What caused the decline of the Roman Empire? I will avoid using the term 'fall' here (as the Eastern Empire survived for almost another thousand years).

It got too big. Towards the "end" 1 in 8 Roman males was in the military. That cost a lot. Roman swords and armour began to become of lesser quality. This meant that more soldiers died in combat and had to be replaced.

Standard of living began to go down. The outer laying provinces began to stop paying taxes, etc and going independent or joining up with the barbarians. The reason for being Roman was the better quality of life you got. The outer provinces weren't getting this. With so much territory to cover the military couldn't defend everything.

But there was no fall as a fall is sudden and drastic. This process took many centuries.

A "few" explanations, only as food which could promote the discussion:


http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/fallrome.html

The Fall of the Roman Empire:
Some (Sometimes Silly) Explanations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Strategy and Tactics Magazine #39 (1973), p. 21 (characterizations added)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLAGUES reduced the population, and the fertility of the survivors. [Medical archaeology]

LEAD PIPES and utensils poisoned the aristocracy, lowering their birth-rate and intelligence level of this most important class (S. Colum Gilfillan) [Eugenics]

The admission of INFERIOR RACES to the citizenship lowered the vigor of the Pure Roman Stock. [Racism]

CHRISTIANITY made people less concerned with this world. (Edward Gibbon) [Religious Bigotry, Enlightenment]

Augustus’ jury-rigged apparatus of state was unable to cope with certain types of crisis. [Systems Analysis]

CIVIL WARS sapped the strength of the Empire. [The Military Theory]

The People praciticed BIRTH CONTROL without restraint, thus causing a loss of population. [Medical/Religious]

Failure to establish a workable CONSTITUTION. [Legal/Systems Analysis]

‘Bread and Circuses’: the people became LAZY. [The Welfare Argument]

The ARMY got out of hand due to lowering of standards of discipline [Military Theory, Part II; moral] God turned his favor from Rome because of its sins [Religious Explanation, Old Testament, St. Augustine; Moral]

The State collapsed under the weight of its bureaucracy. [Systems Analysis]

The BARBARIANS became civilized enough to contend with the Romans on an equal footing. [Racism]

Abandonment of the old religion, which had given moral strength to the Roman People [Religious] Widespread HOMOSEXUALITY among the upper classes led to a decline in the birth rate among aristocrats, thereby reducing the available pool of leadership manpower. [Sexism, Aristocratic Political View of Eugenics]

ORGIES and VENEREAL DISEASE and other entertainments sapped the vigor of the Roman People. [Moral, Medical, Welfare Argument]

LIBERAL-THINKING EMPERORS attempted to spend too much on the poor in their efforts to lift them up, thus draining the financial resources of the Empire [Political-Republican; Financial]

The flow of gold to the Orient to pay for luxury goods eventually dealt a death blow to the Roman economy. [Economic]

The existence of slavery and an impoverished citizen mass created a large internal proletariat which would eventually prove disloyal to the empire [Marxism].

The Aristocracy permitted too many of the lower classes to participate in affairs of state, thereby diluting the value of experience and brains which the Aristocracy possessed. [Eugenics: pro-Aristocratic]

As the State became more despotic, the average citizen, and even members of the Upper Classes, became less interested in it, thereby causing a LOSS OF CONFIDENCE and support. [Psychological Argument, Aristocratic subspecies]

Abandonment of the old, good Roman institutions and virtues which had helped to bring Rome to greatness [Fear of Change; Moral]

Too many of the old institutions were left with a measure of power, which tended to disrupt the machinery of Empire [Progress vs. Obstructionism]

Easy living made the Romans soft, permitting the Barbarians to overrun them with ease. [Moral, Racism]

Slavery impoverished the Citizenry. [Economic, Class-based]

The bulk of the inhabitants of the Empire failed to share in the incredible prosperity, remaining impoverished and restive. [anti-trickle-down Economics; Marxist?]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reading:
-Michael Grant, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisal (1976)
-Mortimer Chambers (ed.), The Fall of Rome: Can it be explained? (NY: Holt, Reinhart Winston 1963).
-Donald Kagan (ed.), The End of the Roman Empire: Decline or Transformation? 2nd ed. (D. C. Heath 1978).
-Ramsay MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven: Yale 1988).
-Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235-337 (New Haven: Yale, 1976).
-Alexander von Demandt, Der Fall Roms. Die Auflösung des römischen Reiches im Urteil der Nachwelt (Munich 1984).
-A.H.M. Jones, The Decline of the Ancient World (London 1966).
-Walter Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton 1968).
-Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation (London: Thames & Hudson 1986).


Hmm... I've got that big book of A. Demandt (without "von"), where systematically all explanation complexes on the "desintegration of the Roman Empire in the judgement of posterity" are analyzed and discussed, but I'm of course much too lazy for really entering in an English-language discussion about this... :D

What caused the decline of the Roman Empire?

Broadly stated, diversity and net tax consumption. I'll defer to others on the details.

Here is one perspective (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/davidson1.html).

How about technological stagnation?

I would disagree with the idea that Christianity caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The Empire had been in decline long before Christianity ultimately triumphed and Christianity was only one of the many 'otherworldly' cults/religions that was flourishing at the time. Furthermore, the Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianized than the West, not to mention more prosperous, and it survived for roughly another thousand years. The Eastern Emperors, if I recall, were able to solve the problem of barbarian generals, however, whereas the West was unable to do so.

Didn't most of the important Romans move into the East? That would've had an effect wouldn't it with all those people with their money elsewhere?

Yeah. In the Late Empire, a lot of money was being spent along the frontiers. When the Persian threat revived, many of the frontier legions were stripped from the Western frontier provinces and redeployed to the East. So yes, this had the effect of further impoverishing the West. The barbarian confederacies along the Rhine began taking advantage of this again. The Franks invaded Gaul and were only thrown out by Julian in 358. See Thomas S. Burns' Rome and the Barbarians, 100BC - 400AD (2003).

I read a good thing about this and explaining and/or refuting many of the most popular theories about this. More later......

I would disagree with the idea that Christianity caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

There were many factors that caused it; we cannot systematically reduce the causes to one ultimate cause. Christianity in itself was not necessarily a cause, but rather the reformations of Constantine, the relocation of the imperial capital, and the ultimate schism between east and west based on theological differences on the nature of the holy triad and other irrelevant topics. By the time Rome was under threat from barbarians, the Byzantines refused to send major garrisons for its protection. Only until Emperor Justinian and the great general Belisarius would the barbarians be smashed, but even then the Greeks administered their own hostile tyranny against the people of Rome.

The Empire had been in decline long before Christianity ultimately triumphed and Christianity was only one of the many 'otherworldly' cults/religions that was flourishing at the time.

The empire was in a more prominent decline after the years of Trajan [Gibbon traces it to the reforms of Severus], however at a slower rate before Christianity was introduced as the imperial religion of Rome. Christianity ultimately served a greater role in the Roman world (becoming its official religion, reforming both the religious clergy and the state apparatus, and ultimately causing a schism between the East and West) than the other cults, and this separates it from the lesser known religions/cults of which you speak.

Furthermore, the Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianized than the West, not to mention more prosperous, and it survived for roughly another thousand years. The Eastern Emperors, if I recall, were able to solve the problem of barbarian generals, however, whereas the West was unable to do so.

That the Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianized than the West is false. They were both Christianized thoroughly, paganism ultimately being outlawed in the west by the Theodosian Code, however the West developed a different theology on the nature of Christianity and the trinity in particular which ultimately caused a schism between the eastern and western churches - in particular the Latin idea of "filioque" which the Byzantines abhorred. The exploitation of the churches by Michael VIII Palaeologus will help us to understand the diplomatic situation of the two churches and their hostility towards each other.

Constantinople had the advantage of location over Rome. Another prominent factor in the Byzantine's ability to survive was the numerous amounts of factions that sprung up around it which warred with each other and bought Byzantium time in its survival. Byzantium was heavily dependent on foreign/mercenary troops much like Rome, calling on men from Hungary, Russia (which was converted to Orthodoxy by the Byzantines), and other balkan states to fight its wars. This was true especially in its war against the Turks.

I want to make a few last remarks here, presenting a list of 5 reasons that I consider prominent in the decline of Rome:

I. Rome's reliance upon mercenary troops and its shift in military production of manpower towards Illyria. I would also like to note that the majority of emperors that established themselves in the Roman empire did not reside in Rome, and most were not from Rome or Italy either. In the 400 hundreds, the emperors resided in Ravenna until the exile of Romulus Augustulus and the tyranny of Odoacer the Vandal. Rome had lost its prominence in the imperial world, both in consideration of power and riches due to its dependence on the imperial provinces and foreign mercenaries that served Rome on condition of imploded rewards for their services.

II. Italy, Hispania, Gaul, and Greece - the former main provinces that supplied Rome's legions - became effete by the introduction of abundant riches and luxury. The same applies to the military, which was paid in unnecessary and harmful excess by the nobility. The Romans having accustomed themselves to peace and an abundance of wealth, their focus was primarily shifted towards homemaking and public/private life rather than war and military affairs of which they came to abhor.

III. The tyranny of the Praetorian Guard towards the nobility and its usurpation of government affairs ESPECIALLY after the death of Commodus. Their introduction into Rome proper by Tiberius I was the first link of this tragic chain.

IV. The introduction of warlike and hostile Germans into the empire for purposes of husbandry and military service.

V. Repeated reformations of the imperial code after the Antonines which decreased the stability of the government, invoking civil wars and internal hostilities which lead to internal instability and utimately decay. The barbarians when learning of this instability launched repeated campaigns of which at first were suppressed by barbarians loyal to Rome until Rome could no longer support itself.

Rome's final collapse was triggered by its own destitution and the utter stupidity of the magistrates to cooperate with each other and supply Rome and its empire with the proper necessities in order for it to endure. Had they done so, the barbarians would never have taken Rome - for the barbarians struggled against Rome for hundreds of years, each time being crushed until finally Rome collapsed from the inside.- This is the tragedy of Rome, her own inability to support and appropriately appropriate its magnificent wealth and power.

I will make just a few points here before retiring for the night.

1.) I agree that there was no ultimate cause of the fall of the Western Empire.

2.) We also agree on the unpopularity of the Byzantines during and after the Gothic War. The Gothic War was by far more destructive to the Italian peninsula than any of the barbarian invasions that preceded it.

3.) Christianity was only made the official religion of the Roman state under Theodosius I (r.378-395). Paganism was outlawed during his reign, although it was decrepit by then anyway. Constantine only granted Christianity official protection and toleration in 313. As I pointed out before, the Western Empire had long been in decline before then, for largely economic and political reasons (e.g, the chaos of the 3rd century). Between 256 and 280 A.D., the cost of living soared over 1,000 percent. Furthermore, between 235 and 285, over twenty emperors ruled, all but one of them dying of murder, in combat, or in captivity (Hollister, p.14)

4.) The Empire was initially divided by Diocletian (r.284-305) for administrative reasons that had nothing to do with Christianity. Diocletian and Constantine's (r.306-337) reforms, if anything, probably prolonged the life of the Western Empire. The Western Empire of the 4th century can be seen as a reaction to the socioeconomic decline of the 3rd century. Diocletian and Constantine fixed wages, instituted a series of price controls, and made some vocations hereditary.

5.) One of the reasons the capital was moved to Constantinople was because the East was much wealthier and urban than the West by this time (which was more rural, backwards, poorer, and declining in population). The cities of the West had long been in decline as well. The schism between the East and the West was probably more a product of a linguistic and cultural division as well, one that had long existed:

"This political split reflected a linguistic division of long standing, for the Latin of the early Romans had spread across the Western provinces, but Greek remained the major language of the East. This split also reflected social and economic differences in which the Eastern Empire -- Greece, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean provinces -- had an advantage. The East had been civilised far longer than the western lands of North Africa and Europe, far longer than Rome itself; it contained the bulk of the population; its agriculture relied less on vast plantations whose owners, in the West, were able to resist imperial taxation and even, to a degree, imperial authority; and its cities were larger, more numerous, and more commercially active than the newer cities of the West. The East also enjoyed a favourable balance of trade with the West. In exchange for Eastern silks, spices, jewels, and grain, the West had relatively few goods to offer, apart from slaves, warhorses, and a diminishing supply of gold coins. Thus, with the coming of large-scale barbarian migrations in the fifth century, the Eastern Empire managed to survive while the more brittle political superstructure of the Western provinces slowly disintegrated."

C. Warren Hollister and Judith M. Bennett (ed.), Medieval Europe: A Short History, 9th ed. (Boston: McGrawHill, 2002), pp.31-32

6.) All sorts of customs (e.g., ceremonies, costumes, cosmetics and so forth) were borrowed from the East to buttress the authority of the Emperor at this time. The Empire was remade along more stultifying authoritarian lines. Christianity was seen one means of homogenizing the Empire.

7.) The Schism within Christianity was not formalized until 1054 when the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other, well after the fall of the Western Empire.

8.) I still stand by my argument that the Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianized than the West:

"The 'decline and fall' of the Western Empire has fascinated historians across the centuries, for it involves the collapse of one of the world's most impressive empires. Many reasons have been proposed -- no less than 210 different causes according to a recent survey. They include such factors as unfavourable climate changes, overreliance on slavery, the otherworldliness of Christianity, sexual orgies, bad ecological habits, even lead poisoning. None of these make much sense. Classical civilisation began and ended with slavery. The Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianised than the West, yet it survived for another thousand years. The most spectacular Roman orgies occurred during the glories of the Pax Romana, not in the waning centuries of the Western Empire. One otherwise respectable historian even propsed the bizarre idea that the fall of Rome was a result of male homosexuality, a practice that is much more easily documented in the fifth century B.C. than in the fifth century A.D. and might, therefore, more plausibly be associated with the rise than the demise of classical civilisation. Some explanations for the "decline and fall" of the Western Empire have been downright silly."

Ibid, pp.32-33

9.) Much of Gibbon's interpretation of the decline and fall of the Western Empire has been subsequently discredited in contemporary historiography.

I will elaborate more upon my own perspective of what caused the decline and fall of the Western Empire tommorrow. I see the primary causes as being a combination of political incompetance, socioeconomic factors, and the stultifying authoritarianism of the Empire, specifically, the waning of classical republicanism.

In justification of my post, I shall make responses to your points:

3.) Christianity was only made the official religion of the Roman state under Theodosius I (r.378-395). Paganism was outlawed during his reign, although it was decrepit by then anyway. Constantine only granted Christianity official protection and toleration in 313. As I pointed out before, the Western Empire had long been in decline before then, for largely economic and political reasons (e.g, the chaos of the 3rd century). Between 256 and 280 A.D., the cost of living soared over 1,000 percent. Furthermore, between 235 and 285, over twenty emperors ruled, all but one of them dying of murder, in combat, or in captivity (Hollister, p.14)

* The Theodosian code was mentioned in order to prove that the Western Empire had been fully Christianized during its remainder as one of the halves of the Roman Empire. Whether or not all citizens adhered to Christianity I consider a different matter than the one being discussed. I also pointed out the decline of the Pagan Empire initiated after the Flavians, beginning with the reforms of the Severans and their legacy in the empire. The division culminated with Diocletian and his division of authoritarian roles between what were to be known as the Caesars and the Augusti, the east and the west possessing their own unique Caesar and Augustus. The East and West were both Catholic until after the Roman Empire collapsed. In the 5 reasons that I gave, I did not mention Christianity as being a prime culprit.

4.) The Empire was initially divided by Diocletian (r.284-305) for administrative reasons that had nothing to do with Christianity. Diocletian and Constantine's (r.306-337) reforms, if anything, probably prolonged the life of the Western Empire. The Western Empire of the 4th century can be seen as a reaction to the socioeconomic decline of the 3rd century. Diocletian and Constantine fixed wages, instituted a series of price controls, and made some vocations hereditary.

*Diocletian was in fact hostile against Christianity. I never insinuated otherwise. The reforms did not necessarily prolong the life of the Roman Empire, although the empire did endure the calamities of the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the reforms were due to the nature of the circumstance in which Rome found itself - though the reforms not necessarily being actual solutions. The reforms reappropriated roles of state, introduced an increased authoritiarianism which caused Rome to lose its previously inhereted traditions from both the Republic and Augustus, which finally led to its own estrangement in the empire.

5.) One of the reasons the capital was moved to Constantinople was because the East was much wealthier and urban than the West by this time (which was more rural, backwards, poorer, and declining in population). The cities of the West had long been in decline as well. The schism between the East and the West was probably more a product of a linguistic and cultural division as well, one that had long existed...

* The lingual and cultural distinctions between the two civilizations are less prominent than religious matters, which was the ultimate culprit in causing the schism between the Latins and the Greeks in the middle years of the Byzantine Empire, or was in all matters a justification for their firm division. I propose this because the lingual and cultural distinctions between the Greeks and Latins had always existed, yet Greece had become fully integrated into Rome and Catholicism before the Greeks claimed their independence from Rome and the Catholic church in the form of Orthodox Christianity. In regards to your quotation, it was mentioned that Byzantium was in a more favorable location than Rome, however I did not elaborate on it in order to move on to other points. Fernand Braudel describes in his "Memory and the Mediterranean" the precise benefits of Constantinople in both trade and defense. In regards the wealth of the two empires, Constantine transported a great loot from the West to the East in order to achieve the purpose of a wealthy, glorious, and new capital for the empire. I also believe that many citizens of Italy migrated to Constantinople in order to more fully populate it.

7.) The Schism within Christianity was not formalized until 1054 when the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other, well after the fall of the Western Empire.

This is true, and I had not suggested otherwise. If you will closely notice, I referenced the churches, not the empires.

8.) I still stand by my argument that the Eastern Empire was more thoroughly Christianized than the West:

Refer to my response to point 3.

I will elaborate more upon my own perspective of what caused the decline and fall of the Western Empire tommorrow. I see the primary causes as being a combination of political incompetance, socioeconomic factors, and the stultifying authoritarianism of the Empire, specifically, the waning of classical republicanism.

In reference to Gibbon which you made in point 9, Gibbon also traced the first and third reasons that you give as being factors. He was not as expressive with the second, the socioeconomic factors. I believe the attention given to socioeconomic matters is a more modern phenomenon in the interpretation of the decline and fall of the Roman empire, with all due respect to Gibbon, whose work is indeed a masterpiece regardless of its errors and insufficiencies.