//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Reasons Why Rome Fell
Lead poisoning is often dismissed as a major
cause for the decline of Rome, but the theory does have some merit
William Mclaughlin
The Fall
of Rome is a heavily debated topic with an extraordinary range of theories as
to how such a great power ultimately fell, and how it either limped on or even
how it still lives today.
Some
theories, such as contamination from lead pipes, seem outrageous, while others,
such as the loss of civic virtue, could be applied to some modern nations.
Here are
some of the most common ideas about the Fall of Rome.
Keep in
mind that many of the reasons identified for the fall are given as important
contributors, not the sole cause.
Most
historians acknowledge that, while a variety of problems plagued Rome, the
Barbarian invasions were the literal cause of Rome’s fall in the West.
1. Lead
Poisoning
Let’s get
this one out of the way first. Lead poisoning is often dismissed as a major
cause for the decline of Rome, but the theory does have some merit.
The
Romans used lead in a variety of ways, many involving food and water.
A
particular sweetener and preservative, Defrutum, was boiled down in specific
lead pots, where extended cooking times aided in the lead contamination.
This
mixture was added to many wines and to extend the life of soldier’s rations. It
was also mixed with a fish sauce whose popularity roughly equates to that of
modern ketchup.
It was
also used in animal feed, where the lead could easily contaminate the meat and
be absorbed by humans.
In
addition, many water pipes were lined with lead and lead was used in storage
amphorae.
Lead also
found its way into Roman makeup. Though all these cases only provide small
amounts of lead, it could still prove to be dangerous. Lead stays in the body
for a long time and even tiny amounts on a regular basis can build up to toxic
levels.
Lead
poisoning would have caused infertility, a loss of memory and reduced cognitive
ability, among many other symptoms, largely among the nobility.
It is
easy to see that if the population wasn’t sustained and the ruling classes were
becoming steadily less intelligent, that could very well cause a breakdown
leading to a much easier barbarian conquest.
This
theory has been heavily debated. Notably, the Romans were aware of lead and its
impact on health.
Lead pots
seemed to have made the best tasting Defrutum, though it seems that other
metals proved more practical or common.
Not all aqueducts
had lead pipes, and even so the manner of water travel was not likely to pick
up the lead.
The water
traveled fast enough to not stagnate over the lead but slow enough that crusts
of sediment often built up in the pipes, naturally preventing most contamination.
Though
the debate continues, it is plausible that lead poisoning did have at least
some impact on Roman people sometime during their decline.
2. Decline of Civic Virtue and Adoption of Christianity
Edward
Gibbon, despite his many errors uncovered over the years, is still considered
essential reading for a student of ancient Rome.
His
famous claim is simply that the Romans became soft. Romans of the Republic were
brutal and stubborn; their stout resistance in the face of such legends as
Pyrrhus and Hannibal built their future empire.
The most
embarrassing story of early Rome was the paying off of Brennus during his sack
of Rome.
After the
encounter, the Romans treated the Gauls with extreme hatred and fought many
successful campaigns against them.
Eventually,
however, the Romans adopted Germans and others into their military.
Despite
early examples of the disadvantages of this – shown, for example, at the
Teutoburg ambush – the Romans continued to employ foreign troops.
True
Romans were then too relaxed and weak to defend their empire, and paying off
barbarians became a more common practice.
Gibbon
also was a major proponent of how Christianity contributed to the decline of
Rome.
He
essentially discussed how Christianity was a more accessible religion and the
focus was too much on finding the happy afterlife than living in the present.
Though
Gibbon’s views on the decline of civic virtue still hold some weight, the view
on Christianity is often dismissed, especially as the Byzantine Empire was
functionally a Christian Roman Empire in the East and had periods of great
success.
Civic
virtue is harder to pin down than lead poisoning but often sounds reasonable in
theory.
3. Military,
Political and Economic Decline
Though
each of these can be seen separately, they all fit well together to explain the
fall.
The
Barbarism of the army is also used here, but the military decline can be traced
back to the period before the Empire even started.
Roman
armies after Marius eventually became more loyal to their commanders than to
Rome itself. This led to, for example, the seizing of Rome under Sulla, and
Caesar’s ability to start a civil war.
This leads
us on to the issue of political decline.
Some
historians, such as Adrian Goldsworthy, maintain that the Roman army was still
effective and won great victories late into its lifespan, but that repeated
civil wars greatly weakened the empire until its fall was inevitable.
This
weakening is best exemplified by the crisis of the third century where the
Roman empire erupted into civil war between three warring factions, leading to
many opportunistic foreign invasions.
The
crisis was eventually resolved and many of the invading forces were soundly
defeated by Rome’s armies, but the internal damage was done.
Lastly,
the economic decline of Rome is another important aspect. Rome’s economy had
depended on plunder and slavery for centuries, so when conquests stopped, so
did the economy.
Influxes
of gold and slaves could no longer stimulate an economy that had masses of poor
crowding the cities and living on government rations.
The
wealthiest elite was often exempt from the taxes which fell on middle-class
farmers, forcing them to sell their property to be incorporated into the
massive holdings of the rich.
The
out-of-business farmers moved to the city and contributed to the state problem
of feeding the masses.
Emperors
often had to put a ridiculous amount of money into the army, particularly the
Praetorian Guard, just to ensure that they would not be assassinated, though
many still were.
Rampant
spending led to the debasement of the currency, which in turn led to escalating
inflation.
In
addition, corruption was endemic, especially in the west, making reforms to
taxation even more difficult as administrators would still seek their illegal
cut.
4. Disease
An
interesting facet of the decline the impact of disease on the Roman Empire.
It is
agreed that depopulation of the West was a major occurrence, though how severe
it was is still debated. It has been argued that sustained disease hit the
Roman population hard enough to allow the barbarians to invade.
The
geography of the Roman Empire is vital to this theory as many diseases are, at
least at the start, confined to a localized region.
The heart
of Rome was Italy, which provided various diseases that the Romans were likely
well resistant too.
The
borders of Africa brought about all sorts of tropical disease through trade.
The
Middle East provides its own types of disease and the Romans often traded as
far as India and China and down the eastern coast of Africa.
Two major
plagues, the Antonine and Cyprian plagues, possibly of Smallpox, tore through
the Roman empire in the second and third centuries.
The
cramped cities and extended trade networks contributed to their spread. Exact
death tolls are difficult to know, but incursions by the Germans and Parthians
were hard to counter because of the shortage of healthy troops.
One
historian also reported that many towns were abandoned because they lost so
many of their inhabitants.
Unfortunately,
the lack of hard numbers makes it hard to say how much disease impacted the
actual fall, but from the sources, it seems to have been quite influential.
It is
quite common to lump many of these theories together.
The
unqualifiable loss of civic virtue mixes with the cognitive and fertility
declines of lead poisoning to weaken the very people who were the leadership of
Rome.
Added to
that, unceasing civil wars, bringing about the deaths of countless Romans, and
plagues which kill even more.
Corrupt
emperors who constantly debased the currency and bankrupted the treasury
combined with the lack of driving ambition brought by Christianity.
Put all
these together and it’s a wonder the Empire lasted as long as it did.
It’s also
a pointed reminder that each individual factor could not have held as much sway
as their authors argue. If they had, it’s hard to imagine the empire
functioning for more than a year, let alone centuries.
But Did
the Empire Even Fall?
To this
question, some would say unequivocally yes, it fell in 476, when Odoacer
deposed Emperor Romulus. However, there is much more to the Roman Empire.
As for
the West, a few believe that the Empire was not replaced by conquering
barbarians, but that the Romans and Germans transformed and merged cultures.
A widely
held opinion is that the invading tribes often did not seek to destroy Rome,
but rather to enjoy the benefits of the Roman Empire. This is often seen in the
many examples of tribes simply requesting permission to settle just inside
Roman territory.
Indeed,
even after barbarians settled all of the Western Empire they still lived in a
very Roman fashion in many places.
Northern
Africa plodded along in the Roman way for centuries in towns relatively
untouched by the invasions. Charlemagne as a true Roman Emperor is a bit of a
stretch but the idea does have some following.
The most
obvious argument for the continuation of Rome is found in the Byzantine Empire,
firmly known by its inhabitants as the Roman Empire.
Those
living under its rule had no doubt that they were Roman.
The
Byzantine Emperors ruled as Roman Emperors, and the people behaved as Romans,
still obsessed with chariot races and grand buildings.
This
empire survived for many hundreds of years, though eventually came to an end
with the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Lastly,
we have the shadow of the empire in the Catholic Church.
Starting
with the titles, the emperor of Rome had the title of Pontifex Maximus, chief
priest. The title is often used for Popes now and throughout much of papal
history. In fact, even the Pope’s Twitter handle is @pontifex.
The
structure of the Catholic Church is also very similar to the imperial
governmental structure, especially with the central ruler of the Pope and the
Cardinals as the Senate, though their roles do not have the same function.
There are
multiple theories on the Fall of Rome, and some may have not even been
discovered or discussed yet.
Some have
a great deal of merit, some seem incredibly far-fetched, some must be
applicable and it is almost inevitably some combination of these factors which
led to the final end of the western roman empire.
It seems
sensible that the Empire continued in some fashion with the Byzantines.
One could
trace the impact, legacy and its very continuation down to the Holy Roman
Empire and even in the Russian title of Czar, though doing so can lead to the
twisting of what the Empire really was.
By William McLaughlin for War History
Online
Dioscorides
noted lead’s effect on the mind in the first century A.D.
Roman
lead water pipes with taps.
Portrait,
oil on canvas, of Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–1792).
Apparent
bust of Sulla in the Munich Glyptothek.
The
Crisis of the Third Century is not often discussed but put an incredible
strain on the Roman Empire. Historicair
Ancient
plagues could be absolutely devastating due to the close quarters and lack of
sound health practices.
The
angel of death striking a door during the plague of Rome; engraving by
Levasseur after Jules-Elie Delaunay. Wellcome Images
The
Byzantine Empire held great power through their history, and they would have
been insulted to be referred to as anything but Romans.
The
Entry of the Crusaders in Constantinople,
No comments:
Post a Comment