short essay on the fall of rome

Essay on the Fall of Rome

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The main reasons for the fall of rome, works cited.

The founders of Rome appear to have lived in heroic poverty, sacrificing the little they had to ensure that the empire prospered. However, their successors who had not participated in the struggle to make the empire big and wealthy did not face any pressure to exercise austerity (Brown 57). The new Rome became famous for ostentatious parties and a shared sense of enthusiasm in the high and low classes, who lived a laxer way of life (Brown 57).

As this essay shows, the main reason for the fall of Rome was the lack of financial austerity. The empire grew too big and allowed corruption to reign. It also failed to become innovative in its economic sectors to survive the eventual loss of revenue and gold reserves. When observed in another way, the primary cause of the collapse was the conflict between the need to manage wealth and the desire to spend it.

Moreover, there was a conflict between those who invaded the city and those who lived in the city. Rome also fell because it was expanding. It experimented with the delegation of power to other entities that were not originally Roman, thereby causing the primary ideals and identities, as well as central control of Rome to disappear. Another argument for the fall of Rome is that it did not fall due to an invasion, but it disappeared after losing relevance and being replaced with other civilizations (Ward-Perkins 47-50). This paper will stick to the idea of an actual fall that happened after about 500 years of running as the world’s greatest superpower (Andrews par. 1).

The major reasons for the collapse of Rome are discussed below. First, there was a persistent invasion of the Barbarian tribes. The prosperity of Rome attracted other civilizations around it, who wanted to overthrow the empire (Thompson 17). They opted to use military invasions to take a part of the empire. They did this from all sides, encroaching a little of the empire’s territory at a time. On its part, the empire did everything possible to keep the invaders away (Andrews par 2). German-speaking groups surrounded the Roman Empire. They fought each other and sometimes colluded to fight the Roman Empire (Heather 54).

Each conquest of the groups around the empire somehow modified the structure and culture of the entire empire. The empire had grown big and multifaceted by the time it fell. The expansion of the Empire also created an additional need for bureaucracy, which would eventually undermine a responsive ruling class. Overall, the inclusion of the Barbarians, a term used to describe the collective tribes surrounding the empire, and the vandals created factions in the Empire and diverted fiscal revenue meant for the capital. With insufficient funds, Rome could not hold together and defeat breakaway groups from the Empire.

Accommodating groups, instead of fighting them, also led to the weakening of the Roman army. The army lost its focus on enemies and became weak in battle following many years of peace (Rosenwein 23). Leaders also became less concerned with security and focused on dealing with bureaucracy to enhance their power in the Empire. The quest for power and greatness among the ruling class led to a continuous progression towards the fall of Rome.

Success in the distant wars that the Roman Empire fought increased the wealth of the Empire. The property was acquired from the defeated groups. However, when the wars diminished, rulers continued to live as if Rome had an unlimited supply of wealth. They failed to notice the consequences of their behavior. There was no way out of the mess other than falling, given the lack of any additional warfare to enrich the coffers of the empire and sustain the extravagance of its people. Foreign citizens had taken a part of the Empire and would later create their empires at the time of the decline. Some of them were the Visigoths, who settled in Moesia after being allowed to do so by Emperor Valens (Waldman and Mason 139).

Rome fell because of internal disintegration. Failure to sustain a strong military and exercise moderation in enjoying its wealth made it vulnerable to any attack. Eventually, Rome went through a severe financial crisis, as it was losing its revenue sources from the areas that the factions had developed when they split from the center of power. Rome also increased in size, but it had not participated in conquests for a long time.

Moreover, it did not have a sufficient source of wealth to support the behavior of its ruling class. The imperial coffers could not keep up with wages and other recurrent demands and fund various projects and traditions at the same time. The only solution at the time was to increase taxation and boost the supply of money. However, these actions led to inflation and increased the division between the rich and the poor.

Rome built an internal enemy to its prosperity, given that many poor people failed to afford the basics of life (Atkins and Osborne 205). The rulers of Rome, such as Constantine, reached the extent of hiring mercenaries to join the military because the population was becoming smaller. This weakened the Roman military further. The trend allowed foreigners to gain control of the Roman military. Eventually, the Germanic Goths and Barbarians had too much influence in the military, and they turned against their Roman employers (Andrews par. 9).

Politicians in Rome had bodyguards. The emperor also had guards. However, with hardly any warfare happening in and out of the Empire, the bodyguards became motivated to use their proximity to power for personal enrichment. Eventually, corruption had become so common that the soldiers who worked as bodyguards became independent from the power of the ruler. Instead, they acted as equal partners in the government. They could decide when to remove an emperor and make a replacement. Such was the extent of their power, which led to more corruption because it made the emperors and politicians bribe them to obtain their protection. In the provinces, the poor workers became disillusioned, as their earnings and taxes paid for the affluent and arrogant behaviors of the patriarch (Ward-Perkins 108-115).

Meanwhile, the empire had to do something about the increasing number of poor people caused by the plundering of its coffers by members of the ruling class. The empire provided free food to the poor in Rome and Constantinople. However, the larger proportion of expenditure on food went to the purchase of exotic spices and other delicacies outside the empire. Eventually, the empire would run out of gold to replenish its coffers and became bankrupt. The rulers stripped assets from provinces, such that they were unable to sustain the Empire’s expenditure. They borrowed from central coffers and fell into debt. It was easy for the emerging factions to break away and seek self-rule because many provinces were in debt, and there were no signs of prosperity. The empire had expanded so much that its system of governance could not support it. The ungovernable size stretched from Spain to the modern day Egypt.

Another cause of the fall of Rome was the natural plagues that affected the health of the Roman population. Diseases coming from West Europe wiped out a significant population. The cost of dealing with the diseases, in addition to the loss of revenue because of workers dying from diseases, became a major contributor to the decline of the Empire.

Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire at the time of Constantine. The emperor gave Christians the freedom to practice their religion within the Empire. He was also available to handle any Christian disputes that emerged regarding control or jurisdiction. Embracing Christianity created conflict with the traditional pagan cults that the Romans practiced. Christianity enjoyed power given to it by the emperor; thus, the other Roman religions died.

The growth of Christianity and its linkage to the rulers of Rome created a complex relationship, where the church officials became as influential as the political leaders. In addition, the political leaders appointed bishops to the early Christianity in the Roman Empire. This arrangement created avenues for lobbying for political or church leadership. With the ongoing corruption in the Empire, Christianity became another channel for exercising opposing powers that would eventually destroy the fabric of leadership in Rome. Christianity eventually became the dominant determinant of morals in Rome, following the destruction of other religions due to the lack of political support. However, the corruption in its leadership served as a bad example to the rest of the Empire and contributed to the overall loss of morals.

The traditional Roman values disappeared as the new faith rose to become a state religion in 380 AD. The Emperor was viewed as a divine being, thereby making people revere the empire. Such beliefs provided the meaning of hard work, sacrifice, and order in the Empire as part of their reverence for the divine one. However, the dominance of Christianity and the destruction of the polytheistic beliefs detached people’s actions from direct implications on the emperor. The popes and church leaders acted as opinion shapers in political matters; thus, the center of spiritual power became decentralized and caused people to have varied inclinations to obey moral conduct. It also created a habit of thinking about self-gain before thinking of the overall welfare of the Empire. The change of beliefs and attitudes contributed to the corruption and plunder of wealth in the Empire (Andrews par. 8).

A combination of corruption and political influences in Rome created laxity in the enforcement of moral conduct among public officials. Eventually, the citizens of Rome became accustomed to their new way of life. Respect for life dwindled; people could easily kill each other following disputes and get away with it because of their affiliation with those in power or because they belonged to a higher social class than their victims.

There was a salient disrespect for human and animal life. The lack of morals eventually created chaos in the public life. At the time, Rome also depended on slave labor. Rome had a high influx of slaves who provided cheap labor for its citizens when the Empire was growing through conquests. Unfortunately, the dependence on slaves became an obsession and a way of life. The citizens failed to do their duties of taking care of others and themselves.

They also reduced their efforts of building wealth and being innovative in finding better ways of doing things. Eventually, the entire Rome was lazy because it mainly relied on slave labor to accomplish even the simplest duties. There was no motivation to excel, while things became mediocre because of too much cheap labor. The standards of work plummeted, and the Empire became uncompetitive.

The problem of depending on slaves added to the problem of the affluent behavior of the rich, who opted to import goods that were not available in the Empire. The quality of products in the Empire was poor; thus, people chose to import rather than focus on improving the quality of the Roman products. Eventually, the imports were more than the exports, and the Empire got into the balance of payment problems.

Rome could not support its huge import bill, in addition to the lack of sufficient technological capacity to support domestic production (Fenner par. 2-4). Slavery dependence robbed Rome of the hard work ethics that it had cultivated among its people during the years of early expansion. The Romans had lost the value of being productive, in addition to their lack of the ability to enhance their production prowess. They had little motivation to find superior sources of energy that would sustain competitiveness and make the Empire prosper in trade, transport, and communications. As a result, the Empire lacked sufficient industries to employ its population and grow its wealth. The economic decline became a significant catalyst for the other problems highlighted above, which eventually caused the fall of Rome (Fenner par. 6-8).

The division of the empire into the West and East side, with capitals in Milan and Constantinople respectively, could also be another reason for the decline. There was a bigger chance of the two halves drifting apart in their political and economic ways due to the lack of a central leadership. The two sides failed to work as one Empire when facing outside threats, which made the Empire vulnerable. Language dominance in the two halves also created divisions, with the Greek-speaking East side enjoying moderate economic success, while the Latin-speaking West side was descending into misery. The symbolic capital of the empire was Rome, which remained vulnerable to the invasion of the Barbarians, as Constantinople remained guarded (Andrews par. 6).

In summary, the key events and causes that led to the fall of Rome were the wrong decisions made by several emperors and the increase in the civilization of the people in the empire. These events led to reduced reliance on military support, which caused the weakening of the army. Invasion of the neighboring Barbarians and their habitation of Rome, such as the settlement of the Visigoths in Moesia, also played a part in destabilizing revenue sources for the Empire. Overall, the lack of innovativeness in the economy and a lot of expenses on an unsustainable expansion and consumption of the ruling class caused Rome to fall. Moderation in expenditure and expansion would have saved Rome from falling.

Andrews, Evan. “8 Reasons Why Rome Fell.” 2014. History Lists. Web.

Atkins, Margaret and Robin Osborne, Poverty in the Roman World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.

Brown, Peter. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350 -550 AD . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Print.

Fenner, Julian. To What Extent Were Economic Factors to Blame for the Deterioration of the Roman Empire in The Third Century A.D? 2015. Web.

Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.

Rosenwein, Barbara H. A Short History of the Middle Ages: Fourth Edition, Volume 1 . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Print.

Thompson, Edward Arthur. Romans and Barbarians: the Decline of the Western Empire. Madison: Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Print.

Waldman, Carl and Catherine Mason. Encyclopedia of Europeans Peoples . New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc., 2006. Print.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

• Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire
• The Barbarianism Invasion to Rome Empire
• Rise of the Roman Empire
• The Tomb of Shi Huangdi: Mystery and Theories
• Egyptian Civilization's History
• The Fall of Rome: Historical Debates
• Medicine and Religion in Ancient Civilizations
• The Fall of Rome and the Barbarian Expansion
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 23). Essay on the Fall of Rome. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome/

"Essay on the Fall of Rome." IvyPanda , 23 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Essay on the Fall of Rome'. 23 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Essay on the Fall of Rome." June 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome/.

1. IvyPanda . "Essay on the Fall of Rome." June 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Essay on the Fall of Rome." June 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fall-of-rome/.

The Fall of the Roman Empire

Rome was not built in one day; so too, the mighty Roman Empire did not fall in a day – it covered hundreds of years. Why did Rome fall? Just like the human body is inevitably subject to growth, decay, and death it is the same with nations. History is replete with such examples without a single exception. The fall of an empire or nation is a natural phenomenon. The other causes are incidental like the disease that brings about the death of a human body.

One of the causes of the fall of Rome was the Barbarian invasions – they marched through the very roads Rome had built to reach and subjugate them. But Rome since the time of Augustus had been battling the German tribes. Why should they suddenly overpower Rome in the 6 th century? The barbarian invasions during the 3 rd and 4 th centuries were far fiercer but they were pushed back leaving behind scant traces of their marauding. The fact is that the Barbarians were no match to the Roman army. Thus it can be said that the Barbarians won in the 6 th century not because of their superior strength but because of the weakness of the Romans 1 .

The second cause is the decay in the structure of Roman society. Three distinct tribes divided into ten clans each made up Roman society in the early stages. This tribal character continued during the days of the Republic. The system allowed for stability and self-government. Self-government entails self-discipline by subordinating self-interest for the welfare of the family and then of the society as a whole. Without discipline self-government is impossible.

Originally the plebeians were not part of the government because they did not belong to the tribes that originated in Rome; neither could they take part in the religion of the state that comprised of family gods. The king was a sort of high priest. This led to the voluntary exile of the plebeians for a short time to the Sacred Mountain because “ no hereditary religion attaches us to this sit ” 2 . But later after many years of struggle, they became part of the Roman administration but at the cost of Rome no longer being tribal-based. It became more wealth-based.

Things took a turn for the worse with Rome following expansionist policies. Foreign influence gnawed into Roman society. When Sulla conquered Greece it was followed by a reverse invasion of Greek literature, philosophy, and manners. But Greece of those days had become degenerate. More destructive was the influence from the east – the Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian Empires with their proletariat demoralized culture that attracted the urban elite of Rome.

The third vital cause was the change in the Roman army too had changed. The conquests led to Rome setting up garrisons in distant places where the soldiers were posted for many years. Consequently, they forgot their loyalties towards Rome and directed it more towards the local garrison commander 3 .

At home, the army became degenerate with the introduction of public games. The worst damage was done to slavery that swelled into an institution. Roman administration could not manage the slaves it took in. Society became dependent on slaves. The administration became too much occupied with huge bands of slaves, extremely dissatisfied, living in squalid conditions. Corn came to be freely distributed leading to transforming the self-respecting working class into beggars. The land came to be neglected and the condition of the soil worsened. Farmers were overtaxed while others were overindulged. The granaries of Rome became the deserts of Africa today.

Bibliography

• Bowersock, David. 1996. “The Vanishing Paradigm of the Fall of Rome.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49: 31-42.
• Ferrill, Arther. 2009. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation . New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
• Tainter, Joseph. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies . NY: Princeton Uni Press.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 30). The Fall of the Roman Empire. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/

"The Fall of the Roman Empire." StudyCorgi , 30 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. 30 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "The Fall of the Roman Empire." November 30, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-essay/.

This paper, “The Fall of the Roman Empire”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: May 9, 2024 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

History Cooperative

The Fall of Rome: When, Why, and How Did Rome Fall?

The fall of Rome and of the Western Roman Empire was a complex process driven by a combination of economic, political, military, and social factors, along with external barbarian invasions. It took place over several centuries and culminated in the deposition of the last Roman emperor in 476 CE.

Table of Contents

When Did Rome Fall?

The generally agreed-upon date for the fall of Rome is September 4, 476 AD. On this date, the Germanic king Odaecer stormed the city of Rome and deposed its emperor, leading to its collapse.

But the story of the fall of Rome is not this simple. By this point in the Roman Empire timeline , there were two empires, the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

READ MORE: The Foundation of Rome: The Birth of an Ancient Power

Whilst the western empire fell in 476 AD, the eastern half of the empire lived on, transformed into the Byzantine Empire, and flourished until 1453. Nevertheless, it is the fall of the Western Empire that has most captured the hearts and minds of later thinkers and has been immortalized in debate as “the fall of Rome.”

The Effects of the Fall of Rome

Although debate continues around the exact nature of what followed, the demise of the Western Roman Empire has traditionally been depicted as the demise of civilization in Western Europe. Matters in the East carried on, much as they always had (with “Roman” power now centered on Byzantium (modern Istanbul), but the West experienced a collapse of centralized, imperial Roman infrastructure.

Again, according to traditional perspectives, this collapse led to the “Dark Ages” of instability and crises that beset much of Europe. No longer could cities and communities look to Rome, Roman emperors , or formidable Roman army ; moving forward there would be a splintering of the Roman world into a number of different polities, many of which were controlled by Germanic “barbarians” (a term used by the Romans to describe anyone who wasn’t Roman), from the northeast of Europe.

Such a transition has fascinated thinkers, from the time it was actually happening, up until the modern day. For modern political and social analysts, it is a complex but captivating case study, that many experts still explore to find answers about how superpower states can collapse.

How Did Rome Fall?

Rome did not fall overnight. Instead, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was the result of a process that took place over the course of several centuries. It came about due to political and financial instability and invasions from Germanic tribes moving into Roman territories.

The Story of the Fall of Rome

To give some background and context to the fall of the Roman Empire (in the West), it is necessary to go as far back as the second century AD. During much of this century, Rome was ruled by the famous “ Five Good Emperors ” who made up most of the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. Whilst this period was heralded as a “kingdom of gold” by the historian Cassius Dio , largely due to its political stability and territorial expansion, the empire has been seen to undergo a steady decline after it.

There were periods of relative stability and peace that came after the Nerva-Antonine’s, fostered by the Severans (a dynasty started by Septimius Severus ), the Tetrarchy , and Constantine the Great . Yet, none of these periods of peace really strengthened the frontiers or the political infrastructure of Rome; none set the empire on a long-term trajectory of improvement.

Moreover, even during the Nerva-Antonines, the precarious status quo between the emperors and the senate was beginning to unravel. Under the “Five Good Emperors,” power was increasingly centered on the emperor – a recipe for success in those times under “Good” Emperors, but it was inevitable that less praiseworthy emperors would follow, leading to corruption and political instability.

Then came Commodus , who designated his duties to greedy confidants and made the city of Rome his plaything. After he was murdered by his wrestling partner, the “High Empire” of the Nerva-Antonines came to an abrupt close. What followed, after a vicious civil war, was the military absolutism of the Severans, where the ideal of a military monarch took prominence and the murder of these monarchs became the norm.

The Crisis of the Third Century

Soon came the Crisis of the Third Century after the last Severan, Severus Alexander , was assassinated in 235 AD. During this infamous fifty-year period the Roman Empire was beset by repeated defeats in the east – to the Persians, and in the north, to Germanic invaders.

READ MORE: Ancient Persia: From the Achaemenid Empire to the History of Iran

It also witnessed the chaotic secession of several provinces, which revolted as a result of poor management and a lack of regard from the center. Additionally, the empire was beset by a serious financial crisis that reduced the silver content of the coinage so far that it practically became useless. Moreover, there were recurrent civil wars that saw the empire ruled by a long succession of short-lived emperors.

READ MORE: Roman Wars

Such a lack of stability was compounded by the humiliation and tragic end of the emperor Valerian , who spent the final years of his life as a captive under the Persian king Shapur I. In this miserable existence, he was forced to stoop and serve as a mounting block to help the Persian king mount and dismount his horse.

When he finally succumbed to death in 260 AD, his body was flayed and his skin was kept as a permanent humiliation. Whilst this was no doubt an ignominious symptom of Rome’s decline, Emperor Aurelian soon took power in 270 AD and won an unprecedented number of military victories against the innumerable enemies who had wreaked havoc on the empire.

In the process, he reunited the sections of territory that had broken off to become the short-lived Gallic and Palmyrene Empires. Rome for the time being recovered. Yet figures like Aurelian were rare occurrences and the relative stability the empire had experienced under the first three or four dynasties did not return.

READ MORE: Gallic Empire

Diocletian and the Tetrarchy

In 293 AD the emperor Diocletian sought to find a solution to the empire’s recurrent problems by establishing the Tetrarchy, also known as the rule of four. As the name suggests, this involved splitting the empire into four divisions, each ruled by a different emperor – two senior ones titled “Augusti,” and two junior ones called “Caesares,” each ruling their portion of territory.

Such an agreement lasted until 324 AD, when Constantine the Great retook control of the whole empire, having defeated his last opponent Licinius (who had ruled in the east, whereas Constantine had begun his power grab in the northwest of Europe). Constantine certainly stands out in the history of the Roman Empire, not only for reuniting it under one person’s rule and reigning over the empire for 31 years but also for being the emperor who brought Christianity to the center of the state infrastructure.

READ MORE: How Did Christianity Spread: Origins, Expansion, and Impact 

Many scholars and analysts have pointed to the spread and cementing of Christianity as the state religion as an important, if not fundamental cause for Rome’s fall.

READ MORE: Roman Religion

Whilst Christians had been persecuted sporadically under different emperors, Constantine was the first to become baptized (on his deathbed). Additionally, he patronized the buildings of many churches and basilicas, elevated clergy to high-ranking positions, and gave a substantial amount of land to the church.

On top of all this, Constantine is famous for renaming the city of Byzantium as Constantinople and for endowing it with considerable funding and patronage. This set the precedent for later rulers to embellish the city, which eventually became the seat of power for the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Rule of Constantine

Constantine’s reign however, as well as his enfranchisement of Christianity, did not provide a wholly reliable solution to the problems that still beset the empire. Chief amongst these included an increasingly expensive army, threatened by an increasingly dwindling population (especially in the west). Straight after Constantine, his sons degenerated into civil war, splitting the empire in two again in a story that really seems very representative of the empire since its heyday under the Nerva-Antonines.

There were intermittent periods of stability for the remainder of the 4 th century AD, with rare rulers of authority and ability, such as Valentinian I and Theodosius . Yet by the beginning of the 5 th century, most analysts argue, things began to fall apart.

The Fall of Rome Itself: Invasions from the North

Similar to the chaotic invasions seen in the Third Century, the beginning of the 5 th century AD witnessed an immense number of “barbarians” crossing over into Roman territory, caused amongst other reasons by the spread of warmongering Huns from northeastern Europe.

This started with the Goths (constituted by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths ), which first breached the frontiers of the Eastern Empire in the late 4 th century AD.

Although they routed an Eastern army at Hadrianopolis in 378 AD and then turned to blunder much of the Balkans, they soon turned their attentions to the Western Roman Empire, along with other Germanic peoples.

These included the Vandals , Suebes , and Alans, who crossed the Rhine in 406/7 AD and recurrently laid waste to Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Moreover, the Western Empire they faced was not the same force that enabled the campaigns of the warlike emperors Trajan , Septimius Severus , or Aurelian.

Instead, it was greatly weakened and as many contemporaries noted, had lost effective control of many of its frontier provinces. Rather than looking to Rome, many cities and provinces had begun to rely on themselves for relief and refuge.

This, combined with the historic loss at Hadrianopolis, on top of recurrent bouts of civil discord and rebellion, meant that the door was practically open for marauding armies of Germans to take what they liked. This included not only large swathes of Gaul (much of modern-day France), Spain, Britain, and Italy, but Rome itself.

Indeed, after they had plundered their way through Italy from 401 AD onwards, the Goths sacked Rome in 410 AD – something that had not happened since 390 BC! After this travesty and the devastation that was wrought upon the Italian countryside, the government granted tax exemption to large swathes of the population, even though it was sorely needed for defense.

A Weakened Rome Faces Increased Pressure from Invaders

Much the same story was mirrored in Gaul and Spain, wherein the former was a chaotic and contested war zone between a litany of different peoples, and in the latter, the Goths and Vandals had free reign to their riches and people. At the time, many Christian writers wrote as though the apocalypse had reached the western half of the empire, from Spain to Britain.

The barbarian hordes are depicted as ruthless and avaricious plunderers of everything they can set their eyes upon, in terms of both wealth and women. Confused by what had caused this now-Christian empire to succumb to such catastrophe, many Christian writers blamed the invasions on the sins of the Roman Empire, past and present.

Yet neither penance nor politics could help salvage the situation for Rome, as the successive emperors of the 5 th century AD were largely unable or unwilling to meet the invaders in much decisive, open battles. Instead, they tried to pay them off or failed to raise sufficiently large armies to defeat them.

The Roman Empire on the Verge of Bankruptcy

Moreover, whilst the emperors in the west still had the rich citizens of North Africa paying tax, they could just about afford to field new armies (many of the soldiers in fact taken from various barbarian tribes), but that source of income was soon to be devastated as well. In 429 AD, in a significant development, the Vandals crossed over the strait of Gibraltar and within 10 years, had effectively taken control of Roman North Africa.

This was perhaps the final blow from which Rome was unable to recover. It was by this point the case that much of the empire in the west had fallen into barbarian hands and the Roman emperor and his government did not have the resources to take these territories back. In some instances, lands were granted to different tribes in return for peaceful coexistence or military allegiance, although such terms were not always kept.

By now the Huns had begun to arrive along the fringes of the old Roman frontiers in the west, united behind the terrifying figure of Attila. He had previously led campaigns with his brother Bleda against the Eastern Roman Empire in the 430s and 440s, only to turn his eyes west when a senator’s betrothed astonishingly appealed to him for help.

He claimed her as his bride in waiting and half of the Western Roman Empire as his dowry! Unsurprisingly this was not met with much acceptance by the emperor Valentinian III , and so Attila headed westwards from the Balkans laying waste to large swathes of Gaul and Northern Italy.

In a famous episode in 452 AD, he was stopped from actually besieging the city of Rome, by a delegation of negotiators, including Pope Leo I. The next year Attila died from a hemorrhage, after which the Hunnic peoples soon broke up and disintegrated, to the joy of both Roman and German alike.

Whilst there had been some successful battles against the Huns throughout the first half of the 450s, much of this was won by the help of the Goths and other Germanic tribes. Rome had effectively ceased to be the securer of peace and stability it had once been, and its existence as a separate political entity, no doubt appeared increasingly dubious.

This was compounded by the fact that this period was also punctuated by constant rebellions and revolts in the lands still nominally under Roman rule, as other tribes such as the Lombards, Burgundians, and Franks had established footholds in Gaul.

Rome’s Final Breath

One of these rebellions in 476 AD finally gave the fatal blow, led by a Germanic general named Odoacer, who deposed the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustulus . He styled himself as both “dux” (king) and client to the Eastern Roman Empire. But was soon deposed by the Ostrogoth king Theodoric the Great .

Henceforth, from 493 AD the Ostrogoths ruled Italy, the Vandals North Africa, the Visigoths Spain and parts of Gaul, the rest of which was controlled by Franks, Burgundians, and the Suebes (who also ruled parts of Spain and Portugal). Across the channel, the Anglo-Saxons had for some time ruled much of Britain.

There was a time, under the reign of Justinian the Great when the Eastern Roman Empire retook Italy, North Africa, and parts of Southern Spain, yet these conquests were only temporary and constituted the expansion of the new Byzantine Empire, rather than the Roman Empire of Antiquity. Rome and its empire had fallen, never again to reach its former glory.

Why Did Rome Fall?

Since the fall of Rome in 476 and indeed before that fateful year itself, arguments for the empire’s decline and collapse have come and gone over time. Whilst the English historian Edward Gibbon articulated the most famous and well-established arguments in his seminal work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , his inquiry, and his explanation, are only one of many.

For example, in 1984 a German historian listed a total of 210 reasons that had been given for the fall of the Roman Empire, ranging from excessive bathing (which apparently caused impotency and demographic decline) to excessive deforestation.

Many of these arguments have often aligned with the sentiments and fashions of the time. For instance, in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the fall of Roman civilization was explained through the reductionist theories of racial or class degeneration that were prominent in certain intellectual circles.

Around the time of the fall as well – as has already been alluded to – contemporary Christians blamed the disintegration of the empire on the last remaining vestiges of Paganism, or the unrecognized sins of professed Christians. The parallel view, at the time and subsequently popular with an array of different thinkers (including Edward Gibbon) was that Christianity had caused the fall.

The Barbarian Invasions and the Fall of Rome

The immediate cause of the empire’s fall was the unprecedented number of barbarians, aka those living outside Roman territory, invading the lands of Rome.

Of course, the Romans had had their fair share of barbarians on their doorstep, considering they were constantly involved in different conflicts along their long frontiers. In that sense, their security had always been somewhat precarious, especially as they needed a professionally manned army to protect their empire.

These armies needed constant replenishment, due to the retirement or death of soldiers in their ranks. Mercenaries could be used from different regions inside or outside the empire, but these were almost always sent home after their term of service, whether it was for a single campaign or several months.

As such, the Roman army needed a constant and colossal supply of soldiers, which it began to increasingly struggle to procure as the population of the empire continued to decrease (from the 2 nd century onwards). This meant more reliance on barbarian mercenaries, which could not always be as readily relied upon to fight for a civilization they felt little fealty towards.

Pressure on the Roman Borders

At the end of the 4 th century AD, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Germanic peoples, migrated westwards towards the Roman frontiers. The traditional (and still most commonly asserted) reason given for this is that the nomadic Huns spread out from their homeland in Central Asia, attacking Germanic tribes as they went.

This forced a mass migration of Germanic peoples to escape the wrath of the dreaded Huns by entering Roman territory. Therefore, unlike in previous campaigns along their northeastern frontier, the Romans were facing a prodigious mass of peoples united in common purpose, whereas they had, up until now, been infamous for their internecine squabbles and resentments. This unity was simply too much for Rome to handle.

Yet, this tells only half of the story and is an argument that has not satisfied most later thinkers who wanted to explain the fall in terms of the internal issues entrenched in the empire itself. It seems that these migrations were for the most part, out of Roman control, but why did they fail so miserably to either repel the barbarians or accommodate them within the empire, as they had previously done with other problematic tribes across the frontier? 

Edward Gibbon and His Arguments for the Fall

Edward Gibbon was perhaps the most famous figure to address these questions and has, for the most part, been heavily influential for all subsequent thinkers. Besides the aforementioned barbarian invasions, Gibbon blamed the fall on the inevitable decline all empires faced, the degeneration of civic virtues in the empire, the waste of precious resources, and the emergence and subsequent domination of Christianity.

Each cause is given significant stress by Gibbon, who essentially believed that the empire had experienced a gradual decline in its morals, virtues, and ethics, yet his critical reading of Christianity was the accusation that caused the most controversy at the time.

The Role of Christianity According to Gibbon

As with the other explanations given, Gibbon saw in Christianity an enervating characteristic that sapped the empire not only of its wealth (going to churches and monasteries) but also its warlike persona that had molded its image for much of its early and middle history.

Whilst the writers of the Roman Republic and early empire encouraged manliness and service to one’s state, Christian writers impelled allegiance to God and discouraged conflict between his people. The world had not yet experienced the religiously endorsed Crusades that would see Christians wage war against non-Christians. Moreover, many of the Germanic peoples who entered the empire were themselves Christian!

Outside of these religious contexts, Gibbon saw the Roman Empire rotting from within, more focused on the decadence of its aristocracy and the vainglory of its militaristic emperors, than the long-term health of its empire. Since the heyday of the Nerva-Antonines, the Roman Empire had experienced crisis after crisis exacerbated in large part by poor decisions and megalomaniacal, disinterested, or avaricious rulers. Inevitably, Gibbon argued, this had to catch up with them.

Economic Mismanagement of the Empire

Whilst Gibbon did point out how wasteful Rome was with its resources, he did not really delve too heavily into the economics of the empire. However, this is where many recent historians have pointed the finger, and is with the other arguments already mentioned, one of the main stances taken up by later thinkers.

It has been well noted that Rome did not really have a cohesive or coherent economy in the more modern developed sense. It raised taxes to pay for its defense but did not have a centrally planned economy in any meaningful sense, outside of the considerations it made for the army.

There was no department of education or health; things were run on more of a case-by-case, or emperor-by-emperor basis. Programmes were carried out on sporadic initiatives and the vast majority of the empire was agrarian, with some specialized hubs of industry dotted about.

It did however have to raise taxes for its defense and this came at a colossal cost to the imperial coffers. For example, it is estimated that the pay needed for the whole army in 150 AD would constitute 60-80% of the imperial budget, leaving little room for periods of disaster or invasion.

Whilst soldier pay was initially contained, it was recurrently increased as time went by (partly because of increasing inflation). Emperors would also tend to pay donatives to the army when becoming emperor – a very costly affair if an emperor only lasted a short amount of time (as was the case from the Third Century Crisis onwards).

This was therefore a ticking time bomb, which ensured that any massive shock to the Roman system – like endless hordes of barbarian invaders – would be increasingly difficult to deal with, until, they couldn’t be dealt with at all. Indeed, the Roman state likely ran out of money on a number of occasions throughout the 5 th century AD.

Continuity Beyond the Fall: Did Rome Really Collapse?

On top of arguing about the causes of the Roman Empire’s fall in the West, scholars are also racked in debate about whether there was an actual fall or collapse at all. Similarly, they question whether we should so readily call to mind the apparent “dark ages” that followed the dissolution of the Roman state as it had existed in the West.

Traditionally, the end of the Western Roman empire is supposed to have heralded the end of civilization itself. This image was molded by contemporaries who depicted the cataclysmic and apocalyptic series of events that surrounded the deposition of the last emperor. It was then compounded by later writers, especially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when the collapse of Rome was seen as a massive step backward in art and culture.

Indeed, Gibbon was instrumental in cementing this presentation for subsequent historians. Yet from as early as Henri Pirenne (1862-1935) scholars have argued for a strong element of continuity during and after the apparent decline. According to this picture, many of the provinces of the Western Roman Empire were already in some way detached from the Italian center and did not experience a seismic shift in their everyday life, as is usually depicted.

Revisionism in the Idea of “Late Antiquity”

This has developed in more recent scholarship into the idea of “Late Antiquity” to replace the cataclysmic idea of the “Dark Ages. One of its most prominent and celebrated proponents is Peter Brown, who has written extensively on the subject, pointing to the continuity of much Roman culture, politics, and administrative infrastructure, as well as the flourishing of Christian Art and literature.

According to Brown, as well as other proponents of this model, it is therefore misleading and reductionist to talk of a decline or fall of the Roman Empire, but instead to explore its “transformation.”

In this vein, the idea of barbarian invasions causing the collapse of a civilization has become deeply problematic. It has instead been argued that there was an (albeit complex) “accommodation” of the migrating Germanic populations that reached the empire’s borders around the turn of the 5 th century AD.

Such arguments point to the fact that various settlements and treaties were signed with the Germanic peoples, who were for the most part escaping the marauding Huns (and are therefore posed often as refugees or asylum seekers). One such settlement was the 419 Settlement of Aquitaine, where the Visigoths were granted land in the valley of the Garonne by the Roman state.

As has already been alluded to above, the Romans also had various Germanic tribes fighting alongside them in this period, most notably against the Huns. It is also undoubtedly clear that the Romans throughout their time as a Republic and a Principate, were very prejudiced against “the other” and would collectively assume that anybody beyond their borders was in many ways uncivilized.

This aligns with the fact that the (originally Greek) derogatory term “barbarian” itself, derived from the perception that such people spoke a coarse and simple language, repeating “bar bar bar” repeatedly.

The Continuation of Roman Administration

Regardless of this prejudice, it is also clear, as the historians discussed above have studied, that many aspects of Roman administration and culture did continue in the Germanic kingdoms and territories that replaced the Roman Empire in the West.

This included much of the law that was carried out by Roman magistrates (with Germanic additions), much of the administrative apparatus, and indeed everyday life, for most individuals, will have carried on quite similarly, differing in extent from place to place. Whilst we know that a lot of land was taken by the new German masters, and henceforth Goths would be privileged legally in Italy, or Franks in Gaul, many individual families would not have been affected too much.

This is because it was obviously easier for their new Visigoth, Ostrogoth, or Frankish overlords to keep much of the infrastructure in place that had worked so well up until then. In many instances and passages from contemporary historians, or edicts from Germanic rulers, it was also clear that they respected much about Roman culture and in a number of ways, wanted to preserve it; in Italy for instance the Ostrogoths claimed “The glory of the Goths is to protect the civil life of the Romans.”

Moreover, since many of them converted to Christianity, the continuity of the Church was taken for granted. There was therefore a lot of assimilations, with both Latin and Gothic being spoken in Italy for example and Gothic mustaches being sported by aristocrats, whilst clad in Roman clothing.

Issues with Revisionism

However, this change of opinion has inevitably been reversed as well in more recent academic work – particularly in Ward-Perkin’s The Fall of Rome – wherein he strongly states that violence and aggressive seizure of land was the norm, rather than the peaceful accommodation that many revisionists have suggested .

He argues that these scant treaties are given far too much attention and stress when practically all of them were clearly signed and agreed to by the Roman state under pressure – as an expedient solution to contemporary problems. Moreover, in quite typical fashion, the 419 Settlement of Aquitaine was mostly ignored by the Visigoths as they subsequently spread out and aggressively expanded far beyond their designated limits.

Aside from these issues with the narrative of “accommodation,” the archaeological evidence also demonstrates a sharp decline in standards of living between the 5 th and 7 th centuries AD, across all of the western Roman Empire’s former territories (albeit under varying degrees), strongly suggested a significant and profound “decline” or “fall” of a civilization.

READ MORE: Ancient Civilizations Timeline: The Complete List from Aboriginals to Incans

This is shown, in part, by the significant decrease of post-roman finds of pottery and other cookware across the West and the fact that what is found is considerably less durable and sophisticated. This rings true for buildings as well, which began to be made more often in perishable materials like wood (rather than stone) and were notably smaller in size and grandeur.

Coinage also completely disappeared in large parts of the old empire or regressed in quality. Alongside this, literacy and education seem to have been greatly reduced across communities and even the size of livestock shrunk considerably – to bronze-age levels! Nowhere was this regression more pronounced than in Britain, where the islands fell into pre-Iron Age levels of economic complexity.

READ MORE: Prehistory: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic Periods, and More

Rome’s Role in the Western European Empire

There are many specific reasons given for these developments, but they can almost all be linked to the fact that the Roman Empire had kept together and maintained a large, Mediterranean economy and state infrastructure. Whilst there was an essential commercial element to the Roman economy, distinct from state initiative, things like the army or the political apparatus of messengers, and governor’s staff, meant that roads needed to be maintained and repaired, ships needed to be available, soldiers needed to be clothed, fed, and moved around.

When the empire disintegrated into opposing or partially opposed kingdoms, the long-distance trade and political systems fell apart too, leaving communities dependent on themselves. This had a catastrophic effect on the many communities that had relied upon long-distance trade, state security, and political hierarchies to manage and maintain their trade and lives.

Regardless, then, of whether there was continuity in many areas of society, the communities that carried on and “transformed” were seemingly poorer, less connected, and less “Roman” than they had been. Whilst much spiritual and religious debate flourished still in the West, this was almost exclusively centered around the Christian church and its widely dispersed monasteries.

READ MORE: Roman Society

As such, the empire was no longer a unified entity and it undoubtedly experienced a collapse in a number of ways, fragmenting into smaller, atomized Germanic courts. Moreover, whilst there had been different assimilations developing across the old empire, between “Frank” or “Goth” and “Roman,” by the late 6 th and early 7 th centuries, a “Roman” ceased to be differentiated from a Frank, or even exist.

Later Models in Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire: An Eternal Rome?

However, it can also be pointed out, quite rightly, that the Roman Empire may have fallen (to whatever extent) in the West, but the Eastern Roman Empire flourished and grew at this time, experiencing somewhat of a “golden age.” The city of Byzantium was seen as the “New Rome” and the quality of life and culture in the east certainly did not meet the same fate as the west.

There was also the “Holy Roman Empire” which grew out of the Frankish Empire when its ruler, the famous Charlemagne, was appointed emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 AD. Although this possessed the name “Roman” and was adopted by the Franks who had continued to endorse various Roman customs and traditions, it was decidedly distinct from the old Roman Empire of antiquity.

These examples also call to mind the fact that the Roman Empire has always held an important place as a subject of study for historians, just as many of its most famous poets, writers, and speakers are still read or studied today. In this sense, although the empire itself collapsed in the West in 476 AD, much of its culture and spirit is still very alive today.

How to Cite this Article

There are three different ways you can cite this article.

1. To cite this article in an academic-style article or paper , use:

<a href=" https://historycooperative.org/the-fall-of-rome-last-days-of-empire/ ">The Fall of Rome: When, Why, and How Did Rome Fall?</a>

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Accessibility links

• Skip to content
• Skip to local navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk search
• Accessibility Help

Ancient history in-depth

• Ancient History
• British History
• Historic Figures
• Family History
• Hands on History
• History for Kids
• On This Day

The Fall of Rome

By Dr Peter Heather Last updated 2011-02-17

Was the collapse of the Roman empire in the west a series of gradual adjustments or a catastrophic event that brought violent change?

On this page

Massive inequality, fall of rome, roman culture, militarisation, find out more, page options.

• Print this page

In September 476 AD, the last Roman emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by a Germanic prince called Odovacar, who had won control of the remnants of the Roman army of Italy. He then sent the western imperial regalia to Constantinople.

The Roman empire in western Europe - a centralised superstate which had been in existence for 500 years - had ceased to exist, its single emperor replaced by upwards of a dozen kings and princes.

The vast majority of these rulers, like Odovacar himself , were non-Roman in origin. Their power was based on the control of military forces which were the direct descendents of recent immigrants into the Roman world, whether Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Goths in southern Gaul and Spain, or Vandals in North Africa.

The end of empire was a major event in human history.

What difference did this political revolution make to real life in the former western Empire?

For many 19th and earler 20th century commentators, the fall of Rome marked the death knell of education and literacy, sophisticated architecture, advanced economic interaction, and, not least, the rule of written law.

The 'dark ages' which followed were dark not only because written sources were few and far between, but because life became nasty, brutish and short.

Other commentators, who were more focused on the slavery and entrenched social hierarchies that were also part of the Roman world, didn't really disagree with these observations.

But they saw the 'dark ages' as a more necessary evil - Rome had to fall to destroy large-scale slavery and make possible, eventually, a world which valued all human beings more equally.

On either view, the end of empire was a major event in human history.

The 1960s, however, were famously a time when all established certainties were challenged, and this applied to ancient history no less than to sexuality.

The eastern half of the Roman empire not only survived the collapse of its western partner in the third quarter of the fifth century, but went on to thrive in the sixth.

Under Justinian I (527 - 565 AD), it was still constructing hugely impressive public monuments, such as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and had reconquered Italy, North Africa, and parts of Spain.

As late as 383 AD, captive barbarians were being fed to wild animals in the Colosseum.

At the same time, there still lived in the west many individuals, who continued to describe themselves as Romans, and many of the successor states, it was correctly pointed out, were still operating using recognisably Roman institutions and justifying themselves ideologically with reference to canonical Roman values.

Consequently, by the late 1990s the word 'transformation' had come into vogue. No one denied that many things changed between 350 and 600 AD, but it became fashionable to see these changes as much more the result of long-term evolution than of a violent imperial collapse.

These revisionist arguments have some real substance. There really was little change at one deep level - the life of the peasant producers who made up perhaps 90% of the population.

I am still staggered by feats of Roman engineering, blown away by the beauty of some the buildings Romans lived in, and delighted by the sophistication of the empire's literary and political culture.

But these cultural glories were limited to a tiny privileged elite - those who owned enough land to count as gentry landowners. They represented maybe 3% of the whole population. Its structures were probably unspeakable vile to pretty much everyone else.

As late as 383 AD, captive barbarians were being fed to wild animals in the Colosseum, and its criminal law dealt ruthlessly with anyone seeking to remedy the highly unequal distribution of property.

In 650 AD, as in 350 AD, peasants were still labouring away in the much the same way to feed themselves and to produce the surplus which funded everything else.

On every other level, however, 'transformation' understates, in my view, the nature and importance of Rome's passing.

A two-stage process occurred between the battle of Hadrianople in 378 AD, when the emperor Valens and two-thirds of his army (upwards of 10,000 men) fell in a single afternoon at the hands of an army of Gothic migrants, to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus nearly a century later.

This process created the successor kingdoms. Stage one consisted of immigration onto Roman soil, followed by a second stage of aggressive expansion of the territory under the migrants' control. All of it was carried forward at the point of the sword.

The central Roman state collapsed because the migrants forcibly stripped it of its tax base.

The central Roman state collapsed because the migrants forcibly stripped it of the tax base which it had used to fund its armies, not because of long-term 'organic' transformations.

In this violent process of collapse, some local Roman societies immediately went under. In Britain and north eastern Gaul particularly, Roman landowners lost their estates and Roman culture disappeared with them.

In southern Gaul, Spain, and Italy, Roman landowners survived by coming to terms with the migrants. But to suppose that this was a voluntary process - as some of the revisionary work done since the 1960s has supposed - is to miss the point that these landowners faced the starkest of choices.

As the central Roman state ceased to exert power in their localities, they either had to do such deals, or lose the lands that were the basis of their entire wealth. And even where Roman landowners survived, the effects of Rome's fall were nonetheless revolutionary.

In judging these effects, it is important to recognise two separate dimensions of 'Roman-ness' - 'Roman' in the sense of the central state, and 'Roman' in the sense of characteristic patterns of life prevailing within its borders.

At the state level, the empire was not just replaced by mini versions of itself, even where Roman landowners survived. Within two generations of 476 AD, a new and weaker type of state structure had emerged right across the former Roman west.

The old empire had employed two key levers of central power - large-scale taxation, two-thirds of which was then spent on maintaining the second lever, a large professional army.

Learning Latin was now a waste of time - advanced literacy was confined to churchmen for 500 years.

This high-tax, high-spend structure meant that the Roman state both intruded itself bureaucratically into localities to raise taxation, and was also able, if necessary, to compel obedience to its demands by employing the army, which the taxation supported.

The new states of post-Roman Europe were much weaker affairs. Even where other less important Roman institutions survived, the new kings had only much-diminished revenue rights and their armies were composed of semi-professional contingents of local landowners.

On the level of local 'Roman-ness' too, the revolution could not have been more profound. The characteristic patterns of local Roman life were in fact intimately linked to the existence of the central Roman state, and, as the nature of state structures changed in the post-Roman world, so too did local life.

The Roman city, for instance, was the basic unit of local administration through which taxation was raised. As central tax raising powers disappeared, so too did the need to keep the city, and by 700 AD it was history.

Many of the more advanced elements of the Roman economy, such as specialised production and long-distance trade, quickly disappeared too.

The Roman state had subsidised large-scale transport structures for its own purposes, but these had also been used by traders. As this command economy collapsed, so did much of the trade dependent upon it.

Cultural patterns were also transformed beyond recognition. Roman elites learned to read and write classical Latin to highly-advanced levels through a lengthy and expensive private education, because it qualified them for careers in the extensive Roman bureaucracy.

The end of taxation meant that these careers disappeared in the post-Roman west, and elite parents quickly realised that spending so much money on learning Latin was now a waste of time. As a result, advanced literacy was confined to churchmen for the next 500 years.

Everywhere you look, the fall of the Rome let loose profound change. At the heart of it all, where change at state and local level intertwined, lay the militarisation of elite landowners.

The end of the Roman empire generated many states where previously there had been one, and another casualty of 476 AD was thus the Pax Romana . Warfare became endemic to the former Roman west.

In this situation, successor state kings needed military service above all, and quickly mobilised Roman landowners with contingents of their retainers to fight alongside the descendents of their migrant warbands.

Dark age Europe was born out of the violent destruction of the Roman empire

But taxation had always been justified in the Roman period by the fact that it paid for defence. When successor state kings made local Roman landowners turn out for battle, not only was it a nasty shock, but it was also the ultimate double whammy.

Having to pay taxation and fight was massively unpopular - witness the stringing up of the Roman grandee Parthenius, employed by the Frankish king Chilperic as his chief tax collector in 574 AD. Kings quickly realised that they could gain much popularity by canceling tax obligations.

In the short term, they could do so since they no longer needed the money for a professional army. But in the longer term, it was precisely this process which created the new Europe of powerful local landowners and relatively powerless states, which lacked both tax revenues and professional armies, and generated the cultural change, since literacy was now so marginal to secular elite life.

It also brings us back to the peasantry. One striking feature of post-Roman archaeology is the substantial decline it demonstrates in overall population. Even if peasants don't fight, they are not immune to the effects of warfare, and declining economic opportunity also hit their capacities to make a living. Though probably not really aware of it, they too had benefited from the Pax Romana .

Dark age Europe was born out of the violent destruction of the Roman empire, as the battlefield replaced the bureau at the heart of elite life, but its ramifications were felt at every social level.

The Fall of Rome:and the End of Civilisation by Bryan Ward-Perkins (Oxford University Press, 2005)

The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather (Macmillan, 2005)

The Fall of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990)

Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407-485 by Jill Harries (Clarendon Press, 1994)

About the author

Peter Heather is Fellow and Tutor in history at Worcester College Oxford, having previously taught for 11 years at UCL. He is an expert in the later Roman Empire, the 'barbarians' who invaded it, and the post-Roman successor states generated by the collision. He has published widely on the subject, including The Fall of the Roman Empire (MacMillan 2005); Politics, Philosophy and Empire (Liverpool, 2001), and The Goths (Blackwell 1996).

«; More Romans

Hands on history: ancient britain.

• Travel back in time to Ancient Britain and create your own stone circle.

Hands on History: Roman Britain

• Eric (voiced by Daniel Roche) visits Roman Britain , where he lives a life of privilege.

Battle of Britain

• Explore the Battle of Britain with clips from BBC programmes

Search term:

BBC navigation

• Northern Ireland
• Full A-Z of BBC sites

You're using the Internet Explorer 6 browser to view the BBC website. Our site will work much better if you change to a more modern browser. It's free, quick and easy. Find out more about upgrading your browser here…

• Mobile site
• Terms of Use
• About the BBC
• Contact the BBC
• Parental Guidance

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

Essay on Fall Of Rome

Students are often asked to write an essay on Fall Of Rome in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Introduction to rome’s fall.

Long ago, the Roman Empire was a powerful place. It included many lands and people. But over time, this empire faced problems it couldn’t fix. Finally, the empire became too weak and broke apart. This is known as the fall of Rome.

Reasons for the Collapse

Rome fell for many reasons. Leaders were often bad and only cared for themselves. Armies weren’t as strong as before. Money problems hurt the empire, too. Attacks from outside enemies also helped bring Rome down.

Impact on People

When Rome fell, life changed for many. Without a strong government, cities weren’t safe. People had harder lives with less food and fewer jobs. Learning and trade suffered, and the once great Roman Empire was no more.

250 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

The end of an empire.

The Roman Empire was once the most powerful in the world. It ruled over a vast area, covering much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. But around 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire came to an end.

Reasons for the Fall

Many things led to Rome’s fall. The empire was too big, and it was hard to control all the land and people. Enemies attacked Rome from outside, and there were fights for power inside. Money problems also hurt the empire. They had less gold and silver, and their coins became less valuable. This made it hard to pay soldiers and buy what the empire needed.

Attackers from Outside

Groups called barbarians, like the Goths and Vandals, started to attack Rome’s borders. These groups were strong and wanted land and riches. Rome’s army was not as good as before and could not stop them. Finally, in 476 AD, a barbarian leader named Odoacer took control of Rome and removed the last Roman emperor.

What It Means for Us

The fall of Rome changed the world. It marked the start of what we call the Middle Ages. Today, we remember Rome for its ideas about law, government, and building. Even though the Roman Empire is gone, its influence can still be seen in many places around the world.

500 Words Essay on Fall Of Rome

Introduction to the fall of rome.

A long time ago, there was a huge and powerful place called the Roman Empire. It was so big that it covered many countries we know today. But even the mightiest places can come to an end, and that’s what happened to Rome. The fall of Rome didn’t happen quickly; it took a lot of time and many things went wrong before it finally collapsed.

Reasons Why Rome Fell

Imagine a cake that looks solid on the outside but has lots of holes inside. That’s like Rome before it fell. It looked strong, but it had problems inside that made it weak. First, the leaders of Rome were not very good. Some of them were mean, and some just didn’t know how to run such a big place. This made people unhappy and caused fights for power.

Then, there was the money problem. Rome’s money lost its value because they made too much of it, and this made everything very expensive. Soldiers and workers couldn’t be paid properly, which made them unhappy too.

Another big problem was that people from other places started attacking Rome. These groups, called “barbarians,” were very strong and kept coming into Roman lands, taking over bit by bit.

Dividing the Empire

To make things easier to manage, the Roman Empire was split into two parts: the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern part, also called Byzantium, did quite well, but the Western part had a tough time. It was the Western part that faced most of the attacks and had more money troubles.

The Final Days of Rome

In the end, the Western Roman Empire couldn’t defend itself against all the attacks. In the year 476 AD, a barbarian leader named Odoacer took over and said he was the king. This is the year that many people say Rome fell, but it didn’t fall with a big crash. It was more like a slow crumble over many years.

After the Fall

After Rome fell, the world changed a lot. The places that were once part of Rome broke into smaller pieces, and new kingdoms were born. This time is called the Middle Ages. Even though Rome was gone, people didn’t forget about it. They remembered the good things Rome did, like making laws and building roads.

Lessons from Rome

The story of Rome’s fall teaches us that even the strongest places can have problems that make them weak. It shows us that good leaders are important and that taking care of money matters a lot. It also tells us that when different people want the same thing, it can lead to trouble.

In conclusion, Rome’s fall was a big event that happened a very long time ago. It was caused by bad leadership, money problems, and attacks from outsiders. This story helps us understand that everything, no matter how strong, can have an end. But it also reminds us that the end of one thing can be the start of something new, just like the Middle Ages that came after Rome.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Freedom And Power
• Essay on Falling In Love
• Essay on Family And Friends

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Rise And Fall Of Ancient Rome, A Nutshell History Of Rome

Are you looking for a quick overview of the history of Ancient Rome? The Roman civilization lasted from around 753 BC to 476 AD, encompassing the founding of Rome, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire.

While it’s tough to condense so much history into a short summary, I’ve done my best to provide a concise history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

The history of Ancient Rome can be divided into three parts. Rome began as a monarchy, transitioned to a republic, and then became a vast and powerful empire until it came crashing down.

Along the way, you’ll encounter fascinating stories of myths, legends, rivalries, civil wars, and some truly outrageous emperors. There were both conquests and defeats, battles and butchery, brutality and debauchery. All in all, Ancient Rome was a fascinating period in history.

Ready to step back in time?

History of Ancient Rome

1. foundation myth of rome.

So how did Rome begin? Like all great empires, Rome needed a foundation, or creation, myth.

People like to know where they come from. It’s akin to the huge popularity of 23 & Me or other ancestry services.

Rome’s foundation myth was codified in the 1st century A.D. during the apex of the empire. The empire had stretched to cover half the known world. This led to the cliche phrase that “all roads lead to Rome.”

Once its society became this powerful, Rome needed an official origin story of who they were and where they came from. How did an ordinary town become a great power that dominated the world? What set them apart?

The Romans came up with a fairytale explanation, one which became canonical. Rome was a gift of the gods themselves.

Legend holds that Romans are descended from Venus and Mars, the gods of Love and War. They’re the perfect combination for a city with a push-and-pull history of peace and war, beauty and tumult.

Romans believed this was the true story of the birth of their nation. But the foundation myth has no real historical basis in fact.

It’s a mostly operatic myth involving gods, twins, wolves, murder, and other fascinating drama. But, as with any myth, there’s a kernel of truth. Let’s break it down.

Rome’s origin story begins in the great ancient city of Troy with the Roman author Virgil. In 19 B.C., Virgil published a famous work called the Aeneid .

The  Aeneid  is a Latin epic poem. It ties together the various strands of legend relating to the 8th century B.C. character of Aeneas and his family.

Aeneas & Ascanius

The poem tells the legendary story of the Trojan Aeneas , who fled Troy after it fell to Greece. Aeneas is the son of Anchises, a Trojan prince, and Venus, the goddess of love.

Looking for a place to create a new Troy, Aeneas and his family traveled to Italy. After scouting locations, Aeneas eventually settled in the Alban Hills just outside Rome.

He and his son Ascanius fought for dominance to establish their fiefdom. Ascanius becomes the first king of the Alban Hills.

He was followed by a series of successors, including one named Numitor. Numitor was deposed by his ambitious and treacherous brother Amulius.

Numitor had a daughter named Rhea Silvia. To prevent the birth of any potential claimants to the throne, Amulius forced Rhea to become a vestal virgin. The Vestal Virgins were the priestesses of the goddess Vesta and had the duty of protecting her hearth.

But Amulius’ plans were thwarted. Rhea was beloved by Mars, the Roman god of war.

Romulus and Remus

Despite being a virgin, Rhea gave birth to his twin sons Romulus and Remus around 771 B.C. They would go on to become the founders of Rome.

So, at bottom, the ancestry of Rome is based on love and war. Venus’ blood ran through the veins of Romulus and Remus via Aeneas. Mar’s blood ran through the veins of the twins via Rhea.

Naturally, Amulius was fearful that the newborn twins would one day seek revenge for their deposed grandfather.

So nasty uncle Amulius decided to rid himself of any potential threat. He put the twins in a basket and set them afloat on the Tiber River, a fate similar to Moses in the Bible.

The boys were meant to die. Instead, they came to shore on Tiber island. They were discovered by a ferocious beast, a she-wolf named Lupa. She suckled the boys as her own until they were discovered by a shepherd.

When Romulus and Remus were grown, it was time to go found their own city. The twins made their way to a future Rome.

The brothers wanted to found the city on different hills. Romulus liked Palatine Hill. Remus preferred Aventine Hill.

In ancient societies, the rule of primogeniture (or first born) governed. The first born inherits everything and takes control.

But it wasn’t clear who should prevail in the standoff. Since they born twins, Romulus and Remus didn’t know who had been born first.

So the twins went to their separate spots and waited for an augury, or sign from the gods, as to who was born first.

One day, around 754 B.C., Remus looked up and saw a flock of 6 birds. He ran to tell Romulus, jumping over the walls of Palatine Hill. But Romulus had simultaneously seen a flock of 12 vultures fly over his head.

A massive row ensued. It degenerated into a physical confrontation. Romulus slew Remus and won the fight. To honor his victory, the city of Rome was named Roma instead of Rema.

Despite the fratricide, Romulus was acclaimed and revered by Romans. Historians tried to whitewash the fratricide.

One justified the murder by the fact that Remus trespassed on the walls of Romulus. Remus was portrayed as interfering with the founding of Rome. Some pitched it as a blood sacrifice to the gods.

Rape of the Sabines

King Romulus decided to establish a utopian society on Palatine Hill . To recruit more citizens, he granted asylum to all. He established an army and tapped 100 senators to govern.

But there was one problem. There was a severe shortage of women in the new city of Roma.

Obviously, one can’t build a tribe, and succeed and prosper, without women. Like most ancient Romans, Romulus decided just to take what he wanted.

Romulus began asking the neighboring tribes where the most beautiful and fertile women lived. The answer was the Sabine Hills.

Romulus hatched a plot. He threw a big party and invited the neighboring tribes, including the Sabines. When the Sabines were sufficiently drunk, the Romans drew their swords and slew the Sabine men.

They then kidnapped the Sabine women and took them as their wives. In history, this is known as the Rape of the Sabine Women. It’s a scene memorialized often in art.

The Seven Kings of Rome

Romulus ruled as the first king of Rome. He was succeeded by a series of six other kings. Each king brought concepts that would come to characterize ancient Rome — religion, military organization, the Circus Maximus, and public fora.

The last of these seven kings was the villainous Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. He contributed the concept of tyranny. He was a cruel king, who abused his power and governed by fear during the years 535-509 B.C.

His son was no better. Sextus Tarquinius raped the most virtuous woman in Rome, Lucretia.

She protested, exacted an oath of vengeance, and then knifed herself in the heart. There was such a public outcry that the outraged populace overthrew Tarquinius in 509 B.C., driving him from Rome.

That was the death of the Roman monarchy. The next phase of the history of Rome had begun.

2. The Roman Republic

For the next 500 years or so, Rome was a republic governed by senators. The Republic was established in 509 B.C. and then voted out in 27 B.C. The Republic was more of an oligarchy than a real democracy.

The power of the monarch passed to two annually elected magistrates called consuls. They also served as commanders in chief of the army. The magistrates, though elected by the people, were drawn largely from the Senate, which was dominated by the patricians.

Patricians (or aristocrats) dominated political discourse. Eventually, in 37 B.C., the plebeians (or middle class) gained more power and could be consuls.

During its early years, the Roman Republic grew exponentially in both size and power through military conquest.

The conquests and exposure to new societies led directly to Rome’s cultural flourishing. In particular, Romans would eventually adopt much of Greek art, philosophy, and religion.

The late Republic was a period of turmoil. It was the turning point in Rome’s evolution from republic to empire.

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.

The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e ., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians.

These two factions were reflected in two great leaders of the late republic, Gaius Marius (populare) and Lucius Cornelius Sulla (optimate). Both played roles in the collapse of the republic.

Marius was a legendary Roman general and statesman. With the Marian Reforms , he turned the Roman army into one of the most effective fighting and killing machines the world has ever seen. A power hungry Marius held the office of consul an unprecedented seven times. 

In 88 B.C., Sulla was elected consul. Sulla set off to do battle against King Mithridates of Pontus. After back stabbing by Marius, however, the Senate revoked Sulla’s command of the army and reinstated Marius in the prize role.

Sulla shocked everyone by doing the previously unthinkable. He challenged the Senate edict. In an unprecedented coup d’etat , Sulla marched on Rome, seized power, and temporarily exiled Marius.

This led to a bloody civil war between Sulla and Marius. Sulla eventually prevailed and the Senate decreed him dictator. Sulla’s constitutional “reforms” placed even more power in the hands of the elite.

Historians generally revile Sulla as a maniacal dictator. He ruthlessly engaged in bloody purges of his political enemies in an indiscriminate way not seen since Tarquinius Superbus, the evil king I spoke of above.

Sulla eventually retired and Senate rule was restored. But the damage was done. Sulla’s self-serving tenure threatened the foundations of the Roman constitution.

After that, Rome would vacillate between triumvirates and dictatorships. Sulla set the precedent for Caesar’s takeover.

3. Rise Of Julius Caesar, The Dawn Of Empire

Caesar was largely responsible for Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire. It’s a dramatic story, one of the most fascinating in the history of Ancient Rome.

Caesar’s rise to power began in adversity. He was born in 100 B.C. to a political family. He got a late start on politics.

His uncle was the infamous Marius, who was on the losing side of the social wars. Caesar himself was put on Sulla’s “black list” of enemies meant to be killed. But, somehow, Sulla spared his life.

Caesar rose through the ranks of the political system. In 63 B.C., Caesar was appointed to the role of aedile. Among other things, he was responsible for public spectacles and games. He embraced this task with ardor, helping to cement his fame and popularity.

In 60 B.C., Caesar formed a political alliance with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompey the Great. It was known as the First Triumvirate.

Crassus was the wealthiest man in Rome. Pompey was a great military leader. Caesar was the brains behind the extra-legal operation. Together, they were the unofficial rulers of Rome.

Of the three, Caesar was by far the most ambitious. But how to mark his path and gain the upper hand?

Romans admired achievement in battle. So Caesar decided to realize his ambitions through military conquest. He married his daughter off to Pompey. In return, he was given some legions.

Caesar advanced quickly, becoming general of the legendary 13th legion. He began the most successful military campaign in history. He defeated the great warrior Vercingetorix in Gaul and expanded the Roman Republic into Europe and Britain.

Caesar let everyone know about it too, writing lengthy memoirs of his battles. These victories and autobiographies made Caesar a living legend.

All of this made the power brokers in Rome nervous and agitated. Too much power and adulation in one person was a clear threat to the republic.

When Crassus died, the Senate declared Caesar an outlaw. The Senate claimed his military victories had been achieved without proper authorization of the Senate.

The Senate ordered Caesar to step down and disband his army. That would’ve meant the end of Caesar. He would either have been executed or exiled.

With his back against the wall, Caesar marched onward. In 49 B.C., he famously led his army across the Rubicon River to Rome, starting a civil war. Caesar said “the die is cast,” i.e. , there was no turning back.

The Senate asked Pompey to go to battle against Caesar. But Pompey’s legions were stationed in Spain. So Rome didn’t have time to organize a proper defense.

The Senate appointed Caesar dictator for life. Caesar was now master of Rome. He didn’t waste any time. Caesar’s first order of business was to chase Pompey to Egypt.

At the time, there was a civil war going on in Egypt between Ptolemy and his sister Cleopatra. To win Caesar’s favor, Ptolemy captured Pompey and put him to death, giving his head to Caesar.

This course of action disgusted Caesar. No foreign entity should put to death a revered Roman general.

Originally, Caesar had decided to fight on the side of Ptolemy. But Ptolemy’s gross miscalculation gave an opportunity to a young Cleopatra.

Legend holds that she contrived to deliver herself, UPS style, in a carpet to Caesar’s chambers. It worked and Caesar changed his mind, backing Cleopatra.

Caesar fought on Cleopatra’s behalf, ultimately winning the war. Cleopatra was established as Queen of Egypt. Enmeshed in an affair, Caesar and Cleopatra had a son named Caesarion in 47 B.C. (His lineage was later disputed.)

Caesar returned to Rome in 46 B.C. He imagined that the Romans would love a boy who carried the blood of the two great empires in the world. But the Romans were horrified. They didn’t want someone with Egyptian blood ruling Rome.

So Caesar essentially ditched Cleopatra and Caesarion. He put them in a villa outside Rome and marginalized them, so as not to displease the public.

Caesar still needed to convince the people that they could live under one ruler, himself. He began by forgiving the debt of Roman citizens. He put on public spectacles.

Caesar and Mark Antony played psychological games. Antony would hold a crown above Caesar’s head. Caesar would wave it off, saying, no, he didn’t want to be king.

This went on and on. Eventually it was the crowd that was chanting “King Caesar.” Caesar effectively got the public used to the idea of monarchy.

As dictator, Caesar instituted social and political reforms. He began public building projects. But his rivals were envious of his power.

Caesar had tipped the balance of power away from the Senate. He was a threat to any form of democracy. Senators feared he would crown himself king. So they plotted the most famous political assassination in history, carried out in the name of liberty.

They called Caesar to a Senate meeting at the Theater of Pompey on March 15 44 B.C. A month earlier, a soothsayer had told Caesar to “beware the Ides of March.”

Caesar ignored the warning, thinking himself untouchable. Caesar attended the meeting unarmed and without body guards.

60 conspirators stabbed Caesar 23 times. Caesar effectively took the part of the murdered Remus centuries before.

Caesar reputedly died at the feet of a statue of Pompey. So, from the grave, Pompey had revenge on Caesar.

Among the mutinous senators were some of Caesar’s friends, including Brutus and Cassius. Some historians claim that Brutus was Caesar’s illegitimate son. Caesar had a long term affair with his mother Servillia.

According to Shakespeare, as he was dying, Caesar looked up and said “Et tu Brutus?” Caesar never actually said these words.

And Brutus was neither his closest friend nor his biggest betrayer, not by a long shot. The real mastermind behind the assassination was Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, a soldier who despised Caesar’s pardons.

What was the reaction to Caesar’s assassination? There was a collective shock in Rome. Should the citizens rejoice in the death of a tyrant or mourn a great leader?

Mark Antony made the first move in the game of chess. He brought the body of Caesar into the Roman Forum .

Antony gave a rousing funeral speech. You know the one made famous by Shakespeare — “Friends, Romans, and countrymen, lend me your ears.” Antony read what he claimed was the last will of Caesar, which left “everything” to the people of Rome.

Antony’s actions essentially defied Caesar and threw Romans into a frenzy. A few days later, Caesar’s body was cremated on the spot of Antony’s speech. It became a cult site.

Antony was hoping that the Romans would turn to him, as Caesar’s right hand man, to be the next leader. But that wasn’t in the cards. In Caesar’s actual will, he had named his 19 year old nephew Octavian as his heir.

4. The Second Triumpherate & Victory of Octavian

Octavian’s rise was anything but amicable. After Caesar’s death, and despite the recalcitrance of Antony, Octavian became a senator and then consul.

In 43 B.C., Octavian became part of a second power-sharing triumvirate with Antony and Marcus Lepidus. Octavian was by far the shrewdest of the lot.

In 42 B.C., Octavian had Julius Caesar officially deified. Octavian thereby became the son of a god.

The Second Triumvirate split up governance of the empire. Octavian remained in Italy, Antony was in Egypt, and Lepidus was in Africa.

The truce didn’t last long. As history shows, it’s not easy to share power and decisions by committee rarely work.

Ambition divided them. Bloody internal conflict ensued. Eventually, Lepidus was eliminated and forced to retire from public life.

Octavian was then locked in a struggle with Antony for control of the empire. Octavian ruled the western empire. Antony ruled the eastern empire.

Antony was also locked in a passionate relationship with Cleopatra at the time. They even had twins. Antony recognized Caesarion as the “King of Kings” and as the legitimate son of Caesar.

That was a bridge too far. Octavian realized the power couple was a threat to his authority. So another civil war began.

In 31 B.C., Octavian cleverly declared war on Antony’s lover, Cleopatra, not on Antony himself. Cleopatra was easy pickings. She was having an affair with Antony, who was married to Octavian’s sister Octavia.

When Antony divorced Octavia for Cleopatra, Octavian went into full attack mode. He turned Rome against Antony. Octavian and his right hand man, Marcus Agrippa, outmaneuvered the pair in a great naval battle, the Battle of Actium.

When trapped, Antony and Cleopatra fled. They later committed suicide to avoid capture. Caesarion was executed, ending the dream of a Roman-Egyptian Pharaoh. Octavian stole Cleopatra’s loot to pay and settle his army.

5. Augustus Becomes The First Emperor

Octavian adopted the name Augustus, which means first or revered one. In 27 B.C., Augustus was declared the first emperor of Rome. He would rule until 14 A.D.

Augustus is generally considered Rome’s greatest emperor. Augustus was a savvy politician who ushered in a lasting peace known as the Pax Romana. It was a peace won by bloody battles, so perhaps Augustus really brought a pacification not a peace.

Augustus revived Republican traditions. At least on the surface, he sought to placate the Senators and distance himself from any perceived despotism.

Augustus used the power of images to cement his reputation as a peaceful man who saved Rome from chaos. During Augustus’ reign, there was a constant production of coins, monuments, and statues in his image. He also created images of Aeneas and Romulus and Remus.

Augustus was also a brilliant administrator. He overhauled the creaking bureaucracy of the empire. Art and literature flourished.

With Agrippa’s help, Augustus spent massive sums on the architectural adornment of Rome. The historian Suetonius wrote that Augustus “could justly boast” that he had “found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble.”

But Augustus had a bloody rise and was the ultimate opportunist. He ruthlessly took advantage of a fragile Rome to seize power. He was calculating and distasteful, probably like most emperors.

Augustus passed severe adultery laws, while he continually cheated on his wives. Sometimes the cheating wasn’t out of lust, but political machinations. He disowned and exiled his only daughter Julia. 

He died at age 76 in 14 A.D., most likely of natural causes. The historian Suetonius tried to claim that Augustus’ wife Livia murdered him. Her son Tiberius was slated to inherit the empire, after all.

But this is likely pure gossip. Though probably a heartless power hungry empress, there’s really no evidence that Livia did this deed.

At his death, Augustus’ final words were “Have I played the part well? Then applaud as I exit.”

6. Roman Empire

Augustus’ descendants were known as the Julio-Claudian emperors. They ruled for almost 100 years, ending with the reviled Emperor Nero.

Tiberius was Augustus’ adopted son and hair. He one of Rome’s greatest generals. But he was a lackluster and disinterested emperor. He hid out in his villa in Capri, with a harem of young boys and girls.

Caligula was the third of the Caesarian emperors, succeeding Tiberius. Caligula is known as one of the mad Roman emperors. His profligacy, and possible neuropsychopathic craziness, led to his murder.

After Caligula’s death, the Senate attempted and failed to restore the Republic.  Caligula’s paternal uncle, Claudius, became emperor by the instigation of the Praetorian Guards.

Claudius was an able administrator and builder of public works. His reign saw an expansion of the empire into England.

The last of the Caesarian emperors was Nero. This bad boy was an infamous and profligate ruler. Nero was rumored to have killed his mother and two wives.

Legend holds that Nero set the great fire of Rome so that he could rebuild the city to his liking. Post fire, Nero erected the  Golden House , his massive pleasure palace.

For his misdeeds and spendthrift ways that left an empty treasury, Nero was declared a public enemy. He committed suicide at age 30 in 68 A.D.

After Nero’s death, the Flavian Emperors — Vespasian, Titus, and and Domitian — reigned. Vespasian restored peace to Rome after the reign of Nero. The trio built the mighty Colosseum , the site of gladiatorial games.

The Roman Empire prospered and was at its zenith under Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. Trajan embarked on an ambitious public building program, creating landmarks that still stand today.

Hadrian was also an architect. He built the Pantheon , the Temple of Venus and Roma in the Roman Forum ,  Castle Sant’Angelo , and  Villa Adriani  in nearby Tivoli.

The wise Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius was the last of the “Five Good Emperors of Rome.” His reign marked the end of a period of internal tranquility and good government.

But he made the sentimental choice of his son Commodus as his heir and future emperor. Commodus was a paranoid megalomaniac. He thought he was Hercules and fought with gladiators in the Colosseum . He was quickly murdered off.

After Aurelius, the Empire started a downward spiral of decay. The last of the building emperors was Caracalla. He murdered his brother and left a legacy of brutality.

After Caracalla, his cousin Elagabalus inherited the title of emperor at age 14. Elagabalus was just a teenager and may have been transgender. His/her reign was marred by sex scandals, atrocities, and religious controversy.

By the 3rd century A.D., the idea that the man on the throne could be bonkers was set in stone. From then on, the military raised emperors to power. They would then be quickly assassinated by supporters of the next emperor.

Rome was built to last. But it didn’t. Why? It’s a complicated explanation, with all kinds of theories and centuries of speculation.

At bottom, there were multiple causes: barbarian incursions, military overspending, territorial over-expansion, political instability, social inequality, and over-dependence on slaves. These factors caused the Roman Empire to slowly crumble over time.

When Constantine came to power in 306 A.D., he accelerated the decline. He split the empire in two. Constantine ruled the eastern half from Constantinople, a city he named after himself.

Constantine also introduced Christianity. This further undercut the empire, weakening traditional Roman values.

Christianity shifted the focus from polytheism to monotheism. It substituted the divine right of emperors with the glory of a sole deity. The church gradually replaced the declining civil authority, and swiped the state’s money to buy land and build churches.

After Constantine, few emperors ruled the entire Roman Empire. It was simply too big and was under attack from every direction. Usually, there was an emperor of the Western Roman Empire ruling from Italy or Gaul and an emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire ruling from Constantinople.

Rome could no longer keep its grip on its far flung lands. Nor keep the barbarians at bay.

In the 5th century A.D., Rome was sacked twice: first by the Goths in 410 and then the Vandals in 455. The swarms of barbarians kept coming. The empire fell in 476 A.D.

After the western part of the Roman Empire fell, the eastern half continued to exist. It lived on as the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years. Therefore, the “fall of Rome” really refers only to the fall of the western half of the Empire.

In 476 A.D., Romulus, the last of the Roman emperors in the west, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer. He became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome.

The glamor and glory of ancient Rome was replaced with the Dark Ages. But Rome rebounded from its medieval gloom. The city would go on to create some of the most spectacular art and architecture of the Renaissance.

READ : Guide To The Best Art In Italy

I hope you’ve enjoyed my nutshell history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. You may enjoy these other Rome travel guides and resources:

• 3 day itinerary for Rome
• 5 day itinerary for Rome
• Hidden gems in Rome
• Best museums in Rome
• Archaeological sites in Rome
• Guide to the Borghese Gallery
• Rome’s secret palace museums
• Guide to the Capitoline Museums
• Guide to Palatine Hill
• Guide to the Roman Forum
• Guide to the Colosseum

If you need an article on the history of Ancient Rome, pin it for later.

10 thoughts on “The Rise And Fall Of Ancient Rome, A Nutshell History Of Rome”

Leslie did a remarkable job of taking a very long history and condensing into a wonderful readable summary. The pictures were well chosen and brought life to the narrative

Great blog, Leslie. Summarizing the long and complicated history of Rome into a short and readable piece is a major feat in itself. I look forward to reading some of your other descriptions of locations, history and art throughout Europe. Much of Rome’s history is similar to our own, and right now we appear to be in about the a similar state as Rome was mid fifth century AD.

Thanks Alan. I never tire of Ancient Rome.

Thank you so much!

Glad you enjoyed it!

I love your writing. It really inspires the revolutionary spirit of Rome. The story of the history of early Rome can be fascinating. Thank you for this amazing article.

Thank you so much for your comment! 🙂

Amazing work ! Great for a quick read before an upcoming tour .

Thank you S.G.! Ancient Rome is endlessly fascinating.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Last Updated on July 6, 2023 by Leslie Livingston

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

8 Reasons Why Rome Fell

By: Evan Andrews

Updated: September 5, 2023 | Original: January 14, 2014

1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes

The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire’s borders. The Romans weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome.

The Empire spent the next several decades under constant threat before “the Eternal City” was raided again in 455, this time by the Vandals. Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western Empire suffered its death blow.

2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor

Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor. In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms.

At the same time, the empire was rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy depended on slaves to till its fields and work as craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally provided a fresh influx of conquered peoples to put to work. But when expansion ground to a halt in the second century, Rome’s supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came in the fifth century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and agricultural production in decline, the Empire began to lose its grip on Europe.

3. The rise of the Eastern Empire

The fate of Western Rome was partially sealed in the late third century, when Emperor Diocletian divided the Empire into two halves—the Western Empire seated in the city of Milan, and the Eastern Empire in Byzantium, later known as Constantinople. The division made the empire more easily governable in the short term, but over time the two halves drifted apart. East and West failed to adequately work together to combat outside threats, and the two often squabbled over resources and military aid.

As the gulf widened, the largely Greek-speaking Eastern Empire grew in wealth while the Latin-speaking West descended into an economic crisis. Most importantly, the strength of the Eastern Empire served to divert Barbarian invasions to the West. Emperors like Constantine ensured that the city of Constantinople was fortified and well guarded, but Italy and the city of Rome—which only had symbolic value for many in the East—were left vulnerable. The Western political structure would finally disintegrate in the fifth century, but the Eastern Empire endured in some form for another thousand years before being overwhelmed by the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s.

4. Overexpansion and military overspending

At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare. Even with their excellent road systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or effectively enough to manage their holdings.

Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century, the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair.

5. Government corruption and political instability

If Rome’s sheer size made it difficult to govern, ineffective and inconsistent leadership only served to magnify the problem. Being the Roman emperor had always been a particularly dangerous job, but during the tumultuous second and third centuries it nearly became a death sentence. Civil war thrust the empire into chaos, and more than 20 men took the throne in the span of only 75 years, usually after the murder of their predecessor.

The Praetorian Guard—the emperor’s personal bodyguards—assassinated and installed new sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the highest bidder. The political rot also extended to the Roman Senate, which failed to temper the excesses of the emperors due to its own widespread corruption and incompetence. As the situation worsened, civic pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.

6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes

The Barbarian attacks on Rome partially stemmed from a mass migration caused by the Huns’ invasion of Europe in the late fourth century. When these Eurasian warriors rampaged through northern Europe, they drove many Germanic tribes to the borders of the Roman Empire. The Romans grudgingly allowed members of the Visigoth tribe to cross south of the Danube and into the safety of Roman territory, but they treated them with extreme cruelty.

According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman officials even forced the starving Goths to trade their children into slavery in exchange for dog meat. In brutalizing the Goths, the Romans created a dangerous enemy within their own borders. When the oppression became too much to bear, the Goths rose up in revolt and eventually routed a Roman army and killed the Eastern Emperor Valens during the Battle of Adrianople in A.D. 378. The shocked Romans negotiated a flimsy peace with the barbarians, but the truce unraveled in 410, when the Goth King Alaric moved west and sacked Rome. With the Western Empire weakened, Germanic tribes like the Vandals and the Saxons were able to surge across its borders and occupy Britain, Spain and North Africa.

7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values

The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity.

Meanwhile, popes and other church leaders took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticized. While the spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors.

8. Weakening of the Roman legions

For most of its history, Rome’s military was the envy of the ancient world. But during the decline, the makeup of the once mighty legions began to change. Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies. The ranks of the legions eventually swelled with Germanic Goths and other barbarians, so much so that Romans began using the Latin word “barbarus” in place of “soldier.”

While these Germanic soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their power-hungry officers often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked the city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while serving in the Roman legions.

HISTORY Vault: Rome: Engineering an Empire

The thirst for power shared by all Roman emperors fueled an unprecedented mastery of engineering and labor. Explore the engineering feats that set the Roman Empire apart from the rest of the ancient world.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

A Short Timeline of the Fall of the Roman Empire

Some of the Main Events Leading to the End of the Western Roman Empire

• Figures & Events
• Ancient Languages
• Mythology & Religion
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History
• M.A., Linguistics, University of Minnesota
• B.A., Latin, University of Minnesota

The Fall of the Roman Empire was undoubtedly an earth-shattering occurrence in Western civilization, but there isn't one single event that scholars can agree on that decisively led to the end of the glory that was Rome, nor which point on a timeline could stand as the official end. Instead, the fall was slow and painful, lasting over a period of two and a half centuries.

The ancient city of Rome, according to tradition, was founded in 753 BCE. It wasn't until 509 BCE, however, that the Roman Republic was founded. The Republic functioned effectively until civil war during the first century BCE led to the fall of the Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire in 27 CE. While the Roman Republic was a time of great advances in science, art, and architecture, the "fall of Rome" refers to the end of the Roman Empire in 476 CE.

Fall of Rome Events Short Timeline

The date at which one starts or ends a Fall of Rome timeline is subject to debate and interpretation. One could, for example, start the decline as early as the second century CE reign of Marcus Aurelius' successor, his son Commodus who ruled 180–192 CE. This period of imperial crisis is a compelling choice and easy to understand as a starting point.   

This Fall of Rome timeline, however, uses standard events and marks the end with British historian Edward Gibbon's conventionally accepted date for the fall of Rome at 476 CE, as described in his famous history entitled The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire . So this timeline begins just before the east-west splitting of the Roman Empire, a time described as chaotic, and ends when the last Roman emperor was deposed but allowed to live out his life in retirement.

• The End of the Roman Empire
• The End of the Roman Republic Timeline
• Timelines and Chronologies of Roman Emperors
• Economic Reasons for the Fall of Rome
• Roman Timeline
• The Fall of Rome: How, When, and Why Did It Happen?
• Periods of History in Ancient Rome
• Roman Republic
• The 6 Types of Togas Worn in Ancient Rome
• Reasons for the Fall of Rome
• The End of the Republic of Rome
• The Provinces of the Roman Empire (Circa 120 CE)
• Timeline of the Period of the Dominate
• Key Events in Italian History
• Primary Sources of Roman History
• Major Events in Ancient History

Ancient Rome

The fall of rome.

History >> Ancient Rome

• The politicians and rulers of Rome became more and more corrupt
• Infighting and civil wars within the Empire
• Attacks from barbarian tribes outside of the empire such as the Visigoths, Huns, Franks , and Vandals.
• The Roman army was no longer a dominant force
• The empire became so large it was difficult to govern

• The Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium , fell in 1453 to the Ottoman Empire .
• Many poor people were glad to see Rome fall. They were starving to death while being taxed heavily by Rome.
• Near the end of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome was no longer the capital. The city of Mediolanum (now Milan) was capital for a while. Later, the capital was moved to Ravenna.
• Rome was sacked once again in 455 AD by Geiseric, King of the Vandals. The Vandals were an Eastern Germanic tribe. The term "vandalism" comes from the Vandals.
• Take a ten question quiz about this page.
• Listen to a recorded reading of this page:

A Summary and Analysis of W. H. Auden’s ‘The Fall of Rome’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

Written in 1947, ‘The Fall of Rome’ is one of W. H. Auden’s finest poems of his middle period. Although he had made his name as a poet in the 1930s – indeed, as the most celebrated English poet of that decade – he continued to be prolific for the next three-and-a-half decades until his death in 1973.

What makes ‘The Fall of Rome’ such a fine example of Auden’s 1940s work? Before we offer some words of analysis, you might wish to read the poem here .

In summary, ‘The Fall of Rome’ is about the fall of the Roman empire: its title indicates as much. But we should say two things about that title. First, Auden calls his poem ‘The Fall of Rome ’ rather than ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’, a title which would have brought to mind Edward Gibbon’s vast eighteenth-century history, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire .

Is ‘Rome’ meant to stand in, as a form of synecdoche, for the whole of the Roman empire in Auden’s title? Or does he have the geographical city specifically in mind? We’ll return to this question.

The other key thing to draw attention to about Auden’s title is that it is only partially true: many of the details in Auden’s poem are clearly anachronistic for a poem about the Roman empire in the fifth century BCE, such as the idea of a clerk writing on a ‘pink official form’ (rather than scratching things onto a tablet, which is what a Roman official would have done). So the poem is, if not quite an allegory for another empire and another time, a poem about both the fall of Rome and the fall of other great civilisations.

In this respect, it’s worth pairing Auden’s poem with another poem by a great twentieth-century Anglo-American poet: The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot . Eliot published The Waste Land in 1922, a few years after the end of the First World War; Eliot’s poem is about the fall of empires, with ‘Jerusalem Athens Alexandra’ paving the way for ‘Vienna [and] London’, with London’s imminent fall forecast next.

As the critic Eleanor Cook among others has shown, the fall of the Roman empire lurks behind The Waste Land , through (among others) the reference to the Battle of Mylae, which took place during one of the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage.

Rome is the city missing from Eliot’s list of fallen cities which were the centres of empires and civilisations: the First World War had put paid to the Austro-Hungarian empire which had its capital at Vienna, and Eliot’s poem seems to imply that, when we observe the financial and sexual habits of Londoners, the days of the British Empire, too, are numbered.

Auden, too, was writing his poem about the fall of an empire in the immediate wake of a world war: 1947 was just two years after the end of the Second World War, of course, but it was also the year that India gained its independence from the British Empire, and the year that, in the wake of the end of the war, the breakup of Britain’s imperial possessions seemed to be inevitable (as, indeed, the next few decades showed).

Auden’s anachronisms reinforce something that Eliot’s poem also shows: that history repeats itself, and that mighty empires always have their time in the sun but are inevitably doomed to die.

‘The Fall of Rome’ begins and ends with the focus on the world beyond human concerns: the timeless ocean and the indomitable weather in the first stanza, and the reindeer migrating thousands of miles away from Rome, in northern Canada for instance, in the poem’s final stanza.

Such book-ending is also reinforced by the stanzas’ abba rhyme schemes, which mimic the act of moving towards something before ultimately moving out from it again, much as the poem homes or zooms in on the people of Rome only to leave them behind again at the end of the poem.

Furthermore, there is a striking passivity in the opening line, with the piers being ‘pummelled by the waves’, with the passive voice reflecting the fact that the world goes on beyond man’s own endeavours: his (man-made) piers, built to enable the loading and unloading of goods for trade all over the vast empire of the Mediterranean, are at the mercy of the ravages of the sea (and, by extension, time), which has no knowledge of what it does. Even the outlaws ‘fill[ing] the mountain caves’ suggests that their occupation of the caves is inevitable.

And when we come to the human players in this miniature drama, the emphasis is on the financial inequality that is rife throughout the city (and the empire): tax-dodgers are hastening the financial ruin of the city, and although ‘Cerebrotonic Cato’ (a Stoic Roman senator and noted orator) may speak about grand intellectual pursuits, he is divorced from reality, because the sailors and soldiers have not been paid their wages (presumably because the tax-defaulters have taken their money with them).

‘Cerebrotonic’ means intellectual but with little social understanding, so is a stroke of genius on Auden’s part – not least because it’s exactly the sort of word Cato would know and use.

The socio-economic inequality is further exposed in the following stanza, where Caesar (either Julius Caesar or one of the emperors who followed him and took that name: ironically, Julius Caesar was called Caesar but wasn’t a ‘Caesar’, i.e. an emperor) has a comfortable double bed and someone to share it with, while the poor lowly clerk (trying to do something about the lack of funds and balance the books) angrily but silently protests about his hatred of his work. This stanza is one of the finest Auden wrote, not least because it is simultaneously provocative, funny, moving, and infinitely ‘relatable’.

Then, in the penultimate stanza, we get the bird’s-eye view – quite literally. The birds sit on their eggs and ‘eye’ each of the cities plagued by flu and other diseases. And then we have that majestic final stanza, with its closing line treading the fine line between banal simplicity and profundity: Seamus Heaney, who elsewhere dismissed Auden as ‘a charming writer of light verse’, singled out this line as an example of Auden’s ‘music’. The slowness of ‘Silently’ is then undone by the simple brevity of ‘very fast’.

‘The Fall of Rome’ does what T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land had done at the end of the First World War, but applies this blending of different cities, empires, and time-periods to the fallout from the Second World War.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

2 thoughts on “A Summary and Analysis of W. H. Auden’s ‘The Fall of Rome’”

I love Auden, and this is a great example of why. The poem manages to be simultaneously timeless while ostensibly being about a specific moment in time. He also manages to touch on grand concepts without coming across as overly academic or inaccessible.

Auden’s poetry has always fascinated me. It makes for a good reading and it transports me to very nice moments in my life.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading