It is convenient to imagine Roman generals and their armies, hungry for gold and for power, covering the ancient world in Roman towns and order.

But, is this an accurate picture? That is to say, the idea that the Roman Empire was a purposeful creation prevents modern scholars from identifying the actual causes of the fall of Rome.

If the Roman Empire were not a purposeful creation, as Scipio Africanus and Cato suggested, then it would explain why the Roman Empire eventually fell.

I can argue for pages how the Roman Empire came into being, through a spat of militarism that was caused by Carthage and Greece, not by Rome, and continued as a means of defense against hostile peoples surrounding Rome and greater Rome...

But the main argument is that this creation of Empire was a means to an end, peace against Rome, not a means to gain wealth, and for that reason the Empire fell.

How does this explain the fall of Rome?

Rome became over-populated for its local production, it began to rely upon areas it 'pacified' to feed its population.

What began as an effort simply to "quiet the region" which was in constant war by various great powers, became a situation of "holding a wolf by the ears".

Rome could not simply remove its dependence upon the conquered regions as it may have wished, because Rome could not feed itself.

Rome's armies therefore became permanent occupiers of land they never wished to control.

This meant that the Roman Empire had institutional flaws.

Namely Rome lacked an Imperial Government.

Rome never had a central government and when it was faced with a crisis of invasion the Roman Empire was divided into four command centers (the quartering of the Empire) where each command center lay on the axis of crisis, which is a line that ran down the Imperial frontier where invasions were occurring. Such command centers were Trier in what is today France, or Constantinople.

There were 4, but this quartering was not a sign of weakening power but an attempt to control the frontier.

It was certainly not an attempt at governing the Empire.

The end result is when the frontier was breeched, the Empire was picked-apart.

With a lack of central control, regions and provinces were easily liberated from the Empire by invading armies which defeated the local legions.

Rome itself displayed a pitiful ability to provide from armies for Imperial defense, further suggesting that Rome itself had no understanding of the holding together of an Empire, suggesting that they never had an understanding of Empire in the first place.

Empire was an accident, and when it was created by the power vacuum of the Punic Wars, the Romans sought an "easy management" technique to keep the status quo.

The easy management technique failed to create an actual Empire (where armies would be raised from one part of the Empire to defend another part...which never happened, or where production of one part of the Empire would be used to provide for defense of another part...which also never happened) and instead created an area of pacification where the legions existed to keep order, and to keep invaders out...

I could not put it any easier than that the Roman Empire was created in the same manner that the Soviet Empire was created. Or possibly even the United States world order of today...

It was not a purposeful attempt at global domination like the British Empire.

But rather was a haphazard assemblage of buffer-zones that were created in the aftermath of wars of self-defense against invading armies, after which the incorporation of these buffer-zones was little more than an equally haphazard form of governance to keep the status quo and thus the Roman Empire never became an actual state but was rather an area of Romanized people who had trade with Rome.

Rome could not survive without its preeminent position within this status quo and so as Barbarians picked-apart the provinces of the western Empire it took Rome's source of food and water away, and thus Rome became a little village.

Had Rome pursued Empire and sought to create an Empire it may have dealt with the obvious flaws and inefficiencies of the Empire in order to create a single state where the Egyptian Province would be as useful to the defense of the Rhine as Britain would be to the defense of Syria.

That never happened.

To me that suggests that the Empire's creation was accidental.

"But, is this an accurate picture? That is to say, the idea that the Roman Empire was a purposeful creation prevents modern scholars from identifying the actual causes of the fall of Rome."

No, it was not a purposeful creation. Rome had to keep conquering to sustain their empire.

The Romans were highly trained. They originally used the Greek manual of war with the phalanx but later modified and created the legion. Roman soldiers were trained for five years prior to joining a legion. Things like their lengthy training, the use of better weapons, the Gladius and the special armor piercing spear, the Pilum, and their long sheild, formed an almost unbeatable combination. However, they weren't invincible, Rome was taken several times.
Many of their war techinques were copied from the Greeks, like the different formations and uses of the shield, the use of siege engines, their uniforms and helmets and the short sword and some tactics.

"With a lack of central control, regions and provinces were easily liberated from the Empire by invading armies which defeated the local legions"

Part of the reason was that the Romans had been using barbarians in their army...to fight barbarians, which means those barbarians learned to fight like Romans. The Romans lost what made them great to begin with...their own people in the army, who fought for Rome, not for pay.

"Rome's armies therefore became permanent occupiers of land they never wished to control."

Well, mostly so, but in the case of Greece Hadrian did not keep Roman troops in the country. Greece prospered during the Pax Romanus.

"To me that suggests that the Empire's creation was accidental."

The empire started down a path from which they could not return. Conquest fueled and led to further conquest.
In general, I agree.

As an aside I have often wondered what would have happened if Alexander lived. He wanted to go after both Carthage and Rome.

so what is the point here.

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

I think S/P is saying we have close to 1000 years of Pax America to look forward to. If we follow the footsteps of Pax Roma.

Where's the down-side?

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

Rome did not really happen till Carthage was toppled. The only obsticle in Romes way was Carthage. It was by chance that Carthage was beaten the first time, even. The Roman Empire was no purposeful event. It was driven by the individual initiatives of different people.

It was also a flawed institution. It's coffers where being feed by conquest and plunder. When they settled down for peace, they had no money coming in. Emperor's began making currency not worth as much. Military spending decreased.

Than the Goths came tumbling in. Add in 3 centuries of successive plaques in various regions. Decreased agricultural output, and countless factors.

Basically Rome fell because of German Immigration, A unstable monetary policy, a weakened military, successive plagues, no lands to conquer so no more plunder.

Youv heard it before. This thread is dumb. Comaprisons to America and Rome are limited to Military. No other parrallell exists between the two.

__________________
"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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If that's the case, Sat. We have the advanatage. We've already kicked the Germans collective ass twice before. But now, I'm begining to think I'd prefer them on our side...

Care to hazard a guess as to why? I'll give you a clue.

Putin. And China....

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

Do you know what the greatest attribute of the Romans where; they assimilated and extended their own civilization by adopting and adding attributes of the peoples they conquered to create the best possible civilization? They also made (not always in most subtle ways) the peoples they conquered "comfortable" and ultimately over time, content to be Roman.

Their greatest contribution... they built roads. The saddest day was when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and killed the idea that was Rome and that is the Republic, which was actually a Greek revelation and again an idea assimilated from a culture they consumed. Just like the arch, this was an Etruscan invention and allowed the growth of the Rome by allowing aqueducts to feed the cities.

But like Caesar, I believe that the Republicans want to cross our nation's Rubicon and give more and more power to our American Caesar, which is the executive branch. The parallels are incredible and the sad part is that we do not learn from our history... we repeat it. There will be no Pax Americana that will last a thousand years. To be honest, I doubt there will be humans left in a thousand years.

Dom, you claim to an expert on the Roman Empire (mind you that that watching Gladiator doesn't an expert make.) What are your thoughts on the Pax Americana?

__________________
BuildtheDream.org

The same as all Dominate Cultures have done in the Past. With you as the dominated...You're negative, submissive in nature, and self loathing INHR.


"I doubt there will be humans left in a thousand years." If we leave the likes of you in charge, probably not.

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

[quote=IHNR;318836]
"Republic, which was actually a Greek revelation and again an idea assimilated from a culture they consumed. Just like the arch, this was an Etruscan invention and allowed the growth of the Rome by allowing aqueducts to feed the cities."


Crediting the Romans with the arch kind of gnawed at my memory...so I looked it up and found that the arch goes back to earlier times in the fertile crescent. Many others had it before them, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. However, it is in line with your idea that "the Romans mostly assimilated from cultures they consumed"
I might add that it was a Greek architect who designed Hadrians Rome...Appolodorus...I believe.

[quote=Rooster;318928]
Actually I gave credit of the Arch to the Etruscans. Look it up.

__________________
BuildtheDream.org