“How often do you think about the Roman Empire?” This phrase became overly popular on social media in 2023, and it’s easy to see why. Rome as a nation lasted from (allegedly) 753 BC until (in the west) 476 AD. No other entity in history has lasted 1,000+ years, and if you’re of the belief that Rome didn’t indeed fall until the collapse of the east in 1453 (such as myself), it didn’t fall for over 2,200 years. The sheer ingenuity of its people, the strength of its societal foundations and the ferocity of its military led to it surviving into our modern psyche. It’s easy to see why the question “how often do you think about the Roman Empire” was such a popular trend, as nations the world over claim dependency from Rome, from its legal codes to military structure to even its government taking some shape or form in many nations to this day.
We look back in awe to a people who grew from one backwater city in an irrelevant part of the world who managed to conquer the entire Mediterranean and beyond, in a time where thousands of years before our own they had running water in their homes, underfloor heating and a (albeit basic) understanding of our planet and the space around it. But whilst they weathered much and survived far longer than they should, a plethora of issues landed all at once that even this ancient empire could weather.
For over a millennium, the Roman Empire stood as one of the most powerful civilisations in history. At its height, Rome controlled vast territories stretching from Britain to North Africa and the Middle East. However, by the late 4th and 5th centuries AD, the empire found itself in terminal decline. The fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD is often marked by the deposition of the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, by the Germanic leader Odoacer. Yet, the reasons for Rome’s fall were far from simple; they resulted from centuries of internal weaknesses and external pressures. Historians have long debated the causes, and while no single factor can explain the empire’s demise, several key issues stand out as contributors to its downfall.
Political Instability and Corruption
One of the primary causes of Rome’s collapse was its chronic political instability. Following the Pax Romana (27 BC – 180 AD), the empire fell into a cycle of political turmoil. Emperors were often overthrown by their military, leading to periods where multiple claimants vied for the throne simultaneously. The Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 AD) exemplifies this, as Rome saw over 20 emperors rise and fall in just 50 years. This instability weakened the empire’s ability to govern effectively and left it vulnerable to external threats.
Corruption and incompetence among officials further exacerbated Rome’s problems. Many leaders prioritised personal gain over the welfare of the empire, leading to inefficient administration, economic mismanagement, and a loss of public trust. The once-mighty Senate became increasingly powerless, serving more as a symbolic institution than a governing body. As political corruption grew, so did Rome’s internal divisions, making it even more challenging to address the mounting crises.
Economic Decline and Overreliance on Slavery
Rome’s economy, which had once flourished through trade, conquest, and taxation, began to deteriorate due to a combination of inflation, heavy taxation, and reliance on a slave-based workforce. As Rome expanded, it relied heavily on the labour of conquered peoples. However, as expansion slowed, so too did the influx of slaves. This led to a labour shortage and reduced productivity in agriculture and industry.
At the same time, Rome faced significant financial strain. Military campaigns required substantial resources, and the empire’s bureaucratic administration became increasingly expensive to maintain. In an attempt to solve these issues, the government debased its currency by reducing the silver content in coins, leading to rampant inflation. Heavy taxation further burdened the population, causing economic stagnation and driving many small farmers into debt and poverty. Over time, these financial difficulties made it harder for Rome to support its military and infrastructure, further weakening the empire.
Military Structure of The Late Roman Empire
The strength of the Roman military had long been a cornerstone of the empire’s success. However, as time passed and money became less plentiful (see Corruption and Civil Wars for why), legionaries became fewer and far between, and barbarian invasions became more frequent. Before the 4th century, the legions often were based in forward camps, and when the borders of the empire were breached, they responded and attempted to push them back across the Rhine or Danube rivers (the natural border of the western half of the empire). This system worked for hundreds of years, but with the invasions becoming larger and pushing further within the empire, change had to happen.
Enter Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337AD), who decided to restructure the armies into a looser structure, which enabled it to respond to threats quicker. He created the Limitanei (meaning the frontier districts’ soldiers) as the border guards, organised into forts along the Rhine and Danube rivers. Whilst they were not as well-equipped as the legions of antiquity, they were an effective stopgap for any incurring barbarian tribes. Still, they could only stop the smallest raids or slow the most significant forces. The men intended to prevent the more prominent groups, called the Comitatenses (meaning field army), which were more mobile, well-armed, trained soldiers that could drive back hostile forces.
Now, these men were not designed to fight the large pitched battles of Scipio or Caesar, but rather employed a strategy called ‘Defence in Depth’ to reduce the number of Roman casualties by as much as possible. The sickened empire could not field a large army, lose them all in a battle and replenish them in a year, but instead, they had the soldiers they had and were unlikely to get many more if they lost their field army. For a time, these two units worked effectively, but after several plagues and civil wars, which left the border Limes (border defences) vastly underdefended. Coupled with years of being underpaid, low morale left their discipline in battle at an all-time low.
Military Decline and Barbarian Invasions
This decline in military discipline and effectiveness left Rome vulnerable to external attacks. Throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, the empire faced constant pressure from Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths. In 410 AD, the Visigoths, led by Alaric, famously sacked Rome, an event that sent shockwaves throughout the empire. Later, in 455 AD, the Vandals conducted another devastating sack of the city. These incursions highlighted Rome’s inability to defend itself and contributed to a growing sense of decline.
The final blow came in 476 AD when Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain, deposed the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus. With this, the Western Roman Empire effectively ceased to exist, marking the end of Roman rule in the West.
Cultural and Social Decline
Beyond military and economic issues, Rome also suffered from deep-seated social problems. The empire’s population had grown complacent and dependent on state welfare, particularly in Rome itself, where free grain and entertainment (bread and circuses) kept the masses content. This reliance on state handouts led to declining civic duty and military service, as fewer citizens were willing to serve in the army.
Additionally, internal divisions weakened the empire’s unity. While Rome had once been a melting pot of cultures, the increasing divide between the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East caused friction. The spread of Christianity also shifted societal values, as the once-pagan empire increasingly embraced a new religious identity that sometimes clashed with traditional Roman values and institutions.
This complacency also led to declining birth rates. Where previous generations of soldier families would have many children and charge them with joining the legions to bring their family glory, later Roman citizens would often have fewer and fewer children, and those that did would often prefer them to go into civic duty rather than military service, which further reduced the empire’s able manpower.
Environmental and Epidemiological Factors
Some historians argue that environmental and epidemiological factors also influenced Rome’s decline. The empire faced periods of climate instability that may have contributed to agricultural failures and food shortages. Additionally, plagues, such as the Antonine Plague (165–180 AD) and the Plague of Cyprian (249–262 AD), devastated populations and weakened Rome’s ability to sustain itself.
Some also argue that the barbarian invasions of the 5th century were brought about by unprecedented climate change, which lowered global temperatures and made subsistence farming far more complex in their native climates. This forced tribes to migrate west into the ailing empire, which had long since been unable to police its borders, so they could find land and food to feed them. Some estimates say (on the low end) that tens of thousands of people began crossing the Rhine River (the long-standing border between Roman Gaul and ‘Germania’), and the underpaid and ill-equipped border guards were vastly outnumbered and unprepared for such vast numbers crossing.
Conclusion: The End of the Western Roman Empire, But Not the End of Rome
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not the result of a single catastrophic event but rather a culmination of political, economic, military, social, and environmental challenges. Over time, these factors eroded Rome’s ability to govern and defend itself, ultimately leading to its collapse in 476 AD.
That being said, Rome was split in two, with the heartland of the empire (Rome itself) falling into barbarian hands, the city founded by Constantine the Great (Constantinople) and the vast and wealthy lands of the eastern empire yet remaining. Over the following centuries, they managed to survive many attempts at invasion and natural disasters which would have thrown lesser empires into the annals of history far sooner, outliving the fall of the Western Empire by almost 1,000 years exactly (yes, you read that right), falling to the emerging Ottoman Empire in 1453 AD.
The story of the Roman Empire’s fall is tragic, seeing how, by and large, the biggest threat to Rome was not the barbarian invasions but rather other Romans and their greed, which brought about the end. All empires fall, but only Rome could weather events that should have killed it repeatedly. I’m often reminded of a quote by Edward Gibbon, which really says everything you need to know about Rome. In his ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, he writes, “The story of its (Rome’s) ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long”. That should say it all.
