Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire.

Hello all, in this post I will entail my theory of probably the largest reason for the eventual halt of Rome's growth, eventual infighting, and eventual downfall.

It is unwise to say that this is the reason that the Roman Empire fell, as it is unwise to say there is one reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. But it would not be incorrect to say that this did not play a huge part in the eventual fall of Rome.

I hold that the reason for the fall of Rome can be traced back to the Marian reforms. For those that do not know, the Marian (or Marius) reforms can be summed up in one sentence "The Marian reforms of 107 BC were a group of military reforms initiated by Gaius Marius, a statesman and general of the Roman republic." (Wikipedia).

While are there obvious benefits to the Marian reforms, there is one major drawback to them.

What the reforms ultimately did was take the loyalty of the Roman Soldier and shift it from the good of the state (which ultimately benefited the soldier), to the loyalty of the particular General that the soldier was serving under. Up until this point, the soldiers in the Roman Army were "upper class" citizens (upper class is in quotes because they certainly were not as poor as those allowed to serve under the Marian reforms), whose good, and success were tied into the wars. Most of them were farmers, although statesmen served the obligatory period of service to advance their career.

What all soldiers under this period held in common was the central unifying interest of the betterment of the state (through which came the betterment of the individual soldier). This unifying interest was lost with the Marian (or Marius) reforms.

Now the poor had a viable career that was not politics or farming. Their loyalty shifted from that of the state, to that of the general under which they served. No longer were soldiers focused only on the state. Now supplied by arms and weaponry earned through enlistment only (prior to this, a soldier had to pay for their own arms, armor, and ammunition), soldiers focused their loyalty on the General. Who could lead them to fame, glory, and power, few could have ever dreamed of prior to the Marian reforms.

And as a result: This is one of the things that paved the road for the long, brutal and bloody, civil wars that were to follow. Obviously this weakened the Roman Empire to the point where it could no longer actively resist, control, or defeat the neighbors that hemmed Rome in.

As a result, the death of Rome, long and slow as it was, was ultimately sealed the moment these reforms passed.

~John

Conrad describes reforms that eventually lead to the Roman Empire decline:

http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?t=144745

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awesomeness5577

Hmm, interesting... I haven't heard of this before. Anymore you would like to tell us?

---

I would be happy to, but what exactly would you like to know?

More on the Marian (Marius) reforms? More on how it impacted the Roman army?

~John

It is my understanding that the Roman empire collapsed because the eastern empire was held ransom and the western empire had to pay regularly or lose the eastern empire completely. This in turn depleted Rome entirely of it's base of power. Which in turn led to waves of Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine and invading Italy and eventually sacking Rome itself.

This is a simplified explanation, but accurate.

Yes, the Marian Reforms worked in the way you describe John, but what was The State?

To say that before Marius reformed the army, it functionned and performed to the benefit of the State in the modern sense of the word is misleading. The roman city-state was an oligarchy and ploutocracy. And in a very real sense, the army was made to perform for the benefit of the top families of Rome. Those top families, along with the occasional Homo Novus, or New Man, were the Roman state, and worked infatiguably to maintain their position atop the social tree. That included using the army to better their social status and to amass wealth. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

Conrad describes reforms that eventually lead to the Roman Empire decline:

http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?t=144745

---

Your sentence is somewhat mis-leading.

Conrad does indeed describe the reforms that took place towards the end of the empires existance (that is to say, when it was declineing). The reforms Conrad discusses only helped to end it, they were not the be all and end off of Rome. That particlar aspect was sealed (military speaking) when the Marian (Marius) reforms passed.

Had they (the Marian reforms) not passed, the likely hood of the civil wars occuring were much smaller, which inturn mean that the split of the Roman army was very unlikely to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awesomeness5577

Both, would be very interesting to hear :D

---

Alright, I will see what I can do (due to time constraints I will endit in a bigger version later).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abracax

It is my understanding that the Roman empire collapsed because the eastern empire was held ransom and the western empire had to pay regularly or lose the eastern empire completely. This in turn depleted Rome entirely of it's base of power. Which in turn led to waves of Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine and invading Italy and eventually sacking Rome itself.

This is a simplified explanation, but accurate.

---

That is indeed correct.

However, those are the effects of the Marian reforms taking place (as well as other factors).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

Yes, the Marian Reforms worked in the way you describe John, but what was The State?

To say that before Marius reformed the army, it functionned and performed to the benefit of the State in the modern sense of the word is misleading. The roman city-state was an oligarchy and ploutocracy. And in a very real sense, the army was made to perform for the benefit of the top families of Rome. Those top families, along with the occasional Homo Novus, or New Man, were the Roman state, and worked infatiguably to maintain their position atop the social tree. That included using the army to better their social status and to amass wealth. :)

---

What is your definition of state?

I must say I disagree. Before the Marian reforms (from my understanding, if I am wrong, please correct me) armies were raised from volunteers only when war threatened. Therefore there were no standing armies with which the familes could maneuver and attempt to gain power with. After the Marian reforms, that particlar scene changed.

~John

I believe that is false, the civil wars were bad, but they would have eventually worked themselves out, a general would have come out on top, and order would be restored. So all in all, I think it played a very small part, personally, I think he largest problem was the Roman Military's change from a well trained standing Roman army paid high wages and not in loot, to a poorly trained, mass standing Barbarous army given low wages and paid mostly in loot was the biggest factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

I believe that is false, the civil wars were bad, but they would have eventually worked themselves out, a general would have come out on top, and order would be restored. So all in all, I think it played a very small part, personally, I think he largest problem was the Roman Military's change from a well trained standing Roman army paid high wages and not in loot, to a poorly trained, mass standing Barbarous army given low wages and paid mostly in loot was the biggest factor.

---

I disagree.I highly respect your opinion, however.

A general did not work itself out (in a way it did, the trouble was others decided they would like to be top too... So ultimately this failed...). Keep in mind, the Marian reforms made it possible to have a long standing army, kept around both in peace-time and war.

Which, while having its' benefits, had one other huge draw-back.

In fact it is because of the Marian reforms that some Generals used their armies to continue to stay in power (or Imperium) longer then they should have. Eventually this lead to some of them becoming Emperor in all but name. None of this would have been possible, if not for the shift in loyalty from the state, to the General leading the men (which again can be traced back to the Marian reforms).

~John

John, Marius did not introduce standing armies either. As for the Roman state, I mean to say it differed from the modern concept of state in the way that the Romans overthrew the last king and set up the Republic to better protect and serve the interests of the leading families, which formed the Senate. That was Rome in the republican era.

Look, I am not arguing the root of the matter. Many commentators have traced the later troubles and ultimately the fall of the Empire to the Marian reforms, and I agree it came to be one of the root causes, as you do.

Where I take exception is "shortcutting" history this way. Marius did what he did for very good and patriotic reasons. That a measure of self aggrandizement was intrinsic in his reforms was also a very Roman thing to do, and I hate to see the Romans of that time and the time prior to Marius being depicted as selfless patriots only out to do the best for Rome. That is simply not true.
Not only the army itself, but the laws and unwritten "constitution" (The Mos Maiorum) were used by the Famous Families to better protect and advance their own interest. Marius, as a New Man, helped in breaking this open in his time, something the Gracchii brothers paid with their lives in trying to achieve (though not in the same way, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

John, Marius did not introduce standing armies either. As for the Roman state, I mean to say it differed from the modern concept of state in the way that the Romans overthrew the last king and set up the Republic to better protect and serve the interests of the leading families, which formed the Senate. That was Rome in the republican era.

Look, I am not arguing the root of the matter. Many commentators have traced the later troubles and ultimately the fall of the Empire to the Marian reforms, and I agree it came to be one of the root causes, as you do.

Where I take exception is "shortcutting" history this way. Marius did what he did for very good and patriotic reasons. That a measure of self aggrandizement was intrinsic in his reforms was also a very Roman thing to do, and I hate to see the Romans of that time and the time prior to Marius being depicted as selfless patriots only out to do the best for Rome. That is simply not true.
Not only the army itself, but the laws and unwritten "constitution" (The Mos Maiorum) were used by the Famous Families to better protect and advance their own interest. Marius, as a New Man, helped in breaking this open in his time, something the Gracchii brothers paid with their lives in trying to achieve (though not in the same way, of course).

---

Ah, forgive me then, for I was not attempting to "short-cut history."

His intentions were indeed admirable, and indeed, they did produce the most professional, best equiped, trained (and sometimes, lead) fighting force on the planet at the time.

However, my argument does not lie with his intentions, no matter how good or ill they were. His reforms still had the undesired effect of shifting the power from the betterment of the state (the SPQR), to the betterment of that particular founding general.

I will disagree with you on the dipiction of Romans. While, in everygroup, it is a given that there are those out only for themselves, my understanding is that this number was relatively low (prior to the Marian reforms, that is. After which this number steadily grew).

~John

Quote:

---

I disagree.I highly respect your opinion, however.

A general did not work itself out (in a way it did, the trouble was others decided they would like to be top too... So ultimately this failed...). Keep in mind, the Marian reforms made it possible to have a long standing army, kept around both in peace-time and war.

Which, while having its' benefits, had one other huge draw-back.

In fact it is because of the Marian reforms that some Generals used their armies to continue to stay in power (or Imperium) longer then they should have. Eventually this lead to some of them becoming Emperor in all but name. None of this would have been possible, if not for the shift in loyalty from the state, to the General leading the men (which again can be traced back to the Marian reforms).

---

A large standing army was a requirement anyway, the frontier required a large force to prevent Barbarian raids. And the civil wars did work themselves out, because for a long duration, I forget how many hundred of years, after the climax of the civil wars the roman empire was whole and without civil war. There was just a general decline as their Barbarian army faced off against other Barbarians.

Without a large standing army, the Roman Empire would have collapsed long before it did as Barbarians plundered and raided them without pursuit or adequate defense.

You also will need to look at the Eastern Roman Empire. It too used the same systems that were laid down by Marius of military, and it became one of the, if not the, longest lasting Empires in history. In order to preserve an Empire, a standing army is a requirement. Mobilization takes time, and if you need to mobilize a reserve of farmers every time a group of barbarians push through the undefended border to raid border towns... you'd never get anything done.

The Roman Army was among the best in the world at its height... and in the end the civil wars that were made possible by the Marian Reforms actually improved the Republic (I'm talking about the wars during the late Republic. The wars near the death of the Empire would have happened regardless, arguably, as a result of massive corruption) and turned it into one of the most powerful empires known to history.

In my opinion, the main failure of the Roman Army was two fold. For one, it failed to embrace cavalry as a major combatant, and relied on infantry with small cavalry support (About 300 horsemen were attached to each 6,000 man Legion if I recall correctly) in Rome's main Legions, though the auxilia would have had more.

The second failure of the Roman army was, as Humility mentioned earlier, the use of Barbarian troops paid in loot to justify not replacing the defensive forces on the Empire's border. But by that time Rome's fate was largely sealed.

The reason that the West fell while the East lived on is because the East understood those two failings and fixed them, while the West did not.

Lets face it, the true beginning of the downfall of Rome was the corruption that had been an accepted part of Roman life before their expansion into an empire. The larger their territory expanded and the richer the Empire became, the more corrupt was their politicians and their upper classes. It was a failure on their part to think that corruption was acceptable and a way to live everyday life. If from the beginning of their rise, they would have curtailed corruption, the Roman Empire might have very well flourished for another 1,000 yrs.

I agree completely abracax, corruption felled Rome, as it did so many other powerful Empires. The military failures were factors as well, but corruption was the real killer. A combination of civil wars and greed created the situation that led to the hiring and training of barbarian mercenaries in place of the old Legions. That and other factors, such as lead poisoning, sealed Rome's demise.

But from a strategic and geographical standpoint, the Western Empire actually had a far superior position that the East with only one true frontier and only disorganized barbarians across it. The East had enemies on all sides of it, from the barbarians across the Danube, to the Sassanid Persian Empire to the East, Arabs to the south, the feudal kingdoms of Europe to the west, various nomadic tribes such as the Avars... And it still managed to outlive the West, mostly I think because it cut back on corruption and it had a better grand strategy than the Western Empire did.