Roman Empire and Army

¶ … fall of the Roman Empire?

The decline and eventual fall of the Roman Empire happened in the third century. Rome had made many enemies and grew from a revered unchallenged leader of the Mediterranean to a rather weary empire surrounded by a myriad of enemies. Rome experienced a number of significant military defeats over the time. The most significant contributor to the fall of the empire though was the economic policies adopted by the emperors. The decline is noted to have started with the rule of Septimius Severus in 193 AD. The rulership engaged in excesses and spent too much on the military. The currency was debased and inflation rose to crisis levels. Further, the time of poor economic policies coincided with a time when civil wars were commonplace. Assassinations were rife. Army generals made attempts to stage coups and assume ruler ship. The soldiers often murdered the emperor when they thought he has offended them. The empire found it hard to recover from the abyss it had fallen into (Brown 2015).

The Late Roman Empire

A unique breed of foreigners referred to as barbarians managed to break up Rome, conquer and absorb the entire empire. Consequently, the empire died in bits. From 410 AD, the year of the sack, there were a total of six claimants to the empire (Moore Jr. 2004). There are varying accounts on the exact time when the Roman Empire began to fall. Michael Rostovtzeff, a well-known Russian historian, points to the role that emperor Septimius Severus played in the eventual decline and fall of the empire. He ruled for a period of 14 years from 193 AD to 211 AD. As far as I'm concerned, Severus marks the beginning of bad Roman leaders. Rostovtzeff observes that the emperor developed a militarized bureaucracy that was controlled by monarch with autocratic control. According to Michael Rostovtzeff's definition, Septimius' had an administrative system that was largely viewed as one of the permanent that assumed severe forms intermittently. His was a police state. They watched people keenly on the streets and in their homes and arrested those they suspected were involved in undermining the emperor (Rostovtzeff 1957).

Diocletian followed Severus. His rules constituted strict measures to consolidate power and control over the people. He ruled from 284 to 305. The empire lacked manpower to sustain its ambitious undertakings. The Barbarians were, on the other hand, efficient and hostile. They had also increased in great numbers of the time. Diocletian sought to double the numbers of his army. He embarked on fortifying his frontiers. He majored on manpower development and earthworks during his reign (Hammond 1970).

Either way, the two historians still point out the conspicuous shortage in Roman manpower. This shortage was observed in relation to the Barbarians who were always growing in numbers. The Roman rulers reacted by doubling the numbers of their armies, compulsion serfdom and maintaining hereditary status (Moore Jr. 2004).

The Roman Army and its Management Crisis

The cornerstone of the Roman Empire was their army. It is the reason for creating such a vast empire that it was. However, this very reason that gave them power to rule over a massive population and geographical area began to wither in the 3rd century. The reasons have been mentioned earlier. The weaknesses in the leadership and the army opened doors to constant attacks by the Barbarians. Further, the practice of the leaders personally leading their troops to war in this age was a disaster that kept the empire quite unstable. Maximinus is a practical example of the negative consequences of the approach. He ruled for two years from 235 to 238. He attempted to display his bravery and impress the people and senate by, personally, involving in the fight against the Germanic tribes. Maximinus was murdered in a revolt within his army in 238 when he failed to win his people's favour. Although Maximinus did not exactly die in adversarial battle with the enemies, Decius did. He died fighting against Goths. Valerian followed with worse fate. Persian forces captured him along with his army at the Edessa battle ground. The crushing defeats in battle inspired some new arrangements and tactics to keep the Barbarians away. Senators stopped commanding legions after 260 AD. There was a move towards a more professionally led army. Equestrian prefects took charge of commanding the legions (Ott 2009).

Gibbon (1776) observed that the army is the only group of men that are adequately united to chart the same course and fate. They have the power to impose such cause on their fellow citizens. However, the temperament of soldiers that leads to anger, violent action and slavery makes them unfit for guarding the legal or civil constitution.

The general population became unwilling to be conscripted in the army. They also declined to support such armies by accepting taxation. This scenario made it impossible to support a large army of 600,000 needed to adequately protect the Roman frontiers. Sedentary frontier soldiers emerged. They were allocated land to farm to boost their food reserves. This weakened their commitment to the army service and strengthened their attachments to the local surroundings. The army of the 5th century was, therefore too reliant on Germans who, mostly existed in expansive federate units. The trends were nurtured and developed by earlier and subsequent Roman leaders including Julius Caesar who used the German cavalry in the first century. Constantine perfected it. Frontier soldiers were kept at public expense. When such support slowed down, the borders to the north became vulnerable to attack (Ferguson 2006).

In an observation by Euggipius (1913), as long as the dominion of the Romans existed, troops were maintained at public expense to guard the borders and boundary walls. When the system collapsed, squadrons of troops bloated out along with the boundary borders. Only the Troops at Bartavis held on. Some of the troops in this squadron had travelled to collect the final payment for their colleagues from Italy. It was not known that they were killed by the Barbarians on their way.

The Fall of the Roman Economy

The Roman government was constantly under the threat of bankruptcy. The high cost of defending and maintaining the empire also contributed to the fall of the empire. Most inhabitants did not share in the great Roman prosperity. Gold was sold to the orient in large amounts to pay for luxury goods. Consequently, Roman coins became scarce. Bartering returned to be one of the most advanced civilizations of the time because the Roman currency deteriorated to critical levels (Alchin 2015).

Lack of taxation is yet another cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. Senators owed large amounts of taxes throughout many of the provinces of the empire. The Visigoths, who reigned over Aquitaine region of Gaul, began to mint their own currency in 412 AD, besides not paying taxes. Although the solidi were not as widely accepted as the Roman Solidi, it was a demonstration of the weakening influence and administrative effectiveness of the Roman rulers (Ott 2009).

Augustine, a Christian writer, gives an account of the state of economics in the Northern part of Africa in the early parts of 420 AD. Many traders called slave dealers in Africa were draining Africa of its population and moving their merchandise to locations across the sea. Most of these people were free persons who were never sold by their parents. They were acquired against the permissions of the Roman laws and sold to merchants across the seas as slaves (Garnsey 1996).

The period starting from the third century saw taxation increase so much to the extent of burdening the ordinary people. Taxation effects combined with the oppressive ways of the elites subjugated many peasants to colonies. The rights of the colonies, however, declined over time. Such oppression barred the Roman Empire from recovering from the losses they suffered in the past. Consequently, they could not cast their tax nets wider. The final division of the Roman Empire in 395, the west, which was weaker economically couldn't itself. These events culminated in the collapse of the Empire (Ott 2009).

Accepting Christianity as the State Religion

According to Gibbon, the fall of the Roman Empire can be attributed to the influence of Christianity in sapping the military and the moral unity. Other factors that accelerated the fall include power wrangles between individuals and the west versus east divisions due to external pressure (Gibbon 1776). Differences in viewpoints became even more apparent in the 4th and 5th centuries, but the state was autocratic and was intolerant to such developments. The tendency to punish the heretic, the pagan and the nonconformist increased, despite the fairly moderate leadership approaches by such rulers as Constantine and Valentinian I. The law was applied harshly and ruthlessly (Ferguson 2006). The religious moderation of the Hellenistic and the Hellenic declined. The intolerance negatively affected the church too. The East and West became more polarised. The differences between the Roman Christians and the Aranian, which was favoured by the Visigoths and Vandals worsened (Ward-Perkins 2005).

The rise of the new religion is also a major contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire. Christianity, being monotheistic, was not in sync with the Roman tradition of worshipping several gods. Christians were often persecuted by the Romans for holding the beliefs they did. The Christian gospel was popular among the poor masses. Constantine is credited for stopping persecutions of Christians and declared that it should be tolerated as from 313 C.E. Christianity grew to become the state religion of the Roman Empire later in that century. The change led to a further spread of Christianity to every corner of the empire. The acceptance of the religion also undermined the roman traditions. Although the Romans by then considered their emperor a god, the Christian teachings on a single God, who could not be the emperor, weakened the authority and credibility of the leader (ushistory.org 2016).

Constantine initiated yet another reform that helped weaken the Roman Empire. He split the empire into two in 330 C.E. The parts were the Western part located in Rome and the Eastern part headquartered in Constantinople in half. The western part was Roman Catholic and spoke Latin. The Empire on the Eastern part was largely under the orthodox branch of the Christian Church. They spoke Greek. The West declined while the East thrived over time. Indeed, the Eastern part continued to exist long after the fall of the western part of the empire. It existed under Byzantine Empire for many centuries. That means that the fall of Rome refers to the fall of the Western part of the empire (ushistory.org 2016).

Moral Decline

Many institutional problems dogged the Roman Empire prior to its collapse. It is observed that chief among the reasons for the fall was lack of legitimacy on the political front. It is noted that all emperors usurped power. Any general succeeding could try out the throne. It meant, then, that when the empire was struggling to survive, a victory for their army would have been as bad as the loss they incurred. The victorious general would have been forcefully acclaimed emperor by his army because they were thirsty for money in the form of donatives. Such a general would be forced to digress from fighting the Barbarians and embark on a mission to seize power or else lose his life. It was clear that there was no future because the state had failed to win its own wars (Pearse 2014). Barbarian invasions led to uncertainty and vulnerability in the empire. St. Jerome described the Goths in a prayer-like note asking Jesus to protect the world from such savage creatures. Their speed enabled them to arrive before they really arrived physically. Religion, age and rank did not spare anyone. The cries of infants did not stir mercy in them to spare the children (St. Jerome 1963).

The moral decline especially among the upper class and emperors devastated the Romans. Immoral behaviour including sex orgies and adultery were common place. Tiberius is said to have kept a group of youthful men for his sexual excesses. Nero was engaged in incest and also castrated a slave to make him his wife such incidents were commonplace among the emperors to come and the top leadership. Moral decline also affected the lower class and slaves. Festivals of religious nature including Bacchanalia and Saturnalia in which ribald songs, sacrifices, sexual promiscuity and lewd acts were performed to entertain crowds were the order of the day. Prostitution and brothels were an accepted norm. Additionally, there were widespread gambling, chariot races and gladiator combats. Sadistic treatment of beasts and en in the arena were also an accepted norm (Alchin 2015).

Immorality and Corruption

According to Rumsey Macmullen, a professor of History at Yale, the main reason for the decline of the Roman Empire was the steady failure to control government. The government aims were frustrated by personal interest of officials in the military (Macmullen 1990). There was abuse of office and bribery too. These vices became a norm by the 4th and 5th centuries. In fact, they were no longer viewed as an abuse of the system but rather as an alternative system. Cash was more important than anything else. Everything was sold and bought; from military positions to judges and even priests and bishops in the church. The traditional range of obligations evolved into a power market place controlled solely by bear self-interest. The operations of government were extensively distorted. Imperial authority was still upheld because it was the genesis of the illicit gains from the system. Its power was spread out into a myriad of private conduits in ways unseen before. The officials charged with deterring corruption would use their powers to benefit from the corrupt people. They became protection rings for the corrupt. Commanders in the military avoided war and preferred armed extortion from the civilians whose interests they were supposed to guard. Military supplies were pilfered extensively. There were profitable sales of exemptions from tax duties; in any case, these men had to recover what they had lost in bribes earlier (Williams 2016).

Did Rome Decline or Transform? -- Alternate Thought

There has been a lot of debate among historians as to whether the events of the Roman empire should be rerated as a fall or sheer transformation over time (Ward-Perkins 2005). It is true that there were military defeats incurred by the Roman army at the time. However, it was a complicated process in which a huge chunk of the cultural legacy of the west was preserved or underwent a transformation. Societies that were complex in their structure and nature were preserved in some locations in Gaul, Spain and England. These communities were based on elites that congregated around Roman traditions. On the other hand, the fact that the 5th C. was bedevilled with invasions, sufferings and death cannot be overlooked. Populations were displaced, cultural resources were significantly destroyed and the western Empire was fractured. If these events can be viewed as transformation, then it was a transformation that was based on collapse and violent actions. If the late period of antiquity was not largely a prelude to the dark ages, it was evidently a period in which social and political forms transformed fast. These led to fresh dynamics in Europe. The centralized power of the Roman Empower was no longer relevant in the daily lives of the constituents. The Easter Empire intervened in some cases. There were new confederations of tribal nature which gave birth to territorial kingdoms with stability. These underpinned the modern European nations (Ferguson 2006).