Introduction
The historical process of human development proves its cyclicality over time. The birth, flowering, and then unstoppable demise of civilizations are illustrated by the study of the history of once-great ancient states. One such example is the Roman Empire, the state that gave the world the foundations of modern legal systems and elements of advanced urban infrastructure. The Roman Empire was a great state, occupying vast territories not only of modern Italy but also of other states of Europe and the Mediterranean, including the north of the African continent. However, the historical cyclicality was also relevant to this state, so even despite military-political, technological, and socio-economic achievements, the Empire fell. Weakened by increasingly frequent invasions by barbarian tribes and incessant civil wars at home, the Roman Empire reached severe levels of financial and political crisis, which led to its downfall. This historical essay will look to explore in-depth the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Brief Overview
For many people who study history, the Roman Empire is often an example of the greatest power in existence that managed to survive as a stable, dynamic state for nearly five hundred years. The Roman Empire was founded by the ancient Italian tribes of the Latins, who founded the city of Rome in 753 (Mathisen 2018). According to an alternate version, whose mythicism often accompanies the history of great powers, the Roman Empire was founded by two legendary orphan brothers who were nurtured by a wolf. As a result of internecine wars lasting nearly five centuries, in 59 BC, Gaius Julius Caesar came to power in the Roman Republic. The commander was able to create a triple political alliance of triumvirate and increase the stability of the republic. Subsequently, however, it is Caesar who remains on his own to rule the republic and increase his dictatorial power (Mathisen 2018). Before his death, Caesar managed to produce a number of crucial military and cultural reforms in the country that was about to become an empire, but the dictator was assassinated by his own senators.
After Caesar, Octavian Augustus ascended the Roman throne, whose reign began with the transformation of the republic into an empire. Octavian quickly built up the army and modernized it, abolished the role of the Senate to nominal, and gave the newly built Empire a monarchical nature. Ancient Rome, under the leadership of Augustus and subsequent emperors, quickly becomes the most important commercial and political center of the world. Rome developed urban science, built the first aqueducts, and improved roads (Rogers 2018). The cultural life of the Empire also evolved; new temples were built, and gladiatorial fights were held. During and after Augustus, Ancient Rome expands rapidly, conquering European and Egyptian territories. Over the next few centuries, several family dynasties changed in the state, and by 324, Emperor Constantine was implementing Christian reform in Rome (Raymond 1936). From then on, the state loses its geopolitical grandeur and becomes one of the Christian centers. Among other things, the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, and Rome was rapidly destroyed.
Political Instability
One of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire is political instability. Corruption, lust for power and enrichment, and mismanagement were the key factors that destroyed the once great Empire from within. The Christian theologian of the fourth century, Paulus Orosius, drew a parallel in his book between the eight biblical disasters and fragments of ancient Roman history. In such a comparison, Orosius noted that Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianus, the last of the ruling Flavian dynasty, was an extremely bloodthirsty and one-person ruler (Raymond 1936). Because of constant raids by the imperial army and pressure on the common people, oppositional, anti-monarchist ideas gradually began to emerge in the masses of the population.
Political confidence was also undermined by the army, whose soldiers became disillusioned with the military effectiveness of their leaders. Another primary source, the ancient Roman historian Titus Livius, reported that imperial consuls could not find common ground with the soldiers, and the gap between them grew rapidly (Foster 1919). Soldiers ready to fight during battles saw the ineffectiveness of the consuls’ management, and “the less inclination the soldiers discovered in the consuls, the greater became their own eagerness for the fray” (Foster 1919, 45). In this context, it is impossible not to mention that the Praetorian Guard, the most crucial army in the country and the emperor’s bodyguards, repeatedly carried out coups d’état in the country. Thus, the ancient Roman emperor Caligula is only one of the known examples of overthrown monarchs.
The reliable facts of dissatisfaction with power among the aristocratic class are well known from the works of Gaius Sallustius Crispus, an ancient Reformed historiographer. In particular, Sallustius reported on the conspiracy of Catiline, one of the first coup attempts in ancient Rome (Murphy 2013). The eloquent Catiline, who wanted to gain power, exploited the state’s existing financial crisis and manipulated the population’s enormous credit debts. As a result of his campaign programs, Catiline gained public support, but his desire to overturn power was defeated by the politician Marcus Cicero (Murphy 2013). This example perfectly supports the fact that the Roman Empire was highly politically unstable from within.
One reason for the political instability could be attributed to the rapid change of emperors on the throne. Each of the state leaders sought to bring about the most significant reforms in the country and thus seal his name. The rapid change of emperors through overthrows, assassinations, and coups was not the right strategy for an undemocratic regime. In addition, each of the rulers also had virtually unlimited access to state wealth. Thus, corruption became a severe problem prevalent among the political leaders of the Roman Empire. It is especially worth noting that political corruption is not strictly an economic crime, but it combines the full scale of the problems associated with the abuse of the power entrusted to the monarch. When the Roman people entrusted power to the emperor, on the opposite side, it implied the emperor acting as the unconditional protector of the population. No actions violating this unspoken pact should be conducted; otherwise, they would be considered corruption.
A distinct account of ancient Roman corruption is preserved in the books of the local historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus. The man wrote that “to ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace” (Tacitus, 2013). This excerpt from the translation of the primary source perfectly shows the basic motives of the ancient Roman rulers. They were not implemented purely in the interests of the development of the Roman Empire, but on the contrary, they were aimed at the enrichment of individual rulers. The fact of corruption in the Empire is confirmed by the ambiguity about Marcus Cicero, who murdered the conspirator Catiline. Under the laws of ancient Rome, no one had the right to kill Roman citizens without trial, and Cicero violated this prohibition, for which he should have been arrested or exiled from the capital (Rogg 2019). However, no serious sanctions were taken against Cicero because he was a comparable figure to the emperor. Sallustius also reported corruption in the country, indicating that many of the politicians received high ranks while committing immoral, inhumane acts (Murphy, 2013). Thus, it can be postulated that one of the most important reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire was political instability, increasing with each new monarch.
Financial Crisis
Another reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire should be cited as the developing financial crisis in the country. It is fair to admit that the vastness of the territory required serious economic resources for adequate, systematic management. The lack of adequate economic protection for the whole country leads to the enrichment of the capital and the ruin of the Empire’s outlying lands. The emptying state budget had to be replenished by traditional means, so the taxation of the population grew steadily (Foster 1919; Raymond 1936). The increased tax obligations of the citizens of ancient Rome rapidly impoverished the population, resulting in a growing gap between the rich and the poor. The classic economic consequences of such a gap were also actual for Rome: skyrocketing inflation and the migration of the wealthy class.
The strong dependence of the Roman Empire on wars should also be taken into account. The basis of state development and the settlement of new territories was conquest. Emperors invested vast portions of their budgets in the army and modernized it so that Roman soldiers were the strongest (Mathisen 2018; Foster 1919). As a consequence of this investment, the state coffers were rapidly emptying. Meanwhile, as noted earlier, military service began to lose prestige over time. Poor management, the prolonged absence of warfare, and shrinking budgets meant that the army was no longer as powerful as it had been under Caesar or Augustus. Because of this decline, the budgets allocated to the army were misspent, leading to a crisis at home.
Regarding the financial crisis, the fact that the economy of ancient Rome was based on the use of slave labor is also noteworthy. Slavery as the basis of the economic model of ancient civilizations was an effective model of free labor. Enslaved people were either captive enemies who could not return to their homeland or people purchased from other states at a low price. However, with the marked decline in Ancient Rome’s military might and the reduction of military offensives, the number of enslaved people in the country ceased to increase (Carreras, De Soto, and Munoz 2019). Unprepared for the transition to the new economic model, states were effectively deprived of a significant labor resource. This led to a dramatic shortage of workers in the country, a suspension of trade and craft activities, and an intensification of the crisis.
One of the clearest examples of a financial crisis in Roman history was the decline of trade in the third century. The need to maintain a powerful army increased the financial burden on the population. One strategy to optimize the crisis at the time was the debasement of coinage (Sage 2021). This measure was aimed at changing the material composition of the coins, reducing the proportion of precious metals in them with a simultaneous replacement of non-precious. In other words, the coins in circulation in the Roman Empire ceased to be precious and significantly decreased in value. Therefore, this led to hyperinflation, during which people try to get rid of money that is losing value as quickly as possible. Many large landowners go bankrupt as prices rise and people cannot afford to buy goods. This example illustrates the kind of crises the Roman Empire repeatedly faced during its existence. The low stability of the economic system can thus be cited as the second cause of the Empire’s fall.
Barbarian Raids
The monarchs of the Roman Empire lacked the ability and resources to govern all the territories of the state effectively. The vast amount of talent, large feudal lords, and wealthy people of the country were concentrated in the capital, while the peripheral lands were rapidly impoverished. As a result, the Empire became heterogeneous, and the low efficiency of governance of non-capital territories led to their development by barbarians. From the point of view of classical history, barbarians should be called any native tribes which were culturally and ethnically different from the Romans. Seeing the gradual weakening of the Roman Empire, political instability, and ongoing financial crises, barbarian tribes slowly occupied western peripheral lands and established autonomous regions there (Tacitus 2013). The crushing of the Roman Empire by barbarian forces was not instantaneous, as such tribes required significant resources of time to build up the military, economic, and political power. On the contrary, the barbarians effectively took advantage of the situation, united, and continued to increase their subject lands quantitatively.
The everyday life of such Germanic tribes was based on the principles of the clan community, and in fact, the barbarians lagged behind in civilizational development in comparison to ancient Rome. Primary sources reported that although the barbarian tribes were very primitive and uneducated, they were also chaste about women (Tacitus 2013). In describing the Germanic tribes, Tacitus reported that, unlike lustful Roman inhabitants, men of barbarian tribes had only one wife and knew no secret correspondence, and were not tempted by seduction or festivity. Perhaps it was this chastity, in synthesis with the rigor of all adultery, that increased the moral value of the barbarian tribes and enabled them to struggle more confidently for power.
The politicians of the Empire, however, were well aware of the destructive power of such savage tribes and tried to use it for military purposes. It is well known that Roman consuls created separate controlled battalions consisting of Germanic barbarians (Raymond 1936). This example shows the ambiguous relationship between the Empire and the tribes increasingly entrenched in these lands. When it was to the emperor’s advantage, the barbarian tribes were used for military purposes or to suppress popular uprisings. On the contrary, when Germanic pressure became excessive, the imperial army tried to keep the barbarians at bay.
One such example of an open and most bloody encounter was the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Occurring in A.D. 9, the battle between the Germanic tribes and the Roman army proved the low military effectiveness of the Romans and their inability to withstand the joint barbarian tribes (Warren 2020). The consequences of such a battle were the disengagement of lands previously occupied by Rome, the loss of three major legions of soldiers, and the undermining of the credibility of military leaders who were unable to defend the country against the barbarian army. Thus, increased barbarian raids and the inability to stop foreign forces were additional reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.
Civil Wars
However, not only was there an external threat in the form of barbarians but also internal divisions that led to civil war existed in the Roman Empire. It is reported that in the later periods of the Empire, a large number of civil wars took place in the country (Mathisen 2018). This is generally not surprising given the problems described above. The financial crisis, the need to survive, and the erosion of political trust were intensifying internal divisions. It is worth noting that civil wars were never started by ordinary people but were managed by politicians with some power or by representatives of the aristocracy who wanted to exercise power. The case of the conspiracy of Catiline described earlier is one such episode, which was stopped in time: the civil war did not materialize, and the power of the monarch was preserved.
The realization of civil wars takes place in times of great political instability. Given a large number of Roman usurpers, such instability was a characteristic of the Empire throughout the later period. The struggle for the throne was bloody, as each of the candidates swiftly destroyed their rivals in order to increase their chances of gaining power (Mathisen 2018). The diversity of candidates was due, among other things, to the multiplicity of dynastic families that once occupied the throne. Although families often succeeded each other, their descendants may have considered themselves worthy successors to Roman power, so there were confrontations between descendants. One telling example of such civil wars is the Battle of 312 at the Battle of Milvian Bridge.
Prior to 312, the Roman Empire was divided into four parts by the monarch Diocletian as a result of political polemics. The functional value of this division consisted primarily of the convenience of government (Drijvers 2021). This approach clearly shows the failure of the idea of a vast empire in which power is concentrated in a single metropolitan center. The division, however, was not effective, for a few years later, Maxentius seized Rome and appointed it the province of his power. Constantine, one of the descendants of the tetrarchy, opposed Maxentius in 312 and was victorious. After Maxentius’ death, Constantine became the sole leader of the western Roman Empire, which means that tetrarchy ceased to exist as a form of government and reverted to monarchy. This example clearly shows the instability of political regimes and their dynamic changeability.
In turn, Emperor Constantine, beginning in 313, launched a large-scale state reform aimed at the Christianization of the population. Paganism was no longer the main religion of the Romans, and a new, alien religious culture was imposed on them. The role of Christianity in the fall of the Roman Empire has been given a fair amount of scholarly literature, but there is no unified approach to it. Few primary sources have been inclined to assess the significance of the change in religious culture resulting from the civil war in ancient Rome. The theologian Raymond (1936) reported that the coming of Constantine meant punishment for all pagans and that the transfer of the capital to Constantinople was a divine miracle. Remarkably, Raymond is very skeptical of Maximian, during whose reign Christians were persecuted and undesirable citizens of Rome. Thus, the incessant civil wars caused by the many usurper candidates to the throne were a serious cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. The civil war of 312 resulted in a coup d’état in Rome that led to the adoption of Christianity, which culturally suppressed the autonomy of the Empire.
Conclusion
To summarize, the first thing to say is that the Roman Empire is often cited as an example of one of the greatest ancient civilizations. The urban and technical science of ancient Rome has survived to this day, and the legislative and economic tenets are still intact. However, as historical cyclicality demands, any civilization will one day perish. The Roman Empire was destroyed in the fifth century, but the process was not instantaneous. The breakup of the Roman Empire took place over decades, and many of the decisions made by the monarchs eventually led to the state’s demise.
When discussing the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire, it is worth distinguishing between external and internal factors. External factors included constant warfare, the need to conquer new lands and hire slave labor, and more frequent barbarian raids. States could not effectively manage their borders, with the result that peripheral lands were rapidly occupied by natives. In terms of internal causes, political instability, budgetary crisis, and civil wars were serious predictors of destruction. The Roman government was corrupt and cared little for the welfare of the population. The need for serious investment in the army led to budgetary drains and, as a consequence, financial crises. Both factors often led to successive civil wars for power, coups d’état, and domestic conspiracies.
Finally, it should not be tried to identify the sole cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. Entire states cannot be destroyed for one reason alone, but rather a complex of problems and barriers lead to collapse. In the case of the Roman Empire, it is correct to say that a combination of factors and the mutual causation between them led to the Empire’s collapse. Although the state has not existed for more than fifteen centuries, its majesty is still preserved in history textbooks. That said, the more the chronology of this country’s development is studied, the more potential predictors of the Empire’s fall are discovered.
Reference List
Carreras, Cèsar, Pau De Soto, and Aina Munoz. 2019. “Land Transport in Mountainous Regions in the Roman Empire: Network Analysis in the Case of the Alps and Pyrenees.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 25: 280-293.
Drijvers, Jan Willem. 2021. “Panegyricus Latinus 12 (9): Constantine’s Religious Ideology.” Journal of Late Antiquity 14 (1): 50-74.
Foster, Benjamin Oliver. 1919. Livy. Books I and II With An English Translation. Harvard University Press.
Mathisen, Ralph W. 2018. Ancient Roman Civilization: History and Sources: 753 BCE to 640 CE. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, Arthur. 2013. The Works of Sallust — Primary Source Edition. Nabu Press.
Raymond, I.W. 1936. Seven Books of History Against the Pagans: the Apology of Paulus Orosius. New York Published.
Rogers, Dylan Kelby. 2018. “Water Culture in Roman Society.” Brill Research Perspectives in Ancient History 1 (1): 1-118.
Rogg, Jeffrey P. 2019. ““That the Republic Should Suffer No Harm:” The Constitutional Conundrum of the Executive, Secret Intelligence, and the Rule of Law.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence 32 (3): 600-628.
Sage, Avery. 2021. “Chaotic Endeavors: Gallienus’ Efforts in Saving Rome from the Crisis of the Third Century.” Johns Hopkins University 2 (1): 1-28.
Tacitus. 2013. The Germany and the Agricola of Tacitus. The Oxford Translation Revised, with Notes. Gutenberg.
Warren, Jason W. 2020. “Pax Romana: War, Peace, and Conquest in the Roman World.” Parameters 50 (4): 165-166.