The wars of the roman empire and the collapse of the empire

It's a relatively stable, relatively peaceful time for Rome. Now all of that is relative. But things only get worse after the death of Marcus Aurelius, who's viewed as the last of the five good emperors, so to speak.

The wars of the roman empire and the collapse of the empire

I have thrown a few of mine in also. Carol Many historians have given reasons for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, which could be separated into two time frames since the Eastern part of the Empire lasted far beyond the Western.

In comparing and contrasting six of these historians it is apparent that there is no consensus about why the Empire collapsed. There were certainly both internal and external factors, which brought about the demise or did not prevent the decline of this great empire.

Russian historian, Michael Rostovtseff, feels that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was caused by the engulfment of the educated classes by the uneducated masses and the subsequent barbarization or simplification of Roman political, social, economic, and intellectual life.

The policy of the subjection of the population to an administration based on compulsion and terror, creation of a new aristocracy from the members of the army, production of a slave state with autocratic monarchy led minority ruling groups, commanding an army filled with mercenaries, and compulsory military seemed to be the easiest way to keep the Roman Empire functioning.

Kagan, 20 These tactics did not save the empire as the emperor became totally dependent upon the military and therefore the military was able to remove any emperor who threatened their status.

The emperors bribed the armies but eventually lost control of and became slave to their own armies as the armies used the emperor to get what they wanted. Rostovtseff states that the leading classes of the Empire could not accept hereditary succession based on divine imperial power because this concept of principate to monarchy threatened their idea of freedom.

When the army was still Roman the idea of principate was central, but as it became barbarized it became more amenable to a monarchy. Rostovtseff says the political struggle between hereditary monarchy and emperors with their supporting armies and the upper classes ended but the struggle revisited in the form of army versus educated classed for leadership of the state.

The army also came from the bourgeoisie and was separate from the civilized aristocratic life of the Empire. The humiliores class formed the majority of the population but were subjects of the landlords or the states and were separated from the privileged classes whom they supported with their work, taxes, and rents.

Understandably the humiliores developed feelings of envy and hatred towards the upper classes. The friction between the city and the county led to the social revolution of the third century.

The armies started to look upon the cities of the Empire as their enemies. Rostovtseff gives the crisis in the third century social rather than political connotations as the bourgeoisie replaced the aristocracy and the middle class disappeared as it became more oppressed. The bourgeoisie and peasants both gained nothing and the depression of the Roman spirit allowed the Diocletian stabilization that in the end did nothing to improve conditions.

Walbank blames low technology and the use of slavery to compensate for the lack of technology as the cause for the decline. Without hope of benefit or improvement in condition the slave did not strive to improve the way he did work. Greek culture had separated the things of the hand and of the mind.

Technological advances were unnecessary since slave labor was cheap and plentiful. From an economic standpoint the masses that produced could not become consumers. Only the wealthy could purchase and the expansion of the Roman Empire did not target the peasant and the middle classes for consumption and the ability to profit from selling to these classes was lost.

Industrialization did not develop because there was no mass consumption.

The wars of the roman empire and the collapse of the empire

In the end Rome was placated with old processes rather than choosing to develop technology. As the Empire expanded to new territories this process of using slave labor repeated itself. Trade became localized and international areas were ignored, as there was a reversal to small scale, hand-to-mouth craftsmanship.

Gradually industry moved from large cities to the country estates and villages as agrarian interests were renewed, but the country was not up to the task since it had been long neglected for urban development.

The estates then retarded the areas open to trade as they became self-sufficient and drew importance of trade away from the cities.

Croix blames the fall of the Roman Empire on the fact that the wealthy had unlimited political and economic power and goes so far as to compare them to vampire bats as they sucked the wealth life out of the Empire.Russian historian, Michael Rostovtseff, feels that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was caused by the engulfment of the educated classes by the uneducated masses and the subsequent barbarization or simplification .

The Great Empire. The Roman Empire was a large political territory that helped shape modern-day western civilization. It was under control of the government of the city of Rome (and for a brief time, the city of Constantinople) for around years. In his masterwork, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", historian Edward Gibbon selected C.E., a date most often mentioned by historians.

That date was when the Germanic king of the Torcilingi Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor to . The main cause of the fall of the Roman Empire is still a topic of debate among historians, maybe because it is a symbol of what we fear about our own civilization.

There are many different theories about why a superpower that ruled for years crumbled and fell, but most scholars degree that it wasn’t one event, but a series of factors that caused a .

Russian historian, Michael Rostovtseff, feels that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was caused by the engulfment of the educated classes by the uneducated masses and the subsequent barbarization or simplification of Roman political, social, economic, and intellectual life.

The collapse of the western Roman empire throws into sharp relief the success of the eastern empire’s ability to function as an important state for another 1, years.

For the most part the circumstances and events that brought down the western empire did not confront the eastern empire.

Why Rome Fell | HistoryNet