What were the main causes of the Roman Empire’s decline?

Answer 1

Some people say the corruption in the government, the decadence of the urban culture, as evinced in the film story, Caligula. Others, such as Gibbons, point to the increased reliance on mercenary armies, over-expansion, rising power of certain enemies, such as the Goths. Others have pointed out the Romans' reliance on lead piping for drinking water.

You should read the articles in Wikipedia, and judge for yourself, if you don't have time to read Gibbons.

Answer 2

Basically, there was great inflation, and socially, the bishops gathered increasing power; the Church became answerable to it's own ecclesiastical law, as did bishops, who began to hold enormous influence, virtually rivalling the Emperor in that respect. The thing with the Germanic tribes is that they did not want to invade and 'overthrow' the Empire. Rather, they wanted to become a part of it. Their rebellion, e.g. battle of Adrianople, came about because of maltreatment from Roman officials. However, the use of the word 'decline' isn't really accurate. The Roman Empire lasted, in the form of the Byzantine Empire, until 1453 when it was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks. So whilst those Germanic tribes might have been causing problems in the West, in the East the Empire (though hassled by the Sassanians and later the Arabs) continued for a long time after.

Answer 3

The fickleness of the Roman Legions was one of the "main causes" of the Empire's decline, especially during the disastrous 3rd century A.D. It not only undermined Rome's military power, but Rome's political and bureacratic machine, as well.

Civil wars was an inescapable problem that plagued Rome from the beginning i.e. the supposed mythical dispute between the brothers, Romulus and Remus. This "problem" was not only due to ambiguity of succession in the principate, but the age old Roman tradition of patronage.

According to Phillip Spann, “Marius and Sulla learnt the Arcanum rei publicae, the secret of the Republic . . . that power and honors lay not in law and traditions of the Republic . . . but in a loyal army made up of men whose experience in war and devotion to their commander had been forged in extended provincial command, of men who were eager for farms and retirement, men ready to conquer Rome and kill Romans for their general and their price.” This secret was later used by others such as Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Vespasian.

The military playing field also became more level as Germanic mercenaries adapted legionary fighting techniques and became as efficient and deadly as their Roman counterparts.

In the end, the early principate was an effective form of administration. It survived the likes of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. However, by the 3rd century AD., with imperial incompetency becoming the norm and not the exception, Roman generals saw oppurtunities for usurpation, encouraged by their troops no doubt. For example, there were approximately fourteen "barracks" emperors between 235-284 AD. The Germanic invasions and a resurgence of the Parthian empire did not help the situation. It seemed the 1st century BC. was being replayed all over again. This time though, there was to be no Augustus.

Answer 4

There are many causes, and it is hard to determine one particular "cause." At that time the power of the emporer was declining quickly because the people who assumed the role were unable to fulfill the duties required of them. The Bishop of Rome was actually stealing power from the Emperor and denying him communion for executing Romans. There was also a shortage of people in the army, and so people were hired to fight for the romans (attila the hun is a famous one of these). Consequently the military advantage that Rome had previously had declined also. In addition it was difficult with the technology available to rule such a large area with out the ability to quickly move from one spot to another. Other groups were growing larger. Finally the Roman supply of income also drastically decreased for two reasons a. the failure to take over more land and steal and pillage their property and b. the shift of trade farther and farther east. Basically they went on the defensive instead of staying on the offensive.

Answer 5

This is in very simplistic terms by the way.

The main points for the decline and fallof thr Roman Empire were;

1. bad emperors
2. increasing civilization of the people of the empire (which means weaker soldiers)
3. Roman disunity, endless infighting
4. economic decline
5. plagues
6. mass migration
7. and the settlement of the Visigoths in Moesia

Answer 6

roman empire was a civilization that wondered if they were part of a plan and if other places like oitself were out beond the water,romans got as far as humans could by getting ideas from natutre like the plants and animals,they developed a clock because the plants changed with the seasons. they just got finished and didnt really live ther because jobs werent heard of so it probubly something people built to get knew ideas, and as soon as it was done built the ideas they got from puting the diffrent ideas to gether to make some thing new,

Answer 7

For the same 2 reasons that every civilization declines and dies:
1. Nothing lasts forever
2. Human nature never changes.

Answer 8

Overpopulation. A failure of the system to ensure reliable leadership after a transfer of power (leading to bad emperors). Pressure from outside (barbarian hordes). Lead pipes (poisoning of the populace). Failure to stay on the cutting edge of technology (those said barbarians had superior bows and saddles and knew how to use them against the Roman infantry). Bad weather (drought and sustained cold led to crop failures). Plague. Christian schismatics (well, "internal religious division"). Debased coinage. Piracy. Political corruption. Social malaise.
That about covers it. Yep, that old empire just fell apart ... after about 1600 years. Not bad.

Answer 9

I would think greed and war seems to be the reason which Attila the Hun crew destroyed Rome and it collapsed.

Answer 10

occuping to much territory, a smaller army, and the economical collapse of the trading partners