The Fall of The Western Roman Empire

Sean Ding

 

 

Who were the Romans?

The legendary founding of Rome (from the myth of Romulus and Remus) is accepted as 753BCE, and the generally accepted date of their collapse is 1453CE (but the Western part of the Empire which I will be focusing on, collapsed in 476CE). Rome began as a small village but eventually became one of the greatest Empires in world history. They conquered most parts of Europe including modern England, Spain, France, Turkey, Israel, and Portugal. But if they were such a prosperous civilisation, why did they cease to exist? No civilisation can last forever, but from a great power to nothing in 40 years is a reasonably fast decline for an Empire as great as the Romans.

 

An Explanation

There are many theories as to why the Romans collapsed. Some believe it was their economy that failed them; others believe that the introduction of Christianity was the reason for their collapse, but there must have been more than one factor contributing to their collapse. In this report, I will be examining many of the factors that may have caused the collapse. I will also be comparing Jared Diamond’s five point framework, Joseph Tainter’s three modes of response to collapse and some other theories.

 

Environmental damage

From 500BCE – 400CE, the Romans contributed most to deforestation in the Mediterranean. There main uses were for building, fuel, shipbuilding and urbanisation. This deforestation had devastating effects on the environment. Soil eventually became infertile and rainwater flowed away more quickly because there were no plants to keep it there. The runoff water also increased flooding and disrupted natural water supplies like springs. Soil erosion increased twenty fold as rain washed away the loose soil. Soil infertility and erosion would have been a major contributor to the economical collapse of Rome.

 

Economy

The Roman economy wasn’t a very strong one. Crop production was very low and required many slaves to operate. Roman economy was sustained through stealing stuff from conquered lands. They produced nothing of their own and stealing would not support their economy forever. Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke both theorize that similarly to the Mongols, this was the reason for the Romans. Joseph Tainter believed that the Roman’s economy slowly collapsed through diminishing returns on investments in social complexity. The Romans had a very powerful army and they invested a lot of money into it. This was okay at first because the loot they obtained from conquered countries was way more than they invested. But as the army grew, so did there investments and the difference between their rewards and their money used got smaller and smaller. Then came the time when they didn’t have enough money and they began to struggle.

 

During the Crisis of the third Century, the Roman economy suffered from hyper-inflation. Once the Romans stopped conquering lands, the flow of gold into the economy decreased and yet much gold was spent by people for luxury items. The results from these actions meant less gold to make coins and their money decreased in value. In order to make up for this loss, prices of goods went up and people started to barter instead. In the end, salaries were paid with food and clothing, and taxes were collected in fruits and vegetables. Historian Michael Rostovtzeff and economist Ludwig von Mises both believe that this was the main reason for the Romans collapse. I would agree with this because a civilisation’s economy is its key to survival. Once your economy becomes weak, many problem start to arise. Food shortages, inflation, civil wars are all big problems derived from economic instability. The Romans could not go on like this. They needed money to fund military campaigns, so they invaded Parthia but ended up in defeat, for the Romans relied heavily on heavy infantry and the Parthians mainly used armoured cavalry (cataphracts). The Parthians also used strategies unfamiliar to the Romans. This was the beginning of a series of wars that lasted almost three centuries.

 

Hostile Neighbours

The Parthia Empire (Persians) who reached their peak during 60BCE, ended up as the Roman’s arch enemy. The Romans also had other powerful enemies close by. The Hunnic tribes, Germanic tribes - the Goths, were significant ones. The Romans were able to hold off their enemies for centuries, but if they had been able to hold them off for so long, what factor was beginning to fail them? One of the reasons was that the borders of the Empire were huge and that put a big strain on their military resources. A frontier that required at least 3 million people to defend was left with only 500,000 soldiers. Another theory was because the Romans had a series of weak emperors in the third century and the Goths were able to control part of their territory.

 

But not all invasions were caused by rivalries between the civilisations. For instance, the Germanic tribes were forced to increase their territory because of their increasing population combined with limited space and food. They were also driven form their homeland by the vicious Huns across the Danube to take refugee in Roman territory.

 

The Huns were vicious barbarians. Their leader Attila made a series of invasions, one which nearly conquered Rome. His first attack was in 451CE, but he was defeated by the Romans and Visigoths allied together (the Huns were a common enemy). He made a second attack the next year, but Pope Leo convinced him to spare the city because of a famine and plague that was going on at the time. Attila did not give up however. He began planning his third attack but a sudden halt came to his life in 423CE.

 

Rebellion/Civil wars

After the death of the Roman Empire Jovian, the Empire fell into a period of civil war. In 364, the new emperor Valentinian I (one) emerged and split the Empire into two (giving the eastern half to his brother Valens). The stability of the Empire fell as the conflicts with the Huns and Goths increased. A short period of stability was achieved under Emperor Flavius Honorius (with the help of Flavius Silicho) ended up with Stilicho’s death in 408 and was the beginning of the decline of the Western Roman Empire.

 

By 400CE, 30 to 50 percent of the Roman army was made up by Germanic mercenaries. They were not as loyal as the legions and they kept their own leaders. Barbarians were often recruited when pretenders to the throne needed to build up their army. Edward Gibbon believed that this was a bad move made by the Empire because all of it backfired when whole barbarian groups revolted.

 

The last rebellion that overthrew the last emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476CE was led by the Germanic general Odoacer. A Roman politician refused to have Germanic mercenaries under his control which angered the mercenaries and caused them to revolt.

 

Corruption

Kings held absolute authority. This was okay with good kings, but incompetent kings could cause great harm. Wealth of the Empire was gradually concentrated into the hands of a minority group and slave workers did all the work. Some of these emperors were: Commodus (180-192), Nero (58-68) and Domitian (81-96). Commodus was lazy and lived a life full of immoral actions. Nero murdered his mother and wife. He heavily taxed the people so he could build his own golden home. Domitian developed new tortures and harassed philosophers and Jews. He impregnated his niece and insisted her to have an abortion which resulted in her death.

 

Culture/Religion – Introduction of Christianity

Christianity wasn’t really accepted until 313CE when Constantine first made Christianity legal. People really enjoyed Christianity - especially the poor. They shared their food and wealth and contributed to each other’s well being.

 

Some people blame the introduction of Christianity for the collapse of Rome (which I totally disagree). Gibbon believes that Christianity made people pay less attention to mundane matters and made them wait for the rewards of heaven. This could not be a major reason because the Eastern Roman Empire (later the Byzantines), was even more into Christianity than the West and they survived for an extra millennium.

 

Comparison to the Eastern Roman Empire

After Valentinian I emerged as Empire in Rome, he immediately divided the Empire. The Eastern half later known as the Byzantines survived for an extra millennium than the Western half. They were originally part of the same Empire, so what did they do that was different to the West that helped them prevail?

 

A common theory is that instead of collapsing, they gradually blended in with the rest of the society around them. Their ‘hellinization’, or change in culture was the key to their survival.

 

The Byzantines also didn’t have to face the many difficulties that the Western half had to in the third and fourth centuries. They had a more firmly established urban culture and had greater financial resources allowing them to bribe the barbarian invaders. Many invading armies overran the West but spared the East. Theodosius fortified the wall of Constantinople (capital city) which was impenetrable until 1204. To defend against Attila the Hun, he gave him subsidies (lots of money) and he favoured traders who traded with barbarians. This description makes the Eastern Roman Empire sound like a wimpy nation and aren’t as bold as the Western Empire, but realistically, they supported the Western Empire with many soldiers during their battles.

 

The Byzantine Empire under the rule of Justinian also learnt from the Western Empire’s mistakes. The most important lesson was they didn’t entrust Germanic mercenaries to defend the Empire.

 

Basically their ways of confronting problems were different to the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire would confront enemies by attacking; the Byzantines would bribe them to keep both sides happy. The Byzantines also managed to construct a more advanced and stable economy. Trade was one of the foundations to their economy and was also important in the West. But The Crisis of the third Century disrupted the Western Empire’s trade network badly and they haven’t been able to fully recover since.

 

The Frameworks

Many of these factors – like environmental damage (which leads to economical collapse), hostile neighbours, friendly trade partners and response to problems all fall under Jared Diamond’s five point framework, but there are other frameworks that evaluate a society’s collapse. Like I mentioned above in ‘Economy’, some people theorised that Romans depended on loot from their conquered lands, and once they stopped conquering lands, they began to struggle. This theory fits perfectly into Joseph Tainter’s second mode of societal response to collapse – The Runaway train. I would also think that what the Romans did to their environment could also come under the first mode, ‘The Dinosaur’. The Dinosaur is when a large society depletes it resources to quickly and nothing is done to stop it. So despite the differences in frameworks, they are still somewhat similar to each other.

 

But there is one factor that wasn’t mentioned in either of these frameworks. Rebellion ended the Roman Empire and was a constant problem throughout their existence. But maybe they didn’t include it because it wasn’t a factor that actually weakened the Empire. It was just a problem that they faced, and in the end they were just unable to cope with it.

 

The Theories

Many of the theories agree and disagree with each other. According to the evidence that's available to me, I find that many of the theories all have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Edward Gibbon’s theory was based on the fact that the Empire left their defenses in the hands of Germanic mercenaries, and the introduction of Christianity. I agree with Gibbon that leaving an Empire’s defenses in the hands of your enemy wasn’t the smartest move, but I disagree (as I said above) that the introduction of Christianity contributed to the collapse because the Eastern Roman Empire was even more into Christianity than the west.

 

I agree with Josephs Tainter’s idea that the Empire was too big and they didn’t have enough money to fund their large military and eventually caused an economic decline. But he points out that invasions and environmental degradation were the obvious reasons for collapse and there was a deeper reason behind it.

 

Out of most the theories, I would agree the most with John Bury who was an Irish historian. It was from his research that the evidence that Christianity had nothing to do with the collapse came. He believes that the collapse wasn’t inevitable and was caused by multiple problems put together which became ultimately destructive.

 

I disagree with Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke’s idea that the Romans were a rotten system from the beginning, but I do agree that because the Roman economy was based on stealing from existing resources, their economy wouldn't have been very sustainable and it would have contributed to their economic break down which is a major factor for their collapse.

 

My Theory

I believe that environmental damage is the starting place for a society’s collapse. Everything else – like economical collapse or external invasions build off it. Deforestation causes soil infertility and erosion which leads to crop failure. With a shortage of food to feed the growing population, it can cause civil unrest and weaken their defences. Without enough military units defending their frontiers, it would make them very vulnerable to barbaric invasions which may result in their defeat. To fill in this gap, the Romans desperately had to recruit Germanic mercenaries to help defend their Empire who (as in the Germanic mercenaries), in the end revolted and overthrew the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire.

Of course environmental damage wasn’t the only factor to their collapse; incompetent emperors who possessed all power caused much damage as well. Their greed and carelessness caused civil instability and created imbalance to the Roman economy. Thought the Romans seriously damaged their environment, they could have created a "system for forest management" like the Japanese did when they almost completely destroyed their forests.

 

I also think, that the saying "United we stand, divided we fall" could be applied here. The final division of the Roman Empire might have weakened its defences a lot, and you can figure out by the quote what might have happened. But in my opinion, environmental damage plus a negative or no response to problems are the only things needed to end a society.

 

What can we learn today?

Are our modern societies prone to collapse in the near future? Will we make the same mistake as a society did in the past? The most obvious society that is going downhill in that direction is China. China is depleting their natural resources too quickly. They're running out of minerals (e.g. coal, iron) and are depending heavily on imported goods. Deforestation is a major issue in China. They only have 0.3 acres of forest per person compared with the world average of 1.6 acres. Consequences are, they’re having an increase in droughts which affects 30% of their crops per year. Soil degradation and erosion by floods are also consequences of deforestation.

 

The reduced amount of cropland and with the rapid population growth could eventually result in food shortages. The air in China has been very badly polluted which can cause a change in the temperature resulting in crop failures because the plants haven’t adapted to the new temperatures. The qualities of their exported products are decreasing in quality. The objective is to produce the maximum amount of goods by spending minimal money. If the quality of goods continues to decline, many other countries may end up boycotting China (not importing things from China anymore), which will give the country a very hard time. The most important thing is, they are not changing much to amend these problems.

Climate change is a major issue today. It’s causing an increased amount of natural disasters which results in crop failure or a lack of any other produce. The result of this is inflation. The prices of things go up as a chain reaction. The money we earn isn’t enough to spend because things are becoming much less affordable. High inflation or in extreme cases hyperinflation (what the Romans suffered from), could result in an economic breakdown.

 

But none of our societies today have gone to those extremes of collecting tax with vegetables and fruits (and I hope we never will!). We have lessons in the past of which we must learn from to sustain a working economy around the world. Some of the problems that China faces today are very similar if not exactly like the ones the Romans had to face. Could it be a sign that China’s future is becoming dimmer? Or maybe they will eventually change their methods of doing things and turn their future around.

 

Bibliography

 

Books
Diamond, Jared M. (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking Books, New York
Tainter, Joseph (1990), "The Collapse of Complex Societies", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Heather, Peter (2005), Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History, Macmillian, London
Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History 3
Internet
“Roman Empire”, [2008], UNRV.com, www.unrv.com/empire.php
“Invasion of the Roman Empire by the barbarian tribes”, [2008], Thayer Watkins, www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/barbarians.htm
“Fall of Rome”, [2008], About.com, www.ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm
"The Huns", [2003], MattIffert, www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/oldworld/asia/the_huns.html
"The Byzantine Empire", [1999], Richard Hooker, www.wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM
"General Observations on the fall of the Roman empire in the West", [1996], Paul Halsall, www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html
"The Role of Deforestation in the Fall of Rome", [2004], BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2184473
"Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire", [2006], BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/thirdcenturycrisis_article_01.shtml
"Parthia", [2008], Jona Lendering, www.livius.org/pan-paz/parthia/parthia02.html
"Rome's Decline and Christianity's ascent", [1998], Frank Smitha, www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch23.htm
"History of the later Roman Empire", [2007], Macmillian, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/9*.html#7
"Consequences of Inflation", [2006], Geoff Riley, tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-consequences-of-inflation.html