Lecture 4
Explaining the Fall
from Different
Perspectives
• Internal moral causes
• External causes (Barbarians)
• Economical causes
• Environmental causes
HC4
, Studying General
Decline of Societies
Contemporary Studies on
Why Empire/Societies End
Why do societies collapse in the first place? Why do some survive, and why do some not?
J. Diamond looks at several societies and argues that it has to do with a choice, namely a
society’s willingness to adapt. Societies that are not willing to adapt, will fall
For example: We know the Vikings settled in Greenland at some point. However, evidence suggests they could not
sustain themselves and disappeared again. Jared Diamond argues this is because the Vikings that settled there were
unwilling to change their ways, to try and learn from- and live like the local Inuit had survived there for centuries.
Maybe it was because the Vikings looked down on these people who hunted only sea-creatures. Maybe they
thought it not manly to not eat meat anymore. So, because the Vikings wanted to keep to their own old ways, they
took farm animals with them to Greenland. However, in the long term having farm animals did not work as well in
Greenland as the ways of living the Inuit had ! so, the Vikings disappeared from Greenland again (died out), while
the intuit survived.
The unwillingness to adapt meant the end of the Vikings in Greenland.
P.S. Jared Diamond doesn’t talk about Rome in this book.
J.A. Tainter has a different argument, saying, as societies grow, they grow more
complex; this complexity causing its eventual collapse – He defines ‘collapse’ as
‘involuntary disappearance of complexity from society’
For example: Tainter takes Rome as an example: Rome began as a city-state. LATER, they GREW into an
empire. But a big empire requires more complexities, such as: more resources; a big complicated
infrastructure; huge army (= biggest pressure on the treasure chest); a complex bureaucracy system; etc.
Because of this complexity, Rome eventually collapses ! the complexity disappearing from society
again.
HC4
, Levels of Historical Explanation
How are events/processes historically explained:
1. Persons and events
2. Mid- and long-term processes
3. Societal factors (everything made/structured /built by humans, think about
social structures, such as political systems, economic systems, cultural systems)
4. Environmental factors (everything not human made, such as climate,
geography, ecology, etc.)
The Three Main Questions
Regarding Why Rome Fell
In terms of the Historical Explanation of the Fall of Roman Empire, there are 3 main
questions that all have been subject to much debate, and have been written about:
1. Is there a root cause of the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Or no root cause?
2. Did the Western Roman Empire fall due to:
- Internal weaknesses, the external reasons just being the last little push?
- External forces overwhelming Rome -forces that were impossible to resist,
nothing being wrong with the Empire itself internally.
- Both equally: just as much internal as external forces.
3. Was the fall an accident, or was the fall inevitable?
Many people over time have thought about these 3 questions and have written their answers
to these questions. Some ideas are for example: “It was God’s will” and: “Great men (such as
Atilla) made it fall”; and: “Romans caused their own fall themselves as they become too
decadent!” etc.
HC4
, Internal Moral Causes, by
Enlightenment Thinkers
Enlightenment thinkers loved to think about the main questions of why Rome fell.
Why did this topic became so popular topic in specifically the Enlightenment period?
Answer: Well, BEFORE the enlightenment most things were explained with ‘It was God’s
will.’ But, during the enlightenment, the explanation of ‘gods will’ was not sufficient
enough anymore for people, and enlightenment thinkers searched for rational answers.
Montesquieu
One such an enlightenment thinker was Montesquieu (1689-1755). He studied the Roman
political; economical and religious systems.
M. identifies the loss of civic virtue as the root cause of the Western Empire falling. The
idea of ‘civic virtue’ became an important subject during the enlightenment period. Still is.
Corner stones of CIVIC VIRTUE in western society (since enlightenment)
– Serving the greater good. Put your own individual needs beneath the needs of
the state. Think about what you can do for the state, and the other way around.
– People being actively involved in its politics; actively be governing themselves.
This enlightenment painting reflects this enlightenment idea of civic virtue:
The Oath of the Horatii (1786): Three brothers swear an oath in order to prevent
bloodshed between two cities that have a dispute, even though their own personal
family members will suffer from this fight.
Meaning: put the needs of your country before your own interest: serving the greater good.
Loosing civic virtue causing a society falling IN THE CASE OF ROMAN EMPIRE, according to M. & G: When the
Roman society was still small, people were actively involved in politics (made the state together). But becoming an
empire, Romans became decadent and put their own needs before the needs of the state AND by receiving 1
single ruler people weren’t actively involved in politics anymore. ! Loss of Civic Virtue ! Fall of Empire.
HC4
, Gibbon
Gibbon is inspired by M and also believes that Rome fell due to a Loss of Civic Virtue.
“The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophical mind. But
the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay;
the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial
supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its 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.”
– Edward Gibbon (1734-1794), in his Decline and Fall, Chapter 38.
He says in this complicated passage, in other words: (first two sentences): remarkable that it grew so
much, but that it fell was to be expected. (Third sentence): too much luxury came in. (Fourth
sentence): it yielded to its own weight and collapsed. (Last sentences): the fall was inevitable.
Romans rose to power because of civic virtue (commitment). It decline, because it lost it.
But it ALSO fell due of Christianity, according to Gibbon.
Gibbons thinks that Christianity weakened the spirit of the army. It took away willingness
and commitment to fight for one’s society, one’s state. Tie it to what Augustine said: “human
kingdoms don’t matter; only the eternal kingdom of God and saving your soul matters!!”
Gibbons in chapter 38 of the Decline and Fall:
“(...) We may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of
Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The clergy
successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were
discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister (...).”
– Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chapter 38
There are gaps in his theory ofcourse. For example: if Christian people were
indeed not willing to fight, why did we have so many successful Christian states
after the Roman Empire? And also, why did the Eastern Roman Empire
successfully exist for an extra few centuries?
The idea that Christianity undermined civic virtue was ofcourse in his time still a very
controversial theory.
SUMMARY Gibbon and Montesquieu
So Gibbon and Montesquieu mainly looked at internal causes: Rome became internally
weak due to Loss of Civic Virtue, and, according to Gibbons, this civic virtue got
undermined by Christianity. Both essentially give an internal moral explanation.
HC4
, Barbarian Invasions
Gibbon and M. looked at internal causes. But ofcourse, you could say the root cause
has to do with external causes, such as all the many barbarian invading tribes.
As you see here in this map: many invasions.
Note1: Not everything in this happened at the same time, you see
here a few 2 centuries of invasions put in 1 map.
Note2: Often small bands of warriors)
It’s clear the invaders had something to do with the fall of the Empire.
Regarding how much, the scholar community is divided into 2 camps: movers and shakers.
THE MOVERS:
The Barbarian invaders caused the changes in the Roman Empire, and it were these
changes that led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire: the barbarians did it.
The Mover-camp-scholars are inclined to upplay the threat of the barbarians.
The movers tend to emphasise 2 things: 1. How the barbarians became more
powerful, experienced and dangerous. The barbarians in the 5th century were
not as undisciplined as they were in the time of Augustus anymore, because
over time they had copied and adopted techniques of the Roman army. 2. Also,
these different Barbarian Tribes invaded in more or less at the same time.
THE SHAKERS:
The Empire was already shaking. All it needed was a pushover. The empire was already
unhealthy, it was already changing. It was like a house of cards -Barbarians just happened to
be the last push. The Barbarian Invaders were a symptom of these changes.
People in the shakers-camp are inclined to downplay the threat of the barbarians.
They tend to emphasise how weak and unhealthy the Roman Empire already was.
Was the fall inevitable?
Movers: no -empire was healthy. Shakers: yes: already shaking: bound to happen.
Also, what about Byzantium?
Important question. Byzantium (that b.t.w. was more Christian than the west) kept standing for another
1000 years. How did Constantinople still stand, also with all those Barbarian invasions? One answer:
geographical advantage. Constantinople is in a very defendable position.
HC4
Explaining the Fall
from Different
Perspectives
• Internal moral causes
• External causes (Barbarians)
• Economical causes
• Environmental causes
HC4
, Studying General
Decline of Societies
Contemporary Studies on
Why Empire/Societies End
Why do societies collapse in the first place? Why do some survive, and why do some not?
J. Diamond looks at several societies and argues that it has to do with a choice, namely a
society’s willingness to adapt. Societies that are not willing to adapt, will fall
For example: We know the Vikings settled in Greenland at some point. However, evidence suggests they could not
sustain themselves and disappeared again. Jared Diamond argues this is because the Vikings that settled there were
unwilling to change their ways, to try and learn from- and live like the local Inuit had survived there for centuries.
Maybe it was because the Vikings looked down on these people who hunted only sea-creatures. Maybe they
thought it not manly to not eat meat anymore. So, because the Vikings wanted to keep to their own old ways, they
took farm animals with them to Greenland. However, in the long term having farm animals did not work as well in
Greenland as the ways of living the Inuit had ! so, the Vikings disappeared from Greenland again (died out), while
the intuit survived.
The unwillingness to adapt meant the end of the Vikings in Greenland.
P.S. Jared Diamond doesn’t talk about Rome in this book.
J.A. Tainter has a different argument, saying, as societies grow, they grow more
complex; this complexity causing its eventual collapse – He defines ‘collapse’ as
‘involuntary disappearance of complexity from society’
For example: Tainter takes Rome as an example: Rome began as a city-state. LATER, they GREW into an
empire. But a big empire requires more complexities, such as: more resources; a big complicated
infrastructure; huge army (= biggest pressure on the treasure chest); a complex bureaucracy system; etc.
Because of this complexity, Rome eventually collapses ! the complexity disappearing from society
again.
HC4
, Levels of Historical Explanation
How are events/processes historically explained:
1. Persons and events
2. Mid- and long-term processes
3. Societal factors (everything made/structured /built by humans, think about
social structures, such as political systems, economic systems, cultural systems)
4. Environmental factors (everything not human made, such as climate,
geography, ecology, etc.)
The Three Main Questions
Regarding Why Rome Fell
In terms of the Historical Explanation of the Fall of Roman Empire, there are 3 main
questions that all have been subject to much debate, and have been written about:
1. Is there a root cause of the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Or no root cause?
2. Did the Western Roman Empire fall due to:
- Internal weaknesses, the external reasons just being the last little push?
- External forces overwhelming Rome -forces that were impossible to resist,
nothing being wrong with the Empire itself internally.
- Both equally: just as much internal as external forces.
3. Was the fall an accident, or was the fall inevitable?
Many people over time have thought about these 3 questions and have written their answers
to these questions. Some ideas are for example: “It was God’s will” and: “Great men (such as
Atilla) made it fall”; and: “Romans caused their own fall themselves as they become too
decadent!” etc.
HC4
, Internal Moral Causes, by
Enlightenment Thinkers
Enlightenment thinkers loved to think about the main questions of why Rome fell.
Why did this topic became so popular topic in specifically the Enlightenment period?
Answer: Well, BEFORE the enlightenment most things were explained with ‘It was God’s
will.’ But, during the enlightenment, the explanation of ‘gods will’ was not sufficient
enough anymore for people, and enlightenment thinkers searched for rational answers.
Montesquieu
One such an enlightenment thinker was Montesquieu (1689-1755). He studied the Roman
political; economical and religious systems.
M. identifies the loss of civic virtue as the root cause of the Western Empire falling. The
idea of ‘civic virtue’ became an important subject during the enlightenment period. Still is.
Corner stones of CIVIC VIRTUE in western society (since enlightenment)
– Serving the greater good. Put your own individual needs beneath the needs of
the state. Think about what you can do for the state, and the other way around.
– People being actively involved in its politics; actively be governing themselves.
This enlightenment painting reflects this enlightenment idea of civic virtue:
The Oath of the Horatii (1786): Three brothers swear an oath in order to prevent
bloodshed between two cities that have a dispute, even though their own personal
family members will suffer from this fight.
Meaning: put the needs of your country before your own interest: serving the greater good.
Loosing civic virtue causing a society falling IN THE CASE OF ROMAN EMPIRE, according to M. & G: When the
Roman society was still small, people were actively involved in politics (made the state together). But becoming an
empire, Romans became decadent and put their own needs before the needs of the state AND by receiving 1
single ruler people weren’t actively involved in politics anymore. ! Loss of Civic Virtue ! Fall of Empire.
HC4
, Gibbon
Gibbon is inspired by M and also believes that Rome fell due to a Loss of Civic Virtue.
“The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophical mind. But
the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay;
the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial
supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its 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.”
– Edward Gibbon (1734-1794), in his Decline and Fall, Chapter 38.
He says in this complicated passage, in other words: (first two sentences): remarkable that it grew so
much, but that it fell was to be expected. (Third sentence): too much luxury came in. (Fourth
sentence): it yielded to its own weight and collapsed. (Last sentences): the fall was inevitable.
Romans rose to power because of civic virtue (commitment). It decline, because it lost it.
But it ALSO fell due of Christianity, according to Gibbon.
Gibbons thinks that Christianity weakened the spirit of the army. It took away willingness
and commitment to fight for one’s society, one’s state. Tie it to what Augustine said: “human
kingdoms don’t matter; only the eternal kingdom of God and saving your soul matters!!”
Gibbons in chapter 38 of the Decline and Fall:
“(...) We may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of
Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The clergy
successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were
discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister (...).”
– Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chapter 38
There are gaps in his theory ofcourse. For example: if Christian people were
indeed not willing to fight, why did we have so many successful Christian states
after the Roman Empire? And also, why did the Eastern Roman Empire
successfully exist for an extra few centuries?
The idea that Christianity undermined civic virtue was ofcourse in his time still a very
controversial theory.
SUMMARY Gibbon and Montesquieu
So Gibbon and Montesquieu mainly looked at internal causes: Rome became internally
weak due to Loss of Civic Virtue, and, according to Gibbons, this civic virtue got
undermined by Christianity. Both essentially give an internal moral explanation.
HC4
, Barbarian Invasions
Gibbon and M. looked at internal causes. But ofcourse, you could say the root cause
has to do with external causes, such as all the many barbarian invading tribes.
As you see here in this map: many invasions.
Note1: Not everything in this happened at the same time, you see
here a few 2 centuries of invasions put in 1 map.
Note2: Often small bands of warriors)
It’s clear the invaders had something to do with the fall of the Empire.
Regarding how much, the scholar community is divided into 2 camps: movers and shakers.
THE MOVERS:
The Barbarian invaders caused the changes in the Roman Empire, and it were these
changes that led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire: the barbarians did it.
The Mover-camp-scholars are inclined to upplay the threat of the barbarians.
The movers tend to emphasise 2 things: 1. How the barbarians became more
powerful, experienced and dangerous. The barbarians in the 5th century were
not as undisciplined as they were in the time of Augustus anymore, because
over time they had copied and adopted techniques of the Roman army. 2. Also,
these different Barbarian Tribes invaded in more or less at the same time.
THE SHAKERS:
The Empire was already shaking. All it needed was a pushover. The empire was already
unhealthy, it was already changing. It was like a house of cards -Barbarians just happened to
be the last push. The Barbarian Invaders were a symptom of these changes.
People in the shakers-camp are inclined to downplay the threat of the barbarians.
They tend to emphasise how weak and unhealthy the Roman Empire already was.
Was the fall inevitable?
Movers: no -empire was healthy. Shakers: yes: already shaking: bound to happen.
Also, what about Byzantium?
Important question. Byzantium (that b.t.w. was more Christian than the west) kept standing for another
1000 years. How did Constantinople still stand, also with all those Barbarian invasions? One answer:
geographical advantage. Constantinople is in a very defendable position.
HC4
