Re: Fall of the Western Empire. Why?

am05@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The recent thread on Empire kicking/not kicking back brings a rather
obvious question:

Lets work up on this piece by piece.

The Western Empire fell when the Roman Army in the west was no longer able to drive out the Germanic tribes in the era of migrations. Had the Roman army been able to, it would have slaughtered the incoming tribes as a matter of deterrence. Since this didn't happen, its good evidence that the Roman army lacked the power to do so.
So. Next question, why and how did the Roman army, (and the civil society that raised and funded that army) loose the "edge" over the barbarians that was so evident in Julius Caesar's time? Let's try a few ideas.
1. The barbarians became tougher and stronger and harder to beat. After centuries of contact with the empire, the barbarians learned a few things that made them more formidable. Such as the need to stick together, to show a united front to the Roman enemy.
2. The lack of a legitimate Roman succession mechanism meant a civil war was necessary to select new emperors. These succession wars weakened the political and social bonds that held the empire together. Those who choose the losing side in a succession war faced loss of life and property. After a few go rounds like this, people would decide to keep their heads down, avoid army service, and avoid getting into politics.
3. Wealthy landowners bought out or outcompeted the small farmers, converting the agricultural economy to large slave/quasi slave run latifundia (plantations). The latifundia paid less tax than the small holders the replaced did, 'cause the Roman patricians who owned the large spreads had the political influence to get themselves a tax break.
The slaves/quasi slaves farming the land were poorer material for the Legions than the sons of free holders.

David Starr



.