nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: − + − Many posit that [[immorality]] and [[homosexuality]] so weakened the spirit of the Empire that it was unable to stand firm against the Barbarians. Certainly poets such as [[Catullus]] and [[Juvenal]] describe many unnatural practises that may well have contributed to the final collapse just four hundred years later. However, this theory was sensationalized by the (at the time) popular British writer [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote the influential ''[[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]''. Gibbons, though, was highly biased, in his attempt to analogize between the fall of Rome and what he saw as a lessening of moral strength in his own [[England]]. This theory is widely discounted by modern historians.+ − + + + + + + + + + + + +
→The Fall of the Roman Empire
== The Fall of the Roman Empire==
== The Fall of the Roman Empire==
The causes of the decline of the Roman Empire are controversial, often considered to be a result of several events simutainously - an invasion from the West, internal political struggles, a decline in trade and civil unrest. Though the Empire would have survived each of these individually, together they were sufficient to cause its collapse.
The causes of the decline of the Roman Empire are controversial and are often considered to be a result of several events building over time. There was no one "cause". As Will Durant states, 'An Empire is not conquered from without, until it has fallen from within.'
1) Depopulation -- Plagues and low birth rate among Roman citizens led to depopulation in the Empire. In order to combat different times when this occurred, barbarian tribes were actually welcomed into the Empire and encouraged to "set up shop".
One influential writer theorized that the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire are simple - it was never strong enough to resist the barbarian hordes. The barbarian hordes just didn't show up until 300 A.D.<ref>Edward N. Luttwak, ''The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire''</ref> Prior to this time, a complicated system of "buffer states" and sedentary provincial legions could hold such a vast territory and defer the conflict for a time - however, with the loss of the battle of [[Adrianople]] and the subsequent barbarian deluge, led by the [[Visigoths]] and [[Alaric the Visigoth|Alaric]], the reckoning had finally come.
2) Economic stagnation -- Roman wealth, especially in the west, deteriorated over time so that by the 4th century the barbarian tribes outside the Empire were often just as wealthy as the Empire itself.
3) Barbarianism of the Roman military -- Roman legions were populated more and more by barbarians and less and less by Romans, including many of the generals. Over time the barbarians learned and were trained in Roman tactics as well so that the distinction between Romans and barbarian armies became blurred. Near the end of the Empire, barbarian and mercenary armies had become an integral part of Roman military protection.
4) Military despotism -- While the early Emperors still had to deal with the senate, later Emperors ruled through military strength alone. Civil wars were common, especially during the age of 30 tyrants when the Empire was in a constant state of internal warfare and chaos. That the Empire didn't fall during this time is a testament to the ongoing discipline of their legions at that point in their history.
5) Military advances -- Changes over centuries began to give cavalry a more prominent role than it had previously been capable of. In other words the Roman legion, the mainstay of Roman power, lost some of its dominance.
From a societal standpoint it has been posited that [[immorality]] and [[homosexuality]] so weakened the spirit of the Empire that it was unable to stand firm against the Barbarians. Certainly poets such as [[Catullus]] and [[Juvenal]] describe many unnatural practises that may well have contributed to the final collapse just four hundred years later. Well known British writer [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote the influential ''[[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'' was an advocate of this view. Since the time of Gibbons, modern historians seek answers in other areas.
One influential writer theorized that the Roman Empire fell because it was never strong enough to resist the barbarian hordes. The hordes just didn't show up until 300 A.D.<ref>Edward N. Luttwak, ''The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire''</ref> Prior to this time, a system of "buffer states" and sedentary provincial legions could hold such a vast territory and defer the conflict - however, with the loss of the battle of [[Adrianople]] and the subsequent barbarian deluge, led by the [[Visigoths]] and [[Alaric the Visigoth|Alaric]], the reckoning had finally come. Similar to Gibbons view, this view also has a minority following.
== After "the Fall" ==
== After "the Fall" ==