What Constitutes a Fall
The fall of the Western Roman Empire - also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome - was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into several successor polities. The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the Emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse.
Yet, if we decide to analyze an earlier period in the history of Rome, we will see some of the same characteristics:
The "Crisis of the Third Century", also known as "Military Anarchy" or the "Imperial Crisis" - 235 – 284 AD -, was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into the Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability - with multiple usurpers competing for power -, Roman reliance on [i]- and growing influence of - barbarian mercenaries known as foederati and commanders nominally working for Rome - but increasingly independent -, plague, debasement of currency, and economic depression.[/i]
And still, roman civilization didn't fall during the Crisis of the Third Century.
So, what, or rather speaking, at what point is it possible to establish with certainty the fall of a State, even if the same characteristics could be applied in different scenarios?
Yet, if we decide to analyze an earlier period in the history of Rome, we will see some of the same characteristics:
The "Crisis of the Third Century", also known as "Military Anarchy" or the "Imperial Crisis" - 235 – 284 AD -, was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into the Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability - with multiple usurpers competing for power -, Roman reliance on [i]- and growing influence of - barbarian mercenaries known as foederati and commanders nominally working for Rome - but increasingly independent -, plague, debasement of currency, and economic depression.[/i]
And still, roman civilization didn't fall during the Crisis of the Third Century.
So, what, or rather speaking, at what point is it possible to establish with certainty the fall of a State, even if the same characteristics could be applied in different scenarios?
Comments (7)
However, this sphere of influence has to come to an end, and it seems to me that defining the end point of it is a subject to be discussed, since the concept of "fall" has as many characteristics as a moment of decay and still, both things are different.
Decay is a process, and falling is a faster process. But philosophers, lawyers and clerics still use the Latin language and thus still come under the sphere of influence of Rome, but even the politics is ambiguous. Were the holy Roman Emperors still rulers of the Roman Empire? Arguably, the Roman Catholic church is the Roman Empire modified, and still holds some sway over much of the world.
Do you know how Gibbon distinguished decline from fall?
EDIT: A titbit from wiki suggests that he originally intended a work on the decline and fall of the City of Rome, rather than the Empire. Now when it comes to a city, the walls might literally fall on a particular day and the the city metaphorically fall into the hands of Some Damn Foreigner on that day. But that would be an uninteresting resolution ...
In this regard, we would have to decide which Holy Roman Empire was really considered as a continuation of the Roman Empire - from the Western part -:
The Holy Roman Empire declared with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD -;
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - declared with the coronation of Otto I in 962 AD.
I don't even know if I would consider them "continuations" of the Roman Empire. They are more like "zombified" versions of the old Empire.
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, really arguably.
The fortunes of the empire that ruled Europe came to an end and was replaced by a succession of other systems. That the new emerging states or principalities formed in image of their ancestors is not a proof of some continuous idea but a testimony to a lack of imagination on the part of those who grew up in the absence of imperial demands.
I completely agree. The barbarian kingdoms established in Europe after the fall of Rome in 476 AD are an example of what mental degradation and cultural decay can do to humanity. Even the values ??and morality so individualistic and concerned with freedom, during the Classical Age, had been totally distorted by nihilism - a perfect example of the situation I describe here, is the concept of "primus inter Pares" or "first among equals" that during the classical era was so prevalent and real in roman leaders, was also used by the Germanic barbarians during the Middle Ages - while in reality, the mass population was made up of ignorant servants, and slaves without any freedom - even though it was a contradiction clear the reality of the era -. Doublethink is real people, don't ignore this fact!