Western Roman Empire example essay topic

Most historians agree that Romulus Augustus was the last leader of the Western Roman Empire. His reign ended in 476 and we can therefore state that the Western Roman Empire fell at the same time, although other historians may argue for a slightly longer lifespan. These technicalities are in some ways irrelevant. The Eastern Empire survived the fifth century, whilst the Western Empire crumbled. Traditionally historians have blamed social, economic and psychological factors for the collapse.

The sacred rhetoric, as Brown calls it, describes the Western Empire as crumbling from within. More modern historians place more emphasis on the so-called external problems that afflicted the Western Empire in this period. In this essay I hope to analyse both the internal and external problems of the Western Empire, whilst continuing to compare the problems of the west to the problems of its sister empire in the East. The Western Empire was ravaged by political problems in the fifth century. By looking at the number of usurpations in the sister empires we gain a simplistic yet pronounced, view of the differing political situations. A.H. M Jones states there were only a handful of attempted usurpations in the Eastern Empire during the fifth century, whereas the number of attempted usurpations in the Western was significantly larger.

One need only look at the succession of ephemeral Emperors that succeeded Valentin ian to see how politically unstable the West really was. This is not to say that the Western Empire was completely bereft of good leaders and commanders. Indeed Aetius was in a position of power for twenty-six years until his assassination in 454. During his career Aetius managed to protect southern Gaul from the Visgoths and more northern parts from the Franks. He also worked successfully with the Huns, as well as beating them in 452. His assassination highlights the lack of patriotism and the level of self-interest that infected the upper echelons of Roman society.

Maximus planned to kill Aetius merely as way of enabling the assassination of Valentin an. This self-interested and counter productive internal feud is symptomatic of the internal political wranglings that beset the Western Empire. These wranglings, some of which resulted in civil war, wasted valuable military resources that could have been better used in combating the other problems that also beset the empire in this period. This self-interested feuding is strongly linked to the decline in civil responsibility.

In previous eras it was considered a Romans duty to work for the state and the empire. However some have suggested that the Roman elite increasingly saw civic work as dirty work. A.H. M Jones attributes this change in mindset to the Christianisation of the Western Rome Empire. He suggests that the elite had religious objections to working for the state. However this argument appears overly simplistic. Many of the elite landowners outside of Rome had become isolated. This is partly due to increased centralisation of the state, but also to the influx of other tribes into the empire.

These tribes, who from 376 onwards infiltrated the Empire, became the closest source of power to many landowners. It is no surprise then that they focussed attention on the military and political might of the closest tribe, rather than the physically and metaphorically distant imperial capital. This change in attitude is difficult to prove, but we know that landowners were increasingly unwilling to allow their labourers to join the army. This self-interested practice hardly depicts these landowners as responsible and dutiful citizens of the empire. Those who did go into public service were almost exclusively from the aristocracy. Their behaviour reflects their class position.

The political institutions that managed to give even the lowliest member of the empire some political rights were gradually eroded. De Croix believes that the erosion of the peasants political rights, and the decreasing importance of citizenship, virtually enslaved the peasantry. Maybe he goes too far when he states that this degradation of the peasants rights was a deliberate ploy to create cheaper labour: (the decline in the importance of citizenship) was primarily a development that would facilitate exploitation and as bought about by the propertied classes it was for precisely that purpose. Along with large tax burden greedily imposed on the peasantry by the landed elite, we see why the peasantry were hardly enthusiastic about the empire. The decrease in conscription, the passivity in which they accepted the foreign tribes and even the Bagaudic peasant uprisings are all symptoms of a poor and discontented rural population. The tax burden bought on the peasantry by the frequent war taxes, and the unwillingness of the landed elite to pay their fair share, contributed to the decline in the rural population.

The peasants could simply not sustain themselves and in true Malthusian fashion the population declined. Clearly a decrease in agricultural cultivation and agricultural production will not have aided the maintenance of the empire. There were of course similar socio-economic problems in the East. However, the peasants in the East were more likely to own their own land, and because fewer resources were being used to fight internal and external wars, their taxes were less cumbersome. Also, the bureaucracy in the Eastern Empire tended to be more middle class.

Men who made into the civil service had risen due to the quality of their work, not because of the quality of their bloodline. Thus administration in the east was more efficient, and the broader social spectrum within the civil service ensured that the peasantry did not have to bear as great a burden of tax as their western counterparts. Many have cited Christianisation as a major reason for the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Jones believes that this Christianisation, by adding more idle mouths in the form of priests, added to an already large number of people that failed to contribute effectively to the economy. An increasingly large political and unproductive superstructure was over burdening a declining agrarian base. He also suggests that Christian morality discouraged entrance into the army.

It has also been argued that the Christianisation was divisive, not only in pagan-Christian terms, but also in a more sectarian fashion. A prime example of the divisiveness was the debate over the heresy of Arianism. The ecumenical council of Nice a condemned this belief, whilst the Arian tribes, mainly Goths, were ardent believers. Thus friction between the imperial Orthodox Church and the Adrian tribes (mainly Gothic) was heightened.

In contrast the Eastern Empire was ecclesiastically at least rather more peaceful. The belief that Christianisation was entirely negative is not a universal one. Indeed Liebeschuetz sees Christianisation as a positive development. He argues that the ceremonies of consensus, or the community driven aspect of the Christian faith, bought out lying communities together, thus partially reversing the political centralisation that had eroded the rights of the peasant. The ecclesiastical peace in the East is almost certainly linked to the fact that the percentage of Christians was much higher. So if we are to assign any blame on Christianity for the fall of the empire it would seem logical to assign blame on the division between Paganism and Christianity.

The best of example of this division is perhaps seen after the Western Empire lost major battles. The Pagans and Christian were often quick to blame the others religious beliefs for the preceding disaster. Historians frequently use the decline of Roman military strength to help explain the fall of the West. The internal crises and the pressures on the frontier necessitated a rise in army recruitment. As we have seen previously, labourers were either reluctant or forcibly stopped from joining up by their landowners. The military began therefore to rely heavily on foderati.

The foderati were barbarians, and even whole tribes, that were paid to fight for the Roman army. The most obvious case of this is at the Battle of Chalons where Aetius faced Attila. Aetius received the support of a variety of tribes including Theodoric's Visgoths. This conglomeration of tribes and nations leads Gibbon to comment that Chalons saw the meeting of all the great nations from the Atlantic to the Volga. Standards within the Roman army subsequently declined. There was less and less time or money for training, whilst army marches apparently declined.

Yet we have to be careful not overplay the decline in armies power. Jones points out that the Roman Army consistently defeated its opponents even in the fifth century. But this army was far from self-reliant and was hardly strong or large enough to cope with the persistent internal problems created by the barbarian tribes within the empire. The combination of internal disturbances caused by the Barbarian influxes and the constant pressure on the frontiers created an almost impossible task for the Roman Army. The East had neither the internal problems of the west, nor the persistent external threat. Their armies were far less stretched.

Indeed the East made a concerted effort to lessen the power of the army by using civilian means to solve problems that would have seen the West use military force. The Huns played a significant role in the collapse of the West. Yes, the bouts of plunder and pillage were an economic and political burden, but their main contribution to the decline of the Western Empire came before the reign of Attila. The tribes that proved so problematic to the West were forced into the Roman Empire by the gradual build up of Hun nic pressure toward the east (Hunnenstrum). The Huns were indirectly to blame for the arrival of Goths, Vandals, Alans, Suevi and Burgundians into Roman lands, with the years 376 and 405-6 being the periods of biggest infiltration. As we have seen these tribes increased the burden on the military.

It took the Visgoths only two years to rebel in 378 and kill the Emperor Valens at H adrianople. By 406 the Ostrogoths and Radaegaius had already faced Stilicho in a major battle at Fiesole. These battles left many parts of the frontier open for yet more tribal infiltration. The old external pressures of tribes rapidly became internal problems. At various times Gaul was lost to the tribesman and most importantly Northern Africa was lost to the Vandals of Gaiseric in 432. The case of the Vandals in Africa symbolizes the problems caused by the tribes within the Empire.

Not only did the Vandals provide a military threat, as shown by their attacks on Rome in the 460's, but they were an economic burden. Northern Africa provided large amounts of revenue to the Western Empire, as well as providing it with a significant percentage of its food supply. As we have seen these barbarians provided not only a military threat, but they exacerbated existing political, social and economic problems. The Eastern Empire had many intrinsic advantages over its Western counterpart. It was agriculturally more fertile, more populous and had a far shorter frontier, and in this period was relatively free from external attack. Indeed, the East only fought its traditional enemy, Persia, twice in this period.

However the East shared many of the political, social and economic problems of the west, but perhaps to a lesser extent. So why did the West fall We must surely point to the presence of foreign tribes within the empire as the primary reason. These tribes not only fought the Empire, but their presence reinforced and added to existing internal problems. The wests need for extra military strength placed a huge burden on the peasantry and caused a decline in output, whilst persistent internal problems added to an unstable political climate. In contrast the Eastern Empire never housed any foreign tribes.

It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the presence of barbarian tribes was the primary reason for the Western Empires decline.

Bibliography

Cameron, A - The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity Gordon, C.D. The Age of Attila Fifth-Century Byzantium and the Barbarians Heather, P. The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe - English Historical Review Jones, A.H. M The Decline of the Ancient WorldLiebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Barbarians and Bishops Linder, R. Nomadism, Horses and Huns - Past and Present 92.