The Fall of Rome and the Relevance of History
Why is the study of history important? My personal interest in history is not a practical one—it is simply an interesting hobby. But the question of relevance is an important one. One reason for studying history is to better understand human behavior. History studies how humans react to a variety of situations over time while anthropology shows how humans from different cultures react to the same kinds of situations. So one useful aspect to these disciplines is that they, in essence, create a database of human problems with a variety of solutions from different cultures and times and from such a database one can draw conclusions about what strategies are better or worse than others. Human nature is similar across time and cultures, so to some degree what applies to the Roman Empire will apply to us, though one must of course take into account such radical differences as technological and medical developments.
Why did Rome “fall” and what can we learn from it. Some would argue that Rome did not in fact fall. The Eastern half continued on for a millennium after the deposition of the last Western Emperor and the establishment of a barbarian state in Italy in 476 AD. Even in the West, the barbarian states that took the place of Rome in Italy, France and Spain saw themselves as continuations of the Roman tradition. Nevertheless, the Western Empire did cease to exist as a unified state and instead became a patchwork of barbarian states. What caused this.
A traditional explanation was that overpopulation among barbarian tribes to the East—Germans, Huns and Slavs—caused increasing pressure on Rome’s borders until finally tribe after tribe swarmed over Roman territory and took over. This traditional view is completely false. There is no evidence for overpopulation East of Rome’s borders. There were never any swarms of barbarians, but rather small bands and small armies seldom above 100,000. Compare that with the tens of millions of Rome. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, the barbarians who entered Rome’s borders were generally invited in.
Why were they invited in? As cheap recruits for Rome’s armies. It was cheaper to enlist the barbarian bands in their entirety than to defeat them. Furthermore, due to centuries of relative peace, Roman citizens were reluctant to join the army. Recruitment was never enough from citizens alone and the traditional Roman armies had become too expensive. So barbarian tribes were enlisted, eventually under their own leaders. Again, it was just plain cheaper.
The traditional Roman army won wars mainly through attention to supply and excellent training. This was a successful, but expensive strategy. During the 3rd century, a series of conflicts with barbarians and the Persians as well as constant civil war meant the economy was in shambles and the army could no longer be supported. Inflation became terrible and the economy collapsed. Diocletian and Constantine reorganized the system, but they also began the practice of recruiting barbarian tribes for the army. To avoid a repeat of the inflation of the 3rd century, and living in a similar militaristic environment of constant civil wars and border conflicts, the successors to Constantine relied more and more on the cheaper, worse trained barbarian recruits until, almost literally they became the entire army. Once this point was reached in the West (in the East the process never went so far, hence their ability to survive for so much longer) barbarian general started to replace Emperors at will until finally, in 476, they chose to have no Western Emperor at all and chose to run things themselves. The process was never an invasion, it was all done legally and orderly. The references listed below outline this process in great detail.
So what caused the fall of the empire? An unstable economy, leading to rampant inflation causing an inability to afford an effective army. The comparatively unskilled and unreliable troops that were then relied on, eventually did away with the Emperors and set up their own kings, thus initiating the so-called “Dark Ages”.
What caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? The process was not identical to the fall of Rome but has uncanny parallels. The unstable economy that was unable to support the military, yet the perception (real or imagined) that the army had to be maintained and expanded if possible led to the collapse of both great states. And the US, with a large standing army and a huge budget deficit should pay attention to the lessons of Rome and the Soviet Union. Our strength is our comparatively robust economy, and so we should avoid damage to that economy even if it means some sacrifice of our military strength. Similarly, inflation, is a force that has destabilized many states before and after the fall of Rome, and so Alan Greenspan’s obsession with keeping inflation down makes good historical sense.
The lessons of history can be overstated, though. History never repeats itself, it merely contains patterns. One such pattern is that of the unstable economy being unable to support the military leading to a breakdown of the entire system. The army is not a productive segment of society, so, though important, it must not be allowed to grow beyond what the economy can sustain, and I would argue that the fall of the Soviet Union as well as the economic problems of the US under Bush were both caused by this very process. In fact, the Cold War may be viewed as simply a situation where two empires kept forcing the other to spend more and more on supporting a military until the weaker of the two economies collapsed. Had it gone on much longer, our own economy may have collapsed as well.
I have greatly oversimplified all the historical periods discussed herein. For a better discussion of the Roman period, I provide the references which follow. But my intention was not to exhaustively draw these historical parallels, but merely to show that such parallels exist and can be learned from. Therein lies the practical justification for the study of history.
Recommended Reading:
Burns, T.S., Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome, Indiana University Press, 1994. (The most relevant reference demonstrating the recruitment of barbarian troops into the late Roman army and how this led to the establishment of independent barbarian kingdoms). Buy the Book Today!
Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans A.D. 418-584; The Techniques of Accommodation, Princeton University Press, 1980. (A detailed description of how the transition from Roman to barbarian rule may have occurred in an orderly fashion). Buy the Book Today!
Thompson, E.A., The Huns, Blackwell Publishers, 1996. (A good description of the small size and relative strengths and weaknesses of one of the most successful barbarian tribes). Buy the Book Today!
Wolfram, H., The Roman Empire and its Germanic People, University of California Press, 1990. (Another particularly relevant reference, arguing against the traditional “overpopulation and barbarian conquest” theories of the fall of Rome). Buy the Book Today!
Back to History
Back to Mole's Homepage
Email: michad03@mcrcr.med.nyu.edu
