0
The society was corrupt, its leaders simply incompetent, the army was composed of generations of Germanic mercenaries, most of Rome's territories had been lost, and the empire finally succumbed to seven waves of invasion which left it precariously weak by the 470s. In 476, the Barbarian King Odoacer forced the last emperor, Romulus Augustus to abdicate from the throne, this marked the end of the "Roman" Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was then called the Byzantine Empire from that point onward.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Coach
Maxine
LaoIt had been under pressure from 376 CE, when waves Goths, Vandals and Huns etc began to move over the Danube. These peoples established increasing influence and simply replaced and absorbed the Latin hierarchy. While a veneer of Roman rule remained, it was not Roman. The peoples of the Western Empire may not have considered this progressive change as terminal, and titles remained, after 476 CE when Romulus was deposed as Emperor, there was no effective central control which could be described as a coherent government, with local rulers dominating different provinces.
There were several factors that led to the fall of the western part of the Roman empire. Among them were pressures on the borders, a weak military, indecisive leaders, and the loss of the spirit of public service, which was replaced by sheer self-interest on the part of most men in authority.
Historians have identified or argued about a whole host of factors that contributed to the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire (the eastern part of the Roman Empire continued to exist for another 1,000 years
The most important factor in the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire were the Germanic invasions. A wave of Germanic peoples form central Europe (the Vandals, Sueves, Alans and Burgundians) crossed the river Rhine (a frontier of the empire) and invaded Gaul in 406 AD. The Alemanni of southern Germany took advantage of this to seize Lorraine (in northwest France) and Switzerland. The Vandals established a kingdom in Africa; the Visigoths (who had migrated from the eastern part of the Roman Empire where they had been allowed to settle earlier) established one in Spain. The Burgundians set up a kingdom in Burgundy and Savoy (in eastern France). The strain caused by the invasions caused to western part of the empire to loose political cohesion. There was continuous infighting and a lot of usurpations and three was political disintegration. The invasions were related to two other factors at work at the time: the Migration Period and an overstretched military.
The Germanic invasions were part of Migration Period. In this period many peoples north and east of the Roman Empire were migrating. Several Germanic peoples migrated from northern Europe to central Europe. There were also migrations by the Scythians (Iranian-speaking peoples) and the Huns from Asia into eastern Europe. This created a squeeze in central Europe and some Germanic peoples from that area where the ones who migrated into Gaul in the invasion of 406 mentioned above. These invasions were more than military actions. They were migrations which often involved the movement 100-150,000 people for each of these peoples. Moreover, the Germanic peoples had good soldiers and powerful cavalries.
In its later days, the Roman Empire had become overstretched militarily. Because of the mentioned migrations, its vast frontiers were under constant attack. This created a sort of cat and mouse game. The Romans had to gather large armies and deploy them to the areas under attack. This exposed other areas because many of its soldiers had been moved to the areas under attack. These areas were, in turn, also attacked. This created a pattern of raids into the parts empire followed by retreat before the Roman army was redeployed to reach the raiders. Over time this increased the strain on the Roman Army.
The invasions into Gaul of 406 occurred at a time when Roman soldiers were withdrawn from Britain and the frontier of Gaul to fight an attempted invasion of Italy by an Ostrogoth king. The Romans defeated him, but at the price of the mentioned Germanic peoples taking advantage of this to cross the river Rhine and invade Gaul. Because this involved migrations, these invasions were no longer just raids. They were occupations of territories. The number of attackers and invaders was too large for the Roman army to deal with. When the Roman legions withdrew from Britain, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians migrated there in waves and eventually took over this island. and the Franks of southern Holland and central Germany (who had been allowed to settle in Belgium by the Romans) then took over the a Roman territory in central Gaul which had broken away from Rome. Eventually they took over most of Western Europe.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was not a contributing factor to the fall of roman empire?
You need to research the topic so that you can decide what was not a factor for yourself.
What are the many reasons historains give for the fall of the roman empire?
It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.It seems that every historian has his/her own theory as to why the Roman empire fell. You can get reasons such as a weakened army, lack of leadership, economic factors and even lead poisoning for the fall and they would all be correct. Most agree that there was no one factor that caused the fall of Rome, but a combination of external and internal pressures that caused the fall.
Why did the US want to aid western Europe?
In layman's terms: After the First World War Germany got a really raw deal this was a contributing factor to the Second World War, so the U.S was afraid of a third one and they gave western Europe loans to ensure stability and prosperity. Also they were afraid that weak, poor European countries would be more susceptible to communist revolution.
What was the most important reason for the tax increases that caused hardships in the Roman Empire?
The enormous expenditure on the pay for soldiers and commanders and on military provisions of an massive army of some 40.000 was the main cause for the increase that created hardship in the Roman empire. The state could barely manage to finance this. This led to an oppressive tax regime. The expansion of the imperial bureaucracy, which became bloated, by the emperor Diocletian was also another important factor.
How did inflation lead to the Roman Empire's decline?
This is an assumption, not a fact. Contrarily, high inflation towards the end of the empire is arguably the sign, and not the cause, of the weakening empire. See the reasons for the inflation, at the link below.
