MaxImusMan
Senior Member
The Mighty Dragons
Posts: 287
|
Post by MaxImusMan on Jun 20, 2006 18:26:50 GMT -7
I know this could go under serious debate, but this is a Rome forum. What is your opinion on how the Roman empire fell?
I think they just started to fight defensively to much, and they had everything to loose, rather than everything to gain.
|
|
|
Post by evilemperor on Jun 21, 2006 12:45:50 GMT -7
Well, they became a defensive nation, they started recruiting too many auxilia with poor equipment instead of your standard legionaries, and they were doing pretty bad financially toward the later stages. Yeah, that would basically sum up why they started to decline.
|
|
|
Post by Sir George, Spanish Rebel on Jun 21, 2006 13:06:01 GMT -7
Some have also argued that they were spread way too thin, and werent able to keep everything under control, which i imagine led to corruption and deceit. Of course all great empires fall or at least decline sooner or later. And i think a large part of it has to do with trying to control too much territory.
|
|
|
Post by darthmaulsdaddy on Jun 21, 2006 13:32:26 GMT -7
Yeah corruption did it. They fell first from within, and then it began to fall on the outside.
The problem was the Caesars. It went from a Republic to a Monarchy, and when that happened, they were stuck with a bad ruler for life, which also lead to more corruption and betrayals.
|
|
MaxImusMan
Senior Member
The Mighty Dragons
Posts: 287
|
Post by MaxImusMan on Jun 21, 2006 16:54:37 GMT -7
Plus the division of the empire. When Constantine moved the capitol to Byzantium, his two sons (one wanting the capitol back in Rome) divided the empire in two. United they stood, divided they fell.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Revan on Jun 22, 2006 8:25:03 GMT -7
Well, it was a combination of all those things really. They had bad emperors, they spread themselves to thin with too many auxilias, and then they kept on retreating until they lost their territory and made their enemies stronger. Then when the empire divided, they commited themselves to their own demise.
However, I doubt the fall of Rome could have been prevented. At most, it could have been prolonged. But as the old saying goes, "what goes up must come down."
|
|
|
Post by Mara Jade85 on Jun 24, 2006 14:52:36 GMT -7
A think that a large part of Rome's demise had to do with like the corruption and the fall of the republic. Some emperors just went way to crazy, like Caligula who made his horse a senator.
|
|
|
Post by Master Chief on Jun 25, 2006 11:24:27 GMT -7
hmm, well, I have to agree with SSG Max. It had mostly to do with them being on the defensive, and allowing their invaders to become to powerful.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Revan on Jun 25, 2006 13:14:09 GMT -7
But if they kept on fighting offense, then they would have spread to far beyond their control. They were destined to fall either way.
|
|
|
Post by vadersfist on Jun 25, 2006 18:40:39 GMT -7
I believe it was their division that really did it. They lacked a leader who could unite the empire together to face their common threat, and any leader that could have done that could never do so because of corruption. I believe that if the eastern and western empire united, they could have stood a chance against their invaders.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanIdiot1987 on Jun 26, 2006 16:14:09 GMT -7
I think it had more so to do with expanding to much. To maintain such a large empire, they created auxiliary units, which were local units not as good as the Roman legions. Eventually, it was a combination of what evilemperor and KoRnyJoRge said. They spread to thin, so they had to use crappy units.
|
|
|
Post by Master Chief on Jun 26, 2006 21:19:51 GMT -7
But by allowing their attackers to take territory away from Rome, they thus lost their ablility to recruit auxiliaries from those regions, as well as to allow the invaders to become more powerful. Rome never bothered to retake the lands it lost, which is what they should have done.
|
|
|
Post by Mara Jade85 on Jun 27, 2006 15:15:27 GMT -7
But sensible leaders could have prevented division and maybe they could have like had more victories. But many emperors were just there for the power. The few that like could have done good, like Claudius (who wanted to restore the republic), were murdered.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Revan on Jun 27, 2006 19:00:09 GMT -7
Perhaps, but even with a good emperor, they would have been spread way to thin. Look what happened to Alexander the Great's Empire after he died. Alexander may have maintained the empire, but after he died, it split up. So even if Rome had a good emperor once, after a while is would still crumble.
|
|
MaxImusMan
Senior Member
The Mighty Dragons
Posts: 287
|
Post by MaxImusMan on Jun 28, 2006 17:04:30 GMT -7
Perhaps, but even with a good emperor, they would have been spread way to thin. Look what happened to Alexander the Great's Empire after he died. Alexander may have maintained the empire, but after he died, it split up. So even if Rome had a good emperor once, after a while is would still crumble. Once again, another great example of how division screwed up an empire
|
|