Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Romanus Maximus View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote Romanus Maximus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire
    Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 11:43

It seems to me that the main factors in the fall of the Roman Empire were :-

1)       The splitting of the Empire into East and West

2)       The mass tribal movements triggered by The Huns

3)       The invasion of the North African provinces by the Vandals ( Geiseric )

Rome was sacked in :-

387, by the Gauls

410, by the Goths ( Alaric )

455, by the Vandals ( Geiseric )

These were quick raids and away again, more to get booty for their troops.

These were not cataclysmic events, because the Western empire still had
quite sizeable forces spread around their empire which if they could have
been called back instantly would have been more than enough to deal with
this tribes marauding the Italian mainland.
The Roman empire eventually fell completely about 472AD, quite a significant
time after these sackings.

 

It seems to me that the greatest blunder of all, was that the Vandals were

allowed to cross from Southern Spain into North Africa.
Of course one can argue that in those days it would have been very difficult
to respond very quickly to something like this ie. Getting intelligence,
notifying Rome, getting a decision, sending some sort of Naval squadron.
However what I can not understand is that since these provinces were the
very lifeblood of Rome ( both in terms of tax, and food production ) that it
was almost criminal negligence that a permanent Naval base was not
established at Gibralter etc., in order to ensure that no undesirables were
allowed to cross into North Africa.

 

Could this event have been sensibly prevented ? If it could have there is

no reason to believe that the Western Roman Empire would have collapsed
even considering the loss of Gaul, Spain and Britain etc.
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 15:03
I consider that even after the fall of Gaul, Spain, and Britian the empire would eventually fall to the barbarians. For other reasons that the West may stay alive for some time is just prolonging its death and is wasting lots of money, troops, and etc that could have been use in other situations at hand. Basically in my opinion, there wasnt any hope for the empire to regain its former glory... Dead
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 16:10
387, by the Gauls


BC, before Rome's prime.
You need to add the fact that the capital moved, and so did the economic focus of the Empire with it. Also economic decline in some western provinces is a factor. Roman christian bigotry played a role to (why alienate potential loyal and usefull christin tribes over silly ssectarian nonsense?).
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 22:17
How did it fall if that other half survived after that trivial year of 476AD.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 00:00
The splitting of the Empire ensured that the East could redistribute its revenues towards its own defence, though this left the West much weaker. The West still possessed the resources to defend itself, but it did not implement the reforms necessary to maximise the considerable wealth, manpower and technological expertise it had at its disposal.

The tribal movements were awful for Rome, but as Theodosius proved such movements could be managed so that Rome did not suffer.

North Africa was important, but I think perhaps provinces like Hispania and Gaul even more so in terms of supplying military manpower.
Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 00:15
North Africa was important, but I think perhaps provinces like Hispania and Gaul even more so in terms of supplying military manpower.


Thats as maybe, however, without north Africa and its grain, the empire was hard-pressed to find the wealth necessary to support a standing army.

When the Vandals took Carthage they effectively shut off Rome from the center of its grain supply, the repercussions were heavy. It should not surprise us that after this event the western Empire seems to increasingly rely on privatized armies or barbarian ones.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 00:28
The East was richer and more developed than the West. It was inevitable that the Western Empire would enter in a deep economical crisis that fueled the decline. Without money you can't pay the army. And without and army, the Barbarians have a free ride.
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
Romanus Maximus View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote Romanus Maximus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 03:59
Kamakazi, I disagree !
The point is that it was possible for Rome to eventually recover
Spain, Gaul, Britain etc, but not after it lost North Africa.
After losing North Africa, a recovery became almost impossible.
 
Since North Africa was so strategically critical to the functioning
of the Western Empire it seems to me that it was a monumental
strategic blunder that the Vandals were allowed unhindered
access to cross from Southern Spain into North Africa.
Back to Top
Romanus Maximus View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote Romanus Maximus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 04:24
Constantine, I disagree with you also !
 
Without the grain supplys and taxation monies from North Africa,
then you can not feed the empire, and pay soldiers.
 
The romans were still in control of large parts of Spain and Gaul
until shortly before the collapse. Therefore I dont think manpower
was the problem. I think it was more a case that the system was
not being fuelled adequately.
 
 
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 08:31
If Rome hadn't been so hung up on the Vandals being arian christians, maybe there would have been consideraby less animosity between the two and the Vandals moving into N. Africa wouldn't have been an issue, hell maybe they would have been content to stay in Iberia where they were originaly given land.
Rome could have capitalised on the 'invaders' (who were more often than not refugees from the Huns), but instead aliented many of them IMHO.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 14:00
This can also go around the same way. If the Vandals werent so caught up in their Arrianism perhaps they might have been better adopted into Roman society.

In fact, Romans were capable of accepting Arrian Christians in their social circle. Two notable later "Patricians" were Arrians of Barbarian origin: Ricimer and Stilicho.

The Vandals were far more brutal in their persecution of Roman Catholics in Africa then Romans were vice versa.

Also, the question of the "nature of god" may seem insignificant to us today, considering out ideas of individualistic spirituality, but it was of utmost importance to a people that were trying to find both universalism and unity in the "right" belief.

Edited by Theodore Felix - 24-Apr-2007 at 14:06
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 17:31
Yeah, but they had to convert first. And it was persecution of Arians that caused them to leave Iberia for Africa.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 00:49
And it was persecution of Arians that caused them to leave Iberia for Africa.


Nah, it was mostly Geiserics opportunism. Africa was far wealthier then Iberia; when the governor there called on them, he took the first opportunity to take control.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.