what problems lead to the destruction of the roman empire?

Question

whatproblems do historyians think were the moast important pleeeeeeze help me im in 7th grade and confused

sorry about the spelling im in a hurry to get a good answer

Answer 1

There are many reasons for the fall of the roman empire.
Some reasons are because there were many invasions by the huns, vandals and the visigoths, there was civil war, food shortage, increased taxes and abandoned farm land. Also, lots of money was used on churches, there were bad emperors and maintaining an army was expensive which lead to poor quality of housing, roads, aqueducts ect. since there was no money to repair things.

These are just some reasons, but there are lots of great websites about this on the internet. Google it, and see what you can find!!
Hope you get a good mark for this! : )

Answer 2

You will likely receive many multi-factorial and very lengthy answers to this broad question. I'll submit one event - the Battle of Adrianople in 378 CE. Emperor Valens leading a Roman army lost 20,000 out of a 30,000 man force to Fritigern and his Goths who did not outnumber him. {Valens also lost his life - he was killed in the battle} The Roman legions were simply NOT the fighting force they had been in the early days of the Empire. There are many reasons the army had gone into decline, but it is the failure to defend the empire that led every so called 'barbarian' horde to raid, plunder, and eventually completely control all the areas of the once great western Roman empire. Remember, though, the Roman empire DID persist in the east with Constantinople as its capital. It would become known as the Byzantine empire which causes many to forget that it was in fact a part of the old Roman system. The Byzantine empire lasted another thousand years until 1453 when the Islamic Ottoman turks conquered it.
Another major factor (which CLAUDIA's and "old dog's" answers below made me think of) is depopulation. Fewer actual Romans. Claudia mentions abandoned farms. Why? The population was dwindling. Epidemic diseases hit hard in the 160-180CE reign of Marcus Aurelius. IT may have been the emergence of smallpox and/or measles decimating the Roman people. Lead poisoning over time is a good point.
That could certainly have affected fertility and the growth of healthy generations of Romans to man the armies. So many soldiers in the latter stages of the Roman Empire were recruited from 'barbarian' tribes. They no longer had the native manpower. Any empire that is wealthy - and cannot defend itself adequately - will be conquered. Historical maxim.

Answer 3

Believe it or not but a lot of scholars are blaming lead poisoning as a major factor.
Throughout the centuries of that Empire their plumbing system used lead pipes. That was for their drinking water, their irrigation pipes, sanitary pipes, and other uses of lead. (such a strong and malleable metal) Wine was mulled in lead flagons, and food was prepared in lead utensils as well. Century after century they ingested this lead in trace amounts. Women while pregnant, and passing it on to the foetus, who in turn grew up with this toxic intake passing it on to their own children, who bore their own children while in these living conditions. Every generation the consequences got worse. A slow insanity set in the general population.
Strange as it sounds darlin, lead is one of the main factors in the downfall of the Roman Empire. It wasn't the one reason by far, but think about it! Generations of Romans eating minute amounts of lead over centuries?
What do you think the results would be?

Answer 4

Hi my name is Angie Lee I'm in 7 grade too, will what does your question really mean, can you be more specific. I don't really know but here's what I was thinking. My reasons are because there were many invasions by the huns, vandals and the Visigoths, there was civil war going on during the time, food shortage meaning families food would get lower and no more, increased taxes, and abandoned farm land.

Answer 5

there are lots of theories -- these are some of the more current --

personal glory and greed kept generals pushing the boundaries of the empire but nobody was doing anything to strengthen the infrastructure so you had basically a strong wall pushing forward with nothing behind it for fortification -- enemies learned all you had to do was get past the frontline and they were in. all the monies were being spent on expansion -- none on defense.

the heart of the empire - rome itself was torn with political strife. lots of scandals and corruption and nonsense. leaders were too concerned with their personal gain and delusions of power to be concerned with the welfare of the empire. all the monies were being spent on personal whims and fancies -- none on stability or defense.

there is a large amount of archeological evidence that the fall of rome itself was pretty catastrophic and not just a surrender or non-event that a lot of people used to theorize. it didn't just dissolve. a lot of people used to blame the general lethargy of the romans and their merceneires (paid army) for the demise of the empire. it went down with a fight -- but they didn't have the finances to properly defend themselves because of personal greed of the leaders. merceneries won't march on empty stomachs.

Answer 6

Politics

Answer 7

the roman empire was destroyed from within .. their leaders became to corrupt, their army leaders became to lazy and to fat to get on their horses and the armies were made up of to many mercenaries (foreigners who just joined up for the money) when fighting became to hot and heavy they would drop their weapons and run.. losing most battles... the real roman soldier fought for his country not the money..

Answer 8

Here's a link that may help:

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html