patrician of the Romans, was not understood by any contemporary as ending Roman rule over Italy: the pattern of sometimes one, sometimes two, Emperors or Augusti (one for the East and one for the West) had been set by Diocletian’s reforms, and the capital moved to Constantinople by Constantine.
Direct Imperial rule was reestablished in the West under Justinian, and even after effective control passed back to the local Germanic ‘nobility’, there is ample documentary evidence that people still regarded the Emperor in Constantinople as, at least theoretically, the highest political authority.
Even the Imperial coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo in 800 was understood by Charlemagne as reestablishing the office of Western Augustus, at least until his position was not recognized by the actual Roman Emperor at Constantinople, at which point he began styling himself ‘Holy Roman Emperor’, and referring to the Roman Emperor, Irene (yes, she was styled Imperator and Basileus, not Empress), as ‘Emperor of the Hellenes’—and insult, since until about 1800 Hellene was understood as ‘pagan’.
The Alexiad, a biography of the Emperor Alexius I by his daughter, consistantly refers to the Empire at the time of the Crusades as the Roman Empire.
The book sounds like an inadequate attempt at fixing the rewrite that already took place.
Don’t forget Constantine, and the rise of Christianity.
no, this is a genuine piece of research.
If you have a FReeper ping list, I’d be happy to be on it.
What part of Meechegan are you from?
Very informative and very interesting.
I appreciate the time you took, and I appreciate the education.
Thank you, Ken.
I’m catching on.
(I am glad to have made this mistake because I’m learning much.)
Woo hoo!! Run, FRed, Run!!
Maybe you should take another look at the book cover.
Edward Gibbon’s history of the decline and fall ends in 1453 with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. That’s one long fall, and it puts into perspective the fact that the Roman empire never really decisively “fell” - it gradually evolved into something else. And in a sense it still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, which is organized along the lines of the later imperial government.
I rely far more on the old answers because they just make far more sense.
"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the Republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing.
Teddy Roosevelt on the Fall of the Republic
Do you see parallels when socialism-seeking liberals re-interpret the Constitution's words to avoid amending them? How long before America ceases to be a Republic and becomes the dreaded democracy?
So...Rome fell due to illegal immigration. And because the Romans lacked the will to oppose it. Sounds familiar (unfortunately). If you’re really interested in ancient Rome, then watch “I, Claudius”. While fiction, much of it is based on fact. Those Romans were one wild bunch, especially Livia, Caligula, and Messilina. Wow!!
Rome fell because Chuck Norris didn’t like their attitude. Plus he needed the Coliseum to film his fight scene with Bruce Lee in Return of the Dragon.
Nope, that isn’t it — Rome fell because Chuck Norris gave the Forum a roundhouse kick! You can still see the damage done to the Coliseum.
And in a sense it still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church..
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the natural and historical inheritor of Rome/Christendom...and since its subjugation by islam...only Russia can possibly claim the mantle as in Byzantism which refers to a renewed Russia to counter the increasing secularism of the West.
That’s BS. Even when I’m driving, I can do a couple of 800mi (~1500km = 33.3x) days in a row. If all goes well, one can do even better by flying.
“The Eastern Orthodox Church is the natural and historical inheritor of Rome/Christendom...and since its subjugation by islam...only Russia can possibly claim the mantle as in Byzantism which refers to a renewed Russia to counter the increasing secularism of the West.”
The protestant churches are as derivative from the church of Rome as the Russian church is from Constantinople.
Also, as a matter of fact, there are other eastern european countries that maintained the faith far better than the KGB riddled church of the Kremlin.
The bottom line is that there is a direct lineage from the Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire and then to the current superpowers.
At the risk of hijacking the thread, mostly Saginaw, which is falling faster than Rome. (See how I steered that right back onto the track?)
I believe the Latin Church Father, Augustine, gave his explanation in his tome “The City Of God”. That’s at least one place to look, as well as Edward Gibbon’s “Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire”
And here, if nowhere else, the author reveals his tedious and banal message.
The fact is that Rome never solved the critical problem of the succession. As early as 69 AD there were multiple "caesars" contending and fighting internecine battles for the seat of empire. The gathering of external forces was real, as Hadrian, famous for his English wall, had to relinquish Trajan's eastern conquests in the face of powerful Persian forces. Marcus Aurelius faced hordes of Germans pouring across the Danube, the Alps and into Italy itself by 180. By the year 193 Rome again saw a contest of four emperors, including one based in Gaul-- and by 238 there began a period of "military anarchy" in which rulers rose and fell like the tides, all the while foreign forces were gathering strength.
In spite of all, Rome regrouped and in the later 200's consolidated and restored some territorial integrity and defensible boundaries on a reduced scale. The foreign forces were formidable in size, not mere tribes of roving outlanders--in 268 AD the emperor Gallienus won a victory over the Goths, in present-day Balkans, where 50,000 enemy were slain.
Rome didn't create these forces. They came from the foggy swamps and endless forests of northern Europe and the vastness of the steppes of the Eurasian landmass.
The point is, Rome didn't just "collapse." Over a period of at least 400 years it stumbled, fell, regained its footing, was knocked down and got up again, and was actually sacked more than once before it gave up the ghost as the capital of the known world in 476.
Throughout, its strength was vitiated by the absence of any coherent, agreed upon means of selecting and legitimizing its rulers, a crippling internal weakness when fending off the weight of the rest of the world on its borders.
utter nonsense/ read the history.
you heard wrong. lead poisoning is a 5 second tabloid explanation for a 500 year history.
Western powers - mainly the Europeans - today bear little resemblance to the Christian infused nature of Byzantium.
As for Russia—its identity was almost destroyed by the Bolsheviks—most of whom were not even Russian!...a foreign ideology that crept in and almost destroyed Russian Orthodox Identity. It did not however.
Marxism lost. Russia and Russian Orthodoxy lives on.
If you read Gibbons I don’t know how you missed the more than lengthy hsitory of Constatinople from its founding to its fall, or of Justinian’s temporary recapture of Italy, or of the development of the East West Church schism and the subsequent efforts to mend it. Or for that matter the extensive history of Christianity, which Gibbons never tried to deny.
The Romans had high levels of lead in their pottery. This was a particularly bad problem in wine vessels.