Why Rome really fell

I have read recently that these are the four real reasons that Rome fell:

1) Failure of the Roman Militray to adapt to changes that were occuring. That they were fighting enemies that were 90-100% cavalry based not infantry based. That what little cavalry they used was for border patrol, the worse thing to use them for.

2) No smooth transition from one Emporer to the next for the most part. When one Emporer died most of the time a civil war resulted.

3)The moving of the capitol to Constantinople to save money and it being easier to defend than the long borders of Rome, it also devalued Rome's importance.

4) The Emporer converting to Christianity alienated the remaining 40-50% of the non-Judeo-Christian half of the empire that had the Emporer as a god-king and with the Christians the Emporer really did not matter, preist where more important.

I have to ask how close does everyone here think that it is to what really happened? Is there something missing?

All of the reasons you list were contributing factors, but the most important of all was the civil discord that erupted whenever an Emperor died as rival generals vied with one another for the succession.

I disagree with them all, and you need to learn to spell "Emperor" and "Capital". More detailed reasoning incoming.

The theory Peter Heather puts forward is that the rise of the Sassanid Empire pushed Rome to it's economic, administrative, etc, limits. It could only just rustle up the resources to protect that flank. When the "Barbarians" started pushing West, there was nothing left to give; ultimately, the West was left valuable to the East; the Empire could lose it and survive.

I would say that Rome's unprecedented success helped enrich its enemies, helping make them more powerful in relation to Rome. The Sassanids and the Germanic tribes of the fourth and fifth centuries were much more powerful than the Parthians and earlier Germanic tribes, to the point where maintaining the borders against all those enemies became a very difficult task, much more so than during the pax romana period. Rome tried to focus on the Sassanids and tried to make deals with migrating Germanic tribes... we saw how that eventually worked out. The Roman military, the capital being moved to Constantinople (well, the empire being divided), and the conversion to Christianity are all non-factors. Smoother successions might have helped but were not the main problem at all.

IMO, the process of the Germans "dethroning" the Romans is fairly similar to how the Greeks were able to "dethrone" the Achaemenid Persians... at least they're similar processes.

wtw said:

I have read recently that these are the four real reasons that Rome fell:

1) Failure of the Roman Militray to adapt to changes that were occuring. That they were fighting enemies that were 90-100% cavalry based not infantry based. That what little cavalry they used was for border patrol, the worse thing to use them for.

2) No smooth transition from one Emporer to the next for the most part. When one Emporer died most of the time a civil war resulted.

3)The moving of the capitol to Constantinople to save money and it being easier to defend than the long borders of Rome, it also devalued Rome's importance.

4) The Emporer converting to Christianity alienated the remaining 40-50% of the non-Judeo-Christian half of the empire that had the Emporer as a god-king and with the Christians the Emporer really did not matter, preist where more important.

I have to ask how close does everyone here think that it is to what really happened? Is there something missing?

Click to expand...

1. Somewhat correct but I would say it was the more defensive nature the empire took later on. If you watch the development of equipment from the highpoint of an offensive based empire in the 1st century AD vs one in the 4th or 5th century the change shows this. Also a loosening of military discipline as Vegetius complains at to no end in his work. It was a combination of things that lead to the Roman army's fall from grace. This was more the result of bad leadership though.

2. Agree very much so. Also would include figure head emperors and those that were not as involved in public affairs. Nero and Caligula come to mind.

3. The shift to Constantinople was an example of a more macro level transfer from west to east. Rome was still very wealthy and strong as a city. The problem with the Western Empire was its lower population density. While the east had many large cities around which means higher income from tax and more manpower pools the West had a more spread out village system.

4. It does alienate some but not to the degree that some think. The christian emperors were largely successful and proved very good at their job. (Obviously there were many pagan emperors that did well too).

I would think number 2 was the most important - it's hard to defend against external enemies when you're spending half the time fighting each other.
3 and 4 seem considerably more minor and 1 had been true more or less all along for the Empire, I think.

wtw said:

1) Failure of the Roman Militray to adapt to changes that were occuring. That they were fighting enemies that were 90-100% cavalry based not infantry based. That what little cavalry they used was for border patrol, the worse thing to use them for.

Click to expand...

Assuming we're talking about migration period armies, then I'm not sure this makes sense. The incoming Germanic peoples moved as long caravans made up of three groups of warriors, of which only the numerically insignificant top tier could possibly have had serious access to cavalry. Now, the Huns and Avars mostly certainly were largely cavalry based armies, but the main military innovation that helped the Huns was their ability to adopt siege technology that was capable of storming Roman towns. And in any case, Roman armies could and did defeat Hunnic and Avar armies in the field.

2) No smooth transition from one Emporer to the next for the most part. When one Emporer died most of the time a civil war resulted.

Click to expand...

This is perhaps somewhat arguable, but then if the flaw was that bad, the Empire should have collapsed considerably earlier than it did. The fact that we have a Mediterranean dominating Roman state for at least six centuries after Augustus, all without a formalised succession structure, suggests strongly to me that this is a problem that is very overblown.

3)The moving of the capitol to Constantinople to save money and it being easier to defend than the long borders of Rome, it also devalued Rome's importance.

Click to expand...

This just isn't true, Rome remained the heartland of the Roman world long after it ceased to be the capital: and Emperors had been spending large parts of their reigns outside of Rome from as far back as Hadrian's day, and especially from Diocletian onward. I'm not sure how Constantinople can be construed as a money saving exercise, given the vast sums Constantine spent decorating the city when he initially founded it.

If anything, the setting up of multiple Emperors in multiple capitals saved the Empire from falling apart in the third century, as it meant there were plenty of centres for Romanised local elites to gravitate towards.

4) The Emporer converting to Christianity alienated the remaining 40-50% of the non-Judeo-Christian half of the empire that had the Emporer as a god-king and with the Christians the Emporer really did not matter, preist where more important.

Click to expand...

This just isn't true. The Christian Emperors didn't step back one iota from the claim that they had a special link to the divine, they simply took the "s" from "Gods", and carried on much as before. Yes, this did alienate traditionalists, particularly in the Roman Senate, but it's notable that this didn't really provoke any seriously dangerous uprisings at any point in the fourth century: so clearly religion wasn't that major a factor.

I was going to explain why the OP was mostly wrong, but as expected, BG did that adequately already. I will add one thing: Peter Heather FTW!

slydessertfox said:

I was going to explain why the OP was mostly wrong, but as expected, BG did that adequately already. I will add one thing: Peter Heather FTW!

Click to expand...

I have The Fall Of The Roman Empire sitting on my shelf .

Owain said:

I would think number 2 was the most important - it's hard to defend against external enemies when you're spending half the time fighting each other.

Click to expand...

I don't get this. As BG pointed out, this should have made the empire collapse far earlier. It was never a problem until you already had barbarian tribes inside the empire such as the Goths. Then playing kingmaker became an issue, because it provided an opportunity for groups like the Goths to extract concessions from and wreak havoc on, the Roman state.

But that required first the Goths to get inside the empire. That in itself required the massive political and social reorganization that was seen in barbarian tribes along the northern frontier in the 3rd and 4th centuries. And then it required an outside power like the Huns to sweep in and make those tribes feel they had a better bet seeking asylum in the Roman Empire than staying outside it and fighting. And even that succeeding required a ridiculous amount of bad luck for the Romans.

So I don't see how the succession was that big of an issue.

Sulemain said:

I have The Fall Of The Roman Empire sitting on my shelf .

Click to expand...

I've read that and "Empires of Barbarians". I'm almost finished reading "The Restoration of Rome" which just came out this year. He really knows his stuff.

Damn you people beat me to giving Heather's explanation.

Soverihn said:

Damn you people beat me to giving Heather's explanation.

Click to expand...

It stuck in my head.

I'll try to not repete what BG said, but I basically agree with him, just completing his answers.

wtw said:

1) Failure of the Roman Militray to adapt to changes that were occuring. That they were fighting enemies that were 90-100% cavalry based not infantry based. That what little cavalry they used was for border patrol, the worse thing to use them for.

Click to expand...

That goes against everything we know about Late Roman army.
First, while classical roman army did have few roman cavalry, they used extensivly auxiliaries. The practice went on eventually with the use of sarmatic and germanic cavalry in late imperial armies, as well use of germano-sarmatic features by romans themselves.

It was even argued (while I somewhat disagree it was the only cause) that Late Roman cavalry eventually gave birth to the western medieval calavry customs.

Not that Romans stand with old fashioned recruitement, applying only to new features : you had huge military regorganisations. Generally, more close to the border, more important cavalry forces. Basically unexistant in Spain, representating 1/4 to 1/2 of troops (without counting auxiliaries/foedi). Overall, cavalry represented 1/3 of the army, nearly half of it in Eastern part, one fourth in the western (again, not counting german-sarmatian forces).

The very idea that Germans, Sarmatians or even Huns were 90-100% a cavalry force is absurd.
We're not only talking about wandering peoples, as in not only warriors, but women, old men, non-fighters, etc. It's about factual history. Let's take Adrianople as an exemple.
Gothic infantry formed the bulk of the wandering people, would it be only because a horse is expansive to maintain, and that most of the concerned individuals were a wandering group (as in, not the best way to get damn rich).
If cavalry represented 1/3 of the gothic troops, it would be important enough.

I would suggest you reading this.

2) No smooth transition from one Emporer to the next for the most part. When one Emporer died most of the time a civil war resulted.

Click to expand...

It's probably the most interesting point, but as BG said, it can't be a direct cause or Rome would have collapsed during the Republic. Furthermore, the civil war crisis were far heavier during the IIIrd century than in the IV/Vth centuries, where monarchical and dynastical principles were more respected and did allowed more smooth transition.

3)The moving of the capitol to Constantinople to save money and it being easier to defend than the long borders of Rome, it also devalued Rome's importance.

Click to expand...

Rome's importance was already devalued by the IIIrd century. Emperors and rulers preferred to stand in other cities as Milan, Ravenna, Arles, Treves, etc. because it was simply closer to the actual danger, and crisis.
Rome was nothing but a ceremonial capital way before Constantine.

4) The Emporer converting to Christianity alienated the remaining 40-50% of the non-Judeo-Christian half of the empire that had the Emporer as a god-king and with the Christians the Emporer really did not matter, preist where more important.

Click to expand...

It's assuming 90% of the population actually gave a damn about imperial cults. Most of the provincial population remained largely outside the process of official romanisation, at best going through a process of creolisation.
For instance, Gallic rites survived far better than official and civic cults, that were as artificial (and percieved as such) it could be.

Furthermore, we have the exact same contrary, with bishops in Romania being not only the best keepers of roman administration, whatever during the empire or romano-germanic kingdoms, but a very good support of imperial policies.

Well I would argue that the effects of Civil war are more longterm than they are short term. The loss of many fighting age males not only removes them from the labor force but also loses them to the Romanization process after their retirement which in turn loses Evocatii forces that were very important as first responders to barbarian raids. Also it loses the possibility for children that would have come from those men had they lived which long term means slightly less recruits.

It also destabilizes the government in more ways than one. More than likely several politicians have been deposed by the new ruling elite. Land has been destroyed and for the time of the war tax bases are lost. This must all be rebuilt following the struggle as well as dealing with those who may or may not be loyal.

But as others have said it also has to do with bad luck. Some of the more devastating civil wars occurred conveniently when there were large barbarian raids.

I always thought that it was due to the barbarization of the military. Whether due to Christianity and urbanization/greater wealth/less poverty or not, less and less Romans were volunteering for military duty, and so the emperors accepted volunteers that were totally barbarian in exchange for citizenship. This worked very well for about a hundred years or so...until large groups of barbarians began to show up and emperors let them do the same, not stopping to realize that these barbarians won't absorb Roman culture. They ended up slowly and eventually subsuming the Roman military, to the point where most of the soldiers and almost all of the officers were barbarians.

Now, while they gave a shit about land and wealth and their own security, they couldn't care less for Rome and its traditions. So that's why Odoacer gave the imperial regalia up to Zeno, right? And became his "deputy" to prevent attack from that flank.

Am I correct?

I have to ask how close does everyone here think that it is to what really happened? Is there something missing?

Click to expand...

First, "natural" occurences. Climatic changes since the IIth century making not only agricultural production less profitable, but as well putting all the populations between Rhine and Siberia moving.
Epidemics, measles, plague, cholera, didn't helped : probably 1/3 to half of the population simply meet their creators during the period between 300 and 600.

Economical : while Eastern Roman Empire beneficied from relativly untouched (mostly by virtue of being on the other side of the sea) AND richer lands, Wester Roman Empire was right on the way of many migrations, at the end of Eurasia. Safe Africa, everything was quite damaged, and when Africa was taken over by Vandals, that was the end of WRE revival's hopes.

Furthermore the fiscal system was collapsing in the same time, meaning harder time to find ressources to pay armies or foedi.

Political : Roman Empire wasn't a modern state or democracy. Many people simply didn't felt any kind of affection for Rome, knowing mostly harsh fiscality from it (Bagaudae) for exemple. At this point many felt germanic takeover wouldn't change anything, and some even cheered the end of roman tyranny.

Ideology : Rome percieved itself as the center of the universe, and everything outside as dirt. There were many occasion where Romans could have had a better deal with Barbarians, but they refused or tricked it, full of their superiority. It didn't end well, as in Adrianople.

I'm prepared to be shot down in flames for this but I thought the WRE fell because the rich got richer and stopped paying taxes so there was no money to pay for any sort of well trained standing army. The same process happened in the ERE but there was an obvious long standing danger to he east- Persia so money was found to keep the army going.
EDIT LS Catalina mentions this in the above post, posted whilst I was typing

Dirk said:

INow, while they gave a shit about land and wealth and their own security, they couldn't care less for Rome and its traditions.

Click to expand...

That's really entierly wrong. How barbarians acted once in Romania, fitting right in Roman institutions (especially military that were the best way to get them romanized), christianising, asking from institutional reckognition, etc.

I would only say a name : Sitilicho

It's really hard to tell the actual degree of "barbarization" of Roman Army, they certainly integrated germanic, sarmatians, etc customs the very same way roman army get "hellenized" or "celtized" with conquests. But Germans get far more integrated into roman culture and values than the contrary, the "germanisation" of the West (that is more and more percieved at least partially as a resurgence of Gallo-Roman/Hispano-Roman, etc features) actually beggining with the fall of the Empire and not being really a thing before the VIth at best, VIIth usually when peoples fused as Franks and Gallo-Romans being undistinguishable after a time.

So that's why Odoacer gave the imperial regalia up to Zeno, right?

Click to expand...

The exact contrary. Odoacer gave the imperial regalia because he was too respectful of imperial authority to take it for himself. It was why Theodoric or nobody before Charlemagne (in a time where Romans where associated with tyranny) took the imperial title in the West.