essay over the fall of rome

The Fall of the Roman Empire

Rome was not built in one day; so too, the mighty Roman Empire did not fall in a day – it covered hundreds of years. Why did Rome fall? Just like the human body is inevitably subject to growth, decay, and death it is the same with nations. History is replete with such examples without a single exception. The fall of an empire or nation is a natural phenomenon. The other causes are incidental like the disease that brings about the death of a human body.

One of the causes of the fall of Rome was the Barbarian invasions – they marched through the very roads Rome had built to reach and subjugate them. But Rome since the time of Augustus had been battling the German tribes. Why should they suddenly overpower Rome in the 6 th century? The barbarian invasions during the 3 rd and 4 th centuries were far fiercer but they were pushed back leaving behind scant traces of their marauding. The fact is that the Barbarians were no match to the Roman army. Thus it can be said that the Barbarians won in the 6 th century not because of their superior strength but because of the weakness of the Romans 1 .

The second cause is the decay in the structure of Roman society. Three distinct tribes divided into ten clans each made up Roman society in the early stages. This tribal character continued during the days of the Republic. The system allowed for stability and self-government. Self-government entails self-discipline by subordinating self-interest for the welfare of the family and then of the society as a whole. Without discipline self-government is impossible.

Originally the plebeians were not part of the government because they did not belong to the tribes that originated in Rome; neither could they take part in the religion of the state that comprised of family gods. The king was a sort of high priest. This led to the voluntary exile of the plebeians for a short time to the Sacred Mountain because “ no hereditary religion attaches us to this sit ” 2 . But later after many years of struggle, they became part of the Roman administration but at the cost of Rome no longer being tribal-based. It became more wealth-based.

Things took a turn for the worse with Rome following expansionist policies. Foreign influence gnawed into Roman society. When Sulla conquered Greece it was followed by a reverse invasion of Greek literature, philosophy, and manners. But Greece of those days had become degenerate. More destructive was the influence from the east – the Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian Empires with their proletariat demoralized culture that attracted the urban elite of Rome.

The third vital cause was the change in the Roman army too had changed. The conquests led to Rome setting up garrisons in distant places where the soldiers were posted for many years. Consequently, they forgot their loyalties towards Rome and directed it more towards the local garrison commander 3 .

At home, the army became degenerate with the introduction of public games. The worst damage was done to slavery that swelled into an institution. Roman administration could not manage the slaves it took in. Society became dependent on slaves. The administration became too much occupied with huge bands of slaves, extremely dissatisfied, living in squalid conditions. Corn came to be freely distributed leading to transforming the self-respecting working class into beggars. The land came to be neglected and the condition of the soil worsened. Farmers were overtaxed while others were overindulged. The granaries of Rome became the deserts of Africa today.

Bibliography

Bowersock, David. 1996. “The Vanishing Paradigm of the Fall of Rome.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49: 31-42.
Ferrill, Arther. 2009. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation . New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Tainter, Joseph. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies . NY: Princeton Uni Press.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 30). The Fall of the Roman Empire. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/

"The Fall of the Roman Empire." StudyCorgi , 30 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. 30 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

This paper, “The Fall of the Roman Empire”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: May 9, 2024 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

History Cooperative

The Fall of Rome: When, Why, and How Did Rome Fall?

The fall of Rome and of the Western Roman Empire was a complex process driven by a combination of economic, political, military, and social factors, along with external barbarian invasions. It took place over several centuries and culminated in the deposition of the last Roman emperor in 476 CE.

Table of Contents

When Did Rome Fall?

The generally agreed-upon date for the fall of Rome is September 4, 476 AD. On this date, the Germanic king Odaecer stormed the city of Rome and deposed its emperor, leading to its collapse.

But the story of the fall of Rome is not this simple. By this point in the Roman Empire timeline , there were two empires, the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

READ MORE: The Foundation of Rome: The Birth of an Ancient Power

Whilst the western empire fell in 476 AD, the eastern half of the empire lived on, transformed into the Byzantine Empire, and flourished until 1453. Nevertheless, it is the fall of the Western Empire that has most captured the hearts and minds of later thinkers and has been immortalized in debate as “the fall of Rome.”

The Effects of the Fall of Rome

Although debate continues around the exact nature of what followed, the demise of the Western Roman Empire has traditionally been depicted as the demise of civilization in Western Europe. Matters in the East carried on, much as they always had (with “Roman” power now centered on Byzantium (modern Istanbul), but the West experienced a collapse of centralized, imperial Roman infrastructure.

Again, according to traditional perspectives, this collapse led to the “Dark Ages” of instability and crises that beset much of Europe. No longer could cities and communities look to Rome, Roman emperors , or formidable Roman army ; moving forward there would be a splintering of the Roman world into a number of different polities, many of which were controlled by Germanic “barbarians” (a term used by the Romans to describe anyone who wasn’t Roman), from the northeast of Europe.

Such a transition has fascinated thinkers, from the time it was actually happening, up until the modern day. For modern political and social analysts, it is a complex but captivating case study, that many experts still explore to find answers about how superpower states can collapse.

How Did Rome Fall?

Rome did not fall overnight. Instead, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was the result of a process that took place over the course of several centuries. It came about due to political and financial instability and invasions from Germanic tribes moving into Roman territories.

The Story of the Fall of Rome

To give some background and context to the fall of the Roman Empire (in the West), it is necessary to go as far back as the second century AD. During much of this century, Rome was ruled by the famous “ Five Good Emperors ” who made up most of the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. Whilst this period was heralded as a “kingdom of gold” by the historian Cassius Dio , largely due to its political stability and territorial expansion, the empire has been seen to undergo a steady decline after it.

There were periods of relative stability and peace that came after the Nerva-Antonine’s, fostered by the Severans (a dynasty started by Septimius Severus ), the Tetrarchy , and Constantine the Great . Yet, none of these periods of peace really strengthened the frontiers or the political infrastructure of Rome; none set the empire on a long-term trajectory of improvement.

Moreover, even during the Nerva-Antonines, the precarious status quo between the emperors and the senate was beginning to unravel. Under the “Five Good Emperors,” power was increasingly centered on the emperor – a recipe for success in those times under “Good” Emperors, but it was inevitable that less praiseworthy emperors would follow, leading to corruption and political instability.

Then came Commodus , who designated his duties to greedy confidants and made the city of Rome his plaything. After he was murdered by his wrestling partner, the “High Empire” of the Nerva-Antonines came to an abrupt close. What followed, after a vicious civil war, was the military absolutism of the Severans, where the ideal of a military monarch took prominence and the murder of these monarchs became the norm.

The Crisis of the Third Century

Soon came the Crisis of the Third Century after the last Severan, Severus Alexander , was assassinated in 235 AD. During this infamous fifty-year period the Roman Empire was beset by repeated defeats in the east – to the Persians, and in the north, to Germanic invaders.

READ MORE: Ancient Persia: From the Achaemenid Empire to the History of Iran

It also witnessed the chaotic secession of several provinces, which revolted as a result of poor management and a lack of regard from the center. Additionally, the empire was beset by a serious financial crisis that reduced the silver content of the coinage so far that it practically became useless. Moreover, there were recurrent civil wars that saw the empire ruled by a long succession of short-lived emperors.

Diocletian and the Tetrarchy

In 293 AD the emperor Diocletian sought to find a solution to the empire’s recurrent problems by establishing the Tetrarchy, also known as the rule of four. As the name suggests, this involved splitting the empire into four divisions, each ruled by a different emperor – two senior ones titled “Augusti,” and two junior ones called “Caesares,” each ruling their portion of territory.

Such an agreement lasted until 324 AD, when Constantine the Great retook control of the whole empire, having defeated his last opponent Licinius (who had ruled in the east, whereas Constantine had begun his power grab in the northwest of Europe). Constantine certainly stands out in the history of the Roman Empire, not only for reuniting it under one person’s rule and reigning over the empire for 31 years but also for being the emperor who brought Christianity to the center of the state infrastructure.

READ MORE: How Did Christianity Spread: Origins, Expansion, and Impact

Many scholars and analysts have pointed to the spread and cementing of Christianity as the state religion as an important, if not fundamental cause for Rome’s fall.

The Rule of Constantine

Constantine’s reign however, as well as his enfranchisement of Christianity, did not provide a wholly reliable solution to the problems that still beset the empire. Chief amongst these included an increasingly expensive army, threatened by an increasingly dwindling population (especially in the west). Straight after Constantine, his sons degenerated into civil war, splitting the empire in two again in a story that really seems very representative of the empire since its heyday under the Nerva-Antonines.

There were intermittent periods of stability for the remainder of the 4 th century AD, with rare rulers of authority and ability, such as Valentinian I and Theodosius . Yet by the beginning of the 5 th century, most analysts argue, things began to fall apart.

The Fall of Rome Itself: Invasions from the North

Similar to the chaotic invasions seen in the Third Century, the beginning of the 5 th century AD witnessed an immense number of “barbarians” crossing over into Roman territory, caused amongst other reasons by the spread of warmongering Huns from northeastern Europe.

This started with the Goths (constituted by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths ), which first breached the frontiers of the Eastern Empire in the late 4 th century AD.

Although they routed an Eastern army at Hadrianopolis in 378 AD and then turned to blunder much of the Balkans, they soon turned their attentions to the Western Roman Empire, along with other Germanic peoples.

These included the Vandals , Suebes , and Alans, who crossed the Rhine in 406/7 AD and recurrently laid waste to Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Moreover, the Western Empire they faced was not the same force that enabled the campaigns of the warlike emperors Trajan , Septimius Severus , or Aurelian.

Instead, it was greatly weakened and as many contemporaries noted, had lost effective control of many of its frontier provinces. Rather than looking to Rome, many cities and provinces had begun to rely on themselves for relief and refuge.

This, combined with the historic loss at Hadrianopolis, on top of recurrent bouts of civil discord and rebellion, meant that the door was practically open for marauding armies of Germans to take what they liked. This included not only large swathes of Gaul (much of modern-day France), Spain, Britain, and Italy, but Rome itself.

Indeed, after they had plundered their way through Italy from 401 AD onwards, the Goths sacked Rome in 410 AD – something that had not happened since 390 BC! After this travesty and the devastation that was wrought upon the Italian countryside, the government granted tax exemption to large swathes of the population, even though it was sorely needed for defense.

A Weakened Rome Faces Increased Pressure from Invaders

Much the same story was mirrored in Gaul and Spain, wherein the former was a chaotic and contested war zone between a litany of different peoples, and in the latter, the Goths and Vandals had free reign to their riches and people. At the time, many Christian writers wrote as though the apocalypse had reached the western half of the empire, from Spain to Britain.

The barbarian hordes are depicted as ruthless and avaricious plunderers of everything they can set their eyes upon, in terms of both wealth and women. Confused by what had caused this now-Christian empire to succumb to such catastrophe, many Christian writers blamed the invasions on the sins of the Roman Empire, past and present.

Yet neither penance nor politics could help salvage the situation for Rome, as the successive emperors of the 5 th century AD were largely unable or unwilling to meet the invaders in much decisive, open battles. Instead, they tried to pay them off or failed to raise sufficiently large armies to defeat them.

The Roman Empire on the Verge of Bankruptcy

Moreover, whilst the emperors in the west still had the rich citizens of North Africa paying tax, they could just about afford to field new armies (many of the soldiers in fact taken from various barbarian tribes), but that source of income was soon to be devastated as well. In 429 AD, in a significant development, the Vandals crossed over the strait of Gibraltar and within 10 years, had effectively taken control of Roman North Africa.

This was perhaps the final blow from which Rome was unable to recover. It was by this point the case that much of the empire in the west had fallen into barbarian hands and the Roman emperor and his government did not have the resources to take these territories back. In some instances, lands were granted to different tribes in return for peaceful coexistence or military allegiance, although such terms were not always kept.

By now the Huns had begun to arrive along the fringes of the old Roman frontiers in the west, united behind the terrifying figure of Attila. He had previously led campaigns with his brother Bleda against the Eastern Roman Empire in the 430s and 440s, only to turn his eyes west when a senator’s betrothed astonishingly appealed to him for help.

He claimed her as his bride in waiting and half of the Western Roman Empire as his dowry! Unsurprisingly this was not met with much acceptance by the emperor Valentinian III , and so Attila headed westwards from the Balkans laying waste to large swathes of Gaul and Northern Italy.

In a famous episode in 452 AD, he was stopped from actually besieging the city of Rome, by a delegation of negotiators, including Pope Leo I. The next year Attila died from a hemorrhage, after which the Hunnic peoples soon broke up and disintegrated, to the joy of both Roman and German alike.

Whilst there had been some successful battles against the Huns throughout the first half of the 450s, much of this was won by the help of the Goths and other Germanic tribes. Rome had effectively ceased to be the securer of peace and stability it had once been, and its existence as a separate political entity, no doubt appeared increasingly dubious.

This was compounded by the fact that this period was also punctuated by constant rebellions and revolts in the lands still nominally under Roman rule, as other tribes such as the Lombards, Burgundians, and Franks had established footholds in Gaul.

Rome’s Final Breath

One of these rebellions in 476 AD finally gave the fatal blow, led by a Germanic general named Odoacer, who deposed the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustulus . He styled himself as both “dux” (king) and client to the Eastern Roman Empire. But was soon deposed by the Ostrogoth king Theodoric the Great .

Henceforth, from 493 AD the Ostrogoths ruled Italy, the Vandals North Africa, the Visigoths Spain and parts of Gaul, the rest of which was controlled by Franks, Burgundians, and the Suebes (who also ruled parts of Spain and Portugal). Across the channel, the Anglo-Saxons had for some time ruled much of Britain.

There was a time, under the reign of Justinian the Great when the Eastern Roman Empire retook Italy, North Africa, and parts of Southern Spain, yet these conquests were only temporary and constituted the expansion of the new Byzantine Empire, rather than the Roman Empire of Antiquity. Rome and its empire had fallen, never again to reach its former glory.

Why Did Rome Fall?

Since the fall of Rome in 476 and indeed before that fateful year itself, arguments for the empire’s decline and collapse have come and gone over time. Whilst the English historian Edward Gibbon articulated the most famous and well-established arguments in his seminal work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , his inquiry, and his explanation, are only one of many.

For example, in 1984 a German historian listed a total of 210 reasons that had been given for the fall of the Roman Empire, ranging from excessive bathing (which apparently caused impotency and demographic decline) to excessive deforestation.

Many of these arguments have often aligned with the sentiments and fashions of the time. For instance, in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the fall of Roman civilization was explained through the reductionist theories of racial or class degeneration that were prominent in certain intellectual circles.

Around the time of the fall as well – as has already been alluded to – contemporary Christians blamed the disintegration of the empire on the last remaining vestiges of Paganism, or the unrecognized sins of professed Christians. The parallel view, at the time and subsequently popular with an array of different thinkers (including Edward Gibbon) was that Christianity had caused the fall.

The Barbarian Invasions and the Fall of Rome

The immediate cause of the empire’s fall was the unprecedented number of barbarians, aka those living outside Roman territory, invading the lands of Rome.

Of course, the Romans had had their fair share of barbarians on their doorstep, considering they were constantly involved in different conflicts along their long frontiers. In that sense, their security had always been somewhat precarious, especially as they needed a professionally manned army to protect their empire.

These armies needed constant replenishment, due to the retirement or death of soldiers in their ranks. Mercenaries could be used from different regions inside or outside the empire, but these were almost always sent home after their term of service, whether it was for a single campaign or several months.

As such, the Roman army needed a constant and colossal supply of soldiers, which it began to increasingly struggle to procure as the population of the empire continued to decrease (from the 2 nd century onwards). This meant more reliance on barbarian mercenaries, which could not always be as readily relied upon to fight for a civilization they felt little fealty towards.

Pressure on the Roman Borders

At the end of the 4 th century AD, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Germanic peoples, migrated westwards towards the Roman frontiers. The traditional (and still most commonly asserted) reason given for this is that the nomadic Huns spread out from their homeland in Central Asia, attacking Germanic tribes as they went.

This forced a mass migration of Germanic peoples to escape the wrath of the dreaded Huns by entering Roman territory. Therefore, unlike in previous campaigns along their northeastern frontier, the Romans were facing a prodigious mass of peoples united in common purpose, whereas they had, up until now, been infamous for their internecine squabbles and resentments. This unity was simply too much for Rome to handle.

Yet, this tells only half of the story and is an argument that has not satisfied most later thinkers who wanted to explain the fall in terms of the internal issues entrenched in the empire itself. It seems that these migrations were for the most part, out of Roman control, but why did they fail so miserably to either repel the barbarians or accommodate them within the empire, as they had previously done with other problematic tribes across the frontier?

Edward Gibbon and His Arguments for the Fall

Edward Gibbon was perhaps the most famous figure to address these questions and has, for the most part, been heavily influential for all subsequent thinkers. Besides the aforementioned barbarian invasions, Gibbon blamed the fall on the inevitable decline all empires faced, the degeneration of civic virtues in the empire, the waste of precious resources, and the emergence and subsequent domination of Christianity.

Each cause is given significant stress by Gibbon, who essentially believed that the empire had experienced a gradual decline in its morals, virtues, and ethics, yet his critical reading of Christianity was the accusation that caused the most controversy at the time.

The Role of Christianity According to Gibbon

As with the other explanations given, Gibbon saw in Christianity an enervating characteristic that sapped the empire not only of its wealth (going to churches and monasteries) but also its warlike persona that had molded its image for much of its early and middle history.

Whilst the writers of the Roman Republic and early empire encouraged manliness and service to one’s state, Christian writers impelled allegiance to God and discouraged conflict between his people. The world had not yet experienced the religiously endorsed Crusades that would see Christians wage war against non-Christians. Moreover, many of the Germanic peoples who entered the empire were themselves Christian!

Outside of these religious contexts, Gibbon saw the Roman Empire rotting from within, more focused on the decadence of its aristocracy and the vainglory of its militaristic emperors, than the long-term health of its empire. Since the heyday of the Nerva-Antonines, the Roman Empire had experienced crisis after crisis exacerbated in large part by poor decisions and megalomaniacal, disinterested, or avaricious rulers. Inevitably, Gibbon argued, this had to catch up with them.

Economic Mismanagement of the Empire

Whilst Gibbon did point out how wasteful Rome was with its resources, he did not really delve too heavily into the economics of the empire. However, this is where many recent historians have pointed the finger, and is with the other arguments already mentioned, one of the main stances taken up by later thinkers.

It has been well noted that Rome did not really have a cohesive or coherent economy in the more modern developed sense. It raised taxes to pay for its defense but did not have a centrally planned economy in any meaningful sense, outside of the considerations it made for the army.

There was no department of education or health; things were run on more of a case-by-case, or emperor-by-emperor basis. Programmes were carried out on sporadic initiatives and the vast majority of the empire was agrarian, with some specialized hubs of industry dotted about.

It did however have to raise taxes for its defense and this came at a colossal cost to the imperial coffers. For example, it is estimated that the pay needed for the whole army in 150 AD would constitute 60-80% of the imperial budget, leaving little room for periods of disaster or invasion.

Whilst soldier pay was initially contained, it was recurrently increased as time went by (partly because of increasing inflation). Emperors would also tend to pay donatives to the army when becoming emperor – a very costly affair if an emperor only lasted a short amount of time (as was the case from the Third Century Crisis onwards).

This was therefore a ticking time bomb, which ensured that any massive shock to the Roman system – like endless hordes of barbarian invaders – would be increasingly difficult to deal with, until, they couldn’t be dealt with at all. Indeed, the Roman state likely ran out of money on a number of occasions throughout the 5 th century AD.

Continuity Beyond the Fall: Did Rome Really Collapse?

On top of arguing about the causes of the Roman Empire’s fall in the West, scholars are also racked in debate about whether there was an actual fall or collapse at all. Similarly, they question whether we should so readily call to mind the apparent “dark ages” that followed the dissolution of the Roman state as it had existed in the West.

Traditionally, the end of the Western Roman empire is supposed to have heralded the end of civilization itself. This image was molded by contemporaries who depicted the cataclysmic and apocalyptic series of events that surrounded the deposition of the last emperor. It was then compounded by later writers, especially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when the collapse of Rome was seen as a massive step backward in art and culture.

Indeed, Gibbon was instrumental in cementing this presentation for subsequent historians. Yet from as early as Henri Pirenne (1862-1935) scholars have argued for a strong element of continuity during and after the apparent decline. According to this picture, many of the provinces of the Western Roman Empire were already in some way detached from the Italian center and did not experience a seismic shift in their everyday life, as is usually depicted.

Revisionism in the Idea of “Late Antiquity”

This has developed in more recent scholarship into the idea of “Late Antiquity” to replace the cataclysmic idea of the “Dark Ages. One of its most prominent and celebrated proponents is Peter Brown, who has written extensively on the subject, pointing to the continuity of much Roman culture, politics, and administrative infrastructure, as well as the flourishing of Christian Art and literature.

According to Brown, as well as other proponents of this model, it is therefore misleading and reductionist to talk of a decline or fall of the Roman Empire, but instead to explore its “transformation.”

In this vein, the idea of barbarian invasions causing the collapse of a civilization has become deeply problematic. It has instead been argued that there was an (albeit complex) “accommodation” of the migrating Germanic populations that reached the empire’s borders around the turn of the 5 th century AD.

Such arguments point to the fact that various settlements and treaties were signed with the Germanic peoples, who were for the most part escaping the marauding Huns (and are therefore posed often as refugees or asylum seekers). One such settlement was the 419 Settlement of Aquitaine, where the Visigoths were granted land in the valley of the Garonne by the Roman state.

As has already been alluded to above, the Romans also had various Germanic tribes fighting alongside them in this period, most notably against the Huns. It is also undoubtedly clear that the Romans throughout their time as a Republic and a Principate, were very prejudiced against “the other” and would collectively assume that anybody beyond their borders was in many ways uncivilized.

This aligns with the fact that the (originally Greek) derogatory term “barbarian” itself, derived from the perception that such people spoke a coarse and simple language, repeating “bar bar bar” repeatedly.

The Continuation of Roman Administration

Regardless of this prejudice, it is also clear, as the historians discussed above have studied, that many aspects of Roman administration and culture did continue in the Germanic kingdoms and territories that replaced the Roman Empire in the West.

This included much of the law that was carried out by Roman magistrates (with Germanic additions), much of the administrative apparatus, and indeed everyday life, for most individuals, will have carried on quite similarly, differing in extent from place to place. Whilst we know that a lot of land was taken by the new German masters, and henceforth Goths would be privileged legally in Italy, or Franks in Gaul, many individual families would not have been affected too much.

This is because it was obviously easier for their new Visigoth, Ostrogoth, or Frankish overlords to keep much of the infrastructure in place that had worked so well up until then. In many instances and passages from contemporary historians, or edicts from Germanic rulers, it was also clear that they respected much about Roman culture and in a number of ways, wanted to preserve it; in Italy for instance the Ostrogoths claimed “The glory of the Goths is to protect the civil life of the Romans.”

Moreover, since many of them converted to Christianity, the continuity of the Church was taken for granted. There was therefore a lot of assimilations, with both Latin and Gothic being spoken in Italy for example and Gothic mustaches being sported by aristocrats, whilst clad in Roman clothing.

Issues with Revisionism

However, this change of opinion has inevitably been reversed as well in more recent academic work – particularly in Ward-Perkin’s The Fall of Rome – wherein he strongly states that violence and aggressive seizure of land was the norm, rather than the peaceful accommodation that many revisionists have suggested .

He argues that these scant treaties are given far too much attention and stress when practically all of them were clearly signed and agreed to by the Roman state under pressure – as an expedient solution to contemporary problems. Moreover, in quite typical fashion, the 419 Settlement of Aquitaine was mostly ignored by the Visigoths as they subsequently spread out and aggressively expanded far beyond their designated limits.

Aside from these issues with the narrative of “accommodation,” the archaeological evidence also demonstrates a sharp decline in standards of living between the 5 th and 7 th centuries AD, across all of the western Roman Empire’s former territories (albeit under varying degrees), strongly suggested a significant and profound “decline” or “fall” of a civilization.

READ MORE: Ancient Civilizations Timeline: The Complete List from Aboriginals to Incans

This is shown, in part, by the significant decrease of post-roman finds of pottery and other cookware across the West and the fact that what is found is considerably less durable and sophisticated. This rings true for buildings as well, which began to be made more often in perishable materials like wood (rather than stone) and were notably smaller in size and grandeur.

Coinage also completely disappeared in large parts of the old empire or regressed in quality. Alongside this, literacy and education seem to have been greatly reduced across communities and even the size of livestock shrunk considerably – to bronze-age levels! Nowhere was this regression more pronounced than in Britain, where the islands fell into pre-Iron Age levels of economic complexity.

READ MORE: Prehistory: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic Periods, and More

Rome’s Role in the Western European Empire

There are many specific reasons given for these developments, but they can almost all be linked to the fact that the Roman Empire had kept together and maintained a large, Mediterranean economy and state infrastructure. Whilst there was an essential commercial element to the Roman economy, distinct from state initiative, things like the army or the political apparatus of messengers, and governor’s staff, meant that roads needed to be maintained and repaired, ships needed to be available, soldiers needed to be clothed, fed, and moved around.

When the empire disintegrated into opposing or partially opposed kingdoms, the long-distance trade and political systems fell apart too, leaving communities dependent on themselves. This had a catastrophic effect on the many communities that had relied upon long-distance trade, state security, and political hierarchies to manage and maintain their trade and lives.

Regardless, then, of whether there was continuity in many areas of society, the communities that carried on and “transformed” were seemingly poorer, less connected, and less “Roman” than they had been. Whilst much spiritual and religious debate flourished still in the West, this was almost exclusively centered around the Christian church and its widely dispersed monasteries.

Later Models in Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire: An Eternal Rome?

However, it can also be pointed out, quite rightly, that the Roman Empire may have fallen (to whatever extent) in the West, but the Eastern Roman Empire flourished and grew at this time, experiencing somewhat of a “golden age.” The city of Byzantium was seen as the “New Rome” and the quality of life and culture in the east certainly did not meet the same fate as the west.

There was also the “Holy Roman Empire” which grew out of the Frankish Empire when its ruler, the famous Charlemagne, was appointed emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 AD. Although this possessed the name “Roman” and was adopted by the Franks who had continued to endorse various Roman customs and traditions, it was decidedly distinct from the old Roman Empire of antiquity.

These examples also call to mind the fact that the Roman Empire has always held an important place as a subject of study for historians, just as many of its most famous poets, writers, and speakers are still read or studied today. In this sense, although the empire itself collapsed in the West in 476 AD, much of its culture and spirit is still very alive today.

How to Cite this Article

There are three different ways you can cite this article.

1. To cite this article in an academic-style article or paper , use:

Reasons for the Fall of Rome

Figures & Events
Ancient Languages
Mythology & Religion
American History
African American History
African History
Asian History
European History
Latin American History
Medieval & Renaissance History
Military History
The 20th Century
Women's History
M.A., Linguistics, University of Minnesota
B.A., Latin, University of Minnesota

Varro , a Republican Roman antiquarian, dated the founding of Rome to the 21st of April 753 B.C. While canonical, the date is most likely wrong. The fall of Rome also has a traditional date -- about a millennium later, on September 4, A.D. 476, a date established by the historian Edward Gibbon. This date is a matter of opinion, for it was on this date that the last Roman emperor to rule the western Roman Empire -- a usurper, but only the last of many -- was kicked out of office. The Sack of Rome by the Goths on August 24, A.D. 410 is also popular as a date for Rome's fall. Some say the Roman Empire never fell. But assuming it did fall, why did it fall?

There are adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in the 15th Century. Here I am writing about a roughly fifth century fall of Rome (or the western division of the Roman Empire).

Why do you think Rome fell?

Christianity

When the Roman Empire started, there was no such religion as Christianity, although by the time of the second emperor, Jesus had been executed for treasonous behavior. It took his followers a few centuries to gain enough clout that they were able to win over imperial support. This came in the early 4th century, with Constantine , who was actively involved in Christian policy-making. Over time, Church leaders became influential and took power away from the emperor; for example, the threat of withholding the sacraments compelled Emperor Theodosius to do the penance Bishop Ambrose required. Since Roman civic and religious life were the same -- priestesses controlled the fortune of Rome, prophetic books told leaders what they needed to win wars, emperors were deified, Christian religious beliefs and allegiances conflicted with the working of empire.

Barbarians and Vandals

Rome embraced the barbarians, a term covering a variety and changing group of outsiders, using them as suppliers of tax revenue and bodies for the military, even promoting them to positions of power, but Rome also lost territory and revenue to them, especially in northern Africa, which Rome lost to the Vandals at the time St. Augustine.

One can spot decay in many areas, going back to the crises of the Republic under the Gracchi , Sulla and Marius, but in the imperial period and in the military, it meant men were no longer trained right and the invincible Roman army was no longer, and there was corruption throughout.

Right now, the price of an ounce of gold is $1535.17/ounce (EUR 1035.25). If you bought what you thought was an ounce of gold and took it to an appraiser who told you it was worth only $30, you'd be upset and probably take action against the gold seller, but if your government issued money that was inflated to that degree you would no more have recourse than you'd have the money to buy necessities. That was what inflation was like in the century before Constantine. By the time of Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 A.D.) the amount of silver in a supposedly 100% silver denarius was only .02%.

The presence of lead in the drinking water leached in from the water pipes, glazes on containers that came in contact with food and beverages, and food preparation techniques could have contributed to heavy metal poisoning. It was also absorbed through the pores since it was used in cosmetics. Lead, associated with contraception, was recognized as a deadly poison.

Economic factors are cited as a major cause of the fall of Rome. Some of the major factors, like inflation, are discussed elsewhere. But there were also lesser problems with the economy of Rome that combined together to escalate financial stress. These include:

Poor management
The dole (bread and circuses)

Division of the Empire

The Roman Empire was split not just geographically, but culturally, with a Latin Empire and a Greek one, the latter of which may have survived because it had most of the population, a better military, more money, and more effective leadership.

Hoarding and Deficit

Causes of the fall of Rome include economic decay through hoarding of bullion, barbarian looting of the treasury, and trade deficit.

Want Even More?

The University of Texas has re-posted a German list ranging from the puzzling (like "useless eaters") to the obvious (like "stress") with a bunch of good ones in between (including "Nationalism of Rome's subjects" and "Lack of orderly imperial succession": "210 Reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire." Source: A. Demandt, Der Fall Roms (1984)

Do read the 21st century books The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians , by Peter Heather and The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization , by Bryan Ward-Perkins, which are summarized, reviewed and compared in the following review article:

"The Return of the Fall of Rome The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather; The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins," Review by: Jeanne Rutenburg and Arthur M. Eckstein The International History Review , Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 109-122.

The Fall of Rome: How, When, and Why Did It Happen?
Economic Reasons for the Fall of Rome
The End of the Roman Empire
Selected Books on Roman History
Alaric, King of the Visigoths and the Sack of Rome in A.D. 410
Timeline of the Period of the Dominate
Periods of History in Ancient Rome
The Hun-Driven Barbarian Invaders of the Roman Empire
Defining the Middle Ages
A Short Timeline of the Fall of the Roman Empire
Impact of the Huns on Europe
Timelines and Chronologies of Roman Emperors
Parthians and the Silk Trade
A Brief History of Rome
Valens and the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis)
The Great Roman Emperor Theodosius I

The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates Essay

Introduction, historical debates, modern theories, when rome fell.

Bibliography

The Roman Empire was established in 27 BC when Julius Caesar achieved the title of Augustus through a declaration by the Senate. 1 He was the first of the three Julio-Claudian emperors who established and expanded the Roman Empire between 27 BC and 68 AD. By 117CE, the Roman Empire was the most successful and extensive socio-political organization in western civilization. 2 The empire experienced a period of prosperity characterized by technological advancements, stable governance, trade boom, and immense contribution to art.

However, in the fifth century the empire’s fortunes dissipated due to a series of devastating attacks from barbarian forces and poor management/ leadership by the emperors. As a result, the empire lost its control over Western Europe by 476 CE. However, it continued in Eastern Europe until 1453. Historians are yet to agree on the factors that led to the decline of the Roman Empire and when it actually fell. In addition, some scholars believe that the empire evolved rather than fell. This paper will discuss the historical debates and factors that surrounded the perceived fall of the Roman Empire.

The Arrival of the Barbarians

The fall of the Roman Empire is considered to have been an ongoing process that lasted for several years. This argument is based on the influence that immigrants had on the political and social structure of the empire. In late antiquity, the Romans allowed thousands of foreigners (barbarians) who had exerted a lot of pressure on the empire to grant them asylum. 3 Foreigners wanted to live in Rome because it was much safer and offered better living conditions than other communities. As the number of immigrants increased, the empire became co-owned. The immigrants participated in the military and production centres, thereby influencing the empire’s culture and political power.

However, the immigrants were always mistreated and exploited through high taxation. The resulting increase in dissent led to violent confrontations, which eventually led to the end of the empire’s reign in Western Europe. For instance, in 378 CE, the Visigoths defeated the Romans in the Battle of Adrianople and killed Valens who was the emperor. 4 The Visigoths further attacked the city of Rome in 410 CE under the leadership of Alaric.

This attack caused serious destruction and weakened the government of the empire. In 455 CE, the Vandals caused a severe physical ruin of the empire in a devastating and prolonged attack. By early 470 CE, the government was so weak that it could not withstand more attacks. As a result, the Germans under the leadership of Odovacar ousted the last Roman Emperor (Romulus Augustulus) in the Western Empire in 476 CE. 5 In this respect, the arrival of the barbarians and their attacks led to the fall of the Roman Empire’s government in the west.

The Rise of Christianity

Edward Gibbon’s theory postulates that the rise of Christianity led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Christianity contradicted the traditional Roman religion, which promoted polytheism rather than monotheism. 6 By 313 CE, Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians and adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire. In the traditional religion, the emperor was considered as one of the gods. However, in Christianity the Romans were forced to believe in one God who was not their emperor. Since the emperor was no longer a god, his authority and credibility was seriously weakened. This made the empire vulnerable to attacks from the barbarian forces that overthrew several emperors. 7

However, Gibbon’s theory is inadequate because it does not fully explain the fall of the empire. If Christianity led to the fall of the Western Empire, then it should have also weakened or caused the fall of the Eastern Empire where the Orthodox Church was very strong. Since this did not happen, it is difficult to conclude that the rise of Christianity alone caused the fall of the empire. 8 Another argument against Gibbon’s theory is that Christianity only shifted the attention of the Romans away from the activities of their state. Thus, even though the political fortunes of the state might have declined because of Christianity, the civilization of the Romans was preserved. In this context, the empire did not fall because Christianity did not undermine its civilization.

Sexual Immorality

The Roman Empire was characterized by sexual immorality, especially, during the reign of the Julio-Claudians. Prostitution, homosexuality, and adultery were rampant during this era. Emperors such as Nero and the rich men in the empire spent fortunes on extra marital affairs. This led to extravagance and mismanagement of the empire’s economic resources. 9 In addition, the population reduced as men and women focused on pleasure rather than raising their families. Consequently, the empire’s ability to establish a strong army declined.

This theory is often criticized due to the fact that the Roman Empire was very successful during the reign of the Julio-Claudians who were the main perpetrators of immorality. Following the introduction of Christianity in the fifth century, sexual immorality declined. 10 Despite the adoption of Christianity as the main religion, the political and economic success of the empire still declined. Thus, immorality is not likely to have had a significant effect on the growth of the empire.

Unlike the theories discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, modern theories attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to a combination of several factors that acted simultaneous. In this context, the historical issues that led to the decline of the empire include reduced population growth and military power, as well as, political and economic factors.

The Population

Historical data shows that the population of the Roman Empire declined steadily from the second century. During the Classical Age, the population of the empire was over one million people. However, in the subsequent centuries the population of the empire declined gradually. By the 500s, the population of the city of Rome was less than ten thousand people. 11 The significant reduction in the population is attributed to the following factors.

First, sexual immorality coupled with the luxurious lifestyles that had been adopted by most Romans discouraged population growth. Most citizens increasingly became disinterested in raising children due to the time and economic resources that were needed to take care of large families. As urbanization increased, it became fashionable and economical to have few or no children to avoid congestion.

Second, the population was vulnerable to diseases such as malaria and diarrhea because of poor sanitation and lack of advanced treatment methods in various parts of the empire. As a result, thousands of lives were lost due to diseases that had no cure during the reign of the Romans. Third, lead poisoning is likely to have caused the death of several people in the empire. 12 Archeological studies have revealed that human skeletons recovered in places such as Pompeii were exposed to a significantly high amount of lead. This suggests that lead poisoning was a cause of death in the affected regions. However, the extent of the poisoning remains unknown due to lack of hard statistics on the number of people who were affected. Finally, the empire lost most of its citizens due to the constant warfare that it was involved in with its enemies. The attacks by the Visigoths and the Vandals in 410 CE and 455 CE respectively are some of the major wars that led to a substantial loss of lives.

As the population reduced, the Roman Empire increasingly depended on immigrants to supply labour in the farms and other sectors of the economy. Similarly, the empire resorted to hiring the barbarians to protect itself from its enemies. Thus, the immigrants/ barbarians found it very easy to overthrow the government since they were the force behind its success for a very long time.

Political and Military Problems

Lack of adequate leadership is one of the major factors that contributed to the fall of the empire. Poor leadership was attributed to the incompetence of several emperors who were corrupt and oppressed the public through excessive taxation. Emperors such as Arcadius, Honorius, and Romulus ascended to the throne in their teens. Thus, they were feeble minded and ill-prepared to lead the empire. Their inferiority and inability to offer effective leadership made the empire vulnerable to attacks from outsiders.

The decision by Diocletian to divide the empire into two is another political act that contributed to its decline. Indeed some historians believe that the division marked the beginning of the fall of the empire. The division caused administrative challenges because each empire had its own ruler. In this respect, taxes had to be increased to establish a larger military to protect the two empires. This led to an increase in dissent among the citizens, especially, the Germans who worked in the military. Moreover, the government failed to establish a strong alliance with the immigrants who constituted a large proportion of the population.

The pursuit of personal interests among the generals was one of the major military problems that weakened the empire. 13 Several generals had the ambition of becoming emperors or the main leaders of the military. The army was divided into several units to protect the empire in various parts of Western Europe. However, the units fought each other for power instead of uniting to protect the empire. As a result, the empire had twenty-three soldier emperors between AD 211 and AD 284. Most of the soldier emperors were assassinated by their rivals. This shows that lack of law and order within the military undermined the political system of the empire.

Economic Factors

In the third century, the empire suffered a prolonged period of economic crisis due to several factors. To begin with, the empire had engaged in a series of military invasions in Africa and Europe in the first and second centuries. These invasions were expensive and caused a severe financial constraint in the empire. As the empire lost its grip on Western Europe, its economy became very weak. 14 Specifically, the reduction in the flow of slaves limited the empire’s access to cheap labour that was required for mass production in the agricultural sector.

The resulting reduction in output led to a substantial reduction in the empire’s earnings. This situation was made worse by the Vandals who perpetrated piracy in the Mediterranean Sea. In particular, piracy prevented the empire from shipping its merchandise and trading with other nations across the Mediterranean Sea.

In the fifth century, the emperors had to pay huge amounts of money to their soldiers to protect the empire due to increased attacks. However, sustaining this strategy was very difficult due to declining tax revenue. Thus, the Roman coinage was debased, thereby causing a severe inflation. The resulting rise in apathy and suffering motivated the citizens to retreat to the countryside. 15 The economy in the city of Rome collapsed and the emperors found it difficult to finance their government.

The question of when Rome fell remains a subject of debate mainly due to the ambiguity in defining ‘Rome’. Historically, the word Rome has been used interchangeably in reference to the city of Rome, the Roman Empire, the government of the Roman Empire, and the People of Rome. Thus, when all these aspects are taken into account Rome can be considered to have fallen at different times.

If Rome is used in reference to the city, historical evidence indicates that it fell several times before the widely accepted date of 476 CE. Specifically, it was conquered by the Visigoths in 410 CE and the Vandals in 455 CE. These attacks were more serious and destructive than the 476 CE attack. 16 Nevertheless, the city of Rome still exists today. Thus, some historians argue that it did not fall.

The Roman Empire and its government are believed to have fallen gradually. The fall began in AD 284 when the empire was divided into the western and eastern halves. However, this perspective is often criticized due to the fact that the two empires still shared some cultural practices and had a common tax system. The Western Empire fell when Odovacar overthrew its government in 476 CE. 17 However, the demise of the western half was just a partial fall since the eastern half remained for nearly a millennium in the form of the Byzantine Empire.

The Eastern Empire (Byzantine) was very strong and operated for several years in Eastern Europe until the eleventh century when its power began to decline. In 1071, the Turks invaded the empire and conquered Anatolia. This weakened the empire since it lost a major military recruiting ground. In 1204, the Byzantine Empire was attacked by the Crusaders who conquered Constantinople, which was the capital city of the empire. 18

As a result, the empire temporarily ceased to exist. In particular, it crumbled into several small states. Fortunately, Constantinople was later recaptured by the Greeks who rebuilt the Empire. In this respect, the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 did not amount to the fall of the empire. However, the Greeks did not succeed in establishing a strong military and economic base to protect the empire from further attacks. Consequently, the Turks invaded the empire again in 1453 and conquered Constantinople. 19 The Turks completely destroyed the empire and established the Ottoman Empire, which lasted up to the end of World War I.

The Ottoman Empire was not considered as a real European kingdom since the Turks were Muslims who arrived from Asia. Thus, the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is believed to have brought the Roman Empire to an end in 1453. 20

However, the fall was only limited to the empire and its government. The Romans continued to live in the region. In the western territory, the Romans became serfs and much of their culture was preserved. In addition, most of their institutions and bureaucratic system of governance were preserved through the Church. In the contemporary world, the Romans continue to exist as Italians although their culture has evolved. This leads to the argument that Rome actually evolved rather than fell after being attacked by the Turks.

The discussions in the foraging paragraphs indicate that several theories have been developed to explain the causes of the fall of Rome. The single factor theories attribute the fall to different events such as the arrival of the barbarians, the rise of Christianity, and sexual immorality within the empire. These theories have serious weaknesses, which limit their ability to explain the causes of the fall. The multifactor theories attribute the fall to several factors/ issues that acted simultaneously to dissipate the fortunes of the empire. These include economic factors, declining population, politics, and military problems.

These factors have generally been accepted as the main causes of the fall of Rome since they are supported by historical facts. Determining the date when Rome actually fell remains an unsettled debate mainly because some scholars believe that the empire did not fall in the first place. However, the Roman Empire and its government fell in 1453 when its eastern half was conquered by the Turks and replaced by the Ottoman Empire.

Primary Sources

N, Roan, ‘History of Byzantium’, YouTube. 2014. Web.

P, Williams, ‘Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire Episode 13’, YouTube. 2014. Web.

Secondary Sources

J. Ferguson, The Division and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 2006). Web.

E. Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1845). Web.

W. Goffart, ‘Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians’, American Historical Review 86: 2 (2009), pp. 275-306. Web.

P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome (Oxford, 2007). Web.

L. Milton, ‘Lead and Lead Poisoning from Antiquity to Modern Times’, Ohio Journal of Science 88: 3 (1988). pp. 78-84. Web.

B. Olwen, ‘Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans’, Journal of Roman Studies 26: 2 (2009), pp. 195-222. Web.

C. Oman, The Byzantine Empire (New York, 2011). Web.

J. Ott, ‘The Decline, and fall of the Western Roman Empire’ (Master’s Thesis: Iowa State University, 2009). Web.

B. Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005). Web.

D. Potter, A Companion to the Roman Empire (Chichester, 2009). Web.

J. Saunders, ‘The Debate on the Fall of Rome’, History 48:162 (2007), pp. 1-17. Web.

T. Venning, A Chronology of the Byzantine Empire (New York, 2006). Web.

Potter, David. A Companion to the Roman Empire (Chichester, 2009) pp. 113-175.
ibid. pp. 113-175.
Perkins, Bryan. The fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005) pp. 25-120.
Goffart, Walter. Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians, American Historical Review 86:2 (2009), pp. 275-306.
ibid. pp. 275-306.
Gibbon, Edward. History of the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1845) pp. 10-430.
ibid. pp. 10-430.
Heather, Peter. The fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome (Oxford, 2007) pp. 251-353.
Saunders, John. The Debate on the fall of Rome History 48: 162 (2007) pp. 1-17.
Potter, pp. 541-607.
Perkins, pp. 121-341.
Milton, Lessler. Modern Times Ohio Journal of Science 88: 3 (1988) pp. 78-84.
Ott, Justin. ‘The Decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire’ (Master’s Thesis: Iowa State University, 2009) pp. 2-60.
Olwen, Brogan. Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans Journal of Roman Studies 26: 2 (2009) pp. 195-222.
Heather, pp. 351-353.
Ferguson, James. The Division and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 2006) pp. 1-18.
Williams, Paul. ‘Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire Episode 13’, YouTube.
Oman Charles. The Byzantine Empire (New York, 2011) pp. 1-25.
Venning, Timothy. A Chronology of the Byzantine Empire (New York, 2006). Pp. 10-120.
Roan, Nile. ‘History of Byzantium’, YouTube .
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 13). The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome-historical-debates/

"The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates." IvyPanda , 13 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome-historical-debates/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates'. 13 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates." January 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome-historical-debates/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates." January 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome-historical-debates/.

IvyPanda . "The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates." January 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome-historical-debates/.

Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire
Rise of the Roman Empire
China's Emperors and Their Role in History
The Fall of Rome and the Barbarian Expansion
Ancient Greek and Roman Myth Characters
Mummification in Egypt: Nature of the Process
The History of Ancient India Analysis
The Roman Villa Role in the Ancient History

People, Places, Events and Terms To Know:

I. Introduction: Rome Before the "Fall" [ click here for a brief overview of Roman history ]

After nearly half a millennium of rule, the Romans finally lost their grip on Europe in the fifth century (the 400's CE). Their decline left in its wake untold devastation, political chaos and one of the most fascinating and problematical issues in history, what caused the " Fall of Rome ," the problem we'll tackle in this Chapter. Though Roman government in the form of the Byzantine Empire survived in the East for almost another thousand years, so-called barbarian forces overran western Europe, spelling the end of an era. While Rome's absence in the West brought with it tremendous change—and none of it seemed very positive, at least at first—before we can even address the question of why Rome logged off and Europe switched users, we must understand how this transition happened and what exactly came to a close during this period.

Cartoon: Barbarian Arts (click to see larger image)

There is no better way to bring home the impact of this grim reality than to look at Europe in the early Middle Ages through a foreigner's eyes. In outlining the peoples of the world for his contemporaries, an Arab geographer of the day describes Europeans as having "large bodies, gross natures, harsh manners, and dull intellects . . . those who live farthest north are particularly stupid, gross and brutish." The tables have certainly turned when outsiders are describing Western Civilization the way classical historians like Herodotus and Tacitus had once appraised the barbarian world. The sequence of events leading up to such drastic changes, so precipitous a drop in quality of life, is where we must begin as we seek the reasons for "why Rome fell."

II. The Barbarians Arrive: The Fourth and Fifth Centuries CE

Increasing pressure from peoples outside the Empire, the much maligned barbarians , had compelled the Romans in later antiquity to let more and more foreigners inside their state. Since most of these spoke a language based on Common Germanic , the Romans referred to them collectively as Germans , even though they actually represented a wide array of nations and cultures. These newly adopted resident aliens were assigned to work farms or were conscripted into the Roman army in numbers so large that the late Latin word for "soldier" came to be barbarus ("barbarian"). And where these barbarians met resistance, they sneaked or pushed their way inside the Empire, and in such a profusion that Rome was fast turning into a nation of immigrants.

Not that that was much of a change. Things had actually been that way for centuries, only by late antiquity it was undeniable that, in spite of being called "Roman," the Empire was, in fact, a multicultural enterprise. The pretense of a "Roman" Rome had worn so thin it was impossible to maintain the illusion, for instance, that everyone in the Empire could speak—or even wanted to speak— Latin , the Romans' native tongue. Furthermore, it had been ages since any emperor had even bothered to pretend his lineage could be traced back to some ancestor who had arrived with Aeneas in Italy, an invented history which was beginning to look rather silly when Spaniards and North Africans had been steering the Empire for centuries.

The stark truth was that by the fifth century CE—and indeed for many years before that—a succession of dynamic and capable foreigners coming from all ends of the Empire had kept Rome on its feet and these men were as "Roman" as anyone born or bred in the capital. Barbarians were, and had been for a long time, guarding and feeding the Empire, which made it all the more difficult to claim they shouldn't also be running it. While three centuries earlier the Roman satirist Juvenal had lamented, "I can't stand a Greek Rome," now Rome wasn't merely Greek. It was Dacian and Egyptian and Syrian and, most of all, ever more German by the day.

Thus, the sort of change which Rome had undergone—and was at the time still undergoing which implies a certain trajectory into the future—was all too clear: from a local stronghold in Italy, to a multinational power, to the only superpower in the known world, to a globalized conglomerate of many different peoples. Even if the Romans of Rome still held the title to the Empire and affected superiority over the barbarians managing their domain, Roman possession of the lands around the Mediterranean Sea was, for the most part, only on paper. The reality was that the state was jointly owned, a participatory experiment which was by then maintained with the sweat and blood of many races—and there were even more who would have liked to sign up as "Roman" but they couldn't get in.

This begs the question, then, why so many foreigners lived—and even more wanted to live—in Rome. Why did barbarians in such numbers press to invade an empire in which they were treated as second-class citizens no matter how hard they worked and collaborated? The answer is easy. The Roman Empire in that day was a far safer place to live and offered much better accommodations than the wild world outside its borders. Roads and aqueducts and baths and amphitheaters and even taxes look good when one is gazing in from outside where poverty, blood-feuds, disease and frost reign supreme—the mild Mediterranean climate of southern Europe cannot be discounted as a factor in the barbarians' desire to infiltrate sunny Rome—but there was an even more impressive reason lurking beyond the borders of the Empire, something anyone would want to avoid if at all possible: Huns!

A. The Huns, Part 1

All in all, the Huns represent that rare instance where the victors didn't write the history, because—the conclusion is inescapable— they didn't care enough about history to write it . As a result, their reputation has suffered. It's very odd, really. Conquerors usually find it useful in maintaining their dominion, to make at least some public declaration or justification of their conquest, some sort of excuse for invading and conquering. Many subscribe to invented histories, forging a historical right or reason they slaughtered and marauded, if not out of a guilty conscience, at least from a victor's sense of shame. That the Huns didn't even bother lying to those they conquered, or even to posterity, is without doubt one of their most frightening qualities. And so, much like our Western ancestors, many historians run in terror just at the sound of the name.

B. The Goths

Map: Barbarian Invasions (click to see larger image)

The Visigoths, severed from their brethren but saved from the brunt of the Mongol assault by the mere fact that they lived further west than the Ostrogoths, desperately sought protection by appealing to Rome for asylum. There, they ran up against an impermeable shield of customs stations at the Roman border, a veritable wall of imperial disdain which was by then standard policy when barbarians began wailing and waving their hands. Thus squeezed between scorn and the spear, the Visigoths panicked and not a few tried to push their way into Roman territory. Facing a surge of frantic immigrants, the Roman Emperor Valens had little choice but to relent and let them in.

Once inside the boundaries of Rome, the Visigoths found safety but at the same time a new and in many ways more dangerous foe. As new-comers to Roman civilization, they were ill-equipped to live in a state run on taxes and mired in the complex language of legalities, and thus made easy prey for unscrupulous, greedy imperial bureaucrats who cheated and abused them. Very quickly, the Visigoths found themselves bound in something heavier and more constricting than chains—the gruesome coils of red tape—and they responded as any reasonable barbarian would: they demanded fair treatment and, when their pleas went unheard, they embarked upon a rampage.

Valens called out his army, a threat meant to intimate the Visigoths into returning to their designated territory and tithe. But like the truant step-children they were, the barbarians remained disobedient. Left with no other recourse but corporal punishment, Valens met the Visigoths in combat at the Battle of Adrianople (378 CE) in northeastern Greece, and what happened was not only unexpected but unthinkable to any Roman living then, or dead. Primed by the insults to their pride—or because they were simply scared out of their minds— the Visigoths defeated and massacred the Roman legions sent to keep them in their room. Worse yet, Valens himself was killed in the course of the conflict.

His successor, Theodosius I resorted to standard Roman policy and pacified the Visigoths temporarily with handouts and promises. But money and titles couldn't buy back a Roman army or, more important, a reputation for invincibility. The Romans' essential weakness was now in full public view. Still, Theodosius managed to hold the state together and keep up a tense façade of peace within the Empire until, through an act which proves the cruel capriousness of fate, he died prematurely in 395. His young, pampered, feeble-minded sons were suddenly thrust to the forefront of Roman politics, yet another disaster for the Romans who could really have done without one at that juncture in history.

Map: The Eastern and Western Roman Empire (click to see larger image)

His mind poisoned by court intrigue and the jealousy of rivals, Honorius struck a serious blow to his own cause by allowing the assassination of his best general, a man named Stilicho, in 408. So, with the Roman Emperor having done him the favor of eliminating his best defense against them, Alaric and his Visigothic forces invaded Italy with brutal barbarian dispatch and headed for the city of Rome itself. Panicking again, Honorius abandoned the capital, evading the Visigoths by fleeing to another Roman city in Italy, Ravenna, where he watched and waited out their wrath from a safe distance.

Rome Burning (click to see larger image)

At the same time, however, not everything went wrong for the Romans. For one thing, Alaric died only a few months after leading his forces on Rome. This left the Visigoths without competent leadership and, more important, still in search of a land they could settle and call home. After some negotiations, the remnants of their army and people moved out of Italy to southwestern Gaul, and later Spain where with the help of the Roman army they displaced the Vandals and established a kingdom that would endure for nearly two centuries. While barbarian in origin, the Visigoths of Spain quickly adopted Roman customs, the Latin language, and even the Christian religion, though in a heretical variation called Arian Christianity (or Arianism ; see Section 13 ). Although that later caused trouble between the Visigoths and the orthodox Church in Rome, this late-ancient civilization laid the groundwork for much of Medieval Spanish culture to follow, forging a unique synthesis of barbarian, Roman, Christian and—after 711 CE when Islamic forces invaded Spain—Moslem traditions.

C. The Huns, Part 2

All this time, the Huns were marching through and enslaving eastern Europe, inflicting their own brand of terror on the barbarian tribes there. Oppressing peoples like the Ostrogoths had kept these Mongol nomads, by now only distantly Asiatic, occupied for several decades. Empires like the Huns are run on conquest and collecting tribute from terrified populaces. They must keep expanding or their momentum falters and their economy as well, if it's fair to say terrorists have economies. Fear, in fact, plays a large part in maintaining any such regime, so when the Huns' new, powerful, European-born leader Attila learned that Christians in Rome had pronounced him, in traditional Old-Testament fashion, "the Scourge of God "— meaning God's whip as a moralizing force to impose better behavior—he was very pleased and added it to his litany of royal titles. No doubt, the whip image appealed to him more than the moralizing part.

Attila the Hun (click to see larger image)

Shortly thereafter, Attila died of uncertain causes. Because his death occurred the night after he'd celebrated a new marriage—the last of many!—his young bride was suspected of complicity in his demise but the charge was never proven. And, as has happened so often in history, where the Italians failed to save their land, Italy itself rose to the challenge, shades of Greece and the Persian Wars! In this instance, the Hunnic army contracted some type of epidemic during their brief stay on the Italian peninsula. This mystery disease decimated their ranks, and soon after their departure they disappeared completely, from Europe and history. As one modern writer notes, "They were not mourned."

D. The Vandals

Next, moving to sea, the Vandals took up piracy and severely disrupted trade in the western Mediterranean. The recent assassination of Aetius, who was the most competent Roman general in the day and had died at the hands of none other than Valentinian III, the Emperor of Rome himself, only made the Vandals' path to naval power and domination all the easier. This horrifying replay of Stilicho's death—shades of Honorius again!—not only led to Valentinian's own murder in retaliation for Aetius' but also opened the way for a second assault on the capital itself, the devastating Vandalic Sack of Rome in 455 CE. Unlike the Visigoths' earlier siege, the Vandals' attack involved prolonged, physical ruin, a destruction so complete and indiscriminate, so emblematic of wanton atrocity, that these barbarians' very name made its way into common parlance, and ultimately English, as a by-word for "the malicious destruction of property," vandalism .

E . The "Fall of Rome"

The final days of the Roman Empire are usually assigned to the year 476 CE, when the German general Odovacar (or Odoacer) deposed the "last Roman Emperor," a boy ironically named Romulus Augustulus . Although Odovacar acted with little respect for formalities—he removed the child from the throne and sent him off to a monastery where he subsequently died—the usurper faced no real opposition, political or military. The reality of the matter was that barbarian leaders like him had been the power behind the throne for many years in Rome, and the German strongman did little more than end the pretense of non-barbarian control of the Roman West.

His move was, moreover, driven by economics as much as anything else. Despite the travails of their Western counterparts, the Eastern emperors—by then, there were two Roman emperors, one in Rome and one in Constantinople—continued to demand that the entire Empire pay taxes into a common treasury. From there, few of these funds ever made their way back to the West where they were desperately needed to defend the state and rebuild its infrastructure. In open defiance of this tradition, Odovacar began keeping the monies he collected from those areas he governed.

Tomb of Theodoric (click to see larger image)

But once he'd had a good look at the West, especially the desperate condition of things, the Ostrogothic general refused to hand Italy over to some far-off "Roman Emperor" who had no intention of actually ruling it but only milking it for taxes. Now the lord of the land, Theodoric (r. 493-527 CE) set about restoring what more than a century of neglect, civil war, invasion and "vandalism" had wrought. Roman Italy needed a caring hand like his, and this barbarian proved the last ruler in antiquity to lend it such.

Theodoric oversaw the repair of Roman roads and aqueducts, and under his governance Italy witnessed a small-scale renaissance, sadly its final breath of culture for much of the remaining millennium. To those who are able to grasp the complexity of these times, Theodoric's actions come as no surprise at all. A veritable paradox, capable of both treachery and tenderness, he had been educated in Constantinople but remained essentially illiterate all his life. Moreover, he had served in his youth as a hostage to the Eastern Romans and thus had learned the language of those highly civilized bureaucrats. And like Odovacar, he was also a Christian and, although Arian, managed to maintain good relations with the orthodox powers-that-be, not that he wanted to live among them.

To this day, however, his strained relations with his secretary Boethius , an orthodox Christian, dominate the accounts of his regime—Theodoric ultimately had Boethius executed—but the Ostrogothic king would be better remembered for building a sound and effective government centered in Ravenna (northeastern Italy on the coast of the Adriatic Sea), where his tomb can still be seen. It is fairer to him, perhaps, to recall his relationship with Cassiodorus , Boethius' successor to the post of secretary, who was also an orthodox Christian but not so contentious a man. Cassiodorus quietly oversaw the copying of many Classical manuscripts, which was an important contribution to the preservation of Greek and Roman literature and thought during the Middle Ages. All in all, whether or not any of them knew it—and quite a few probably did—these men were folding the tents of culture, packing its bags and quenching the fires of scholarship. The West was readying itself for its Medieval "camping trip."

III. The "Fall of Rome" as a Question of History

A. 1 Question, 210 Answers

The classic conundrum of antiquity, "Why did Rome fall?," has withstood legions of scholars catapulting answers at it—over 210 different ones at last count—and still it stands unbreached. Few of the suggestions have made much of an impression. Many involve "invented histories" of some sort, speaking volumes about the answerer and syllables about the issue. More than one may be dismissed off-hand as so far from what-really-happened that, though they represent someone's history, it's clearly not the Romans'.

For instance, Rome did not fall because of the distractions pursuant to sexual indulgence. Given the influence of Christianity which the Romans had adopted as their exclusive religion by then, the conduct of those living in the fifth century after Christ was relatively sober. Indeed, if the data point to any venereal villains across the great expanse of Roman history, it is the Julio-Claudians who oversaw the height of Roman power in the first century CE and were truly perpetrators of immorality at large. So, to make an argument relating sexual behavior to Rome's "fall"—and to judge it fairly from the historical evidence—involves the ludicrous conclusion that the erotic felonies of a Caligula or Nero, in fact, sustained Rome's triumph, instead of corroding it at its core. That suggests that, to prevent the collapse of their society, the Romans should have kept the orgies up, so to speak, which is patently ridiculous.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (click to see larger image)

And some of these answers have come from very good scholars, the likes of Edward Gibbon , the pre-eminent classical historian of England in the later half of the eighteenth century. Brilliant though it was, the thesis he expounded in his monumental and highly engaging magnum opus The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire —he argued that the rise of Christianity emasculated the native vigor of Rome, leaving it open to more virile conquerors, i.e. barbarians—is a proposition full of holes and inconsistencies, saying in the end less about the Roman Empire than its British counterpart, the hidden target of Gibbon's book. For example, if Christianity so weakened the Roman West in late antiquity, why didn't it weaken the other half, the staunchly orthodox East which survived nearly a millennium after the collapse of the West? Perhaps it's true that Christianity redirected the attention of many Romans away from affairs of state, but it did not undermine their civilization. To the contrary, it was as natural an outgrowth of their culture, as "Roman" as all sorts of other things they did: theatre, epic poetry, gladiators, ship-building, all of which were imports, just like Christianity.

B. The Evidence

Any hope of finding a better answer depends on assessing exactly what was happening in Rome at the time of its "fall" and the data do, in fact, point to some clear and significant trends.

Population . First of all, there's strong evidence of a steady decline in population across the entire Empire from the second century CE on. For example, peaking at around a million or so in the Classical Age, the population of the city of Rome gradually dropped over the course of the next few centuries, reaching a low point of a mere six thousand by the 500's. The reasons for this drastic if incremental reduction in human resources are not clear, though many Romans' luxurious lifestyle and their concomitant disinterest in producing and raising children must have played some part. So did plagues, no doubt, as well as constant warfare on the frontiers and perhaps even lead-poisoning, evidenced in human skeletal remains recovered from Pompeii which show that the Romans there were indeed exposed to high concentrations of the lethal element. Nevertheless, it's unclear how widespread this problem was. Economics . Second, economic data point to other factors which doubtlessly contributed to the situation. Well-documented among the travails of third-century Rome—a full two centuries prior to its notorious "fall"—is a particularly long period of financial crisis which inaugurated the slow collapse of the economy in the West. This economic depression was due in large part to the failure of the Romans' system of conquest and enslavement. When the flow of cheap slaves began to dry up, estates throughout the Empire could no longer live off the abuse of human resources on which they had formerly depended. So without any real industry or much agricultural machinery to work the land—Roman land-owners did know about water wheels and windmills but archaeologists have found evidence of very few being used in this period—the aristocrats of late Rome apparently watched the collapse of their economy and disdained practical matters such as retooling their farms to ensure their viability.

Ski Jumper sans skis (click to see larger image)

But states have survived disasters far worse than any or all of these. In sum, none of the theories or factors mentioned above explains why there's no simple answer to the simple question, " Why did Rome fall? " So, perhaps, it's not the answers that are flawed but the question itself. To a scholar, that demands an all-out Aristotelian response, a syllogism, an analysis of the question in terms of its principal elements, which are three: why, Rome, fell.

IV. Conclusion: A New Question?

A. What's a "Rome"?

Since "why" cannot be answered until the other components of the question have been determined, it's best not to start there. First, then, when we say "Rome," what do we mean? The city? The empire? Its government? Its people?

•If by "Rome" we mean the city, invaders compromised that several times in Roman history before its so-called "fall" in 476 CE. That Rome fell to the Visigoths in 410, to the Vandals in 455, not to mention its other earlier "falls" such as the one to that most-Roman-of-all-Romans, Julius Caesar himself (45 BCE), and its near capitulation to Hannibal before that. So if it's right to put the events of 476 in the same category—they were hardly as destructive physically or psychologically as those which preceded—the ouster of Romulus Augustulus can hardly labelled " the fall of Rome," when compared to other ruinous sieges and takeovers of the city. •If by "Rome" we mean the Empire, only the Western half of that is even at issue. The Eastern Empire stood for nearly a millennium after 476, nearly as long again as classical Rome itself. So Rome as Empire can't be right. •If by "Rome" we mean the government, that underwent drastic, often violent upheaval several times in Roman history, including the establishment of the Republic early in Roman history, the civil wars of the first century BCE, and the later reforms of the Emperor Diocletian who virtually remade the Empire in the image of autocratic Eastern regimes. That definition doesn't work either. •Finally, if by "Rome" we mean the people, they lived on past 476. They're still there. They're called Italians. So, if the people of Rome ever "fell," apparently they got back up again. That's out, too.

Whatever the answer, the question of which "Rome" fell in 476 lies at the heart of the problem, and most of the answers that have been offered incline toward one but not all of the connotations the name Rome can carry. Yet, all are inherent in the question, at least when it's phrased so simply as "Why did Rome fall?" Clearly, any cogent answer will have to address every "Rome" in Rome, so it's probably best not to start there, either.

B. What's a "Falling?"

Hopefully, "fall" will prove a less obscure term than "Rome," and it does, unfortunately. "Fall" is quite clearly off-base, in fact, a rather inept way to describe what happened in later ancient Rome, since in most people's understanding "falling" implies an accelerating descent leading to a cataclysmic crash followed by a big ka-boom , like a tree being cut down. But that's really not how things happened in late imperial Rome. Nothing went "boom"—"blaarhhh!" maybe—but no explosion, no crash.

There must be a better metaphor and, if a derogatory term is in order—and speaking positively about Rome in the fifth century seems out of the question, without completely recasting the issue—it would be more suitable perhaps to say Rome "dissolved." Professional dignity and common sense, however, rule that out for most academics. Scholars, after all, can hardly sit around seminar tables in serious discourse debating the reasons why the ancient cookie "crumbled."

So then, how about "leak"? "Slide"? "Putrefy"? All those present the same problem, though the gradualism inherent in any of them represents a significant step toward accuracy in reflecting the slow disintegration inherent in Rome's "fall," the far-from-instantaneous process of wasting away that characterizes the end of classical antiquity. Still, The Decline and Rot of Rome ? It's hard to see that on anyone's best-seller list.

So, with the implications of "Rome" unclear and, worse yet, tied to the misguided metaphor of "falling," our inner Aristotles can see that it's categorically pointless to proceed to "why." The question is all too imprecise, too rotten-at-the-core to produce sensible answers. It is, in fact, a loaded question, because it presupposes that Rome did fall, encouraging us to think in what may turn out to be inaccurate and unproductive ways. The real question is whether Rome fell, not why ?

D. Did Rome Fall?

True, the Roman state did something monumentally unpleasant in the 400's CE, especially for those citizens of Rome acclimated to the benefits of life in the Empire. That's why many Romans in the day left the city for the countryside or monasteries or God's merciful embrace. But that change did not happen overnight, or even over a decade. The historical data do not support any firm break between late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, certainly nothing like the social upheaval that followed in the wake of the Black Death as it surged across Europe. There, the impact of an explosive catastrophe can be seen in every corner of the European landscape. But 476 doeis not equal 1347.

The historical truth, if any exists, is that Rome did not fall; rather, it evolved. Roman coloni (farmers tied to the land) gradually became Medieval serfs. The patron-and-client relationship, so central in Roman society, slowly assumed the name and nature of the lord-and-vassal bond, the social order underlying much of European society in the Middle Ages. So, if Rome fell, it was only in slow motion, very slow motion.

But change did come to Rome in the fifth century—as it has to every society in every century of human history—and a particularly drastic change it was. Many of the conventions which had once ruled the ancient Romans' lives evaporated, never to re-emerge. Primarily, citizenship in Rome offered little or no protection to its denizens, like membership in a club that was now defunct. That, in turn, precipitated an even more serious casualty, the loss of pride in being Roman, and of all things that perhaps lies at the heart of the problem. When being Roman no longer mattered, then being Greek or Dacian or German didn't either, and if their Romanness stopped giving people a sense of military or economic or racial superiority, what was the point of being Roman?

This bigotry, evidenced well before the fifth century, cuts to the heart of the myth about Rome's fall. In simple terms, the nationalistic propaganda of late Rome included a good element of racism which held that Germans, while useful in some respects, were fundamentally aliens, something less than Roman, to many in the day less than human. So when barbaric groups of Germans first defeated the Romans in battle, then captured Rome itself and finally assumed the mantle of Roman authority, it looked to those who saw "Roman" and "German" as mutually exclusive terms as if the Empire was no longer Roman, no longer an empire at all. But this was, in fact, a rationalization, an excuse concocted by the late Romans to cover their own complacency and lack of planning, which was, to be frank, rooted in laziness. Thus, lethargy and bias lurk behind the notion that 476 was a date of any supreme significance, much less the Armageddon of the classical world, the moment when "Rome fell."

At the same time, however, the fallacy of choosing 476 as a crucial moment in history—there is no year better for dating the "fall"—points to something else very telling, that Rome for the most part survived the crisis of the fifth century and in many respects weathered the circumstances surrounding its purported "fall." For instance, Rome provided the essential groundwork for the later triumphs of its successor states and, in particular, the history of the Church argues strongly for an unbroken line of development between late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the gradual evolution of Roman into Medieval structures. Indeed, many Roman institutions were preserved through the Church, not least of all its bureaucracy.

This indeed goes some way toward explaining why in its later days the popes in Rome more than once stood up to defend the state, when Emperors did not, as Leo I did when he confronted and turned Attila from Italy. Churchmen like him were defending not only their homes but their home institution, both Mother Rome and Mother Church. Seen this way, Rome did not "fall" at all but passed its cultural legacy, the very heart of its civilization, to the burgeoning Christian world.

So why then all the fixation on "fall," when the "evolution" of Rome is a much more accurate way of expressing the transition Rome underwent during the fifth century? The answer should be self-evident: the "Evolution of Rome" is boring, if only because the message lacks a moral core. In other words, saying something like "We must never do something as evil as that or we will evolve like Rome, and you don't want that , do you?" isn't a very effective way to use history. It's far too easy for somebody to say "Well, why not?"

In spite of all its inaccuracy, then, "falling" is a far more palatable way for many people today to look at ancient Rome. In so complex and consequential a situation as the woes suffered by Rome in the fifth century where so little is clear and so many players cross the stage, simplicity comes at a premium. "Fall" has the great advantage over "evolve" of providing a straightforward and palpable vision of Rome's purported demise, a salient, pointed metaphor that makes history come alive. That is, to give Rome a "fall," a sudden death of sorts, makes it seem all the more human, more closely related to things people today know and see. People fall and die; Rome fell and died. It's so simple, so accessible some part of it has to be right.

Cartoon: Romulus and Remus (click to see larger image)

In that light, the "fall of Rome" becomes a sort of game based on humanity's strong but irrational need to personify past ages in order to make them more understandable. Indeed, the general urge to create periods of history stems from the same weakness. Seeking closure for Rome or any past society is a student-and-professor game convenient for quiz-taking, chart-making, sermonizing and remarkably little else.

E. "Die For Rome!"

Cartoon: What Caused The Dark Ages? (click to see larger image)

But ideas like that don't "live," at least not in the strictest sense of the word—they don't have sharp transitions between life and death the way people do—instead, ideas come and go, quickly or slowly, and, what's most important here, they can be resurrected at any moment, in a way that humans beings cannot. If Rome is essentially an idea, then it's inaccurate to assert that it "fell," at least in the sense that it "died." Whatever happened to the state of Rome in the fifth century, the idea of Rome lived on, and that was the essence of Rome itself.

Later history provides plenty of witnesses to this, if nothing else in the number of people who have invoked Rome's legacy to advance their own causes: Justinian and the Gothic Wars, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, Russia's czars and Germany's Kaisers —both are titles derived from the name Caesar—and, most horrifically, Hitler and the Third Reich, the First Reich being Rome. That is, Hitler tried to pass off his regime as some reincarnation of "Rome" in the modern world. Fortunately for all, his empire came nowhere near lasting a thousand years, but the allure of Rome eternal, unified, invincible, has over and over proven irresistible, at least as the yardstick by which megalomaniacs measure themselves.

The simple reality of Rome in late antiquity is that something big and centralized in the West—and only in the West—broke up into several smaller units, each resembling in many ways the larger whole to which they had once belonged, but the image of Rome and the imagery driving it lived on. Indeed, the majority of modern Western languages, laws, religions, customs and culture are in some way fundamentally Roman, making all of us by all fair standards modern Romans. And, until the last traces of Roman civilization are erased and forgotten, Rome cannot be said to have died—or fallen.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Student information
Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Why the Roman Empire fell is often discussed in history classes and textbooks. But new research by Stanford historian Walter Scheidel considers an angle that has received little scholarly attention: Why did it – or something similar to it – never emerge again?

Stanford historian Walter Scheidel calls the fall of Rome the “great escape.” (Image credit: Daniel Hinterramskogler)

Scheidel discusses in a new book why the Roman Empire was never rebuilt and how pivotal its absence was for modern economic growth, the Industrial Revolution and worldwide Western expansion. Freed from the clutches of an imperial monopoly, Europeans experimented and competed, innovated and collaborated – all preconditions for the world we now inhabit, he said.

Scheidel, the Dickason Professor in the Humanities and a Catherine R. Kennedy and Daniel L. Grossman Fellow in Human Biology, is author of Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity (2019). He also edited The Science of Roman History: Biology, Climate and the Future of the Past (2018).

The collapse of the Roman Empire is considered by many to be one of the greatest disasters in history. But you argue that Rome’s dramatic collapse was actually the best thing that ever happened. How so?

The disintegration of the Roman empire freed Europe from rule by a single power. Imperial monopolies provided peace and stability, but by seeking to preserve the status quo also tended to stifle experimentation and dissent. When the end of empire removed centralized control, rival political, military, economic and religious constituencies began to fight, bargain and compromise and – in the process – rebuilt society along different lines.

Those 1,500 years (all the way up to World War II) were full of conflicts as Europe splintered into a violently competitive state system. But for all the suffering it caused, this fragmentation and competition fostered innovation that eventually gave rise to unprecedented change in knowledge production, economic performance, human welfare and political affairs. This path to modernity was long and tortuous, but also unique in the world.

In contrast to other large-scale empires – such as the successive dynasties in China – the Roman empire never returned to Europe. Why was that?

Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel says the fall of the Roman Empire enabled the rise of Western civilization. (Image credit: bwzenith / Getty Images)

An overly simple answer would be that all later attempts to restore universal empire on European soil failed. But was that just an accident? I argue that it wasn’t: there were powerful environmental reasons for Europe’s lasting fragmentation. Europe lacks large river basins that supported centralized power elsewhere and it is shaped by mountain barriers and exceptionally long coastlines that carve it up into smaller units. Perhaps most importantly, Western Europe is far removed from the great Eurasian steppe, grasslands that used to house warlike nomads who played a critical role in the creation of large empires in Russia, the Middle East, and South and East Asia. Although these features did not determine historical outcomes, they nudged European state formation onto a different trajectory of greater diversity.

What made the Roman Empire so successful?

If Europe wasn’t fertile ground for empire-building, we may wonder why the Roman Empire existed at all. The Romans succeeded by exploiting a set of conditions that were hard or even impossible to replicate later on. Through shrewd manipulation of civic obligations, material rewards and alliances, their leadership managed to mobilize vast numbers of ordinary farmers for military operations at low cost.

Rome also benefited from modest levels of state formation in the western Mediterranean and the fact that larger kingdoms farther east were busy fighting each other. This allowed them to overpower and swallow other societies one by one. In later periods, by contrast, Europe was full of competing states that prevented any one of them from subduing all the others.

What were the efforts to rebuild the Roman Empire, and why did they fail?

Such efforts began almost immediately when the eastern Roman Empire tried to recover the western provinces that had fallen to Germanic conquerors. Two-hundred-and-fifty years later, the Frankish ruler Charlemagne styled himself as a Roman emperor, and later in the Middle Ages an unwieldy entity known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation appeared on the scene. However, none of these projects succeeded in re-creating an empire of Rome’s size, power or durability.

Later efforts by the Habsburgs and by Napoleon to establish some degree of hegemony over Europe failed as well. Several factors were responsible for this. In the Middle Ages, the erosion of royal power and taxation brought about by the rise of landed aristocracies interfered with state building. By the early modern period, the European state system had already become too deeply entrenched to be dislodged by any one power and would-be conquerors were reliably stymied by alliances that checked their ambitions.

You devote your epilogue to Monty Python’s tongue-in-cheek question, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” So what does the modern world owe to the ancient past?

We usually focus on the legacies of Roman civilization that are still visible today, from the Romance languages, the Roman writing system and many proper names to the Julian calendar, Roman law, architectural styles, and, last but by no means least, the various Christian churches. All of these continue to shape our lives.

But when it comes to explaining why the world has changed so much over the last couple of centuries, the single most important contribution of the Roman Empire turns out to have been that it went away for good and nothing like it ever returned. This rupture was critical in allowing the right conditions for transformative change to emerge over time. Sometimes the most important legacy is the one we cannot see!

Essay on Fall Of Rome

Students are often asked to write an essay on Fall Of Rome in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Introduction to rome’s fall.

Long ago, the Roman Empire was a powerful place. It included many lands and people. But over time, this empire faced problems it couldn’t fix. Finally, the empire became too weak and broke apart. This is known as the fall of Rome.

Reasons for the Collapse

Rome fell for many reasons. Leaders were often bad and only cared for themselves. Armies weren’t as strong as before. Money problems hurt the empire, too. Attacks from outside enemies also helped bring Rome down.

Impact on People

When Rome fell, life changed for many. Without a strong government, cities weren’t safe. People had harder lives with less food and fewer jobs. Learning and trade suffered, and the once great Roman Empire was no more.

250 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

The end of an empire.

The Roman Empire was once the most powerful in the world. It ruled over a vast area, covering much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. But around 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire came to an end.

Reasons for the Fall

Many things led to Rome’s fall. The empire was too big, and it was hard to control all the land and people. Enemies attacked Rome from outside, and there were fights for power inside. Money problems also hurt the empire. They had less gold and silver, and their coins became less valuable. This made it hard to pay soldiers and buy what the empire needed.

Attackers from Outside

Groups called barbarians, like the Goths and Vandals, started to attack Rome’s borders. These groups were strong and wanted land and riches. Rome’s army was not as good as before and could not stop them. Finally, in 476 AD, a barbarian leader named Odoacer took control of Rome and removed the last Roman emperor.

What It Means for Us

The fall of Rome changed the world. It marked the start of what we call the Middle Ages. Today, we remember Rome for its ideas about law, government, and building. Even though the Roman Empire is gone, its influence can still be seen in many places around the world.

500 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Introduction to the fall of rome.

A long time ago, there was a huge and powerful place called the Roman Empire. It was so big that it covered many countries we know today. But even the mightiest places can come to an end, and that’s what happened to Rome. The fall of Rome didn’t happen quickly; it took a lot of time and many things went wrong before it finally collapsed.

Reasons Why Rome Fell

Imagine a cake that looks solid on the outside but has lots of holes inside. That’s like Rome before it fell. It looked strong, but it had problems inside that made it weak. First, the leaders of Rome were not very good. Some of them were mean, and some just didn’t know how to run such a big place. This made people unhappy and caused fights for power.

Then, there was the money problem. Rome’s money lost its value because they made too much of it, and this made everything very expensive. Soldiers and workers couldn’t be paid properly, which made them unhappy too.

Another big problem was that people from other places started attacking Rome. These groups, called “barbarians,” were very strong and kept coming into Roman lands, taking over bit by bit.

Dividing the Empire

To make things easier to manage, the Roman Empire was split into two parts: the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern part, also called Byzantium, did quite well, but the Western part had a tough time. It was the Western part that faced most of the attacks and had more money troubles.

The Final Days of Rome

In the end, the Western Roman Empire couldn’t defend itself against all the attacks. In the year 476 AD, a barbarian leader named Odoacer took over and said he was the king. This is the year that many people say Rome fell, but it didn’t fall with a big crash. It was more like a slow crumble over many years.

After the Fall

After Rome fell, the world changed a lot. The places that were once part of Rome broke into smaller pieces, and new kingdoms were born. This time is called the Middle Ages. Even though Rome was gone, people didn’t forget about it. They remembered the good things Rome did, like making laws and building roads.

Lessons from Rome

The story of Rome’s fall teaches us that even the strongest places can have problems that make them weak. It shows us that good leaders are important and that taking care of money matters a lot. It also tells us that when different people want the same thing, it can lead to trouble.

In conclusion, Rome’s fall was a big event that happened a very long time ago. It was caused by bad leadership, money problems, and attacks from outsiders. This story helps us understand that everything, no matter how strong, can have an end. But it also reminds us that the end of one thing can be the start of something new, just like the Middle Ages that came after Rome.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Freedom And Power
Essay on Falling In Love
Essay on Family And Friends

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

History: the Fall of the Roman Empire

This essay will explore the historical events and factors that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. It will discuss the internal and external pressures, including political corruption, economic troubles, and barbarian invasions, that contributed to the decline and eventual collapse of one of the most powerful empires in history. The piece will analyze the impact of the empire’s fall on the subsequent history of Europe. Moreover, at PapersOwl, there are additional free essay samples connected to Ancient Rome.

How it works

1 Introduction
2 Political corruption
3 Dwindling Roman Economy
4 Conclusion
5 Bibliography

Introduction

The Roman Empire is said to have crumpled when the German brutes toppled the last Emperor, Romulus Augustus in 476 and presented a more equitable type of government which was fleeting. There exist many reasons regarding the fall of the Roman Empire. Every reason seemed to be intertwined with the other. Some of those who try and explain the fall of this empire blamed the initiation of Christianity. Constantine the Great initiated Christianity in 337 AD. Some people place blame on several factors which include, elevated cases of joblessness, inflation, increased expenditures in military, slave labor.

Others blame ethical issues like the deterioration in moral standards, lack of discipline of the forces as well as corrupt leaders.

However, many researchers as well as historians have come to agree on four factors as the main cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. These include: one of the main factors that are deemed to explain this phenomenon is the increased expenditure on the military in a bid to expand. As a result, this left the empire bankrupt and unable to run its processes. Secondly, there was an over-dependence on slave labor. As a result of this action, it led to a rise in unemployment.

The third reason was the decline in ethics of the leaders leading to corruption as well as abuse of power. The Praetorian Guard was in the limelight for misuse of power. This orchestrated biases in the selection of emperors as well as the execution of those who lacked the favor of the guard. The fourth reason was the dwindling Roman Economy.

Causes of the fall of the Roman EmpireSpending too much on the MilitarySpending too much on the military was one of the leading contributors as to why the Roman Empire failed. This was done in a bid to expand. Henceforth, a lot of money was used to fund battles abroad. For the Romans to gain access into other empires, they had to use a lot of money on their legions who took the initiative to conquer. The supply lines, as well as the armies of the Roman Empire, grew and over-stretched yielding thousands of militias being trained as well as deployed from the Roman Empire into other empires with the aim of invading or defending.

The Empire, also, relied on the militias in securing the borders of the territories that they had claimed from savage attacks. This prompted massive expenditure on the manufacturing of weapons as well as that spent on the upkeep of the soldiers. The massive spending on soldiers, as well as firearms, left the Roman Empire with minimal funds for other government expenditures such as building roads, construction of more decent houses and bridges as was the trend.

Also, this leads to inflation. Similarly, the citizens of the Roman Empire started viewing the Empire as a failed state. As a result, they engaged in ceaseless riots which became common in the Roman Empire during its last century. This prompted distrust of the people to the empire. The outcome was that more and more people failed to volunteer in joining the army. This created a problem for the government as it ended up hiring common thugs as well as non-Roman soldiers. The Roman administration was compelled to increase taxes to compensate for their military expenditure which further worsened the low determination of the Roman people. Many of the citizens just kept three-quarters of their weekly wage. This brought about demoralization. The funds raised from these taxes were got wasted on mercenaries who continually had to be replaced.

This went on until the Roman government could no longer afford to send the big battalions of soldiers abroad. This resulted into poorly defended borders that were vulnerable to attacks. The non-Romanian soldiers got too proud to serve a failing empire. As a result, they began conquering sections of the Roman Empire inspired by the reason that the Roman government could no longer afford to pay them and also to send detachments as well as funds to salvage these parts. The Roman Empire defense also, grew weak because they now started defending their empire against its mercenaries. Similarly, the barbarians began reclaiming the conquered provinces from the Romanians.

This made it considerably simple for them to overcome the Roman Empire. The government started getting desperate to ensure the loyalty of the soldiers. As a result, they doubled their salaries and frequently assured discharge payments like property or cash. Additionally, the government also spent a lot of finances in the transportation of food to ensure their mercenaries got fed. Likewise, they also spent on their horses, roads as well as bridges that needed repair. Acquisition of weapons was also another expenditure. The luxury accorded to the soldiers interfered with their discipline. Consequently, the Roman gold and silver mines got depleted as they used them to conquer other territories which failed. Over-dependence on slave laborOver-dependence on slave work was another reason that prompted the downfall of the Roman Empire. Amid the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, the number of slaves expanded significantly.

The over-dependence on slaves had exceptionally adverse impacts to the empire. Not exclusively did it prompt the corruption of ethics, models, and morals yet additionally inspired the stagnation of new hardware to create items all the more effective. The empire never ran shy of slaves any way they oppressed them. This made the slaves revolt prompting a series of encounters which were alluded to as the Servile Wars. Normal agriculturists got inspiration of the free work readily accessible from the slaves, and this prompted joblessness in the domain.

This made an upsurge in slaves. The most recent couple of hundreds of years of the empire saw an enormous ascent in Christianity. Accordingly, states of mind towards slaves changed. Individuals began tolerating them socially. Several of the slaves which the empire relied upon were liberated therefore discouraging the creation of products and additionally weapons. This constrained the administration to employ laborers who got paid for significantly less work.

Over-dependence on slave labor prompted the inadequacy in the innovation and furthermore advancement of the Roman Empire amid the last four hundred years. At last, the realm was not able to offer adequate products for their expanding masses and furthermore troops. Thus, they what’s more neglected to realize new strategies for building up their machinery or add to their incomes while attacking different domains.

Political corruption

Political corruption was also another evil that led to the fall of the empire. It was rampant in the Roman Empire and precisely in Rome. Additionally, it was within the upper ranks of the guards (Praetorian Guard). The superpowers bestowed upon the Praetorian Guard motivated them to enhance corruption in the empire. They were the most distinguished as well as decorated soldiers within the kingdom. They also acted as personal bodyguards to the Emperor. The corruption was such a menace that the Praetorian Guard could hold secret meetings and conspire to overthrow the emperor as well as make a choice on who they deemed suitable for the seat as a replacement. For instance, when Tiberius was defeated as an Emperor, the Praetorian Guard auctioned the seat to the highest bidder for 100 years. The political corruption also yielded a lot of civil conflicts within the Roman kingdom.

The Romans were short of putting stringent measures of deciding who would be the next emperor, unlike the Early Greeks who used to hold elections. Their process of choosing a new emperor involved decisions by the senate, the army and also the Praetorian Guard. However, the final decision was made by the Praetorian Guard who looked on a person who would offer him the best offer of a reward. During the 3rd century, for instance, the title of the emperor changed thirty-seven times. Out of this 37 times, 25 were removed by assassination. This led to overall weakness as well as contributing to the fall and decline of the empire.

Dwindling Roman Economy

Another explanation behind the Roman Empires decline and inevitable fall was the decreasing of the Roman Empire’s monetary strength. This influenced about each part of Roman life, from the decline of the populace to the absence of support of the establishment. There were likewise some military perspectives that prompted their death and because individuals ended up noticeably uninvolved in joining the Roman armed force Rome was left unprotected against the majority of their adversaries. The essential driver of the decline of the economy was the absence of flowing money in the Western Empire.

The varying rainfall patterns, as well as the climate in the Mediterranean, started to alternate every year between hot, dry spells and icy, stormy seasons. This diminished the quantity of yields and compelled the Romans to initiate irrigation schemes. The gigantic amounts of water required for this undertaking had to be contained in substantial stores, and the standing water soon wound up noticeably. Stagnant water was a perfect condition for reproducing mosquitoes which then became carriers of malaria. Malaria became a menace to the kingdom and resulted in the death of very many people further dwindling the economy.

There is no candid reason which explains the fall of the Roman Empire. However, the over expenditure on the military development put a lot of strain on the Roman Empire government. It cost them a lot and diminished their economy. Thus, this could be the leading factor as to why the empire failed. Similarly, the dwindling economy also played a significant role in the fall of the empire. Also, over dependence on the slaves made the technological advancement of the empire to fall in the last 400 years. The Roman Empire is said to have crumpled when the German brutes toppled the last Emperor, Romulus Augustus in 476 and presented a more equitable type of government which was fleeting.

Bibliography

Ando, Clifford. Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman Empire. Vol. 6. Univ of California Press, 2013.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume Six. Sheba Blake Publishing, 2017.

Kaegi, Walter Emil. Byzantium and the Decline of the Roman Empire. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Luttwak, Edward N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third. JHU Press, 2016.

White, Leslie A. The evolution of culture: the development of civilization to the fall of Rome. Routledge, 2016.

Cite this page

History: The Fall of the Roman Empire. (2020, Mar 02). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/

"History: The Fall of the Roman Empire." PapersOwl.com , 2 Mar 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). History: The Fall of the Roman Empire . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"History: The Fall of the Roman Empire." PapersOwl.com, Mar 02, 2020. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/

"History: The Fall of the Roman Empire," PapersOwl.com , 02-Mar-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). History: The Fall of the Roman Empire . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/history-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Ancient Rome

The fall of rome.

History >> Ancient Rome

The politicians and rulers of Rome became more and more corrupt
Infighting and civil wars within the Empire
Attacks from barbarian tribes outside of the empire such as the Visigoths, Huns, Franks , and Vandals.
The Roman army was no longer a dominant force
The empire became so large it was difficult to govern

The Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium , fell in 1453 to the Ottoman Empire .
Many poor people were glad to see Rome fall. They were starving to death while being taxed heavily by Rome.
Near the end of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome was no longer the capital. The city of Mediolanum (now Milan) was capital for a while. Later, the capital was moved to Ravenna.
Rome was sacked once again in 455 AD by Geiseric, King of the Vandals. The Vandals were an Eastern Germanic tribe. The term "vandalism" comes from the Vandals.
Take a ten question quiz about this page.
Listen to a recorded reading of this page:

Home — Essay Samples — History — Roman Republic — Factors Contributing to the Fall of the Roman Empire

Factors Contributing to The Fall of The Roman Empire

Categories: Roman Republic

About this sample

Words: 663 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 663 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Introduction, economic decline, military weakness, internal conflicts.

According to historian Kyle Harper, "The reliance on slave labor alienated the urban lower classes from their own government and fueled a gender gap and social inequality that would persist for centuries" (Harper, 2017).
A study by economist Peter Temin found that the Roman economy was oversized and inefficient, leading to a lack of growth and increased economic vulnerability (Temin, 2013).
Historian Adrian Goldsworthy notes that "The Roman military machine had become bloated and unwieldy, hampered by an inflexible chain of command and a plethora of bureaucrats" (Goldsworthy, 2003).
A study by archaeologist Simon James found that a decline in discipline and organization in the Roman army was a major factor in their military weakness (James, 2011).
According to historian Edward Gibbon, "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" (Gibbon, 2012).
Historian Peter Heather argues that the division of the empire into Eastern and Western halves was a "disastrous" decision, ultimately leading to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Heather, 2005).
Gibbon, E. (2012). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Wordsworth Editions.
Goldsworthy, A. (2003). In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire. Phoenix.
Harper, K. (2017). The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press.
Heather, P. (2005). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History. Oxford University Press.
James, S. T. (2011). Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. Oxbow Books.
Temin, P. (2013). The Roman Market Economy. Princeton University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 914 words

6 pages / 2906 words

2 pages / 1082 words

3 pages / 1229 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Roman Republic

Ancient Rome was a powerful and influential civilization that left an indelible mark on the development of Western civilization. The influence of the Romans can be seen in various aspects such as governance, architecture, [...]

The ancient Romans left an indelible mark on the development of Western civilization through their vast and influential culture and society. Spanning over a thousand years, the Roman Empire impacted numerous aspects of human [...]

Nero, born in December A.D. 37 and reigning as Emperor of Rome from 54 to 68 A.D., stands as one of history's most infamously debated figures. His legacy, marred by accusations of tyranny, extravagance, and the catastrophic [...]

The fall of the Roman Empire is a pivotal moment in world history, marking the end of an era of unprecedented power and influence. This essay delves into the multifaceted factors that contributed to the collapse of Rome, [...]

In the book The Fall of the Roman Republic, the author, Plutarch, writes about the lives of six important Roman figures: Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, and Cicero. This book was first published in 1958 and was [...]

Julius Caesar was a ruler of the Roman Republic, which through his cherished efforts turned it into an empire. He conquered neighboring states to expand Rome. After gathering a few men, he marched to his enemies who he treated [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

IMAGES

The Fall Of Rome (300 Words)
Fall of Rome Essay by Cait's Corner
Fall of Rome Essay by Cait's Corner
Fall of Rome
Reasons For The Fall Of Rome Essay
Why did Rome Fall?

VIDEO

The Fall of Rome
The Eclogues by Publius Vergilius Maro
Rome A Tale of Triumph and Tragedy
How to complete the Fall of Rome Assignment
The Fall of Rome An Explainer
ROME History in 5 Minutes

COMMENTS

The Fall of Rome
The new Rome became famous for ostentatious parties and a shared sense of enthusiasm in the high and low classes, who lived a laxer way of life (Brown 57). We will write a custom essay on your topic. As this essay shows, the main reason for the fall of Rome was the lack of financial austerity.
The Fall of Rome: How, When, and Why Did It Happen?
Updated on February 10, 2020. The phrase "the Fall of Rome" suggests that some cataclysmic event ended the Roman Empire, which stretched from the British Isles to Egypt and Iraq. But in the end, there was no straining at the gates, no barbarian horde that dispatched the Roman Empire in one fell swoop. Instead, the Roman Empire fell slowly as a ...
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
Article. To many historians, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE has always been viewed as the end of the ancient world and the onset of the Middle Ages, often improperly called the Dark Ages, despite Petrarch 's assertion. Since much of the west had already fallen by the middle of the 5th century CE, when a writer speaks ...
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The Decline and Fall is divided into two parts, equal in bulk but different in treatment. The first half covers about 300 years to the end of the empire in the West, about 480 ce; in the second half nearly 1,000 years are compressed.Gibbon viewed the Roman Empire as a single entity in undeviating decline from the ideals of political and intellectual freedom that characterized the classical ...
The Fall of the Roman Empire
History is replete with such examples without a single exception. The fall of an empire or nation is a natural phenomenon. The other causes are incidental like the disease that brings about the death of a human body. One of the causes of the fall of Rome was the Barbarian invasions - they marched through the very roads Rome had built to reach ...
The Fall of Rome: When, Why, and How Did Rome Fall?
The generally agreed-upon date for the fall of Rome is September 4, 476 AD. On this date, the Germanic king Odaecer stormed the city of Rome and deposed its emperor, leading to its collapse. But the story of the fall of Rome is not this simple. By this point in the Roman Empire timeline, there were two empires, the Eastern and Western Roman ...
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
The fall of the Western Roman Empire, also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome, was the loss of central political control in the Western Roman Empire, a process in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided between several successor polities.The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its ...
BBC
Fall of Rome. On every other level, however, 'transformation' understates, in my view, the nature and importance of Rome's passing. A two-stage process occurred between the battle of Hadrianople ...
The Roman Empire and Its Fall in 476 A.D. Essay
The fall of the Roman Empire is traditionally dated to be 476 A.D, when the emperor of the Western Empire, Romulus Augustulus. This marked the end of the Roman imperial system and the transition to the Middle Ages. Despite this, many of the continuities between Rome and its successor kingdoms can be seen throughout the 5th century and beyond.
PDF THE FALL OF ROME AND ITS AFTERMATH
THE FALL OF ROME AND ITS AFTERMATH. S06 . M 1:30-4:20 . The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is the most famous historical narrative ever told. An all-encompassing empire that controlled the known world from Scotland to Syria collapsedand in its place, sprung up small kingdoms ruled by brutal barbarians Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, -
Fall of Rome
"The Return of the Fall of Rome The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather; The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins," Review by: Jeanne Rutenburg and Arthur M. Eckstein The International History Review, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 109-122.
The Fall of Rome: Understanding The Causes and Consequences
The fall of the Roman Empire is a pivotal moment in world history, marking the end of an era of unprecedented power and influence. This essay delves into the multifaceted factors that contributed to the collapse of Rome, including internal issues like economic decline, political instability, and military weakness, as well as external pressures such as invasion and migration.
The Fall of the Roman Empire: [Essay Example], 732 words
The Fall of The Roman Empire. The demise of the Roman Empire cannot be attributed to one cause alone. Instead, it was the result of the decrease in population, loss of land, and deception. One of the things that played a significant role in speeding, however, was the expansion of its empire. At its peak under Emperor Augustus, the entire ...
8 Reasons Why Rome Fell
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes. The most straightforward theory for Western Rome's collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with ...
Essay on The Fall Of Rome
500 Words Essay on The Fall Of Rome The Fall Of Rome: A Complex Event. The fall of the Roman Empire was a slow and complicated process taking place over several centuries. It was influenced by various factors, including political instability, economic problems, and invasions by barbarian tribes. Political Instability. The Roman Empire was vast ...
The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates
Introduction. The Roman Empire was established in 27 BC when Julius Caesar achieved the title of Augustus through a declaration by the Senate. 1 He was the first of the three Julio-Claudian emperors who established and expanded the Roman Empire between 27 BC and 68 AD. By 117CE, the Roman Empire was the most successful and extensive socio ...
1320: Section 8: The Fall of Rome: Facts and Fictions
III. The "Fall of Rome" as a Question of History. A. 1 Question, 210 Answers. The classic conundrum of antiquity, "Why did Rome fall?," has withstood legions of scholars catapulting answers at it—over 210 different ones at last count—and still it stands unbreached. Few of the suggestions have made much of an impression.
The fall of Rome was Europe's lucky break
Stanford historian Walter Scheidel calls the fall of Rome the "great escape." (Image credit: Daniel Hinterramskogler) Scheidel discusses in a new book why the Roman Empire was never rebuilt ...
Essay on Fall Of Rome
100 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome Introduction to Rome's Fall. Long ago, the Roman Empire was a powerful place. It included many lands and people. But over time, this empire faced problems it couldn't fix. Finally, the empire became too weak and broke apart. This is known as the fall of Rome.
History: the Fall of the Roman Empire
The Roman Empire is said to have crumpled when the German brutes toppled the last Emperor, Romulus Augustus in 476 and presented a more equitable type of government which was fleeting. There exist many reasons regarding the fall of the Roman Empire. Every reason seemed to be intertwined with the other. Some of those who try and explain the fall ...
Ancient Rome for Kids: The Fall of Rome
The Fall of Rome. History >> Ancient Rome. Rome ruled much of Europe around the Mediterranean for over 1000 years. However, the inner workings of the Roman Empire began to decline starting around 200 AD. By 400 AD Rome was struggling under the weight of its giant empire. The city of Rome finally fell in 476 AD.
Essay about The Fall of Rome
Essay about The Fall of Rome. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. For nearly a thousand years, Rome dominated and offered order and law to most of the known sphere. While the myth that the Roman Empire and the Republic were perfectly ...
Factors Contributing to The Fall of The Roman Empire
Conclusion. In conclusion, the fall of the Roman Empire was the result of multiple factors, namely economic decline, military weakness, and internal conflicts. The reliance on slave labor, inflation, and trade disruptions all contributed to the economic decline, while recruitment issues, barbarian invasions, and a lack of technological ...

The Fall of the Roman Empire

The Fall of Rome: When, Why, and How Did Rome Fall?

When Did Rome Fall?

The Effects of the Fall of Rome

How Did Rome Fall?

The Story of the Fall of Rome

The Crisis of the Third Century

Diocletian and the Tetrarchy

The Rule of Constantine

The Fall of Rome Itself: Invasions from the North

A Weakened Rome Faces Increased Pressure from Invaders

The Roman Empire on the Verge of Bankruptcy

Rome’s Final Breath

Why Did Rome Fall?

The Barbarian Invasions and the Fall of Rome

Pressure on the Roman Borders

Edward Gibbon and His Arguments for the Fall

The Role of Christianity According to Gibbon

Economic Mismanagement of the Empire

Continuity Beyond the Fall: Did Rome Really Collapse?

Revisionism in the Idea of “Late Antiquity”

The Continuation of Roman Administration

Issues with Revisionism

Rome’s Role in the Western European Empire

Later Models in Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire: An Eternal Rome?

How to Cite this Article

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Reasons for the Fall of Rome

Christianity

Barbarians and Vandals

Division of the Empire

Hoarding and Deficit

Want Even More?

The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates Essay

The Arrival of the Barbarians

The Rise of Christianity

Sexual Immorality

The Population

Political and Military Problems

Economic Factors

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Essay on Fall Of Rome

100 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Reasons for the Collapse

Impact on People

250 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Reasons for the Fall

Attackers from Outside

What It Means for Us

500 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Reasons Why Rome Fell

Dividing the Empire

The Final Days of Rome

After the Fall

Lessons from Rome

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

History: the Fall of the Roman Empire

Introduction

Political corruption

Dwindling Roman Economy

Bibliography

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Ancient Rome

Factors Contributing to The Fall of The Roman Empire

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Roman Republic

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS