Why did the Roman Empire fall

[Erodoeht Tlevesoor]

Why

filla

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Erodoeht Tlevesoor

Why

filla

Why not? Nothing lasts forever.

[carlton_bach]

The conventional explanation is that it lost too much territory after Manzikert, but I still think it was the crusade that broke its back for good. After that, it was just another regional power and could be gobbled up at leisure.

[Rex]

The Western Roman Empire stopped being able to pay the Legions. From then, it was only a matter of time.

[MNP]

Because it existed.

[LSCatilina]

Western Roman Empire

- Agricultural crisis : the productivity of agricultury fall critically since the end of III century (due to climatic changes). It meant less food, and fractionnment of great property by giving part of it to little peasanrs that were made part of the clientele of great land owners

-Monetary crisis : the roman coins had less and less value. Unability to pay correctly legions and fiscal revolts everywhere due to the fact great land owners took the fiscal responsability and abused widely of it

-Civic crisis : the rights of roman citizens were more and more empty of meaning. Many parts of the empire didn't felt a great loyalty for a state that exploited them and that didn't was able (or willing) to help them against barbarian raids.

All of that in same time made WRE fall.

Eastern Roman Empire

-Commercial crisis : Constantinople was less and less the mandatory way between West and East as the Mediterranea was preferred by latins merchants.
These merchants became popwerful enough to be exempted of commercial fees in the Empire while byzantines merchants weren't.

-Military crisis : Being attacked on every front, depsite being masters in diplomacy, was going to be an issue sooner or later.

-Civic crisis : the spine of byzantine army was the free peasant-soldier. Once Anatolia (that was the main reservoir) was taken by Turks, Byzantines had to use more and more mercenaries.

-Climatic change helped as well.

-1204 Crusade weakened greatly the Byzantine Empire. But, in the other hand, it forced the Niceans to protect western Anatolia that could have been lost earlier without the sack of Constantinople.

[PoeFacedKilla]

because they were overstreched and their army was underpaid;
and their were alot of germans to the north wanting to conquer rome.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Rex

The Western Roman Empire stopped being able to pay the Legions. From then, it was only a matter of time.

I think there were three main and connected reasons it fell.
1. It was too big to be efficiently run from the centre
2. Growing threats on all borders
3. Not having clear succession rules everybody would respect

So you had growing threat on a border. Since emperor in the capital couldn't react quickly enough when threat becae big he had to give local commanders more autonomy. But since there was no clear succession rule this local commander could simply use forces under his command to try to usurp the throne.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by PoeFacedKilla

because they were overstreched and their army was underpaid;
and their were alot of germans to the north wanting to conquer rome.

The desire of "barbarians" to conquer Rome is greatly exaggerated. Even as late as early (or even mid) 5th century they weren't willing to topple WRE but rather gain advantage from it. be it positions for their commanders or land to settle, all within existing WRE.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by aktarian

The desire of "barbarians" to conquer Rome is greatly exaggerated. Even as late as early (or even mid) 5th century they weren't willing to topple WRE but rather gain advantage from it. be it positions for their commanders or land to settle, all within existing WRE.

The problem is that their actions pretty much rendered the WRE nonexistent simply by doing that.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by aktarian

The desire of "barbarians" to conquer Rome is greatly exaggerated. Even as late as early (or even mid) 5th century they weren't willing to topple WRE but rather gain advantage from it. be it positions for their commanders or land to settle, all within existing WRE.

Whatever the desires of the barbarians (and the barbarians weren't monolithic obviously) the stresses they put on the Roman state were a major factor in the dissolution of the Roman state.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The problem is that their actions pretty much rendered the WRE nonexistent simply by doing that.

Hardly. They were willing to work in the empire rather than toppling it. That they got screwed over time and time again made them realise it's better to simply tear it down than try to find some common ground.

Originally Posted by MNP

Whatever the desires of the barbarians (and the barbarians weren't monolithic obviously) the stresses they put on the Roman state were a major factor in the dissolution of the Roman state.

That's true, as I said growing threats on borders were important factor in ultimate downfall. But "barbarians" were simply not interested in marching on Rome, sacking the city and see Empire crumble. They'd be willing to settle for place inside it or even tearing off a chunk of it, not neccessary seeing it collapse.

[Arachnid]

The fact that a military autocracy with a might makes right approach to picking Emperors is not a terribly sensible system.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by aktarian

Hardly. They were willing to work in the empire rather than toppling it. That they got screwed over time and time again made them realise it's better to simply tear it down than try to find some common ground.

The Kingdom of the Franks is not Roman Gaul under the Emperor, its a de facto independent realm even if de jure vaguely acknowledging the Roman Emperor.

That counts as playing a role in the Empire's collapse as much if not more than marching on Rome the city and sacking it.

And whether or not they were screwed by Roman dickery (which I don't see anyone arguing they weren't) has nothign to do with what they, themselves did.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by aktarian

That's true, as I said growing threats on borders were important factor in ultimate downfall. But "barbarians" were simply not interested in marching on Rome, sacking the city and see Empire crumble. They'd be willing to settle for place inside it or even tearing off a chunk of it, not neccessary seeing it collapse.

Admittedly, even without the establishment of germano-roman kingdoms, the Empire would have likely collapsed because of social revolts, of army revolts and political isolationism of provinces.

[Consul Arrianus]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Western Roman Empire

- Agricultural crisis : the productivity of agricultury fall critically since the end of III century (due to climatic changes). It meant less food, and fractionnment of great property by giving part of it to little peasanrs that were made part of the clientele of great land owners

-Monetary crisis : the roman coins had less and less value. Unability to pay correctly legions and fiscal revolts everywhere due to the fact great land owners took the fiscal responsability and abused widely of it

-Civic crisis : the rights of roman citizens were more and more empty of meaning. Many parts of the empire didn't felt a great loyalty for a state that exploited them and that didn't was able (or willing) to help them against barbarian raids.

All of that in same time made WRE fall.

Eastern Roman Empire

-Commercial crisis : Constantinople was less and less the mandatory way between West and East as the Mediterranea was preferred by latins merchants.
These merchants became popwerful enough to be exempted of commercial fees in the Empire while byzantines merchants weren't.

-Military crisis : Being attacked on every front, depsite being masters in diplomacy, was going to be an issue sooner or later.

-Civic crisis : the spine of byzantine army was the free peasant-soldier. Once Anatolia (that was the main reservoir) was taken by Turks, Byzantines had to use more and more mercenaries.

-Climatic change helped as well.

-1204 Crusade weakened greatly the Byzantine Empire. But, in the other hand, it forced the Niceans to protect western Anatolia that could have been lost earlier without the sack of Constantinople.

Agricultural crisis: same goes for the rest of the world. Biggest problem is the aristocraty ruling over the richest lands without paying taxes.

Monetary crisis: has ever been a crisis. Diocletian tried to solve it.

Civic crisis: for sure, because they have the swear loyality to the nobles. Besides the meaning of citizens was declining since the fall of the republic.
I guess it is also an religious problem.

Commercial crisis: the first effect of the privilegs to Venice was an increase of trading. Problems are straing when foreign traders where favoured.

Military crisis: it was the same situation as it was for hundreds of years so whats new?

Civic crisis: you know the byzantine army which was beaten at Mantzikert (what leads to an loss of Anatolia) mainly consisted of mercenaries??? After Mantzikert there were again more free-peasants in army than before.

The climate, huh?

1204: even before the crusade there were a bunch of rebellions and usurpations, if the crusaders didn't take the city then the empire would have spilt in various pieces like after sack or it would have been couquered by Turks or Hungarians.

[The Dude Bro]

Even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in actuality, the Germanic tribes still attempted to maintain Roman legal codes and culture with varying levels of Germanic fusion. In some cases, they even claimed to be the direct successors of the Romans, for example the Germanic ruler of Italy (the Ostrogoths, if I remember correctly) being declared Viceroy of Italy by the Constantinopolitan Emperor and actually using the title to some extent. So although politically the Roman Empire fell apart, the non-political aspects remained. A better date for the end of the Roman Empire in the west is probably around the time of the Carolingian Renaissance, when Europe began to transition more fully into the Middle Ages and became a different beast altogether.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

Agricultural crisis: same goes for the rest of the world. Biggest problem is the aristocraty ruling over the richest lands without paying taxes.

More critical for Roman Empire. They based their agricultural system on the mediterranean climate/sub-mediterranean climate that knew its territorial apogee between -300 and 300.
As the productive rendment lowered around 200 to be less and less interesting, few adaptation were made.

Monetary crisis: has ever been a crisis. Diocletian tried to solve it.

And it increased, again and again, and again, and again....

Military crisis: it was the same situation as it was for hundreds of years so whats new?

As said, the fact it was on all fronts. So far, Byzantium enjoyed the fact that its ennemies didn't attacked all of them in the same time, allowing to focus on one front.
Furthermore, thanks to their diplomacy, they could find allies to attack the back of an ennemy and making at least diversion. It was no longer the case.

C

ivic crisis: you know the byzantine army which was beaten at Mantzikert (what leads to an loss of Anatolia) mainly consisted of mercenaries??? After Mantzikert there were again more free-peasants in army than before.

It's not about the number, it's more about the "spine" of the system if you want.

The climate, huh?

As in climatic changes, the end of medieval warm period. Not the main factor, but it helped.

1204: even before the crusade there were a bunch of rebellions and usurpations, if the crusaders didn't take the city then the empire would have spilt in various pieces like after sack or it would have been couquered by Turks or Hungarians.

Yes, even...But this is nevertheless an OTL factor. The ERE didn't collapsed because of THIS one, or another precise ONE, but because of these together.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The Kingdom of the Franks is not Roman Gaul under the Emperor, its a de facto independent realm even if de jure vaguely acknowledging the Roman Emperor.

That counts as playing a role in the Empire's collapse as much if not more than marching on Rome the city and sacking it.

And whether or not they were screwed by Roman dickery (which I don't see anyone arguing they weren't) has nothign to do with what they, themselves did.

Even you admit Franks were happy with establishing their own kingdom, even under nominal Roman control. They weren't interested in destroying Roman empire and if it continued to exist they'd be just as happy.

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Admittedly, even without the establishment of germano-roman kingdoms, the Empire would have likely collapsed because of social revolts, of army revolts and political isolationism of provinces.

Yes, I addressed two of those points in my first post. I'm just saying that image that every "barbarian" on the other side of Rhine and Danube wanted to destroy the empire is wrong one. Most would be happy if they could take a piece of it for their own kingdom, settle in it or even just raid it once in a while. And their ruling elite were still interested in gaining positions within imperial hierarchy in 5th century, hardly ambitions of somebody determined to destroy the whole thing.

[Zuvarq]

Originally Posted by aktarian

But "barbarians" were simply not interested in marching on Rome, sacking the city and see Empire crumble.

Err... the year 410? 455?