Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:20, 30 July 2005

Revision as of 22:50, 3 August 2005

Line 12:

*Historians of '''[[Late Antiquity]]''', a field pioneered by [[Peter Brown (historian)|Peter Brown]], have turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire "fell". They see a "transformation" occurring over centuries, with the roots of Medieval culture contained in Roman culture and focus on the continuities between the classical and medieval world. Thus it was a gradual process with no clear break.

*Historians such as '''[[Arnold Toynbee]]''' and '''[[James Burke]]''' argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of its institutions. The Romans had no budgetary system, so the Empire relied upon either the booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or upon a pattern of tax collection that ultimately drove small-scale farmers into destitution and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation, or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation; meanwhile the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded.

* The historian Arther Ferrill has theorised that the Roman Empire fell due to increasing decadence and a subsequent lethargy. Hence, resulting in complacency and ill-discipline among the legions, making it a military issue.

==Philosophy of theories==