Question on Rome's decline

[d-done]

What cause the decline of Roman Empire? Could a strong centralized government in Rome keep all its generals under control and continue the Roman Empire?

[Michael B]

The problem with a strong centralised government in Rome is that it needs the army on the frontier and each commander there is a potential emperor. Move the troops from the frontier and the barbarians get a free hand in crossing the frontier either for loot or conquering part of the empire.

What might have saved the situation was the situation where emperors such as Trajan and Hadrian adopted a competent individual as their heir and thus next emperor. Marcus Aurelius broke the chain by making his son Commodus her heir and Commodus turned out to be a wacko.

Then again if the Senate had regained power and began able to govern like the British Parliament with the Emperor as a figurehead that might have kept the show on the road.

[Leyermark]

Rome fell for a great variety of reasons. I think it was Alexander Demandt who counted up to about 400 different explanations. There's all truth in them, so it's a mixture of reasons.

For example, Rome was quite primitive in religious topics. The two Stone Age principles of "pacta sunt servanda" and "do ut des" were the key to Roman religion. Hellenistic Philosophies and Christianity changed that consciousness forever. Pan was dead and therefore the Emperor could not be a person of integration as he could before. Constantine realized that and instrumentalized church for raison d'état.

I agree with Michael B that Roman frontiers could not be effectively secured by a centralized gouvernment by that level of communication. But please don't throw in "Gladiator"! Commodus was a wacko, yes, but the Senate did not try to regain power in the ways that the (actually quite cool) movie showed. They even moved to Constantinopel, knowing they would not gain power (at least not immediately). Werner Raith showed that Elites began not supporting Rome even under Augustus.

No single person could have saved the empire.

BTW, Late Romans themselves tried to explain the decline by the loss of virtue and the growth of laziness, especially of the youth (same story, anywhere on the whole world) :D:

Postquam militia et belli sudore vacabant
Romani et nusquam bella vel hostis erat:
desidia et luxu robur Romana iuventus
perdidit. Hoc cecidit inclita Roma modo.
(Anthologia Latina, 880, ed. Burm., II)

[Looseheadprop]

What cause the decline of Roman Empire? Could a strong centralized government in Rome keep all its generals under control and continue the Roman Empire?

well the real problem was that it stagnated. Rome has often been depicted as a peak of human cultural development. It really wasn't. From a high point around the reign of Augustus which ended with Marcus Aurelius roman quickly degenerated into what i would call totalitarianism. Can you believe that by the end of the second century it was illegal to choose a profession other than that of your father, you couldn't even leave the land you lived on.

Roman civilisation was essentially the enslavement of the countryside on behalf of the city. What the Legions spent most of their time doing was terrorising the rural population into surrendering food.

Roman culture actively derided scientific advance, philosophy and scientific explorations were seen as effete. they destroyed the technological and scientific advances of the Greeks. The Greeks had developed clockwork mechanisms to the point where they were used to stage 'robotic' plays, and there was work being done with the power of steam - Romans fucked that over.

essentially the roman culture and its political structure meant that the empire couldn't feed itself and it couldn't evolve to meet challenges. In comparison the Germanic 'barbarians' were politically egalitarian and to some extent democratic, certainly more vibrant and healthy as a society.

[carlton_bach]

If you really want an answer to the first question, you'll have to study the subject for a few decades and hope you get luckier than every expert to date. There are literally hundreds of explanations proffered (I think it was Ferrill that came to 270 when he presented his own), and every single last one provoked new research that quickly showed that couldn't be quite it. Technological and social stagnation was popular for quite a while, but unfortunaterly it turns out the picture of Late Rome as a totalitarian horror doesn't hold up to scrutiny (not that the governing classes didn't want to make it so but that it didn't actually work). Another theory is that a series of military defeats destroyed the armed forces' capacity to effectively defend the frontiers at a crucial point. Recently, some historians have pointed to the fact that government was increasingly becoming 'privatised' as a factor, which is basically a reprise of McMullen and his 'corruption' thesis (which is a lot smarter than his book title suggests). Then you have hyperinflation (which on closer inspection is actually hard to find in contemporary sources, let alone show to have had marked effects), the diversion of wealth to the church, homosexuality, miscegenation, opium addiction, hippiedom and lead poisoning all being forwarded at various points. Some, possibly even many of these aspects must have played a role (though I somehow doubt that Roman men having sex with Oriental women or men was particularly devastating). Which one(s) it was - probably best conjure the shade of Mommsen and hope he's kept up with his reading in the last century and a half.

As to the second question - probably not. Military revolts were more of a problem earlier.

[Don_Giorgio]

Actually all u need is a wrong move from the Emperor and he will be overthrown by the nearest General... They have seen it happen before and they knew how to do it...

[ninebucks]

My favourite reason for the Empire's decline is the 'Lead Pipes' theory. Basically, anyone entrusted with any policy-making responsibility would have spent their entire lives drinking water that had arrived into the city via lead pipes - lead intoxication, unfortunately, will drive you insane, which would explain why Roman history is more full of 'nutters' than the law of averages would immediately suggest, although of cause, its possible that these people were just the extremes, and that the entire empire was mad...

Although really, I don't see why any reason more complex than 'what goes up must come down' is really required...

[Johnrankins]

I think the change from being a republic to an empire was the problem. The empire was going downhill since Augustus died and he was only the second emperor. Keep it a republic and Rome would have survived longer IMO.

[Don_Giorgio]

I think the change from being a republic to an empire was the problem. The empire was going downhill since Augustus died and he was only the second emperor. Keep it a republic and Rome would have survived longer IMO.


There is NO way for Republic to survive after Julius Caesar and Augustus... Especially after the passing by the Senate of the "Lex Titia"... As i mentioned above Roman Generals and Senators saw how power is conquered and they knew how to grasp ultimate power... Republic was dead by 43 BC... And there is no way to resurrect it...

[NapoleonXIV]

The really mysterious part of the Roman decline is why it lasted so long. Why didn't anything come along to replace it for nearly a thousand years?

One of the stranger theories is in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Diseases-space-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0060119373). I won't go into it any further, as I've never really known what to make of it, but like to get other's opinions. (and before you dismiss it out of hand, note the author)

[Riain]

Saying Roman Empire wasn't replaced for 1000 years I assume means with the rise of the powerful national monarchies in England, Spain and France at the start of the modern era?

[Johnrankins]

There is NO way for Republic to survive after Julius Caesar and Augustus... Especially after the passing by the Senate of the "Lex Titia"... As i mentioned above Roman Generals and Senators saw how power is conquered and they knew how to grasp ultimate power... Republic was dead by 43 BC... And there is no way to resurrect it...

Have Julius die on the way back from Gaul and it will survive for some time. You would also need to pass some reforms to prevent what Julius Caesar did because unless you do someone else will try it.

[Goldstein]

I'm fond of the theory that the main reason of Rome's decline is that such a slavery-based economic system only could work if a nation expands its territory indefinitely. After the battle of Teutoburg, the Roman Empire ceased to expand, and isn't exaggerated to think that the latter inflation, fiscal pressure, rurification and the growing dependence on barbaric mercenaries, were a direct consequence of that.

Also, another factor that accelerated the decline was christianity. The sense of moral decay lead to a wide acceptation of it, and that almost destroyed and rottened the roman cultural identity, not to talk the inner division it started. But, as there would be no sense of moral decay if the roman culture had managed better, there's no reason to think that religion was the main factor. In a stronger Rome, Christianity would have never had a chance.

Also, a more centralized government would have worsened things. For Rome to survive, it would take either a more continued military expansion (though by itself would have not stopped the inevitable decay) or a deep economic transformation (not sure about how possible is that, but if that can be done, it could even revert Rome's decay.)

[Jaded_Railman]

Have Julius die on the way back from Gaul and it will survive for some time. You would also need to pass some reforms to prevent what Julius Caesar did because unless you do someone else will try it.

The Republic was doomed in its then current form with the murder of Gracchus in the 2nd century and as an institution with Marian's dictatorship.

The truth is that the Roman Empire (in the West) fell because a certain Ostrogothic king decided it wasn't worth the effort of appointing a puppet Emperor. The processes that led up to this event are myriad and by no means simplifiable down to a single thing. The individual events that led up to this happening, had individual causes and they all eventually tallied up to that final one.

[Prem_Rack]

I think the change from being a republic to an empire was the problem. The empire was going downhill since Augustus died and he was only the second emperor. Keep it a republic and Rome would have survived longer IMO.

The Republican system cleary wasn't working, there woudn't be Empire othervise. Which isn't a suprise, considering it was a system designed with a city-state in mind. It's quite astonishing when you think about it: Rome was actually spanning continents and still didn't have real administrative aparatus.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Well said on slave labor, Dthntze. I agree that it would be hard for the empire to survive whatever the situation in other areas, had this economic system been kept. In any case, this is how I believe you could "save" the empire.

* Economics: You need a new economic system that isn't based on slavery, or the empire will die. Not much chance of that happening, though.

* Barbarians: You can't have barbarians wandering around. They came because of the Huns putting pressure on them invading from the east, so you need a strong border to "force" them to fight the huns. Which leads us to...

* For god's sake, no civil wars. I have to say that I don't have any idea how to generally prevent this, but I would suppose decentralization (uh... feodalism, hello? Middle ages are approaching!) and separating civil and armed offices before the chrisis of the third century kicks in would be a good thing. Diocletan did make the empire more stable, but he also made it more authorian (although the forcing people to keep their jobs and lands was an attempt at an economical reform).

* Have some luck with diseases. The population of the empire stagnated because of some plauges (not helped by the civil wars that were going on). If you can get some luck here and a good economy that allows things to flourish you're on your way.

* No christianity, or rather, Rome as THE center of religion. From the 4th century onwards focus was on Constantinople: this needs to be avoided. Christian Rome could work, but it needs to be done right.

* No partitioning of the empire. Keep it decentralized so to say, but still united. With luck the two halves can help each other out in times of (financial) trouble.

* Spread the city-building culture to the "wilderlands" and INTERGRATE the "barbarians" with the empire and its culture. As we saw after the fall of Rome they really liked some parts of it!

Saving it would require a lot of things to go right and a lot of really silly luck, and even then you'd probably end up with a very different empire. I don't claim to be an expert but it's my two cent's worth!

[Matthais Corvinus]

To see why Rome failed, you need to study why it rose in the first place. If you look at the Punic Wars the Romans lost a fair number of battles, had armies destroyed, and yet the Republic did not fall. The Romans were able to raise army after army. Later, during the Empire, the Empire appeared unable to field armies the same way the Republic had. I think the best reason that I've seen pointed to as an explanation of the Empire's decline was that it suffered major population losses, which led to the de-urbanization and reinforced the social stagnation. The loss of population led to recruitment of Germanic mercenaries, and also meant that once those mercenaries started turning on the Empire, it was unable to deal with the challenge they presented.

Now the counter-argument, is well why didn't the Eastern Empire suffer the same fate? My answer to this (and this is my own opinion) is that Constantinople created a barrier to barbarian expansion into Anatolia, and without a strong challenge from the Persians during this period the Eastern Empire was able to survive the Germanic invasions. Basically, Anatolia was protected, and was able to come back from the the population losses. Then the Eastern Empire was hit by "Justinian's Plague" and the Persian Wars, leading to the loss of Egypt and Syria to the Arabs, and the Balkans to the Slavs. The Slaves were hellenizied and the Balkans brought back into the Empire, and the Anatolian Frontier stabilized through social reorganization in the Empire (theme system). Constantinople, and the fact that it never fell during the Germanic, Hunnic, Persian, and Slavic invasions played a major role in the Eastern Empire, since it was the strongest place in the East, and could always sweep away the opposition once they broke themselves on its walls.

[Jaded_Railman]

Rome was unable to raise armies in the way it used to because it lacked a class of landed, free, citizen farmers from whence it used to draw manpower. They'd all been eaten up by the latifunda.

[83gemini]

Classical Rome probably fell with the crisis of the 3rd century, a crisis that probably was bound to pop up eventually. Perhaps if Rome got even a little bigger it would have fallen into crisis; Rome could handle one problem at a time, but it could handle 2 or 3, and certainly not without solid leadership by the time it got so big. The combination of an impossible to defend German border, an impossible to defeat Persian enemy and plagues was too much for the Roman system (inefficient at best).

But historians differ. Some like to argue that the last vestiges of Rome wasn't wiped out until the rise of Islam totally destroyed the last remnants of the Mediterranean Civilization. Others point out there was actually a global crisis around the same time (see Han China), but combination and institutional structure couldn't pull the civilization tightly enough back together, leaving the West behind.

Some might argue, however, that the fall of Roman civilization in the West produced the Industrial West; if Rome "never fell" thanks to a divergence here or there I'd bet on the IR coming out of India or maybe even Japan (I think that would have to be via Korean coal which is hard to pull off).

[stevep]

Classical Rome probably fell with the crisis of the 3rd century, a crisis that probably was bound to pop up eventually. Perhaps if Rome got even a little bigger it would have fallen into crisis; Rome could handle one problem at a time, but it could handle 2 or 3, and certainly not without solid leadership by the time it got so big. The combination of an impossible to defend German border, an impossible to defeat Persian enemy and plagues was too much for the Roman system (inefficient at best).

I don't know if the German border was undefendable, although at least it could have been a good bit better. There were a series of problems all coming together but the underlying one was of the internal social problems that crippled the empire's ability to react to threats.

But historians differ. Some like to argue that the last vestiges of Rome wasn't wiped out until the rise of Islam totally destroyed the last remnants of the Mediterranean Civilization. Others point out there was actually a global crisis around the same time (see Han China), but combination and institutional structure couldn't pull the civilization tightly enough back together, leaving the West behind.

It depends on how you define Rome but probably the last chance of a quick revival, albeit in a very limited fashion, was probably the failure of Justinian's reconquest of the west.

Some might argue, however, that the fall of Roman civilization in the West produced the Industrial West; if Rome "never fell" thanks to a divergence here or there I'd bet on the IR coming out of India or maybe even Japan (I think that would have to be via Korean coal which is hard to pull off).

This is something I have suspected as well. Bar the divisive effects of Christianity especially you might have seen something very similar to that in China. The prestige and mystic of empire prompting much greater efforts to 'revive' it and hindering, possibly fatally, the development of any alternative image. If that had occurred then India with its deep geographical divisions might have made a suitable alternative centre for industrization, although its caste system could have been a significant barrier.

Steve

[seancdaug]

well the real problem was that it stagnated. Rome has often been depicted as a peak of human cultural development. It really wasn't. From a high point around the reign of Augustus which ended with Marcus Aurelius roman quickly degenerated into what i would call totalitarianism. Can you believe that by the end of the second century it was illegal to choose a profession other than that of your father, you couldn't even leave the land you lived on.
Two things: first of all, it wasn't until very near the end of the third century that the laws effectively attempting to institute a caste-based system by limiting occupational freedom were introduced under Diocletian. It's also important to note that it was more of an effect of Rome's decline than a cause of it: the constant civil war and near-collapse of the empire during the third century destroyed most of Rome's political institutions, of course, but it also did a number on the Roman economy. The new laws were part of Diocletian's attempt to stabilize the economy, which also included empire-wide pricing controls.

Actually, going back to the original post, the Dominate that Diocletian introduced and Constantine refined and replaced the earlier Principate of Augustus was basically a much stronger central government. I would also argue that it did save Rome. The Roman Empire would likely have crumbled completely well before the fifth century if not for the reforms. It's also worth noting that the drive to centralize Roman government was a key element of Constantine's moving the capital to Byzantium, and that allowed the eastern half of the empire to persist for another millennium.

But back to my second point, I think it's a mistake to read modern political labels back onto ancient Rome. Yes, Diocletian's reforms are, in some respects, similar to modern totalitarianism, but there are some major differences in both cause and effect. Also, I'm not convinced that, even if we do classify Rome as a totalitarian state, that has any impact on whether or not it's "a peak of human cultural development." India's caste system was far more restricting than anything Imperial Rome ever devised, and India has produced some of the most valuable cultural artifacts the world has ever seen. The same can be said for Imperial China.

Roman civilisation was essentially the enslavement of the countryside on behalf of the city. What the Legions spent most of their time doing was terrorising the rural population into surrendering food.I don't think that's particularly fair or particularly true. True, much of Roman cultural and political life was centered around the city, but that's also true of almost every major civilization in world history. More importantly, taken as a whole, Roman history pretty much moves in exactly the opposite direction. One way of viewing the rise of the empire and the displacement of the republican system is as a response to the fact that the republic worked well for a small to medium-sized city-state, but given the realities of ancient life was more or less completely unresponsive to running a continent-wide empire. And it's also simply not true that the Legions "spent most of their time" terrorizing the rural populations. They spent most of their time securing the empire's borders, with intermittent periods of being called back to Rome (or, later, Constantinople, Ravenna, or wherever) to install a new emperor.

Roman culture actively derided scientific advance, philosophy and scientific explorations were seen as effete. they destroyed the technological and scientific advances of the Greeks. The Greeks had developed clockwork mechanisms to the point where they were used to stage 'robotic' plays, and there was work being done with the power of steam - Romans fucked that over.Also not fair nor true. On the whole, the Romans lacked the Greek preoccupation and skill with philosophy and science, but they certainly respected it throughout their history, which was a key part of the reason (alongside well as military and economic concerns) why imperial power tended to shift towards the Hellenized east over time. Also, one of the key reasons why Marcus Aurelius was so admired by both ancient observers was because of his philosophical work.

Greek science and philosophy was on the decline from the time of Alexander the Great. And I wouldn't blame Alexander for it, either: it was just a product of the era.

essentially the roman culture and its political structure meant that the empire couldn't feed itself and it couldn't evolve to meet challenges. In comparison the Germanic 'barbarians' were politically egalitarian and to some extent democratic, certainly more vibrant and healthy as a society.The empire fed itself fairly well, actually. They relied on certain provinces (mainly Egypt) to serve as their breadbasket, but that's not particularly unique: the USA would have troubling feeding itself if you took away the midwest, for instance. And I would also ask why, if the Germanic peoples were so much more "vibrant and healthy," they all rushed to imitate Roman institutions, culture, and (to some extent) politics when they were on the ascendant? Though I wouldn't suggest that Rome was perfect, they were without a doubt the "it" civilization when it came to social, cultural, and political standards even up through their decline.

To the point raised at the start of this thread, I'm not sure that we're even talking about alternate history here. Rome did become more centralized, and it did prevent its collapse. In the east. The Byzantines were far more centralized than the western-based empire ever was, and that's pretty much what kept them around, in some form or another, until the start of the early modern era. The problem was that when we think of "Rome," we think of a Mediterranean-wide empire stretching from the border of Scotland to the border of Arabia. And it's really not that easy to enforce a truly centralized authority over that large an area, even in the modern day, let alone in late antiquity. The only way a centralized government was going to help Rome was if Rome jettisoned its outlying regions and focused on a central, productive core. Which is what they did.

[Valdemar II]

The loss of population led to recruitment of Germanic mercenaries, and also meant that once those mercenaries started turning on the Empire, it was unable to deal with the challenge they presented.

The problem was never the use of germanic mercenaries, it was then they began to use germanic officers instead of romans, after that it was only a matter of time before the confederatis became the entire army, and then the army had more loyalty to some tribal identity than to Rome.

[Readman]

I know it sounds trite, but the answer to this question lies in Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; a daunting read to say the least (my edition comes in at over 1,400 pages :eek:) But i will add to whats been said if i might, and say that it did have a lot to do with corruption, religious infighting (the transformation from Roman-Paganism to Christianaity, and also the settling of "Barbarians", amongst a great many thuings.

[Matthais Corvinus]

Gibbons' does have a complete political history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but he doesn't any of the next 200+ years of research into it, not that those 200 years made the conclusion of just why Rome declined any easier. His willingness to chalk it up to societal laziness and corruption, along with general stagnation, is just a little too easy. I think that even he realizes this, since he does touch on the idea of severe population loss, and I think that a lot of the exact definition of words is lost in the translation (200 years is a long time in the English language) though he never cites this as a reason for the Empire's decline per se.

[MilitaryHistorian]

Including Rome, there have been 26 superpowers in the world that have risen and fallen. The US is #27...makes one think...here is one of my favorite poems...Ozymandias


OZYMANDIAS
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

John
Former USAF
www.realmilitaryflix.com

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/English_Literature/19th_c/Romantic_poetry/ozymandias.GIF

[Paladin]

Just curious, but what are #1-26, other then Rome. If you could provide a source or something, that'd be great.

[Johnrankins]

The Republic was doomed in its then current form with the murder of Gracchus in the 2nd century and as an institution with Marian's dictatorship.

The truth is that the Roman Empire (in the West) fell because a certain Ostrogothic king decided it wasn't worth the effort of appointing a puppet Emperor. The processes that led up to this event are myriad and by no means simplifiable down to a single thing. The individual events that led up to this happening, had individual causes and they all eventually tallied up to that final one.

Which is why I said there would have to be reforms. Maybe giving the plebes a bigger voice would help. The only question is why that reform would be made. Maybe after a series of riots the Senate figures that giving them more of a voice would reduce the rioting.

[Max Sinister]

The really mysterious part of the Roman decline is why it lasted so long. Why didn't anything come along to replace it for nearly a thousand years?

Because the only other "nations" around were barbarian tribes who had to build up a culture again?

[seancdaug]

Because the only other "nations" around were barbarian tribes who had to build up a culture again?
Except that they didn't. The barbarians were hardly "barbaric" in that sense of the word. Both Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic Spain maintained continuity with late Roman cultural and political institutions. The Franks built up a fairly significant empire a century or so later. The Eastern half of the original Roman empire did quite well for itself for a while, and only seriously fell into decline when it came up against Islam, which had plenty of culture of its own. Only at the very far edges of the old Roman world (mainly Britain) was there a truly serious backslide, and even that only lasted for a couple of generations.

There was plenty of culture in the post-Roman world, and much of it still revolved around the old imperial poles of Rome and Constantinople. The difference was the lack of centralized political authority, at least in the west. I thought the old "Dark Ages" canard had been put to rest long ago.... Just because there were a couple of dozen states where once there was just Rome doesn't mean that there wasn't any cultural achievement. And while the cultural priorities of Europe during the Middle Ages were markedly different from those of classical Rome at its height (and from our modern sensibilities), most of that change had taken place while the empire itself was still going strong. Keeping the political entity known as Rome alive wouldn't have meant the continued dominance of classical culture.

[seancdaug]

Which is why I said there would have to be reforms. Maybe giving the plebes a bigger voice would help. The only question is why that reform would be made. Maybe after a series of riots the Senate figures that giving them more of a voice would reduce the rioting.
The patrician/plebeian rivalry was simply not that significant by that time. The Conflict of the Orders had been resolved (more or less) several generations before. One of the two available consular positions each year was set aside for a plebe (the same was not true for the patricians), and the only true legislative authority in the state, the Tribunes, were exclusively plebeian. Besides which, the lines between patrician and plebeian were eroding rapidly: there were plenty of plebeian senators by this time, and although claiming the title of patrician still had some cultural prestige, it was increasingly more a social formality than a real political consideration.

The conflict at the time of the revolution was between the Optimates and the Populares, which, broadly speaking, breaks down as conservative versus progressive. It was certainly class-based, but it wasn't so simple as "patrician versus plebeian." And, the thing is, the lower classes really came out on top, at least nominally: Julius Caesar was an avowed Populare, and his support came primarily from the lower classes, a support inherited by Octavian. The fundamental problem is that the republic's government was not etched in stone: most of the "rules" that governed it weren't etched in stone, but were rather accepted as the traditional way of doing things. And once a significant number of people stopped accepting those traditions, it was only a matter of time before the system unraveled. Which is how Octavian slowly but surely usurped all of the important powers of the republican government into one person: he didn't introduce new powers, he merely took over many existing powers and did so not only with the support of the people, but with their eager consent.

But all of this really escapes the larger issue. Leaving aside the specific issues, the underlying problem is that the lower classes felt the Senate was unresponsive to their needs because the Senate was unresponsive to their needs. When Rome was a smallish city-state, democratic/republican elections were an effective way of running the government. But you can't do that when you're managing a empire stretching from France to Egypt. For a while, they tried an imperialistic approach, where the Romans (that is, the people living in Rome) dominated everyone else in the empire. This is pretty obviously not a viable long-term solution: eventually, the provincials got sick and tired of having no political voice and revolted (the Social War, for instance), and the Romans needed to offer citizenship more freely. And suddenly yearly elections for the consulate became logistical nightmares: how do you coordinate an election encompassing all of Italy (not to mention Spain, France, Greece, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc.) given the limitations of travel and communications in the first century BCE? The other option (also exercised to an extent) was to build up the military in order to manage dissent. But that, also, is a problem: how do you stop that military from being used to influence the political scene?

Simply put, the republic was a victim of its own success. It built an empire, sure, but it didn't scale well enough to be able to govern an empire. To keep the republic alive, you'd need to kill the empire.

[NapoleonXIV]

Because the only other "nations" around were barbarian tribes who had to build up a culture again?

Not really so, by the time of Romes final fall the 'barbarians' had been in the Empire or hundreds of years and were quite as much civilized as any Roman.

Besides, that's pretty much the situation when any civilization fell. In the Ancient world it happened over an over, but always another would step in and take over, the locus of civ might shift but it never went away entirely, let alone into a period of worldwide decline

And the decline after 500 was truly worldwide, even China was included.

[NapoleonXIV]

Because the only other "nations" around were barbarian tribes who had to build up a culture again?

Not really so, by the time of Romes final fall the 'barbarians' had been in the Empire or hundreds of years and were quite as much civilized as any Roman.

Besides, that's pretty much the situation when any civilization fell. In the Ancient world it happened over an over, but always another would step in and take over, the locus of civ might shift but it never went away entirely, let alone into a period of worldwide decline

And the decline after 500 was truly worldwide, even China was included.