Introduction
Thesis statement: According to Andrews, the decline that the Roman Empire suffered in fourth to the fifth century was – as believed by numerous historians – caused by a multitude of different factors: invasions, economic crises, overextended military expenses, and many others (1). Other researchers also included in this list such causes as the decline in moral amongst the military forces, corruption, cross-cultural influences, and citizens of the major cities suffering from multiple illnesses. Numerous types of research present their vision of the most troublesome periods in the history of Rome. The important thing to notice is the diversity of opinions. This may lead one to assume that the most important factor is, in fact, none of the mentioned. While some of them contributed to the outcome more and others less, all of the factors played their role. Also, one has to keep in mind that different factors were approached and evaluated differently across the history of this debate.
Factors
It is necessary to understand how complex the Roman culture was to grasp the picture of the Roman Empire’s decline thoroughly. The Empire was a union of interconnected and inseparable institutions and organizations with a sophisticated pattern of relationships between governmental administration and the Roman people. Multiple sources state that the Roman Empire had been facing a decline since the first century AD. Some philosophers believed that the imperial structure of Rome in itself caused it to steadily come undone. However, in its better times, the Empire was prospering, and its citizens lived in peace and under the protection of a significant military force that could overwhelm any threat. Despite all of its military potential, the Empire faced an enemy that it could defeat so easily. The enemy was the Empire itself. The civil wars (180-285 AD) resulted in disastrous consequences. Almost twenty-five out of the twenty-seven emperors and their heirs were brutally murdered. This disruption of order and decline in the military potential and morale led barbarians to use this state of the Empire to their advantage. They began to raid the Empire’s borders pillaging and killing everyone in their wake.
Agriculture met an immediate decline because of the destruction of a significant number of cultivated lands. Thus, the economy faced an imbalance. Many farmers had to recreate their homesteads, and the middle class suffered from hunger and poverty. As a result, many moneylenders benefited from the immigrants of the Roman Empire that had to leave their country to find a better life for themselves. Since Rome was in such a devastated economic condition, immigrants had to use the moneylender’s services. Naturally, the rich people of Rome tended to borrow large sums. What worsened the situation even more is the fact that “regarding property and contracts, Roman principles were not imposed on any transaction concluded in accordance with peregrine law, even by Romans, no matter how unthinkable under Roman law. Among these… fictitious loans as enforceable source of obligations” (Alonso 354).
More important is the fact that the period of decline had been in the foresight even when the Empire experienced its greatest periods of prosperity. As seen from abovementioned loan examples, the economy was one of the most critical shortcomings that led to the decline. The Empire’s expenses substantially outweighed the incomes. As the agriculture grew more and more damaged, the Empire no longer had any possible resolution to improve its economic state. After all, the agriculture was the most prominent source of income. Furthermore, the Empire’s regime was unable to balance the taxes collected to the expenses with which they had to cope (Koyama 11-13). Simply put, the government was unable to cover all of their financial needs by using any asset presented to it including taxes. One of the critical faults of the economic system included resulting to the silver coin debasement as a remedy to the growing financial crisis in the empire. Another crucial error was the capital intensive project of constructing Hadrian’s wall that ran across Britain. Emperor Diocletian also made a great by trying to establish a centralized command system for the economy. The economy failed in the long term due to the increased rate inflexibility. An overwhelmed centralized management system failed functionally.
Another important factor that contributed to the fall was the collapsing slave system that resulted in increased cost of production and the fall of the tenancy system. None of the changes after the Second Punic War favored the return of small farmers to carry out agricultural activity on the land. Rome gained vast amounts of land after winning the battle of Pydna (168 BC). As a result of the increase of new fertile lands, many new profitable prospects emerged. The empire continued to gain many new provinces that held favorable opportunities. As a result, the empire’s sphere of influence also grew extensively coupled with the availability of possibilities. In the century that followed, there was a lot of movement of Romans to overseas provinces all eager to exploit the available opportunities. The Empire received a chance to increase the incomes by harassing Rome’s new subjects. On the other hand, some decided to settle in the provinces and pursue long-term investments which resulted to a significant sum of money from commercial and financial ventures. Supported by the powers of the Empire, many Romans were confident that they could take advantage of the opportunities in the colonies with little cause for regulation of activities. Roman emigrants slowly acquired valuable lands in the provinces and began the growth of the major provincial estates that served an important purpose later. There was need to source labor for these farms. The system of slaves and large farms were proliferated well into the empire days. In the provinces, the system paid off well, and estate owners amassed huge profits. Land could be obtained at a relatively cheap cost, and the geography of the region was suitable for agriculture. On the other hand, when the peace in Rome was at threat, the supply of slaves began to reduce, and the system became troubled. The imperial era saw a lot of development of the tenancy system. Earlier, the landlord was at a significant advantage. Nonetheless, as the time passed by and the situation grew harder to overcome, the landlord turned out to be the anxious party, and it was common for them to incur massive losses. By the second century AD, the landlords had fallen from their position completely in many instances and were just as badly off as the tenants who dwelled on their estates.
The increasing amount of provincial taxes led to the emergence of a large segment of investors whose speculations resulted in substantial returns. The class that was always growing and bore a lot of importance known as the Knights (equites) did not care about the quickly diminishing levels of peasantry. Their primary focus was to get the Senate concession, and as a result, there was a time when popular leaders were able to gunner their support against the ruling class. On the other hand, selfish interest slowly started to gain a foothold among them, and they combined their efforts with senatorial nobles to create a party of property. In this context, it does not come as a surprise that initiatives to have Italian peasants reclaim their land did not succeed. The key areas they invested in during the latter times were slave trade, and as a result, there was a lot of expression of interest from Roman financiers for this initiative. Hostility was expressed towards anyone who tried to change the system. It was, therefore, necessary to develop principles that would regulate the industry to minimize conflict of interest. It was not easy enforcing the laws due to the rampant corruption among imperial agents. The officials were not caught easily, and when they were arrested, their successor was also prone to the same temptations. As a result, the problem only repeated itself. The third century was characterized by chaos, and as a result, it does not come as a surprise that the system was unable to sustain itself to attain its goals. The system continued to deteriorate such that by 284 A.D, the small tenant farmer had been turned into none of the semi-servile dependence. The constitutional freedom of the resident became severely limited, and their economic position was increasingly resting on the maintenance of a holding often wrecked by invasions. If the tenant stayed on their land, they would be turned into serfs, but if they left, they would likely starve. Later on, the law was changed to make it the case that to be a colony was to be stationed to a certain plot of land with which he was transferable. While it may have been justified by the situation that was prevailing, the legal change was evidence of the economic disarray that Rome was in at the time. The law only served to consummate agricultural stagnation effectively.
The slave dependent economy appeared to work well, but it functioned only on condition that the supply of slaves was adequate to sustain it. The economy suffered severe losses when the “Augustan Peace” made a significant dent on the institution of slavery. While some consider that the reduction in war and piracy across the empire resulted in the “golden age,” they fail to consider the alternative perspective that these two activities were the principal source of slaves. The great Delian Slave market suffered a significant shortage of slaves, and the economy felt the impact of a severely declining workforce. The economy did not benefit from the growing humanitarian sentiments within the empire that led to the freeing of many of the slave who remained. The core of the ancient primary economic activity was diminished to a substantial extent, but the exploitative could not be eliminated since it had been established for a long time and had taken deep root in the society and culture. It is arguable that if the system of slavery had been challenged much earlier on then, the situation would have turned out different. However, it was quite impossible since even the most liberal philosophers of the Republic appeared to be backing the system. For instance, Aristotle was of the opinion that “from the hour of birth some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” There was no alternative after the fall of the slave market except for former slave owners to try and compensate for the loss. The situation was a rising exploitation of free men by a highly manipulative ruling class (Scheidel 83). The ruling class was an aristocratic group that obtained their wealth from the land, and as a result, it was in their best interests sustain their superiority at the expense of the economic impact it dealt on the empire. They refused to accept any form of economic improvements that threatened their position of power, and as a result, their actions were aimed at sustaining senatorial authority but at the huge cost of financial impedance. Without the use of a slave class that could be exploited, the aristocracy decided to tighten their grip on the lower classes to reduce the legal, political and constitutional privileges of the lower classes. By this strategy, the lower classes could not find any substantial legal, political and constitutional rights to defend themselves against exploitation. The rights of the lower classes were taken away occurred especially during the ‘good’ Antonine and Severan periods. As a result, citizenship lost its meaning for most of the citizens and the beginning universal citizenship was only a relatively unexceptional development. However, the fact that global citizenship emerged is evidence of the financial problems of the empire and the need to increase revenue from taxes.
Conclusion
The steady decline of the Roman Empire was caused by a number of crucial factors. The most important of those are the factors influenced by the economic shortcomings and the Empire’s regime inability to successfully overcome them. The direction that the Roman economy followed during its prosperous times and its withering resulted in an economy that was flawed and inadequate. While the “golden age” of the Empire is seen as its most successful time, some argue that the economy indeed started to crumble at this exact time. Shifting from being Republic to the Imperial regime caused Rome to loose most of its small estates that were replaced with large private properties. This replacement caused Rome to fail at every level of its organization steadily. Furthermore, the slave market fall caused free peasantry to be approached as a tool or an asset that was used to cultivate the lands that needed to be developed. Therefore, the internal market became confined. While the Roman regime tried to conquer more lands to make up for its shortcomings, this had little to no effect on the actual problems affecting the Empire. The territory expansion, in fact, caused more harm than benefits as it required a lot of resources to support the military force and populate the newly-taken territory. Needless to say, that the expansion only worsened the decentralization. To conclude, the rulers of the Empire had to focus on the problems at hand and try to solve them from the inside rather than aim at expanding the territory to increase the incomes. Would this be the goal of regime, the decline of the Roman Empire could have been avoided.
Works Cited
Alonso, José Luis. “The Status of Peregrine Law in Egypt: ‘Customary Law’ and Legal Pluralism in the Roman Empire.”
Andrews, Evan. “8 Reasons Why Rome Fell.” History Lists, Wel.
Koyama, Mark. “Why did the Roman Economy Decline?.” ART + marketing, Web.