It is impossible to argue against the fact that Rome became the center of the European world by war and conquest. But it was more the permanency of the Legion than the successful capture of a city or region by that Legion, that led to Rome's continued success.

Roman legions created cities, infrastructure, normalized and made safer long-distance trade. The Roman Navy made sea trade safer.

For 500 years the Roman economy continuously grew by these factors. Pax Romana created the environment in which business and industry grows.

The Roman economy began its decline when the limits of monetary growth (introduction of new coin) resisted economic growth. Debasement (not the same as inflation) was a necessary result to produce enough currency to keep the economic activity alive.

It is for that reason that modern economists have moved the global economy away from "intrinsic value" and toward fiat currency - because inflation is not the same as debasement, debasement causes an effect known as "Bad money drives out good".

That means that money that is not debased (a pure silver coin) is hoarded and removed from the economy, restricting the money supply.

It is from this monetary crisis that the Roman Legions became dependent upon taxation in kind - decentralizing the army.

While civil wars were not unheard of in Rome - this began the age of turmoil that would gradually reduce Rome to a weakened state that could be overrun by the Germanic Hordes.

A decentralized Empire was far easier to occupy than a centralized Rome of the second century AD (the last time the Germans tried to occupy Roman territory which Rome was able to expel).

That is the rise and fall of Rome in a nutshell...

It is important to keep a strong economy, the currency is not the factor anymore it now is merely a representation of confidence and ease of trade - back in Roman times however currency was a limiting factor of economic growth - there is only so much silver and gold to be mined.

But there is no doubt that a powerful military that is WELL USED leads to a better standard of living for everyone in the jurisdiction of that military.

And it is no fault that today's success of global trade and global economic growth is due primarily to the fact that the US has maintained a sufficient military to oversee a "Pax Americana".

Rome's Military being stretched all over the world lead to it's economic downfall. As well as an inflated currency. Two things America has.

It will ultimately lead to the fall of American Influence around the world. We are living beyond our means. So to quote Ron Paul, we are destined to live beneath them.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

Wrong; Rome's military stretched all over the world is what created tremendous economic growth the first two centuries AD.

Rome never had an "inflated" currency.

Inflated currency means expanded money supply - because Rome's currency was being debased it's actual "good money" supply maybe even had diminished over time meaning "Depression".

Ron Paul doesn't know shit - the US is far from living outside its means.

The US has a $14.4 Trillion dollar economy growing at about 4.4% per year.

That's pretty much the strongest economy in the world.

Hey satv365...you ain't gonna talk any sense into this guy/girl/it.....i suspect it's a military hack that they have running around the Internet to post dissent and propaganda..

Rome fell because of the fact it had two capitals and tremendous trade deficits, huge military expenditures and a unsustainable welfare system...damn.....kinda sounds like America.

__________________
"People have so manipulated the concept of freedom, that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they have left."

Historian Michael Rostovtzeff and economist Ludwig von Mises both argued that unsound economic policies played a key role in the impoverishment and decay of the Roman Empire. According to them, by the 2nd century A.D., the Roman Empire had developed a complex market economy in which trade was relatively free. Tariffs were low and laws controlling the prices of foodstuffs and other commodities had little impact because they did not fix the prices significantly below their market levels. After the 3rd century, however, debasement of the currency (i.e., the minting of coins with diminishing content of gold, silver, and bronze) led to inflation. The price control laws then resulted in prices that were significantly below their free-market equilibrium levels.

According to Rostovtzeff and Mises, artificially low prices led to the scarcity of foodstuffs, particularly in cities, whose inhabitants depended on trade in order to obtain them. Despite laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually became depopulated and many Roman citizens abandoned their specialized trades in order to practice subsistence agriculture. This, coupled with increasingly oppressive and arbitrary taxation, led to a severe net decrease in trade, technical innovation, and the overall wealth of the empire.

Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. By the third century the monetary economy had collapsed. Bartlett sees the end result as a form of state socialism. Monetary taxation was replaced with direct requisitioning, for example taking food and cattle from farmers. Individuals were forced to work at their given place of employment and remain in the same occupation. Farmers became tied to the land, as were their children, and similar demands were made on all other workers, producers, and artisans as well. Workers were organized into guilds and businesses into corporations called collegia. Both became de facto organs of the state, controlling and directing their members to work and produce for the state. In the countryside people attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy in order to gain some protection from state officials and tax collectors. These estates, the beginning of feudalism, operated as much as possible as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all.


Rome had drastic price controls and lowered Agricultural output, as well. The Empire could no longer solve its food problems by conquering more lands. Not to mention, regional leaders where chipping away at the value of the Roman Coin, leading to inflation.

The military's costs rose, year after year. To the point that the Roman Army began to decline, as the Central Government could not support it. With internal devisive issues crippling Rome. They where neither financially or militarily prepared to even halt the waves of German Barbarians.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

This is true.

Certainly economics played a large role, but there were many other factors to go along with this. I am not sure economics is the leading reason.

Rome spent more than half it's yearly budget on the military. I am not an economist but just because we can print paper with nothing to back it does not mean we have a bottomless pitt of weath. If we are so well off why are we 9 trillion in debt.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

Rome was not producing anything towards the end. The money was useless, the tax collectors no longer wanted coin, they wanted cattle, food, etc. Its a very intertwined scenerio.

But basically. Rome's military expenditures and foreign pursuits lead to a decrease in production. Which lead to the cities being evacuated to go to farming small plots of land. When the Goths sacked Rome, it was not some sprawling metropolis. It was barely habited.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

but did not most of there wealth come from plundering the treasuries of those they overthrew. So if no more big treasuries to plunder no more great wealth. That means they depended on it to much and not enough on other means of creating wealth to long sustain the apetite of spending when there was no one left to conquer and plunder.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

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.