Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by bigdaddy1204 (U2811631) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  The Roman Empire took 700 years to build. Yet it collapsed in less than a century. How was this possible?

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Rurfus (U1800117) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  Hey, don't copy me!

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  The Roman Empire took 700 years to build. Yet it collapsed in less than a century. How was this possible?Β 
  
  it didnt, it took over 1000 years to collapse, and for a big part of that time it was europes major player

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  If one considers the Byzantine empire as the Roman empire, they did, then it did not collapse in 100 years.
  
  Even if you exclude Byzantium then I would question the 700 year period which has more to do with legend. Rome had pretty well reached its maximum size by 9 AD, adding only southern Britain and Dacia after that and did not expand out of Italian main land until the 1st Punic War in the 3rd C BC.
  
  Dacia was occupied by the Goths in 257 AD, the Western Roman empire ended in 476 AD.
  

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  you wouldnt consider the british empire to have ended when we lost america in the revolutionary wars would you?, then why not consider the stronger half of the roman empire to be the roman empire?

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 23rd December 2005

  marduk, the answer to your question is: because Rome was not part of that empire, it can hardly be termed Roman can it? The only correct analogy would be to Britain had not only lost America, but America had actually taken over Britain, and the rulers in, say, India took over half the colonies that Britain had ruled. In such circumstance you could not really continue to call it the British Empire could you?
  
  In response to the first posting, it is true that the (western) Roman Empire was lost very quickly. Dacia was lost in the 3rd century but that was an exceptional province, sticking out like a sore thumb across the Danube into barbarian territory. The empire as it had been in AD 9 was basically intact 400 years later at AD 409.
  
  Then in winter the Rhine froze over and barbarian tribes were able to walk across it and sweep into Gaul, then Spain. At the same time troops were withdrawn from Britain to reinforce Roman forces on the continent, to repulse German invasions. Thus within a few years, the whole of the Western half of the Empire was lost.
  
  What is apparent is the scarcity of Roman troops. 4 legions had been lost at Adrianople in 374, but that was a generation ago and there had been more than enough time to raise new recruits. The underlying problem can only have been that the Roman government could not or would not raise sufficient funds to finance an army of the size required.
  
  My own view is that there was a serious decline in population through the 3rd and 4th centuries (archaeology shows that cities shrank in size and less evidence of habitation in rural areas at this time), such that it became very difficult to raise sufficient taxes. The burden of taxation fell mainly on the people who just could not afford to pay it, with the result that they died early and produced less offspring. At the same time the richest people continued to amass fantastic wealth. The system held together, after a fashion, but the army was not of sufficient size to defend the frontiers in the event of a concerted barbarian attack, hence the complete collapse of the West in 410. In future decades the Vandals would make their way from Spain to Noth Africa, and move across to Carthage, with precious little opposition , then eventually invade Italy and conquer Rome.

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 31st December 2005

  rome was part of that empire, nominally for part of the time, and in actuality for some of it.

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 31st December 2005

  and technically, your analogy is wrong cos not all british subjects were british citizens, which by the time were on about was the case with the freemen in the empire

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by ValleyofTheKinks (U2854316) on Saturday, 31st December 2005

  I think that any answer has to be couched in macro, almost abstract terms. The detail is too complex to hope to gather into a neat, comprehensive soundbite, a little bit like a pathologist hoping to understand the complete progression of a chronic disease, from the initial division of a few isolatated blood cells to the final delivery of the obequies by the patient's graveside: it's simply too difficult. That's not to say that an attempt should not be made - such theories are interesting at the very least - but whilst the debate still rages at to when the Roman Empire even ceased to be (476, 1453, 1806 are just three of many, many dates mooted) we have to go on to ask whether the Empire ever fell at all, wether it didn't merely keep on transforming until eventually it became something less grandiloquent, someting less magnificient to the eye, something less secular even but equally as influential on the governing aristocracies spread across Europe. And in that regard, did we not see Rome resonate with the solemn prayers and cheers of a million devout citizens as St Peter's crowned another new Emperor in 2005?

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006

  The Roman Empire took 700 years to build. Yet it collapsed in less than a century. How was this possible?Β 
  
  Hi BigDaddy,
  
  What's your timeline?
  
  The Roman Empire did not take seven hundred years to build. It makes it sound like a givernment job gone wrong. It did not have a set date at which it could say 'right that's it built now'. Roman political influence and dominance expanded within a region over time. This was piecemeal at first, with the occassional big spurt. It was the transition from Republic to Imperium that caused the biggest growth, as rival general tried to use military success as political tools back in Rome. Most of Imperial history was a case of caretakership, trying to maintain the borders, with only neglible differences in scale.
  
  If your inclination is the collapse of the West in the fouth and fifth centuries AD, then I would postulate that all collapses, by their nature, are relatively quick. The Goths were being pushed by the Huns in the third century, but the Romans managed to contain them by the Danube until the latter part of the fourth century. Despite the third century crises of the barracks emperors Rome survived that onslught, and if anything grew in strength under the Constatinean and Valentinian Dynasties of the fourth century. It wasn't until the second attempt at Terarchy under Theodosius that Rome, the city, was exposed. It then took a brief thirty years to her collapse. The West then fought for another 80 years, if in ever a rearguard action.
  
  However, the East continued strongly, and a mere 50 years later recaptured Italy and North Africa. I would agree that after about 600BCE it is better to talk of a Greek Byzantine Empire, rather than a Roman Constantiople one, as the over-focus on the wesst in the latter half of the 6thC made it reassess its priorities.
  
  But again, what is your timescale? When does it begin and when does it end?
  
  Elistan
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006

  marduk, the byzantines only possessed Rome for a relatively short period. I am more swayed by your arguement that the Byzantines were technically Roman citizens. By that reasoning, Rome ceased to be an Empire in 212, and was in fact a commonwealth from then. However I don't think that they called themselves Roman citizens - correct me if I am wrong.
  
  In Dacia, the people there called themselves Romani, despite the area being invaded by barbarians in the 3rd century, hence the name Romania.

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006

  thats all variations on a word-romani, rhomaioi, romana, roman and rumeli. its a moot point really.
  my reasoning is that half the empire survived the loss of rome, and had a legitimate claim to the title roman empire-or, as for a large part of its history, the empire of the romans at least

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 5th January 2006

  marduk, point taken, but I point out again that it was not really an empire. An empire is where one nation rules some other nations. Since the peoples in all of the provinces of the area ruled were all Roman citizens, it was in effect one country.
  
  I don't know what point you are making aboutthe romanians, what is a moot point?

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 5th January 2006

  <quote user='fascinating' userid='1944795'>marduk, point taken, but I point out again that it was not really an empire. An empire is where one nation rules some other nations. Since the peoples in all of the provinces of the area ruled were all Roman citizens, it was in effect one country.
  
  I don't know what point you are making aboutthe romanians, what is a moot point?</quote
  
  Actually, that's a later definition. In a Roman context Imperium means to rule or govern, and it means all control in the hands of single individual who has imperium, originally of the army but ultimately of all aspects of life both civil and martial. The use of Empire as a term for a collection of nations under one ruler is a later seventeenth early eighteenth redefining from the actuality of the position that the Holy Roman Emperor was in by then.
  
  Elistan

  Link to this forum: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

  Report message14

Back to top