The Moral decline of the Roman Empire is BS propagated by amateur historians of the 19th century.  Morality in the empire swung like a pendulum, if anything it was more pious towards end than it was during the whorish times of Caesar.

Such is the result of Conservatism, they sacrificed their adaptability for the maintainance the Status Quo. 

I disagree here to, you see Rome became dependent upon expansion.  Its Economy needed slaves fresh from conquest and its army needed booty and plunder to motivate Roman citizens to join.  In effect the fate of Rome was tied to its ever widening borders.

Christianity destroyed the Latin-Roman Empire. The Roman religion was an religion of strength and hedonism, the christianity was the counterpart, christianity is a religion of humanity and askesis. The import and adoption of an completly different religion destroyed the order of the society. And the Economy, christ forbid Kredtis...

And the christianity is directly related with the immigration of Barbarians, because the Barbarians (Gemanians, Slavians) was also missioned and got christs, so the romans could not forbid their religion brothers to come in their empire. One day (4-5 century)  romans allowed the Gots to cross the border even thoug they were armed, and that was the  the End.

And I believe that the New Rome, will be finaly destroyed by over immigration of people which they are not able to integrate.

Yes Christianity did play a part in the decline but the imperial decline began even before the death of Jesus.

The Empire was built on the dynamism of the Republic. The urge of the warrior aristocracy for military glory which translated into political success was essential in the forging of the empire. The citizenry of Rome had a vested interest in Roman success and this led to Rome's characteristic resilience. But with the death of the republic and resulting autocracy glory didn't have the same value. The final conquest  (britannia etc) were just echoes of the lost republican way of life.

With no need for glory the Emperors were content to sit back satisfied with what they had. The Roman economy was built on conquest and the influx of fresh slaves without this the economy stagnated.

Without the urge for glory Rome's famed resiliancy died and defeats which would once have been seen as minor set-backs could end whole campaigns ie. Teutoberg Forest. The refusal to overcome set backs allowed dangerous enemies to remain outside the empire ie. the Germans.

With the expansion over the army was on the defensive and when not under attack (or even in the heat of an invasion) dabbled in politics.

Thus the decline of the empire began when the competative nature of the republic reached its natural conclusion.

Economical disability, social ineptability, difficulties with adjusting to the new era, Christianity, civil strife... all of that and many more.

I consider it quite impressive that Rome in it's deathbead (practically) gave birth to a "new Rome" that lasted for another thousand years.

Magnificent, actually!

Others:

Socioeconomical and Ideologic problems = Financial problems = Military decline = German invansions and Divisions and Civil wars

Besides all mixed

How can one in the 21st century actually still believe that abstract things such as "morality" can make an empire fall? If so, why didn't Rome collapse then during the reign of emperors like Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Heliogabalus or other sick individuals?  

If it was due to Christianity, why then did the Christian Eastern Empire survive another 1000 years?

According to my litterature and my teacher, the reason the western Roman empire disappeared was because that the emperors invited foreign "barbarian" armies (such as the goths) as foederati within the empire's borders to defend these from other "barbarians". When these people took care of the defence, the legions were withdrawn from the west and sent to the eastern front against Persia. When the "barbarians" in the absence of the emperor's military authority proclaimed themselves independent and rejected the rule in Ravenna, the western Roman empire seized to exist. But it was not inevitable as many people think, but if the emperors had adapted to the new situation the empire might have still existed to this day 

There is a problem with this theory.   The part of about the army had been true since the days of Marius' reforms..............and Claudius - Rome's 4th emperor - was chosen by the Praetorian Guard.  So instead of it being a cause for the end, it was more like a time honored tradition.

There were dozens of factors complcit in Rome's fall.

But, like many empires that came before and those who would come later, the luxury, corruption and decadence brought on by her wealth and success bred weakness in the Roman empire, as did various ongoing power struggles and political intrigues. Eventually the 'barbarian' peoples on Rome's borders who due to the harsh realities of frontier life and tribal warfare were strong and martial and dynamic began to sense, and to pray on Rome's weakness. Rome was too stagnant to resist them. My oppinion is that when any govenment becomes as Rome was in its later stages, it doesn't deserves to survive

Mod Edit (Lannes):  Again, don't flood.

 I think civil wars has to be one of the very top reasons why the empire collapsed, the Romans never really created a permanent model for the succession of an Emperor. The lack of a smooth transition from Emperor to Emperor allowed just about anybody with enough legions behind him to make a bid for the throne.

 This internal anarchy caused enormous damage to the veryheart of the empire, even the victor in a civil war rarely lasted long and tended to rule over an empire plagued by revolts and invasions from barbarians encouraged by Romes uncanny ability to self-destruct. With the legions withdrawn from the most important frontiers, the Rhine and the Danube to fight in distant battlefields Roman v Roman left the provinces wide open to raids and then full-blown invasion. One can't help but feel sorry for the inhabitants of the frontier provinces, far to often left defenceless as the legions marched off to fight other.

 The crisis of the 3rd century was probably the most traumatic and chaotic period of Roman history since the Punic wars or the last civil wars during the republics day. Seemingly endless civil wars, economic collapse, Emperors lasting only a handful of years sometimes months, neglected frontiers an army fighting itself, its a true miracle that the empire survived at all and I don't think the empire ever truly recovered.

 It was certainly never again the power it was during the Principate, for all those who still believed in Roman invincability, the 3rd century proved beyond doubt that the Roman empire was often at best fragile and could be toppled if internal difficulties could be exploited.

 I don't buy that Christianity was a major cause in Romes demise, Christianity didnt tear the empire apart throughout the 3rd century and beyond, nor did it cause the shocking leadership of the 4th which put its fair share of nails in the coffin and it defanitely didnt cause the spiralling economic crisis of the western empire, attempting to support an army which is couldnt possibly afford.

 I've always maintained that Rome effectively cut its own throat, if the barbarians wernt going to destroy the empire you could be sure a Roman would.

I voted Germanic invasion for the collapse of the Western Empire.  Over the period 370 to 476 the empire was simply overwhelmed by succesive invasions of Germans and Huns that gradually captured the revenue producing parts of the empire, particularly Spain, Gaul and above all Africa.

Looking at the other possible reasons -

I discount civil war as there had always been periodic civil wars throughout the Roman period without the empire collapsing.

Financial problems I see as being caused by the invasions rather than the cause of them.

Christianity was incorporated into the Roman government system after Constantine so you had a god appointed emperor instead of one who regarded himself as a god - not much difference.

While you may say that they had equally always been pressure on the frontier from Germanic tribes by the late 4th century they had formed into much larger confederations capable of putting many more troops in the field and they were much better equiped than the Germanic tribes in say the 1st century in terms of weapons. 

 Welcome to AE Patch

 Whereas I agree that the Germanic tribes became a much more potent threat to the western empire, I don't believe they are they primary cause of its destruction. The gap between the Roman and Germanic armies had certainly been bridged by the 4th and 5th century, Romes armies were no longer superior in the way they had been against earlier Germanic tribes like the Cimbri or Teutones etc. However you have to look at why exactly Rome was no longer able to resist such invasions or stop them before they even occurred.

 And civil wars are a big reason, not only did it seriously damage Romes military at a time when Romes enemies posed a serious threat, but it took them away from the frontiers they were meant to be defending.

 Civil wars often put the brakes on progress and advancement, economies suffer, its also rare that 1 rebellion wont lead to another and another. If you look at 4th and 5th century Rome, its not uncommon to see an Emperor have to fight 2 3 or 4 rivals before he is fully established.

 When you have a dwindling economy anyway, then you add a military often fighting itself and a succession of poor emperors its little wonder Rome could no longer resist the barbarians.

 Religion as far as i'm concerned is a side issue, whether Pagan, Christian or any other religion, it doesnt make a blind bit of difference to a declining army and poor leadership.

 It certainly true the republic and empire had suffered civil wars in the past, but never at a time when the empire could ill afford it,  the empire could often absorb the impact civil wars had, but not in the later centuries when it was in a sorry state. Take away the civil wars and endless rebellions by rivals and the empire would surely have been in a much stronger position to resist, also lets no forget the saved expense of such internal conflicts.

Empires don’t tend to crumble for one reason. There usually are a few factors involved in their decline and death.

 In that case, explain how the Eastern empire lasted an additional 1000 years?

 I'm equally baffled by this.

  my view

  In the beginning the Romans were lean mean fighting machines bent on conquest. They were ruthless with intent to subdue everyone they would come across. They would become rich with the spoils of war and would build Rome to emulate their power,wealth & influence. They had the will and they had the brawn to take what they wanted from others because they were better trained soldiers and could. 

     Rome simply become soft and didn't have the same fighting spirit it once had and thus became itself a major target for a newer leaner meaner fighting group of peoples intent on giving the Romans a thrashing for past actions.

       religion had a major part in Roman downfall with the attempt to unify the empire under one system (christianity). it was not realised that the roman faction was not the dominant faction and that the doctrines of the church had become confused from those of the original church. This led to a series of religious wars.  Most of what happened to Rome and the sacking of it umpteen times had to do with different views on christianity and the subsequent desire for political domination through religion. With each sacking of Rome a new set of christian doctrine and a newly elected representative was put in place.

 30 Legions? and for how long exactly?

 If your referring to the older standard legions of around 5000 men then your saying there was 150,000 + legionaries on the Rhine? not to mention the auxillaries who would also have been there doubling that number to 300,000, I find that impossible to believe.

 For the majority of the history of the Roman empire the number of legions was centred around 28-32 in total, it fluctuated over time but theres no way that the empire would collect all of its armies to 1 focal point leaving the Euphrates and Danube frontiers empty of legions, not to mention Britain and Africa. Never during the principate or dominate did the Romans field an army 30 legions strong, nor did it collect them in such a large number in 1 place, especially in the 4th and 5th century when it had commitments on all fronts.

 The newer *legions* were admittedly much smaller, but Roman armies that actually fought in a pitched battle by that point didnt tend to be much bigger than 15,000-20,000 or so, battles like Strasburg and Adrianople in the 4th century were important battles but had relatively small Roman armies taking part. The only real exceptions are Julians expedition into Persia and the civil wars.

Inability to inflict a desicive defeat on Persia. That would have opened up India and possibly China to them solving the real problem Rome had, the fact it was usually short of money.

• The Roman army got bigger and bigger over time. By 400 AD, the Roman army was about 400,000 men. Most of the tribes that opposed Rome were less than 50,000 in population.  Clearly, shortage of raw army size was not the issue.
  
  
• The Persian wars had nothing to do with the fall of the western empire. It was the Eastern Roman Empire that fought against Persia, and it was the Eastern half that did not fall to barbarians.
  

This is hard, but I'll tell you what I thought were some of the main reasons I ascertained from the books I've read about ancient Rome.

1. Collapse of the republic and replacement by the Empire, which bred extreme corruption.

2. The government left care of the troops to the generals, which tied the soldiers too much to their general's fortunes, and undermined their loyalty to the government.

3. The end of conscription which created a professional army with its own set of interests which were often at ends with the interests of the Roman state.  It also got rid of a popular mobilization during emergencies, which was needed.

4. Diocletian's economic reforms which made all professions hereditary and destroyed the labor market, resulting in much less wealth being created in the empire.

5. Extreme taxation which hurt the economy, and especially trade.

6. The granting of federated status to Germanic minorities which led to the failure of them to be assimilated into the empire and the rise of states within the state.

7. The use of complete foreign mercenary units which led to the decay of Roman military prowess.

8. The creation of farmer soldiers to guard the frontiers who became more farmers than soldiers and who stood no chance against warrior nomads from the East.

9. The doctrine of isolation from the state and worldly possessions, and celibacy adopted by many Christians at a time when service to the state and more children were desperately needed.

 I think many of the points you make Genghis are very sound, however the first one "1. Collapse of the republic and replacement by the Empire, which bred extreme corruption." I do have abit of a problem with in regard to the corruption of the empire.

 Wasnt the Republic certainly in the last century of its existance utterly corrupt? political power sold to the highest bidder, the republic effortlessly dominated by a handful of the richest Romans. Atleast a strong Emperor could if he so wished, root out corruption since he had the power to do so, whereas the Republic did not. When the richest Romans of the Republic also held the loyalty of the army then there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.

 However later in the empire when the army became more attached to the individual general rather than the Emperor then you are somewhat correct, although armies were still commanded and fought loyally for the Emperor very late into the Western empires era.

 Both the Republic and Empire were at times rife with corruption, under the empire though atleast it ws possible to regain control if the Emperor had the will to do so.

Below is a link from an interview of two authors of two new books on the fall of the Roman Empire,  Peter Heather and  Bryan Ward-Perkins.  Both of them are History fellows at Oxford University in the UK who specialise in this period.  I have read Heather's book but not Ward-Perkins, from the interview below both authors seem to have similar ideas aboout the fall.

http://blog.oup.com/oupblog/2005/12/the_fall_of_rom.html - http://blog.oup.com/oupblog/2005/12/the_fall_of_rom.html

Weak rulers. Corrupt rulers. For God's sake, Romulus Augustulus was thirteen. Odoacer the German wouldn't have had a very difficult time outthinking him.

Actually, since the assassination of Flavius Atius, the man who defended Western Rome from Attilla the Hun, there were no truly good and capable leaders the Eastern Empire allowed to remain in power.

That's very true, there was much corruption in each system, I just have gathered from what I have read that during the Empire, with a corrupt emperor, the damage done to the state of Rome was much worse than what a handful of consuls could do during the Republic.

I'm also more partial to the Republic than I am to the weak and decadent late Empire.

If you have read much more about this than I have, I would probably accept your opinion, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on classical history.

By the time of Romulus Augustus things were pretty much all over anyway, the last real hope was Anthemius who was installed with the backing of the eastern emperor Leo in 467.  Unfortuneately for the Romans his eastern backed expedition to recapture Africa failed in 468 and he was executed in 472

After the Africa debacle the east had no more spare rescources to bolster the west so that was pretty much it. 

Search engine the Unitarian/Trinitarain Wars (No268) and read about the religious aspect to the downfall of the Roman Empire

There are many factors that are responsible for the fall of Rome, including a decline in population do to famine, corruption, decentralized government, failing economy, and a very bad invlexible burocratic system in which people were not able to move up.  Also of course the loss of its identity, Rome at the beginning was a militaristic society which later faded away, like one historian said " Rome did not fall because of 200 years of war, but because of 200 years of peace".

The high inflation, mainly caused by buying the luxerious silk from China was one of the economic problem.

"The high inflation, mainly caused by buying the luxerious silk from China was one of the economic problem. "

I believe that the Fall of Rome is because of its over-extended. The area is simply too big, so they are unable to defend it. I wouldn't blame it all on the Romans though. Since during that time, different groups of Barbarians attacked Rome. Many the selfish generals and emperors should also take blames. There are many possibilities.

The original Roman people disappeared by the third century. They intermarried with slaves and foreigners. That contributed to the collapse of the West Empire in the fifth century. The same fate happened to the Portuguese Empire 1,100 years later.