Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE REASONS FOR THE FALL OF ROME
Website ^ | unknow | History Alive Material

Posted on 12/23/2008 11:41:49 AM PST by briarbey b

There were many reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Each one intertwined with the next. Many even blame the introduction of Christianity for the decline. Christianity made many Roman citizens into pacifists, making it more difficult to defend against the barbarian attackers. Also money used to build churches could have been used to maintain the empire. Although some argue that Christianity may have provided some morals and values for a declining civilization and therefore may have actually prolonged the imperial era.

Decline in Morals and Values

Those morals and values that kept together the Roman legions and thus the empire could not be maintained towards the end of the empire. Crimes of violence made the streets of the larger cities unsafe. Even during PaxRomana there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome. Emperors like Nero and Caligula became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties where guests ate and drank until they became ill. The most popular amusement was watching the gladiatorial combats in the Colosseum. These were attended by the poor, the rich, and frequently the emperor himself. As gladiators fought, vicious cries and curses were heard from the audience. One contest after another was staged in the course of a single day. Should the ground become too soaked with blood, it was covered over with a fresh layer of sand and the performance went on.

Public Health

There were many public health and environmental problems. Many of the wealthy had water brought to their homes through lead pipes. Previously the aqueducts had even purified the water but at the end lead pipes were thought to be preferable. The wealthy death rate was very high. The continuous interaction of people at the Colosseum, the blood and death probable spread disease. Those who lived on the streets in continuous contact allowed for an uninterrupted strain of disease much like the homeless in the poorer run shelters of today. Alcohol use increased as well adding to the incompetency of the general public.

Political Corruption

One of the most difficult problems was choosing a new emperor. Unlike Greece where transition may not have been smooth but was at least consistent, the Romans never created an effective system to determine how new emperors would be selected. The choice was always open to debate between the old emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian Guard (the emperor's's private army), and the army. Gradually, the Praetorian Guard gained complete authority to choose the new emperor, who rewarded the guard who then became more influential, perpetuating the cycle. Then in 186 A. D. the army strangled the new emperor, the practice began of selling the throne to the highest bidder. During the next 100 years, Rome had 37 different emperors - 25 of whom were removed from office by assassination. This contributed to the overall weaknesses of the empire.

Unemployment

During the latter years of the empire farming was done on large estates called latifundia that were owned by wealthy men who used slave labor. A farmer who had to pay workmen could not produce goods as cheaply. Many farmers could not compete with these low prices and lost or sold their farms. This not only undermined the citizen farmer who passed his values to his family, but also filled the cities with unemployed people. At one time, the emperor was importing grain to feed more than 100,000 people in Rome alone. These people were not only a burden but also had little to do but cause trouble and contribute to an ever increasing crime rate.

Inflation

The roman economy suffered from inflation (an increase in prices) beginning after the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Once the Romans stopped conquering new lands, the flow of gold into the Roman economy decreased. Yet much gold was being spent by the romans to pay for luxury items. This meant that there was less gold to use in coins. As the amount of gold used in coins decreased, the coins became less valuable. To make up for this loss in value, merchants raised the prices on the goods they sold. Many people stopped using coins and began to barter to get what they needed. Eventually, salaries had to be paid in food and clothing, and taxes were collected in fruits and vegetables.

Urban decay

Wealthy Romans lived in a domus, or house, with marble walls, floors with intricate colored tiles, and windows made of small panes of glass. Most Romans, however, were not rich, They lived in small smelly rooms in apartment houses with six or more stories called islands. Each island covered an entire block. At one time there were 44,000 apartment houses within the city walls of Rome. First-floor apartments were not occupied by the poor since these living quarters rented for about $00 a year. The more shaky wooden stairs a family had to climb, the cheaper the rent became. The upper apartments that the poor rented for $40 a year were hot, dirty, crowed, and dangerous. Anyone who could not pay the rent was forced to move out and live on the crime-infested streets. Because of this cities began to decay.

Inferior Technology

During the last 400 years of the empire, the scientific achievements of the Romans were limited almost entirely to engineering and the organization of public services. They built marvelous roads, bridges, and aqueducts. They established the first system of medicine for the benefit of the poor. But since the Romans relied so much on human and animal labor, they failed to invent many new machines or find new technology to produce goods more efficiently. They could not provide enough goods for their growing population. They were no longer conquering other civilizations and adapting their technology, they were actually losing territory they could not longer maintain with their legions.

Military Spending

Maintaining an army to defend the border of the Empire from barbarian attacks was a constant drain on the government. Military spending left few resources for other vital activities, such as providing public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the Empire. The empire had to begin hiring soldiers recruited from the unemployed city mobs or worse from foreign counties. Such an army was not only unreliable, but very expensive. The emperors were forced to raise taxes frequently which in turn led again to increased inflation.

THE FINAL BLOWS For years, the well-disciplined Roman army held the barbarians of Germany back. Then in the third century A. D. the Roman soldiers were pulled back from the Rhine-Danube frontier to fight civil war in Italy. This left the Roman border open to attack. Gradually Germanic hunters and herders from the north began to overtake Roman lands in Greece and Gaul (later France). Then in 476 A. D. the Germanic general Odacer or Odovacar overthrew the last of the Roman Emperors, Augustulus Romulus. From then on the western part of the Empire was ruled by Germanic chieftain. Roads and bridges were left in disrepair and fields left untilled. Pirates and bandits made travel unsafe. Cities could not be maintained without goods from the farms, trade and business began to disappear. And Rome was no more in the West.

???? Fall of the United States ????


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: cultures; history; misc; romanempire; rome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
Give a present day example:

Decline in Morals and Values

Public Health

Political Corruption

Unemployment

Urban decay

Inferior Technology

Military Spending

Make a prediction about the future of the United States.

1 posted on 12/23/2008 11:41:49 AM PST by briarbey b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: briarbey b

I don’t know about you, but I’ll go down shooting.


3 posted on 12/23/2008 11:46:56 AM PST by y6162 (ater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Rome fell because it moved. Left town. Bu-bye. Sayonara. Later. Look around, it’s still here. The Roman Empire still owns the planet.


4 posted on 12/23/2008 11:47:31 AM PST by RightWhale (We were so young two years ago and the DJIA was 12,000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Welcome to the Dark Ages!


5 posted on 12/23/2008 11:47:57 AM PST by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Disturbingly familiar patterns.

Now we have our first Caligula preparing to take the helm.

The ancient Romans had a saying, “vae victis”—woe to the vanquished.

Indeed.


6 posted on 12/23/2008 11:49:14 AM PST by Welcome2thejungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

The parallels are apparent.


7 posted on 12/23/2008 11:51:20 AM PST by Canedawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: y6162
I don’t know about you, but I’ll go down shooting.

I'm with ya.

8 posted on 12/23/2008 11:53:47 AM PST by TonyStark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b
Their men cared more about their "Fox holes" than fighting for freedom?


9 posted on 12/23/2008 11:53:50 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b
"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
10 posted on 12/23/2008 11:53:55 AM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

One relatively new theory is population decline.


11 posted on 12/23/2008 11:58:29 AM PST by spyone (ridiculum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puffer
Christianity made people into pacifists??

Yes. First and second Christianity was notable for its pacifism.

12 posted on 12/23/2008 12:00:37 PM PST by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

???Fall of any similar society???


13 posted on 12/23/2008 12:02:07 PM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone

I thought it was due to Roman warming? :)


14 posted on 12/23/2008 12:02:16 PM PST by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spyone

The City of Rome went from over a million to about 10,000. It’s back now, and then some.


15 posted on 12/23/2008 12:02:48 PM PST by RightWhale (We were so young two years ago and the DJIA was 12,000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Let’s not forget the final point of factional infighting.


16 posted on 12/23/2008 12:05:16 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: mbarker12474
Yes. First and second Christianity was notable for its pacifism.

Actually they were. They felt the end of the world/the return of Christ was imminent and so why bother?

18 posted on 12/23/2008 12:06:00 PM PST by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg
The parallels are apparent.

Don't forget the massive grain distributions of the later Roman Empire. This welfare scheme was started for the same reasons that the modern welfare state was created, to cause dependence and thereby consolidate political power. It contributed to the softening and decay of that society, just as it has in our own.

19 posted on 12/23/2008 12:06:09 PM PST by outofstyle (There's a rake at the gates of Hell tonight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Rome fell becase Carthage was vanquished. Had Carthage been victorious, there would have been no Rome to fall.


20 posted on 12/23/2008 12:06:12 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Save America......... put out lots of wafarin (it's working))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

The Roman Empire actually fell in AD 235. That was the end of the Severan Principate and the beginning of a nearly 50 year period of civil war, invasions, plagues and murders. During this time, nearly the entire empire was lost. Out of this mess emerged a massive proto-typical feudal state that was Roman in name only. It possessed most of the territory as the old empire, but that is where the similarities end. The capital was at Ravenna, until it was moved to Constantinople. Diocletian and his successors cast aside any pretense of the Republic, donned crowns and ruled without the machinery of the Republic. The army was taken over by Germans. The only unifying force was Christianity. This arrangement lasted from 285 to 1453.


21 posted on 12/23/2008 12:12:43 PM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: yankeedame; Antoninus

Yeah, I’m not sure about that. Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne—all Christians who fought to restore the Roman Empire (really a quite different Empire in the case of the latter) to its former glory.

Churchmen might have been more pacifist than they were during the Crusades, but I think the immorality of the late Empire had much more to do with it.


23 posted on 12/23/2008 12:15:57 PM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

No country in the history of the world has ever planned its own demise - except the United States. Lack of morals and political corruption are coupled with obscene spending to delude the poor and planned extermination of an entire generation.

We started with so much and we allowed our leaders to squander it all away. The tipping point is near. What will it take to say, “Enough!”?


24 posted on 12/23/2008 12:19:01 PM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

What a bunch of crock....Gee watch HBO’s Rome much?

Everyone knows it was Bush’s fault that Rome fell.
And Yes, he had some help....from the Amish.


25 posted on 12/23/2008 12:22:30 PM PST by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; JDoutrider; dennisw; Fishrrman; AuntB; GOPJ; Truth Defender

PING


26 posted on 12/23/2008 12:27:10 PM PST by briarbey b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

It’s rather useless to analogize with a non-event. The capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to New Rome (a.k.a. Constantinople) in 324.

The retirement of the last Western Augustus to a villa near Naples in 476 happened at the behest of the Eastern Augustus Zeno, who decided (rightly, I think) that the system of parallel Augusti led to bad governance, and (wrongly, I think) that Imperial interests in Italy could be adequately handled by the King of the Ostrogoths in his role as Patrician of the Romans. No Empire ‘fell’ in 476.

Justinian reasserted direct Imperial control over Italy, Spain and North Africa in the sixth century, though this was not long-lived, except in the area around Ravenna.

The ‘Fall of Rome’ like ‘the Byzantine Empire’ represents not an historical reality, but an invention of Gibbon, who wanted to claim the ‘glories of (pagan) Rome’ for the “Enlightenement” by denying the continuity of the Empire at some convenient point.

The Roman Empire, throughly Christian, continued until, having dwindled to a city-state through neglect of the fleet, betrayals by allies, and a failure to embrace firearms, it fell to the Turks in 1453.


27 posted on 12/23/2008 12:30:44 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone; All

We have destroyed a generation with our abortion policies, and replaced them with immigrants. HOW stupid is that??


28 posted on 12/23/2008 12:31:07 PM PST by briarbey b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

The seed of the fall of the Roman Republic began to grow with the great victories in the Punic Wars and the following wars. Soldiers prior to that period, a couple of centuries BC, were citizens, not professional soldiers, with farms and homesteads of their own. War was seasonal so the soldier went home to tend his farm.

After the expansion during the Punic Wars there was a vast importation of slaves captured during the conquests and purchased by the wealthy. Soldiers would return from the wars wherein these slaves were captured to find their homesteads seized and being farmed by them for the benefit of the wealthy classes with their families thrown off the land. The Gracchi tried to stop this but were assassinated by the Patrician class for their efforts. Thus died the Republican character of the Roman army and transformed it into a tool for empire despite great resistance to the expansion required as a permanent feature to support such a system. The latifundia region of southern Italy has suffered for the last two millenium because of this system which depopulated the area and turned much of it into a wasteland.

As the city filled up with this dispossessed lumpenproletariat it became the the means that the wealthy patrons used to obtain and keep power. The client-patron relationship wherein the client was bribed with money and aid to vote as the patron wished has been problematic ever since and is still used by the big city political machines through the patronage system.

In Rome it eventually led to the state itself being the prey of the competing political factions erupting in the huge bloodletting civil wars in the century before Christ. The final struggle between Octavian and Antony was throughout the whole Mediterranean.

Private citizens such are Marcus Crassus could fund armies and fight wars using Roman authority. Of course, such matters were the means to achieving fabulous wealth through which the state itself was manipulated by bribery and corruption of secular and sacred offices.

It was the existence of such factions which the Founders warned against (see the Federalist) and tried to prevent from dominating political life in our Republic. That lasted until Jefferson and Madison formed the forerunner of the Democrat party to oppose Hamilton. We still suffer the consequences of that creation.


29 posted on 12/23/2008 12:31:26 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Do you have any book or listins of books that might flesh out these ideas? This is quite fascinating for me. Thanks in advance.


30 posted on 12/23/2008 12:36:26 PM PST by Unlikely Hero ("Time is a wonderful teacher; unfortunately, it kills all its pupils." --Berlioz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Where did you get that?
I would like to read more.


31 posted on 12/23/2008 12:37:24 PM PST by duffus (Deport all Aliens, Secure the Border, Recall the Troops, Shrink the Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: duffus

Oh, goodness, that quote has been in my archives for years. If you google Roosevelt, you may find more of it. If I recall, it was a speech given after he was out of office.


32 posted on 12/23/2008 12:39:17 PM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Churchmen might have been more pacifist than they were during the Crusades, but I think the immorality of the late Empire had much more to do with it.

Immorality, which would have been condemned even in the old pagan Republic, was the source of several of the factors mentioned. The bottom line was the message sent out that state, or the emperor, owes you free food, lodging, and circuses, as long as you remain a mob friendly towards him.

I feel that the brutality of the circuses directly undermined people's interest in serving in the military. They could enjoy real death and dismemberment (as opposed to our reliance on special effects) from a safe distance. Unless you were a condemned prisoner, you were on the arena floor of your own free will to provide a good show for some sort of personal gain.

Join the military, and you spend 25 years of taking orders, and sometimes risking your life. There were benefits of the best medical care available, the best equipment, and a reasonable concern for your food and shelter. At the end of the enlistment, aliens could look forward to full Roman citizenship for themselves and their families.

But in a society that organized itself around mobocracy and free sustenance and entertainment, no sane person would want to sign up to defend the empire.

33 posted on 12/23/2008 12:44:56 PM PST by 300winmag (Life is hard! It is even harder when you are stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
EXCELLENT post AuntB!! :)

Many believers have their eyes turned toward a Europe that will be what we see as a revived Roman Empire of the last days. I disagree.

The similarities between the US and Rome are unprecedented. Right down to our Coliseums. A senate..architecture..conquering the world and making them democracies (and we are suppose to be a republic..that is a laugh). If anyone can think of more...chime in!!

34 posted on 12/23/2008 12:48:29 PM PST by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The City of Rome went from over a million to about 10,000. It’s back now, and then some.

It was down to about 500 or so for a time during the 6th century Romano-Gothic wars.
35 posted on 12/23/2008 1:05:07 PM PST by Antoninus (America didn't turn away from conservatism, they turned away from many who faked it. - Mark Sanford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b
The Romans lost the traditions that had made them a strong people. Their upper classes became decadent and the common people were no longer patriotic.

Unfortunately we have much in common with Imperial Rome. We may be living in the last days of the Republic.

36 posted on 12/23/2008 1:10:09 PM PST by Max in Utah (A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

Naaaah! Welcome to New Kenya (Africa U.S.A.)

“Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land.”

de Texas Fossil


37 posted on 12/23/2008 1:13:26 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b
That's certainly a lot to think about. One thing to bear in mind is that even in their great days, the Romans were what we'd call immoral. At least the great families were quite licentious sexually.

People generally take the growth of power and centralization as a reason for Rome's fall. There's a lot in that. But there's another side to the coin.

If you were a wealthy Roman you could live well on your estate and not care about the city and the empire. The fact that life would go on, empire or no empire, led people to care less about what happened to Rome.

38 posted on 12/23/2008 1:29:10 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
If you were a wealthy Roman you could live well on your estate and not care about the city and the empire. The fact that life would go on, empire or no empire, led people to care less about what happened to Rome.
***
Sounds like our politicians.
39 posted on 12/23/2008 1:41:14 PM PST by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

If anyone can think of more...chime in!!

Thanks for the invite.

The empire had to begin hiring soldiers recruited from the unemployed city mobs or worse from foreign counties. Such an army was not only unreliable, but very expensive. The emperors were forced to raise taxes frequently which in turn led again to increased inflation.

How obvious is it that Alaric, who sacked Rome in 410, was a certified Roman General.

In other words, the Roman citizens became so apathetic, or feckless, that the job of defending the empire was reassigned to foreign agents. It is not that they were not good soldiers, but that they were not inculcated or born with the empathy that was the Roman empire. They were diverse. Too diverse.

Just like illegal Mexican immigrants.

And all so Democrats can keep "power" (and sad "republican politicians" can keep their jobs).

How obvious is it?

40 posted on 12/23/2008 1:43:44 PM PST by jnsun (The LEFT: The need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jnsun

How obvious is it?
****
Obvious enough to make me squirm.


41 posted on 12/23/2008 1:48:16 PM PST by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

The *turn the other cheek* crowd need to remember the *eye for an eye* method.


42 posted on 12/23/2008 1:50:31 PM PST by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b; All

“Then in 186 A. D. the army strangled the new emperor, the practice began of SELLING THE THRONE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.”

******

Seems that was attempted in Illinois. What price did “O” pay for his presidency????


43 posted on 12/23/2008 1:51:17 PM PST by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Thanks


44 posted on 12/23/2008 2:56:23 PM PST by duffus (Deport all Aliens, Secure the Border, Recall the Troops, Shrink the Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

All true, but the article is about the fall of the Roman Empire, not the Republic.


45 posted on 12/23/2008 3:15:28 PM PST by rmlew (The loyal opposition to a regime dedicated to overthrowing the Constitution are accomplices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

It was because of the destruction of the Republic and its morality that the Empire rose. But it contained the same destructive forces which had destroyed the Republic.

These forces became an uncontrollable violence against people and places once moral control was gone. Cato had fought for a retention of Republican virtue by attacking the love of luxury and dissipation. But it was irresistible without a moral core undermined by emerging rationalism and philosophy.

An empire based upon brute force cannot last.


46 posted on 12/23/2008 3:27:56 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b
The accusation - that's what it was at the time - that Christianity had a deal to do with the downfall of the Roman Empire was first proposed by Edward Gibbon in his magnificent The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. It was, to say the least, highly controversial in the more church-centric age in which he published but the claim seems to have stood the test of time. The real key to this one cause (of many) of the downfall of the western empire was not the diversion of wealth to the Church but the diversion of trained administrators from Roman government to Christian clergy that did the most to undermine the actual running of Rome (this is Gibbon's argument now, not my own).

There were other factors, of course. The establishment of Constantinople split the empire into administrable regions once it became obvious to Constantine and others that it was too large geographically to be administered from Rome. That in turn revivified the already strong Greek influence within the empire. It also split the revenue stream, a good deal of which was, actually, filling Church coffers but not (my contention now) enough to fully explain the atrophy of Roman government.

In the end it was the influx of migratory peoples that changed the empire the most, a wild cascade of tribes that first surrounded, then invested, and then infiltrated the Roman body politic. The real damage was already done by the time the Vandals swept through Spain and into the breadbasket of Rome, which was northern Africa. Once the food supply was controlled by the barbarians it was all over, at least for a century or so until Justinian's great general Belisarius threw the Vandals out of possession. Procopius chronicles what happened next in the Gothic Wars, when the Greeks attempted to wrest Rome from the Goths. We are here into the hideously misnamed "Dark Ages." Gibbon takes us through this and the next nearly thousand years in the Decline and Fall. Some of the best stuff I've ever read, and highly, highly recommended.

47 posted on 12/23/2008 3:32:33 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
We are here into the hideously misnamed “Dark Ages.”
****
My understanding was this was when the RCC took over total religious control of the known world....at least until the protesting ones..aka Protestants stood up and wanted their freedom from religious oppression. The religious system of that time took the light of the world and translated it in to Latin, which your common uneducated pheasant (middle-class and poor) could not understand.

Don't tell me your statement of hideously misnamed Dark Ages will be twisted like the ...there was no Holocaust...just something made up by the Jews. Why do I feel I won't be surprised. :)

48 posted on 12/23/2008 4:18:55 PM PST by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

You are right, the Roman state (Kingdom, Republic, and Empire) lasted for 2200 years, may we be so lucky...


49 posted on 12/23/2008 4:50:02 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps (Merry Christmas!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

The seeds of the end of any empire in history were planted in its beginning.

The road to empire is mounted on how that which precedes it fails to sustain things without a drive for greater power at higher levels of power, and thus greater tyranny.

The seeds of the Roman Empire, and its destruction, arise in the demise of the Roman Republic.

Our founders knew this from history.

When the mob in the street has an entitlement in the treasury of the state, even emperors, with all their power, cannot forever sustain that treasury or the state.


50 posted on 12/23/2008 5:12:35 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson