Argue With Everyone Political Forums - View Single Post - Roman Strength by the Roman Military Industrial Complex

satv365 · #12 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

They didn't have a whole lot of foreign pursuits after the 3rd century, it was mainly attempts at holding onto what they had.

As far as Rome being barely inhabited at the time the Goths invaded, I don't think that is true at all. It had surely declined from Augustan levels, but was still a very large city. The people began leaving in earnest after Rome fell because while the Roman government take on social duties the new rulers did not. Some estimates put the Roman population at close to 500K in 450 (that may be a bit high, but it was in six figures) and down to 50K by 550. This had more to do with the new rulers not taking on the same duties that the Roman government undertook. The Church later filled that void in some areas, but not all.

Much of Rome's military expenditures in the last 150 years were extortion payments to various barbarian tribes. This coincided with the general decline in the military which in large part came from there being no incentive to be in the military like there once was.

One big reason why they weren't producing very much was because some of the regional leaders were treating their provinces as their own personal kingdoms rather than being a part of Rome.

I would say that a lack of leadership was one of the biggest reasons Rome fell. Being 'Roman' did not mean the same thing it had once meant.

Rome had experienced plaques during the 2nd Century that killed (reportedly) 2,000 people a day. by 546 the Ostrogoths depopulated it further to (estimated) a few thousand. Rome had neither the man power. It was in a steady decline since 410. When the Visgoth king Alaric decided a tribute was not enough.

Further after the first sack of rome by the Visigoths it was sacked by the Vandal King Geiseric who launched an Invasion from Vandal Carthage. When Totila got their the cities had been stripped of public works. Citizens had been burning status and bricks to get lime for personal use.

Not to mention that successive Emperors did not even Govern from Rome anymore. Milan and Ravenna or Cities in Gaul (modern France) where the choices for emperors to sit.

Constantine established his new Capital in Byzantium. Called it Constantinople and many noble men and intellectuals went there.

Rome was not a City of power or even for the purposes of this Discussion. The true center of Roman Culture at the time.

The Debasement of the Currency is a key argument I see. Noone wanted Roman Currency in Britain, Spain or the African Provinces anymore. Keep in mind, by the time Rome was sacked. Germans had been marching through territory changing the economy to that of a barter system for about quite some time.

I can ramble on and on, but the key issues is that Rome once an efficient economy of production, tax, allocate resources appropriately and Conquer. Became a society of tax, conquer and squander long before the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Burgundians, and the horde of German tribes that descended on Rome. Along with the Bulgars, Slavs who moved south into the Eastern Empire, came to Rome.

It was a corrupt institution from it's beginning. As soon as it sought peace it had no income for the Emperors to expand it's economy. It stagnated, it cracked and then it fell. The Germanic Tribes just put the final slit in the throat that was the Roman empire.