What would you like to do?
The notable historian Edward Gibbon attributes the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to the "insidious effects of Christianity". Edward Gibbon thought Christianity is t…o be blamed for the decline and ultimate fall of the Roman Empire. He actually calls Christianity's role in the fall of Rome "the triumph of superstition". But it is interesting that the process Gibbon refers to took four hundred years - considering that Christianity was born around 33 AD and Rome finally fell in 400 AD. This is a long period indeed to provide a mortal illness and collapse of Rome. By all means there should be other factors other than Christianity that caused the Roman Empire to fall. Unlike Gibbon, most present day historians concentrate not on Christianity, but on social and economic factors and that is reasonable because those issues can be measured and traced for some extent. One of the most striking versions of the fall of the Roman Empire focuses on all the fertile soil - upland farms - well-drained and irrigated areas owned by landlords and passed over to their offspring over generations. The poorer areas, especially the marsh lands, were left to the peasants. In these marshes malaria and mosquitoes bred. The disease and the poverty that resulted from these drove the victims into the cities where they spread the infections and perhaps that contributed to the fact that most Roman politicians, if you look at their statues closely, were of a feverish kind. So according to this theory, malaria, joined perhaps by smallpox or some other plague, moved outward to the frontiers of the empire, decimating the garrisons, depopulating the towns, and eventually leading to the final breakthrough of the barbarians. If this theory is true, then the Roman Empire was actually destroyed by mosquitoes. I believe that the lack of religious freedom in Ancient Rome it caused the fall of the Roman Empire Another View: While a highly plausible cause, religious intolerance was hardly the sole factor in the fall of the empire. Poor leadership, massive demographic shifts (i.e. barbarian populations moving south), and a wide variety of issues all contributed to the fall of the empire in the west. Keep in mind that the Eastern Roman Empire (modern Egypt, Greece, Turkey, etc.) would continue to thrive for several centuries and remain as the Byzantine Empire until the 15th century. The fall of the Roman Empire is primarily a western affair. Another View: The lack of religious freedom is imaginary. Rome tolerated all religions that were not destructive of social and political harmony. Religious intolerance is a product of the offshoots of Judaism seeking to impose a single religion, but this was later when Christianity and Islam were able to impose dominance in the territories they controlled. The Roman Empire was limited to defensible boundaries by Augustus in the late First Century BCE, and as long as these could be held, there was a chance of maintaining a degree of social harmony and prosperity. The westward movement of a succession of peoples into the Empire from eastern Europe and Asia - the Germanics, the Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Franks, etc etc, then Turks and other Asiatics, were an unstoppable force which inevitably overran first Western, then South-Eastern Europe. While internal disputes and social factors did not help internal cohesion and resistance, the movement of peoples simply over-ran the Empire and different ethnics and regimes were substituted for the Roman gegemony and pax romana. The Western Empire was gone by the sixth century BCE, but the Eastern Empire hung on for nearly another thousand years until overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks. In all this, religion, politics etc was background noise, not the major force. The causes for the fall of the Roman empire are many and if anyone tries to list them they are bound to leave something out. Some of them are the weakness of the military, the corruption and/or weakness of political leaders, the lack of revenue, pressure on the borders and lead poisoning. There was no one cause. It was a culmination of many causes that brought about the fall of the western empire. A steady stream of demented dictators didn't help. Other reasons include: dictatorship (emperors were bad leaders, yet they could not be voted out of office); the spread of Christianity (unlike Roman religion, it was popular with slaves, the poor, and women); wars with hostile peoples (trade was disrupted, economic decline); Rome hired its conquered peoples to be soldiers (Visigoths were not loyal to Rome, and as they became responsible for running the army, Rome lost control of its provinces); social unrest (Rome needed the army to suppress poor riotors, yet the money that paid the army came from taxes, which made the poor even poorer and the rich even richer, the gap just got bigger and bigger). The western part of the Roman Empire crumbled under the weight of the invasions by the Germanic peoples. The eastern part of this empire was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist for nearly 1000 years.
It was taken over by Eurasian people moving in from the East.
Answer . It was, of course, a gradual process. Specific dates are impossible, though many are given by various simplifiers.. The end is sometimes placed at 4 September A…D 476 , when the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire , Romulus Augustus , was deposed, and not replaced. However, Diocletian, who retired in AD 305, was the last sole Emperor of an undivided Empire whose capital was the City of Rome. After the division of the Empire by Diocletian into East and West, each branch continued to style itself as "The Roman Empire." The Western Roman Empire declined and fell apart (see Decline of the Roman Empire ) in the course of the 5th century . The Eastern Roman Empire, centered on Nova Roma (founded by Constantine I on the Greek city of Byzantion ), which would later adopt Greek as its main language, known widely today as the Byzantine Empire , preserved Greco-Roman legal and cultural traditions along with Hellenic and Orthodox Christian elements for another millennium, until its eventual collapse with the conquest of Constantinople, as Constantine's city become known, at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in 1453.. (The above from Wikipedia)
There are many answers to this question. I have heard things like one reason they fell was that the lead in their drinking cups made them too dumb to hold on to an empire. I'v…e heard that the rise of Christianity had a role in its fall. I've heard that finally the debauchery and immorality of the culture rotted the empire from within. But the main way the Roman Empire fell was because of its hiring practices. In that time the Roman Empire stretched from Spain to Egypt to Germany through France to England. There weren't enough Romans to rule this much land, and the Romans started hiring outsiders to do their soldiering for them. They hired a certain German fellow who became a General in their army. He was their best General. Then he left the Roman Army and fought on the other side. He was a good general for them too. He beat the Romans at their own game. Eventually he succeeded in sacking Rome itself. I personally think that it was a combination of bad leadership and the hiring practices and maybe just a bir of empire fatigue. Entropy happens. Maybe it was just time for the thing to wrap itself up.
It wasn't only Diocletion that made the Roman Empire fall. It was caused by a multitude of things, SOME BEING: 1) There was a decline in military. People no longer wanted to s…upport Rome and help fight for their city. They sent out slaves instead of going to war themselves. 2) The expansion of the empire caused it to suffer from inflation, and made it almost impossible for the leaders to govern Rome. 3) Then the tribes invaded and completed left Rome in the dust --Chantal
First of all it has to be clarified that it was the western part of the Roman Empire which fell. The eastern part of this empire continued to exist for nearly 1,000 years.… The generalisation about the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire is that it fell under the weight of the invasions by the Germanic people. An invasion of Gaul by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans set in motion a process in which the Romans lost political cohesion and within 87 years, they lost of the lands of this part of the empire to Germanic peoples, including peoples who had been Roman allies.
the byzantine empire
Debt, corrupt political leaders and weak border patrol.
It had "little falls". It was sacked for the first time in hundreds of years by the visigoths and lost in aura of invincibility. After that it steadily eroded.
Romulus Augustulus was nominally the emperor of the Western Roman Empire when it fell in 476 AD. He was only a boy at the time, and not even important enough to kill, so he wa…s merely deposed. It is ironic that he was named after Romulus the legendary founder of Rome, and Augustus the first emperor of Rome. Although his predecessor, a man named Julius Nepos, ruled a government-in-exile until his death four years later, the removal of Romulus Augustulus from the throne is generally regarded as the event which marked the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. He was disposed by the Barbarian King Odoacer, which demanded land in the centers of Italy, and when Emperor Augustulus refused, Odoacer invaded the empire.
Rome Didn't Fall in a Day but Romulus Augustus deposition is used to mark the end of the Western Roman Empire, the fall of ancient Rome, and the beginning of the Middle Ages i…n Western Europe. Some modern historians question the relevance of this date.
You need to specify what you mean by conclusion. The end of the western part of the Roman Empire was in itself a conclusion. After its fall it was the beginning of the Middle …Ages. The Germanic peoples who conquered it carved it and formed their own kingdoms. Eventually, the Franks expanded and with the Carolingian Empire they took over Western Europe except from Denmark, the Scandinavian Peninsula and most of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). The Visigoths ruled the Iberian Peninsula.
Rome fell for a few prime reasons. The first was governmental corruption. Politicians were accepting bribes and acting for their own benefit. When one emperor died, there was …an uneasy change of power and no way to fairly choose a new ruler (many Romans disagreed with an inherited monarchy). The empire had become very large and due to communication issues, was poorly managed. This also allowed for barbaric tribes (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Moors, Vandals, etc) to invade, or, settle within Roman borders and fight in the armies, secretly planning to do more harm than good. There were also economic problems, such as high taxes and skyrocketing expenses. Lastly, there was a general decline of pride in Rome and Roman citizenship. This in part led to a high crime rate, which only made matters worse.
What effect has the Greco-Roman legal tradition had on civilizations since the fall of the Roman Empire?
It is the Roman legal system which has had an influence on Western Europe. The Romans developed their own legal system without Greek influence. Greek influence on the Roma…ns was mainly in the fields of philosophy and art. Roman civil law has had an influence on European civil law through the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) which was dubbed Justinian Code in the 16th century. It was commissioned by the emperor Justinian I in the sixth century. It was a review of imperial laws going back 400 years (to the time of Hadrian). It scrapped obsolete or unnecessary laws, made changes when necessary and clarified obscure passages. Its aim was to put the laws into books (previously they were written on many different scrolls), harmonise conflicting views among jurists which arose from centuries of poorly organised development of Roman law and have a uniform and coherent body of law. It also included the Institutiones (a textbook for first year law students), the Digesta (a collection of fragments taken from essays on laws written by jurists, which was used as an advanced law student textbook) and the Novellae Constitutiones (a collection of the laws issued by Justinian). This collection of books was rediscovered in a library in Pisa in 1070. It had a big impact. Bologna University (established in 1088) was the first university in Europe and its major appeal was its faculty of law, which had four professors who specialised in studying interpreting this work. It attracted student all over Europe. The Corpus Juris Civilis became the plank of the development an emerging class of professional lawyers. It became the foundation of the law in the Italian city-states of the high Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I (reigned 1155--1190) was the first dynastic ruler to hire professional lawyers to run his administration, which became based on the "Justinian Code". The use of Roman law provided a new rationale for imperial rule as the emperors' traditional claim to divine right to rule had been challenged. Since Roman law was based on natural moral law and the principle of rationality, it provided a system of law of for the imperial state which was a reflection these principles and which was separate from religion. It also provided a framework which ensured consistency in administration. The Corpus Juris Civilis was also used to formulate the Napoleonic Code in 1804. This replaced the existing uncoordinated and contradictory web of separate old feudal and royal French laws. This code was different than the Justinian Code, which was a collection of edited or revised extracts of law. It was more systematic. Nevertheless, the latter provided material which was important in the creation this code, which was Europe's first modern code of civil law. Following the French example, many continental European countries later also compiled their codes of civil law and they, too, used the Corpus Juris Civilis as its foundation.