Skip to main content

What caused the fall of the Roman Empire?

Ah, this question has beset historians for centuries! Theories about what brought the Fall of the Roman Empire include excessive military spending, lead poisoning, and just about everything in between. The present consensus, based upon historical and archaeological evidence, is that there was no singular cause of the Fall, but a number of factors which served to compound one another. 


Perhaps the biggest reason contributing to the Fall of Rome was how widespread the Empire grew to be. At its fullest extent, the Roman Empire included the coast of North Africa, all of Southern and Western Europe, and even territory in the Arabian Peninsula. In all of these territories, soldiers and officials were sent from the central Roman territory to act as overseers and enforcers of the Roman law. Over such a wide expense of territory, it was incredibly difficult to govern such various locations with differing troubles like crop failure, crime, or invaders from outside the Empire. Imagine trying to hop on one foot, tap dance with the other, use one and to eat spaghetti, and the other to juggle- it's just too much going on out of concert! In short, Rome could not effectively manage the great expanses of territory they had acquired so quickly, and the empire crumbled under poor administration. 


In addition to the "too much to govern, not enough government" problem, the Roman Empire had to deal with repeated invasions by Germanic tribes from the North. With inadequate numbers of Roman soldiers to fight or officials to negotiate, territory in the North and West of the Empire quickly fell to the Goths, the Huns, the Alans, and others. Some of these tribes were so successful that they made it all the way to Italy, and in 476, the Germanic king Odoacer deposed the last Emperor of Rome. Though Rome had been weakening for some time, the overthrow of Emperor Romulus meant that the West was irreparably torn apart.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more