The Slow-Motion Financial Suicide of the Roman Empire

[Refugee]

I don’t know where you get your history from, but the Romans never invaded or conquered Ireland. The reason the Roman Empire collapsed was because they over reached themselves and made too many enemies. It’s what all empires do and why they eventually collapse.

[Peter1469]

I don’t know where you get your history from, but the Romans never invaded or conquered Ireland. The reason the Roman Empire collapsed was because they over reached themselves and made too many enemies. It’s what all empires do and why they eventually collapse.

Who said the Romans were in or conquered Ireland?

Many factors contributed to the collapse of the Empire. To include Imperial over reach. This article is about the economic reasons.

Recall the Western Empire collapsed a thousand years earlier than the Eastern. I don't think it is as easy as saying Western Roman fell because it made too many enemies. When the Goths were being pushed West by more warlike Celtic tribes they initially requested safe land in Rome. The Emperor didn't trust them and refused. It was only after that the Goths decided to go to war with Rome. By that time, Rome's economic condition, among other factors, had made Western Rome a shadow of its former self.

[Refugee]

Who said the Romans were in or conquered Ireland?

Many factors contributed to the collapse of the Empire. To include Imperial over reach. This article is about the economic reasons.

Recall the Western Empire collapsed a thousand years earlier than the Eastern. I don't think it is as easy as saying Western Roman fell because it made too many enemies. When the Goths were being pushed West by more warlike Celtic tribes they initially requested safe land in Rome. The Emperor didn't trust them and refused. It was only after that the Goths decided to go to war with Rome. By that time, Rome's economic condition, among other factors, had made Western Rome a shadow of its former self.

It’s what was being discussed at the beginning of the thread. There are no economic reasons, the reason was over reach. The financial problems are just one aspect of decline. There was no ‘western empire’, empires arise from individual countries who through conquest form an empire by domination.

[Peter1469]

It’s what was being discussed at the beginning of the thread. There are no economic reasons, the reason was over reach.

Over reach is not a satisfactory answer since Rome had already split in two. Western Rome and Eastern Rome. And Western Rome had abandoned its British Isles colonies long before the fall. Unless by over reach, you mean financial over reach. If that is the case then we agree.

The financial problems are just one aspect of decline. There was no ‘western empire’, empires arise from individual countries who through conquest form an empire by domination.

Your 2nd sentence above says there were no economic reasons. The bolded sentence is closer to the truth. What do you mean there was no western empire?

The Roman Empire split under Constantine. The Eastern part was called Byzantine. The western part retained the name Rome.



The red is the Western Roman Empire and the one sacked (a couple of times) in the 4th and 5th centuries. 455 AD was the end, if I remember correctly.

[Refugee]

Over reach is the answer, it’s the default failure of all empires. Of course finance comes into it, but it’s only one of the reasons, not the main reason. As an empire over reaches it becomes weaker, alliances form and start to fight back requiring ever more resources and manpower. In the end the empire contracts back into the dominant country and is in turn itself defeated.

The Byzantine Empire lingered on until the mid-15th century and wasn’t the same as the Roman Empire, but that has nothing to do with the topic.

[Peter1469]

Over reach is the answer, it’s the default failure of all empires. Of course finance comes into it, but it’s only one of the reasons, not the main reason. As an empire over reaches it becomes weaker, alliances form and start to fight back requiring ever more resources and manpower. In the end the empire contracts back into the dominant country and is in turn itself defeated.

The Byzantine Empire lingered on until the mid-15th century and wasn’t the same as the Roman Empire, but that has nothing to do with the topic.

OK so we agree on over-reach. It seems you are not focusing on territorial expansion as I originally assumed.

But there were other societal problems that contributed: corruption, the loss of the desire of citizens to do their public duties, etc.

I only brought up Byzantine because you said there was no Western Roman Empire.

[Refugee]

OK so we agree on over-reach. It seems you are not focusing on territorial expansion as I originally assumed.

But there were other societal problems that contributed: corruption, the loss of the desire of citizens to do their public duties, etc.

I only brought up Byzantine because you said there was no Western Roman Empire.

Agreed, but you were focusing on finance as the only reason for collapse. Yes, the battle between a Republic and an authoritarian emperor also contributed; many reasons why it became weaker and eventually collapsed.

I didn’t say there was no Eastern Empire, I said there was no such thing as a Western Empire, meaning countries form empires, not continents.

[Peter1469]

Agreed, but you were focusing on finance as the only reason for collapse. Yes, the battle between a Republic and an authoritarian emperor also contributed; many reasons why it became weaker and eventually collapsed.

I didn’t say there was no Eastern Empire, I said there was no such thing as a Western Empire, meaning countries form empires, not continents.

I never intended to assert economics was the sole cause - it was the focus of the article because it was comparing the fall of the Western Empire to the USA today and our debt.

I agree Rome did not change its name to Western Rome after the split with the East. Historians use the term for clarity I assume. Perhaps the w should not be capitalized.

[Refugee]

I never intended to assert economics was the sole cause - it was the focus of the article because it was comparing the fall of the Western Empire to the USA today and our debt.

I agree Rome did not change its name to Western Rome after the split with the East. Historians use the term for clarity I assume. Perhaps the w should not be capitalized.

The op implies the reason for Rome’s collapse was solely financial.

Again, there is no such thing as a Western Empire. There was a Roman Empire (Italy), The USSR could be classed as an Empire (Russia), Hitler tried to create an Empire (Germany). If we compare Byzantine to the Roman Empire and it had some similarities, the one thing missing is the need for continual conquest and wealth to keep it all going. Had Constantine behaved as the earlier Roman Empire had done, the Byzantine Empire would have collapsed a lot sooner.

Just as an aside, you see similarities between the Roman Empire and America. Over reach, overspend, continual wars, internal social divides and external challenges. All Empires, just like industrial revolutions and attempts to conquest by force eventually decline and end.

[Peter1469]

The op implies the reason for Rome’s collapse was solely financial.

Again, there is no such thing as a Western Empire. There was a Roman Empire (Italy), The USSR could be classed as an Empire (Russia), Hitler tried to create an Empire (Germany). If we compare Byzantine to the Roman Empire and it had some similarities, the one thing missing is the need for continual conquest and wealth to keep it all going. Had Constantine behaved as the earlier Roman Empire had done, the Byzantine Empire would have collapsed a lot sooner.

Just as an aside, you see similarities between the Roman Empire and America. Over reach, overspend, continual wars, internal social divides and external challenges. All Empires, just like industrial revolutions and attempts to conquest by force eventually decline and end.

All things are cyclical.