why did the roman empire fall when it had so much domination? they revolutionised so much
In: 76
The “Fall of Civilizations” podcast/YouTube channel does a great episode or two on this (and other empires).
The “Fall of Civilizations” podcast/YouTube channel does a great episode or two on this (and other empires).
The Roman Empire “fell” about a dozen times over the course of roughly a millennium and still has major impacts today. One could even ask if it truly has fallen or simply changed form, even if there isn’t a completely direct line of transfer of political power. Though even that took until the end of WWI for that to sort of happen, and one could even point to the last successor empire becoming a republic as retaining that bit of Roman identity with the Gates of Janus finally closing on the empirial militarism
The Roman Empire “fell” about a dozen times over the course of roughly a millennium and still has major impacts today. One could even ask if it truly has fallen or simply changed form, even if there isn’t a completely direct line of transfer of political power. Though even that took until the end of WWI for that to sort of happen, and one could even point to the last successor empire becoming a republic as retaining that bit of Roman identity with the Gates of Janus finally closing on the empirial militarism
The Roman Empire “fell” about a dozen times over the course of roughly a millennium and still has major impacts today. One could even ask if it truly has fallen or simply changed form, even if there isn’t a completely direct line of transfer of political power. Though even that took until the end of WWI for that to sort of happen, and one could even point to the last successor empire becoming a republic as retaining that bit of Roman identity with the Gates of Janus finally closing on the empirial militarism
I am going to assume you mean the western roman empire, as the east continued until the 15th century and has a radically different answer.
There are a ton of reasons why and its heavily debated by historians when the beginning and end of the fall actually happen, some tracing the beginning of the fall back to Marius and Sulla and others placing it much closer to the generally used year of 473AD
1. As an economy, the Roman empire used slavery as a means of generating wealth, this led to a great number of non wealthy citizens being on a grain dole which they received for free basically not to riot. As the Roman Empire expanded, it became harder and harder to take new slaves in to satisfy demand, this led to a less efficient economy (ignoring the obvious ethical issues) which meant that even ignoring all other possible problems, the Roman economy was in decline. The western roman empire until Diocletian never got a good hand on how to collect tax, they would, in some periods, sell off the right to tax an area. This would lead to someone buying the rights to tax an area and then taxing them extremely highly as personal wealth while the treasury only received what that bid was.
2. As you get larger as an empire, you span difficult to navigate terrain, like mountains, this makes it harder to administer because as you become larger, the border length will expand very quickly, with all the various types of terrain, rivers/mountains that are difficult to span. This lack of direct control made it hard for Rome to exert power when invading forces came in (they couldnt protect the borders they wanted to enforce), such as the Huns/Visigoths/Ostrogoths/Vandals came. When these forces came, they didnt just come to Rome, they would invade other peoples first, and those peoples would flee into Rome. Rome would, in some cases let them settle land, becoming useful buffers to the invasion while swelling up the ranks of the Roman people with auxiliaries for the army but in some cases Rome wouldnt let these people in, and they would sack Rome, leading to multiple waves where the fleeing people sack an area of Rome to give them the means to survive followed by the force that they were fleeing from. This inability to protect Rome led to the invincibility of Rome (Rome itself was sacked by the Visigoths in 410CE) being questioned which hurt morale and encouraged those who felt they could take on Rome.
3. Further to point 2, this lack of ability to enforce borders meant that, to give one example, the Vandals took north Africa, which was a very fertile area and was used to supply Rome, they still had Sicily which is sometimes referred to as “the bread basket of Rome” but again, the larger Rome got, the more fertile land they needed, losing some of it would lead to systemic collapse (without the bread in the bread and circuses, civil unrest would destablise the system)
4. When they shifted to an empire, there were some dynasties that held power which led to a well established line of succession, the 5 good emperors would do this too, passing power on to a clearly defined heir but when these lines of succession were disrupted, notably in 69CE in the year of the four emperors where somebody very literally bought the title of emperor, the ability to become emperor became significantly more open. This meant anyone with a big enough name could be proclaimed emperor by his supporters. Win a good battle/put down a rebellion? Get proclaimed emperor, this led to many periods of infighting and one example (among many examples of civil war) where the empire literally got divided into three distinct parts that did not answer to each other.
There are many other reasons, this is just a small cross section. To be quite honest the better question is “how on earth did it stay together for so long?” there are (in my eyes) at least 5 events which anyone who didnt know when Rome fell would fully believe was the fall of Rome if you told them. Plague, famine, dought, the de-Romanisation of rome with the germanic influences who became the power behind the throne and would switch out emperors whenever they felt it necessary all play important factors in this fall.
I have a personal pet theory that one of the great causes of Rome’s fall was the end of the Tetrarchy and the turn back towards single emperors that occurred with Constantine the Great
I am going to assume you mean the western roman empire, as the east continued until the 15th century and has a radically different answer.
There are a ton of reasons why and its heavily debated by historians when the beginning and end of the fall actually happen, some tracing the beginning of the fall back to Marius and Sulla and others placing it much closer to the generally used year of 473AD
1. As an economy, the Roman empire used slavery as a means of generating wealth, this led to a great number of non wealthy citizens being on a grain dole which they received for free basically not to riot. As the Roman Empire expanded, it became harder and harder to take new slaves in to satisfy demand, this led to a less efficient economy (ignoring the obvious ethical issues) which meant that even ignoring all other possible problems, the Roman economy was in decline. The western roman empire until Diocletian never got a good hand on how to collect tax, they would, in some periods, sell off the right to tax an area. This would lead to someone buying the rights to tax an area and then taxing them extremely highly as personal wealth while the treasury only received what that bid was.
2. As you get larger as an empire, you span difficult to navigate terrain, like mountains, this makes it harder to administer because as you become larger, the border length will expand very quickly, with all the various types of terrain, rivers/mountains that are difficult to span. This lack of direct control made it hard for Rome to exert power when invading forces came in (they couldnt protect the borders they wanted to enforce), such as the Huns/Visigoths/Ostrogoths/Vandals came. When these forces came, they didnt just come to Rome, they would invade other peoples first, and those peoples would flee into Rome. Rome would, in some cases let them settle land, becoming useful buffers to the invasion while swelling up the ranks of the Roman people with auxiliaries for the army but in some cases Rome wouldnt let these people in, and they would sack Rome, leading to multiple waves where the fleeing people sack an area of Rome to give them the means to survive followed by the force that they were fleeing from. This inability to protect Rome led to the invincibility of Rome (Rome itself was sacked by the Visigoths in 410CE) being questioned which hurt morale and encouraged those who felt they could take on Rome.
3. Further to point 2, this lack of ability to enforce borders meant that, to give one example, the Vandals took north Africa, which was a very fertile area and was used to supply Rome, they still had Sicily which is sometimes referred to as “the bread basket of Rome” but again, the larger Rome got, the more fertile land they needed, losing some of it would lead to systemic collapse (without the bread in the bread and circuses, civil unrest would destablise the system)
4. When they shifted to an empire, there were some dynasties that held power which led to a well established line of succession, the 5 good emperors would do this too, passing power on to a clearly defined heir but when these lines of succession were disrupted, notably in 69CE in the year of the four emperors where somebody very literally bought the title of emperor, the ability to become emperor became significantly more open. This meant anyone with a big enough name could be proclaimed emperor by his supporters. Win a good battle/put down a rebellion? Get proclaimed emperor, this led to many periods of infighting and one example (among many examples of civil war) where the empire literally got divided into three distinct parts that did not answer to each other.
There are many other reasons, this is just a small cross section. To be quite honest the better question is “how on earth did it stay together for so long?” there are (in my eyes) at least 5 events which anyone who didnt know when Rome fell would fully believe was the fall of Rome if you told them. Plague, famine, dought, the de-Romanisation of rome with the germanic influences who became the power behind the throne and would switch out emperors whenever they felt it necessary all play important factors in this fall.
I have a personal pet theory that one of the great causes of Rome’s fall was the end of the Tetrarchy and the turn back towards single emperors that occurred with Constantine the Great
I am going to assume you mean the western roman empire, as the east continued until the 15th century and has a radically different answer.
There are a ton of reasons why and its heavily debated by historians when the beginning and end of the fall actually happen, some tracing the beginning of the fall back to Marius and Sulla and others placing it much closer to the generally used year of 473AD
1. As an economy, the Roman empire used slavery as a means of generating wealth, this led to a great number of non wealthy citizens being on a grain dole which they received for free basically not to riot. As the Roman Empire expanded, it became harder and harder to take new slaves in to satisfy demand, this led to a less efficient economy (ignoring the obvious ethical issues) which meant that even ignoring all other possible problems, the Roman economy was in decline. The western roman empire until Diocletian never got a good hand on how to collect tax, they would, in some periods, sell off the right to tax an area. This would lead to someone buying the rights to tax an area and then taxing them extremely highly as personal wealth while the treasury only received what that bid was.
2. As you get larger as an empire, you span difficult to navigate terrain, like mountains, this makes it harder to administer because as you become larger, the border length will expand very quickly, with all the various types of terrain, rivers/mountains that are difficult to span. This lack of direct control made it hard for Rome to exert power when invading forces came in (they couldnt protect the borders they wanted to enforce), such as the Huns/Visigoths/Ostrogoths/Vandals came. When these forces came, they didnt just come to Rome, they would invade other peoples first, and those peoples would flee into Rome. Rome would, in some cases let them settle land, becoming useful buffers to the invasion while swelling up the ranks of the Roman people with auxiliaries for the army but in some cases Rome wouldnt let these people in, and they would sack Rome, leading to multiple waves where the fleeing people sack an area of Rome to give them the means to survive followed by the force that they were fleeing from. This inability to protect Rome led to the invincibility of Rome (Rome itself was sacked by the Visigoths in 410CE) being questioned which hurt morale and encouraged those who felt they could take on Rome.
3. Further to point 2, this lack of ability to enforce borders meant that, to give one example, the Vandals took north Africa, which was a very fertile area and was used to supply Rome, they still had Sicily which is sometimes referred to as “the bread basket of Rome” but again, the larger Rome got, the more fertile land they needed, losing some of it would lead to systemic collapse (without the bread in the bread and circuses, civil unrest would destablise the system)
4. When they shifted to an empire, there were some dynasties that held power which led to a well established line of succession, the 5 good emperors would do this too, passing power on to a clearly defined heir but when these lines of succession were disrupted, notably in 69CE in the year of the four emperors where somebody very literally bought the title of emperor, the ability to become emperor became significantly more open. This meant anyone with a big enough name could be proclaimed emperor by his supporters. Win a good battle/put down a rebellion? Get proclaimed emperor, this led to many periods of infighting and one example (among many examples of civil war) where the empire literally got divided into three distinct parts that did not answer to each other.
There are many other reasons, this is just a small cross section. To be quite honest the better question is “how on earth did it stay together for so long?” there are (in my eyes) at least 5 events which anyone who didnt know when Rome fell would fully believe was the fall of Rome if you told them. Plague, famine, dought, the de-Romanisation of rome with the germanic influences who became the power behind the throne and would switch out emperors whenever they felt it necessary all play important factors in this fall.
I have a personal pet theory that one of the great causes of Rome’s fall was the end of the Tetrarchy and the turn back towards single emperors that occurred with Constantine the Great
Imagine the Roman Empire as a big house. At one point, it was just a tiny shack that pretty much nobody paid attention to. But over time, the shack expanded and grew. It gobbled up more land from its neighbors and built more rooms. This happened again and again until it basically became a three-story mansion.
It was incredibly rich. Suddenly, lots of people in the neighborhood wanted to live in that house and some would be forced to.
At first, the big house had several really good owners. For the most part, they made sure the occupants were happy, wealthy and fed. But most importantly, they made sure to keep expanding the house. However, this couldn’t last forever and the house pretty much stopped expanding during the reign of one of its owners, Trajan. From here on out, a majority of the owners after Trajan would be in maintenance mode; their goal wasn’t to keep building up the house, but to make sure it looked pretty.
There’s only one problem: maintaining a big house requires lots of money and people. You need staff to cook the food, water the garden, clean the sheets, and it isn’t cheap either. To make matters worse, a big house sometimes attracts the attention of jealous neighbors and thieves/robbers. As time went on, the owners became worse and often fought each other for control of the house.
This, in turn, made it easier for the robbers to break in, which they started doing more and more often. Eventually, the house started falling apart. Nobody knew what to do, even though they had lots of fancy things. Fancy things can’t save you if you don’t have power or money. And when the money dried up, the workers started quitting.
As an aside, I want to add that the fall of Rome is somewhat of a misnomer. The western half was definitely carved up by barbarians, but the eastern half survived well into the 1400s – only a few decades before Columbus sailed to America!
Imagine the Roman Empire as a big house. At one point, it was just a tiny shack that pretty much nobody paid attention to. But over time, the shack expanded and grew. It gobbled up more land from its neighbors and built more rooms. This happened again and again until it basically became a three-story mansion.
It was incredibly rich. Suddenly, lots of people in the neighborhood wanted to live in that house and some would be forced to.
At first, the big house had several really good owners. For the most part, they made sure the occupants were happy, wealthy and fed. But most importantly, they made sure to keep expanding the house. However, this couldn’t last forever and the house pretty much stopped expanding during the reign of one of its owners, Trajan. From here on out, a majority of the owners after Trajan would be in maintenance mode; their goal wasn’t to keep building up the house, but to make sure it looked pretty.
There’s only one problem: maintaining a big house requires lots of money and people. You need staff to cook the food, water the garden, clean the sheets, and it isn’t cheap either. To make matters worse, a big house sometimes attracts the attention of jealous neighbors and thieves/robbers. As time went on, the owners became worse and often fought each other for control of the house.
This, in turn, made it easier for the robbers to break in, which they started doing more and more often. Eventually, the house started falling apart. Nobody knew what to do, even though they had lots of fancy things. Fancy things can’t save you if you don’t have power or money. And when the money dried up, the workers started quitting.
As an aside, I want to add that the fall of Rome is somewhat of a misnomer. The western half was definitely carved up by barbarians, but the eastern half survived well into the 1400s – only a few decades before Columbus sailed to America!
Latest Answers