Summarize the theories about why the roman empire fell and then tellwhy some theories seem more possible than others?

Answer 1

Edward Gibbon, an 18th century historian who wrote the first comprehensive history of Rome, called the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, popularised the notion of a decline of the Roman Empire. He argued that the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire was to be blamed on the loss of civic virtue among the Romans who ended up entrusting the defence of their empire to Germanic mercenaries who then turned on the Romans and caused the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire Christianity contributed to this by sapping the fighting spirit of the Romans as it made people more interested wit heaven than if worldly matters.

There have since been other theories of decline of the Roman Empire, but these have been challenged by other historians. Notable among them are John Bury and Peter Heather.

Rotten Empire.The imperial system was rotten for the outset and the imperial era was one of ready decay of the institutions which were created in the times of the Roman Republic. The empire could never have survived without radical reform, but no emperor undertook this. Instead, the emperors wasted the resources of the empire. The Roman economy was a plunder economy which was originally based on the riches form conquered peoples. When this dried out with the end of imperial expansion and the cessation of exacting a tribute from these peoples, plundering took the form of taxing independent small farmers into destitution or into being depended on rich landlords who were exempt from taxation. The cost of maintaining a large military, a large bureaucracy and imperial pomp fell on the citizenry. There was a lack of entrepreneurial or technological innovation due to the economy being originally based on slave labour and the buying power of a middle class. While the financial needs of the state increased, there was a failure to increase economic output and thus the means to have the resources to meet these needs, leading to an erosion of resources. This view was advocated by Arnold J. Toynbee in the 1930s and 40s, and James Burke in a 1970s TV series

Unsound economic policies which impoverished the empire. Until the 2nd century A.D. the empire had a thriving and complex market economy based of free trade and low taxes and tariffs. The debasement of the Roman coins (the decrease in the precious metal content of gold and silver coins) by several emperors led to hyperinflation and a collapse of the monetary system.. Artificially low prices were set and this led to scarcity in foodstuff, which hit the cities hard. This led to town-countryside migration and a decline in the population of the cities and a loss in artisanal skill due to townsfolk taking up subsistence farming. There was a decline in trade, manufacturing skills and technological innovation and an impoverishment of the empire. This theory was advanced by Mikhail Ivanovich Rostovtzeff in the 1920s and Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises in the 1940s.

The burden of the army. Bruce Bartlett added a claim that the emperors came to increasingly rely on the military for their power and needed to increase military funding to ensure the loyalty of the army and avoiding coups. Their economic policies became based on this need. With the collapse of the monetary system in the 3rd century they were unable to raise taxes in money and had to requisition goods they could find, such as food and cattle. This led to many urban people leaving for the countryside and either working on the large landed estates or trying to be self-sufficient and avoiding the imperial authorities. The imperial response was to issue laws which tied the people to their professions. Farmers were tied to the land. As a result, the empire spilt into landed estates which were self-sufficient and close economies which did not engage in trade, leading to economic decline. This was tied to the need to fund an increasingly large and expensive, all-powerful army.

Resource depletion. In 1988 Tainter argued the Roman economy had become complex and started yielding lower returns and depleting resources unsustainable levels. The economic complexity also led to more bureaucratic involvement in the economy. Tainter argued that there was a decrease in agricultural output and an increasing population. As a result, the Romans resorted to conquest to seek new resources. However, this exacerbated the problems, rather than solving them. The cost of maintaining communications, the army and the bureaucracy increased. The ability of the Romans to respond challenges, such as to crop failures and invasions, decrease, and there was no longer the solution of conquest to resolve. This led to the fragmentation of the empire. The decline of the empire was due to "diminishing returns on investments in social complexity." With the collapse of the empire, some people became better off as they no longer carried the burden of propping up the complexity of the empire.

.

Gradual environmental degradation caused population and economic decline. Deforestation and excessive grazing led to soil erosion and in North Africa irrigation without suitable drainage caused salinization. Fertile land was lost and in some regions there was desertification. In addition the use of slave labour on large farms forced many peasants to go to the towns and become overcrowded, leading to disease and food shortages.

Disease. In the 1970s William H. McNeill, noted that in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries y the Roman Empire suffered several epidemics which halved its population. This led to the bureaucracy and the military being larger than what the population could support through taxation. This, in turn cause the western part of the Roman Empire to decline and fall, while the eastern part survived because its larger population could sustain the imperial bureaucracy and the army

Lead poisoning. In the 1980s Jerome Nriagu, argued that "lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman empire." The Romans had only honey as a sweetener. They boiled must on lead pots which produced a sugar syrup which contained lead. This was used for sweetening food and wine, poisoning many people.