Decline of the Roman Empire

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on decline of the Roman Empire. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality decline of the Roman Empire paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in decline of the Roman Empire, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your decline of the Roman Empire paper at affordable prices!

At the beginning of the Roman Empire, it was strong and powerful. Nevertheless, as the years went by it seemed it was going the other way. Four ways that I chose, where Rome was declining are as follows economically, military, politically, and socially. As a whole, the empire was too big to control by one emperor. This posed many problems. . The military was not even true loyal Rome citizens; they were Mercenaries. The empire relied too much on slave labour, which caused for a great distinction between the rich and the poor. The military was not even true loyal Rome citizens; they were Mercenaries. The people did not have very high morals. They believed what ever the emperor believed. The empire was falling apart.

One of the primary reasons, to the deterioration of the economy, was the lack of circulating currency in the Western Empire. Two reasons for the lack of funds are wholesale hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens, and the widespread looting of the Roman treasury by the barbarians. These two factors, coupled with the massive trade deficit with Eastern Regions of the Empire served to stifle the growth of wealth in the west. In essence, the Roman Empire crumbled due to insufficient economic power, which came about for a variety of reasons. It lacked the resources necessary to keep such a vast empire intact. The empire reached such a point that it could no longer support itself, becoming top heavy, and crashed down like a tower that had grown too high for its own foundation.

Ellsworth Huntington has proposed a unique hypothesis relating the changing rainfall patterns and climate in the Mediterranean with the economic problems encountered by the western empire. He writes that, as the climate became more unstable, it began to alternate annually between hot droughts and cold rainy seasons. This, for obvious reasons, would decrease crop yields, and would force the Romans to undergo widespread irrigation projects on land, which had formerly been self-sufficient. The huge quantities of water needed for this project had to be contained in large reservoirs, and the standing water became stagnant. Stagnant water is the ideal environment for breeding mosquitoes, the carriers of malaria. Malaria began manifesting itself at epidemic levels, weakening and killing a large percentage of the population.

Cheap University Papers on decline of the Roman Empire

When one thinks of the Roman Empire, the first thing, which may come to mind, is the strength and stability provided by its army. It is widely held that the fortunes of Rome were directly tied to the prowess of her military. Many scholars have maintained that in the later period of the Empire, Romes military might have steadily declined for a variety of reasons. In the end, it was this lack of security, which allowed the barbarian hordes to topple what had once been the mightiest empire in the world

Historian Arthur Ferrill has stated this theory succinctly. The destruction of Roman military power in the fifth century A.D. was the obvious cause of the collapse of Roman government in the West. He contends that a massive the Roman army, with perhaps 00,000 men, eventually disentegated into an unorganized rable. The most obvious factor in the falling apart of the army is the atrition sustained in the numerous conflicts with the Barbarians. Added factors such as the reliance on mercenaries, the fragmentation of the soldiers loyalty to numerous power centers, and lack of incentive for Roman Citizens to enlist, combined to destroy the Army as a viable unit.

One of the most important factors in the decline of the military was the lack of recruits from Romanized backgrounds. One problem was the granting of citizenship to all free men within the empire. Originally, non-citizens who served in the Roman army would be granted citizenship at the end of their enlistment. It was this desire of the provincials to acquire Roman citizenship that accounts for the fact that during the first two centuries voluntary enlistments sufficed to keep the armed services up to establishment. Certainly, the army would not have remained at full strength if it had depended on volunteers from those who already possessed the Roman citizenship, for these showed the remarkable disinclination to serve (Salmon). Rome was also experiencing a population decrease during this time. As the population decreased, the available work force obviously did likewise. In addition to the widespread disease, war, starvation, and forcible deportation must be taken into account (Boak). These occurrences would obviously have negative results on the military establishment. Because of factors such as the free citizenship now offered by Rome and the lack of available work force, Romes army, which had been the symbol of its power, was left unorganized and nearly useless. Because of this, the Barbarians began to infiltrate the Western Empire, first as small groups of settlers and mercenaries, but eventually in whole tribes or hoardes. They detected the military impotence of the Romans, and exploited it to establish their own kingdoms. Thus, the political entity known as the Roman Empire ended, and the Germanic kingdoms of Western Europe began to flourish.

Rome was a highly hierarchial and class-conscious society, but there was the possibility of mobility between classes because by the second century BCE, class was no longer determined solely by birth. The classes described below superseded the old patrician/plebeian distinction, though certain elements of dress were still reserved for patricians.

• Senatorial class (basis was political), composed of all who served in the Senate, and by extension, their families, though only men actually serving in the Senate could wear the tunic with broad stripes (laticlavi). This class was dominated by the nobles (nobiles), families that had had at least one consul among their members. The first man in his family to be elected consul, thus qualifying his family for noble status, was called a "new man" (novus homo).

• Equestrian class (equites) (basis was economic), composed of families that possessed and maintained a specified minimum amount of wealth (landed property worth at least 400,000 sesterces) but were not senators. Equestrians wore the tunic with narrow stripes (angusti clavi).

• Commons, "the people" all other freeborn Roman citizens. The special mark of dress for males was the toga.

• Freedpeople (liberti) men and women who had been slaves but had bought their freedom, they were not fully free because they had various restrictions on their rights and owed certain duties to their former masters, but they could become citizens if their masters had been citizens. The next generation, their freeborn children, became full citizens and could even be equestrians if rich enough. Freed people had low social status but might become quite wealthy. They had no special distinction of dress.

• Slaves system of chattel slavery where human beings were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban, domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (peculium) with which they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, so some mobility into the previous class was possible. Roman slavery was not racially based.

The senatorial class, particularly by a small number of noble families, heavily dominated the conduct of political affairs. The upper classes generally followed one of two informal political factions

• Populares ("the party of the people") power base was the Assembly of the Tribes and the tribunes. Though also composed of Senators and nobles, this faction appealed to the interests of the commons. Today, we might call this faction "left-wing."

• Optimates ("the party of the best men" or of the aristocrats) power base was the Senate. This faction promoted conservative policies that supported the interests of the wealthy and the old noble families. Today, we might call this faction "right-wing."

This is how the historian Sallust (mid-first century BCE) described the two political factions during his lifetime After the restoration of the power of the tribunes in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, certain men whose youth intensified their natural aggressiveness obtained this very important office. These tribunes began to rouse the mob by inveighing against the Senate, and then inflamed popular passion still further by handing out bribes and promises, whereby they won renown and influence for themselves. They were strenuously opposed by most of the nobility, who posed as defenders of the Senate but were concerned to maintain their own privileged position. The whole truth�to put it in a word�is that although all disturbers of the peace in this period put forward specious pretexts, claiming either to be protecting the rights of the people or to be strengthening the authority of the Senate, this was mere pretence in reality, every one of them was fighting for his personal aggrandizement. Lacking all self-restraint, they stuck at nothing to gain their ends, and both sides made ruthless use of any successes they won. (Sallust Bellum Catilinae 8, translated by S. A. Handford [Penguin Classics, 16], 04-05)

Campaigning Personal wealth was essential for political office, since no salaries were paid and the process of campaigning was very expensive; showmanship was essential.

• A candidate for office wore an artificially whitened toga and so was candidatus ("made shining white").

• The social institution of patronage (clientela) was essential in politics, and one of the key duties of clients was to accompany their patron on official business and all kinds of campaigning, and of course to vote with him on all issues.

• Powerful families supported each other through informal alliances (amicitia) often cemented through arranged marriages; the functioning of government was greatly influenced by "backroom politics."

• During the last century of the Republic, bribery was not at all uncommon

o indirect provision of free grain, free entertainment (baths, shows, chariot races and gladiatorial games), even huge outdoor banquets

o direct actually paying off officials or giving the commoners money directly in return for votes

• During this same period, intimidation was also a campaign strategy. Candidates sometimes incited riots, or hired thugs or gladiators to rough people up. Those who were generals, occasionally, used the threat of their loyal soldiers to pressure the state.

• Commoners' only way to influence politics was through their sheer numbers�by votes, and especially by riots.

Social division was very distinct during the Roman times. As Rome grew in power and influence, wealth began to accumulate in the hands of a few people. While we know little of the social structure of the very early Romans, by a very early period in the citys history, society was divided up into two groups the patricians and the plebeians. The patricians were the wealthiest members of society; they controlled most of the wealth, trade, power, and the military. Only patricians could serve as clan leaders; therefore, only patricians were allowed to sit on the Senate or hold any appointed or elected offices. The plebeians were the majority of the population; they were mainly small farmers, hard laborers, and craftspeople. They worked mainly for the patricians, although some small farmers worked their own lands rather than the lands of the wealthy.

From four reasons that I just presented to you, do you not agree that Rome was declining. It seems to me that there was a lot wrong with the whole country. Four ways that I chose, where Rome was declining are as follows economically, military, politically, and socially. As a whole, the empire was too big to control by one emperor. This posed many problems. . The military was not even true loyal Rome citizens; they were Mercenaries. The empire relied too much on slave labour, which caused for a great distinction between the rich and the poor. The military was not even true loyal Rome citizens; they were Mercenaries. The people did not have very high morals. They believed what ever the emperor believed. The empire was falling apart. Rome was good at a time, but at this point, it seems that the goodness was leaving its country.

Please note that this sample paper on decline of the Roman Empire is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on decline of the Roman Empire, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on decline of the Roman Empire will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!