What was the cause for the Fall of Rome? When an empire falls, there was more than one cause. Despite its successful start as a thriving empire, Rome's fall was due to a number of events. Events such as, foreign invasions, military problems, and most importantly, legal injustice. Rome had begun in 750 BCE, as a peaceful, thriving settlement, until their government turned from a Republic into a dictatorship.
It seems that the fall of the Roman Republic was not a singular event that occurred instantaneously, but rather a long process that saw the increasing use of methods outside of Republican institutions to settle conflicts between members of the aristocracy over political power. Even as the Roman government transitioned form Kingdom to Republic and then to Empire, the competition between aristocratic families remained a relative constant in across the centuries. So too has the desire to mythologize the past. The romans attributed both the fall of the Kingdom of Rome and the fall of the Roman Republic to moral rot, while a more reasonable assessment might place the blame on a dissatisfied and competitive elite class and an inefficient and unresponsive governmental system that was unwilling or unable to address their concerns. In much the same way, modern observers of the Roman Republic have tended to mythologize the fall of the Republic in the service of creating a moral narrative about the unconscionable tyranny of Cesar and the righteousness of the Senate, or whatever alternative narrative is befitting of the historical moment and audience.
The Roman Empire was built on the pietas of its people, which was highlighted by Virgil in “Aeneid” through the character of Aeneas. Virgil provided several examples of this powerful virtue throughout “Aeneid”, but as our texts progress through the semester the authors began to realize that the Romans had become envious of one another. The Roman Empire started on strong foundation of virtues, with pietas being the strongest layer. Through centuries of erosion this foundation began to crumble and moral decay brought this might empire to its knees. Some will argue that foreign invaders simply defeated the Roman Empire, while that is true; the real reason is the moral decay or the loss of pietas that allowed these armies to invade.
Therefore, Cortez would successfully abolish the Aztec empire that would unlock many lands and riches that would benefit Europe. One of the reasons that affected the native people was the disease carried by the Spanish conquistadors known as the small pox. The small pox contested a small portion that benefited Cortez expedition killing and infecting more than three million Aztecs, weakening the effort for them to fight back. The only downside from this disease was Cortez native allies were also affected by the smallpox causing several casualties.
After the civil war had ended with Pompey’s defeat, Caesar quickly gained political power and control over the Roman Republic, becoming a temporary dictator in 49. During his reign he was seen as an effective leader implementing a number of reforms in Roman society and earning the people’s unwavering support and admiration. Unfortunately, on March 15, 44 BCE Caesar was assassinated by conspirators and marked one of the most significant turning points in Roman history. The cause to conspire against Caesar was a combination of both political fear and personal animosity. By gauging the accounts written by Suetonius and Nicolaus it was clear that Caesar’s surge in power had given him too much leverage over the governance of Rome to the extent that the senate could no longer compete with him.
During the era of classical societies, the Han and Roman empires were two vast cosmopolitan societies which dominated regions all throughout Eurasia. In regards to the fall of the Han and Roman empires, both were similar in that they fell victim to internal government decay, but different in that Rome fell to foreign invasions, while Han suffered from rebellions of their own people. The Han and Roman empires were similar in their fall in that they both suffered from internal decay, specifically of their governments. In the Han empire, land distribution problems that were originally sought to be fixed by the “Socialist emperor” Wang Mang allowed large landowners to become even more influential than they previously were. These landowners successfully
This implement of skills was crucial to their success. Cornwallis, a highly motivated and experienced leader, was distraught when he heard of these brilliant tactics of Washington and his militias. The British Empire for the first time fell to its knees and even signed off on the breaking away of these colonies. The guerilla tactics were a key-fighting tactic that turned the war around. Guerilla warfare has been used through out history with both successful and non-successful out comes.
The plebeian revolt started in Rome because the Patricians and Plebeian Classes, that made up the Roman Republic together did not equally treat, they were not taking the same rights, however, each of them had some rights. The differed economically and politically was the main reason for the outbreak of war between them. Since we are talking about the plebeian revolt, we should know a brief about the warring parties. The first party is the patricians. They were a small rich aristocracy group, they dominated Roman society.
(“Attila the Hun” Ancient.eu) His lust for power was the cause of his actions, and his actions led to extreme inequity for the empires and nations he conquered. He left behind nothing but devastation. He ransacked over one thousand cities and towns and his empire was as vast as the whole of Russia and half of Europe. Although he was ruthless and hated by many, his soldiers respected him and followed him into battle. The Romans, Greeks, Visigoths, Burgundians, Alans,Franks, and many more all despised Attila and his empire for his vicious rule.
“The Roman Army was composed entirely of Germans” but the worst part was that the army could not even defend their own territory (DBQ, Doc. 5.) “In the late 300s a nomadic Central Asian people, the Huns, stormed out of the east and sent the Germanic tribes fleeing. Imperial defences in the east managed to hold, but those in the west were soon overwhelmed. The speed and ferocity of the Huns struck terror in the people they attacked.” (Holt p.191).
The fall of Classical Rome and Han China had both similar reasons and different reasons for their downfall. Rome collapsed from the inside and was invaded a lot. Han China also collapsed from the inside because of lack of money. They were also invaded frequently. They both fell from similar reasons although there was some differences.
The interesting part here is how human sin nature took over and corrupted the republic. There were two power hungry parties of this republic; the patricians and the plebeians. Both parties desired the control over this new republic. The struggle for power was first won by the patricians, and gradually
Diseases probably played the biggest role in the collapse of the Incan empire. Shortly before the arrival of Pizarro, the smallpox epidemic had just killed the Incan emperor and most of his court. Then, there was a civil war between Atahuallpa and his brother Huascar regarding who should be emperor next. If it had not been for the epidemic the Spaniards would have faced a united empire. 23.
The Sui and Tang dynasties took over as some of the most glorious periods in Chinese history. Rome was supplementary more disruptive than the collapse of Hna China. Due to Rome being incredibly drastic, the civilization left only the memory of the greatest in Western tradition. Another difference arises from the base of the civilizations collapsing. Rome was “human symptom” based; on the tombstones of Roman citizens were phrases suggesting the spread of downfall and defeat that provided a despondency of the afterlife (contributing to the decay of religion mentioned in the previous paragraph).
This broke up the power of the central government and decentralized the empire back into states. The second reason, corruption also helped with the transition from a centralized government to a decentralized government. The local government got so strong that leaders were able to be appointed without having to get approval from the courts. The result of this was that warlords came into rulership of providence, because of this civil order decayed and provincial forces were constantly away at battle. According to Lewis the shift of focus to military resulted in provinces barring more of a resemblance to semi private armies.