NO
It was certainly a contributing factor. That said, the Romans had numerous other issues as well such as internal power struggles, poor financial decisions, weak leadership, over-expansion, a loss of focus on their fundamental ideals, major social and political upheavals, and many others.
The barbarian invasions certainly didn't help Rome's cause, but they alone cannot explain the enormous collapse of the Roman Empire, and they're but one of many very powerful factors involved in the collapse of Rome.
Historians are somewhat split on the causes of Rome's actual demise, but the popular belief (which is generally agreed upon even by historians that disagree on specifics of the events) is that Rome ultimately fell not due to exterior events, but from an internal collapse of infrastructure, organization and management.
Most historians would agree that Rome actually fell from within. The barbarian invasions simply coincided with and capitalized on this interior collapse.
Chat with our AI personalities
NO
It was certainly a contributing factor. That said, the Romans had numerous other issues as well such as internal power struggles, poor financial decisions, weak leadership, over-expansion, a loss of focus on their fundamental ideals, major social and political upheavals, and many others.
The barbarian invasions certainly didn't help Rome's cause, but they alone cannot explain the enormous collapse of the Roman Empire, and they're but one of many very powerful factors involved in the collapse of Rome.
Historians are somewhat split on the causes of Rome's actual demise, but the popular belief (which is generally agreed upon even by historians that disagree on specifics of the events) is that Rome ultimately fell not due to exterior events, but from an internal collapse of infrastructure, organization and management.
Most historians would agree that Rome actually fell from within. The barbarian invasions simply coincided with and capitalized on this interior collapse.
There was not such thing as the fall of Rome and the rise of Byzantium. The term fall of Rome refers to the fall of the western part of the empire, not the fall of the city of Rome. This part of this empire fell under the weight of the invasions by the Germanic peoples. The eastern part was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist for nearly 1,000 years. Byzantine empire is a term which has been coined by historians to indicate the eastern part of the Roman empire after the fall of the western part. The people in question did not know this term and called their empire Roman Empire. Therefore, the so-called Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire. As for Byzantium, the name of this city changed to Constantinople more than 100 years before the Byzantine period. Therefore, there was no such thing as the rise of Byzantium either as a city of as an empire. Six Roman Emperors were killed by the imperial guard, but these were long before the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire
The Catholic Church and the Latin language helped united western Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed.
The fall of the British Empire began in the late 1800s and continued into the 1960s. It was simply too expensive and unwieldy to maintain any longer.
Basically because the Franks had been conquered by the Romans and had become part of the Roman Empire whereas the Germanic Tribes had not. Roman conquest brought peace and security to the land and trade was able to flourish. The Franks readily adapted to Roman culture and system of government which the Latin Christian Church continued after the fall of the Empire. The Germanic tribes however had no centralized government or even one single king.
Old School Swag Eahhw. #100% maori Ghee!