No, when Rome became two empires (eastern and western), each, not only fought internally but, they, eastern and western empires, collided.
SEE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire
~~
2007-07-03 03:32:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by . 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many people seem to think that the Roman Empire never truly fell, but in fact still exists to this day. There is a conspiracy theory floating around that the Roman Empire is still being controlled by the Roman Catholic church, that the Pope is the "Emperor", and that every Catholic in the world is a "citizen" of Rome.
2007-07-03 10:59:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Maverick 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No!!!! In fact, the eastern part of the Roman Empire that adopted Christianity survived 1000 year more than the pagan Western part.
Poor leadership made the western part of the Roman Empire fail . Leaders were more interested in executing people, killing their political enemies, orgees, etc. Also, some of their Western Roman leaders were criminally insane . As a result, they did nothing but party.
The western part of the Roman Empire Senate lost their power and they had to adhere to some of the Western leader's craziness.
2007-07-03 12:29:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kandice F 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Rome had many problems, and Christianity was only one of them. The subject is much too complex to do justice to it here. Rome split, as some have noted, and the eastern Empire endured much longer than the western one.
2007-07-03 10:48:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The seeds of Rome's fall were sown as early as 202 B.C, when the successes of Rome's consuls and the expansion of Rome's foreign policy bred corruption and a strong reliance on the role of Rome's legions to exert Rome's influence and dominance.
From 202 B.C and the success of Scipio Africanus, we see Roman generals becoming more politically involved in Rome's government. The appointment of Fabius 'The Delayer' as dictator to deal with the invasion of Hannibal was the first of many dangerous steps towards the military dictatorship of the Roman consuls.
Marius held the consulate seven times and used the plebian tribunes to gain support of the plebians against the established senatorial patrician classes. The senatorial families hit back with the proclamation of Sulla as dictator to deal with insurrections.
The political machinations of Caesar and his military successes in Gaul and Germania combined with Caesar's alliance with Pompey and Crassus, saw Caesar's ambitions of rising to the pinnacle of power in Rome resulted in the Senate growing wary of Caesar's power.
The death of Caesar, the Civil War, and the succession of Caesar's adopted heir Octavian - better known as Augustus to the principate and his holding of all of the main offices of Rome finally led to the Roman senate becoming more or less of a rubber stamp for the Roman imperators.
After Augustus and the Julian line, the role of Emperor became that of a military leader than an able administrator, as the barbarian tribes in Germania and discontent in Asia Minor threatened Rome's empire. We see the role of Emperor being less of a capable administrator of an Empire than a military leader securing Rome's borders.
While Christianity emerged as a popular religious following that attracted the support of the poor and disenfranchised in the Roman Empire, the corruption of the military, inability of successive emperors to manage the Empire, and the inability of the military to meet the pressures on the Empire's borders finally sealed the fate of the Empire.
2007-07-03 11:09:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Big B 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No.
Rome was already in decline and its populace was torn apart by a variety of religious factions and political parties.
Emporer Constatine used christianity to unite his people under one religion. He believed that by using christianity as the national religion he could unify Rome once more.
Contrary to what a lot of people say-Constatine was not a true believer in Jesus Christ.
2007-07-03 10:33:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Rome started to fail, when they put foreign nationals in positions of power, controlling their armies.
2007-07-03 10:33:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by dryheatdave 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Rome started to fail because the pipes in their plumbing were made of lead. The slow ingestion of lead made them all go a bit do-lally.
2007-07-03 10:45:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Velouria 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Rome fell because the people got used to peace and prosperity, and expected it to be handed to them on a silver platter, and they didn't want to go to war - so they hired others to fight their wars for them, and pretty soon, those others started to attack Rome itself.
2007-07-03 10:38:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bill W 【ツ】 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Christianity was only part of the problem. See the list below.
2007-07-03 10:35:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by staisil 7
·
1⤊
2⤋