Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:40 am by Tawakalna
always been rather fascinated by that particular question.
"timing" does come into it, although it's probably better described as historical good fortune. As you know, the Germanic tribes had been pressing on the Empire for years, but only presented a serious threat at times of Imperial weakness, such as the mid-3rd C when the Empire was riven by civil war, usurpers, rebel empires, liberation movements, and foreign invasion. That it ever recovered from this period is amazing in itself.
Suffice to say that following the mid 3rd century, the military reconquests by Aurelian, Probus, Carus and of Diocletian above all, ensured that the Empire had a sound footing both militarily and financially, although Diocletian's efforts to resolve the succession problem came to nothing. These reforms also necessitated a shift of power to the wealthier and more defensible East, with west falling into political and economic decline. Thus when we speak of the collapse of Roman rule, we are ONLY referring to the Western Roman Empire - the Eastern half remained strong and viable for many centuries although it chnaged its character so much that we refer to it as Byzantium; they themselves saw themselves as entirely Roman and the heirs of Caesar and Augustus.
I suppose after years of refelction and study on this subject, I can only really come to the following conclusion - the ROman Empire abandoned the West because it could neither afford the expenditure to maintain the Western Empire nor was there any value anymore in doing so - land was out of cultivation, estates were deserted, economic conditions were depressed, enterprise was discouraged and an early form of serfdom was prevalent. Tax revenues were down and what taxes were taken were offset against Imperial expenditures elsewhere. Don't imagine the Visigoiths and vandals walked into some ideal classical world - the regions they took over had been mismanaged and denuded for years, and very often the "barbarians" were being given these lands as free grants by the Empire.
Alaric the Visigoth, sacker of Rome, originally only wanted 2 run-down provinces on the Danube for his people (escaping the Huns) to govern and recover in the Emperor's name, but Roman arrogance and the stupidity and negligence of Honorius meant that Alaric was denied his request, he was alienated, and thus decided to take for himself what he'd asked for, a path which eventually led him to Rome as the Empire no longer had the military means to back up its traditional condescending policy toward barbarians, esp. after the disastrous Battle of Adrianople and the last bout of civil wars. So while it was military defeat on the field that finished the Western Empire off, it was the unresolved forms of succession and economic decline that brought about this military weakness.
You must remember that the late Roman Empire is NOT a nice place - you can't choose your job, you are bound by law to stay in your father's trade, prices are fixed by edict so trade goes on the black market, if you're a man you are liable for compulsory military service and become essentially cannon-fodder, and Imperial spies and secret agents might be anywhere listening for dissent. Add to this the fact that you have virtually no rights at all and justice is only for those who can afford it, and that bribery and graft permeate all levels of society, and the biggest part of your earnings go in rapacious taxes many of which are faked by the tax-collectors who are backed up by military force, and in order to eat you have to abandon living in the country and go dwell in overcrowded cities just for your corn and oil dole. What a wonderful world. The later Roman Empire is rotten through and through, stagnant - this ain't no classical ideal, this is the grimy Middle-Ages with the last vestiges of classical civilisation tarting it up.
.
