Amazon.com Widgets
  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    The Romans were a thriving civilization, around for all of 500 years. (Mr.Donn) They had lots of festivals, were a well fed civilization, and although a lot of the rulers were bad, some were really good. But Rome did fall, and that could not of been stopped. The fall of Rome was inevitable because of bad moral values among leaders, inflation, and multiple wars.

    To start off, Many leaders were losing moral values, especially two. According to Rome.Info, “Even during Pax Romana (A long period from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius when the Roman empire was stable and relatively peaceful) there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome. Emperors like Caligula and Nero became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties where guests drank and ate until they became sick. The most popular amusement was watching the gladiatorial combats in the Colosseum.” Many leaders were spending all their money on getting drunk and hosting fancy and unnecessary parties instead of using that money to support the ever expanding government. The idea that leaders were wasting money is a perfect example for decline in moral values. It also relates to the idea that the fall of Rome was inevitable because it shows that these leaders were wasting all their money on unnecessary things instead of supporting the government with it.

    Next, there was a lot of inflation. “The roman economy suffered from inflation (an increase in prices) beginning after the reign of Marcus Aurelius.” says Rome.Info, “Once the Romans stopped conquering new lands, the flow of gold into the Roman economy decreased. Yet much gold was being spent by the romans to pay for luxury items. This meant that there was less gold to use in coins. As the amount of gold used in coins decreased, the coins became less valuable. To make up for this loss in value, merchants raised the prices on the goods they sold. Many people stopped using coins and began to barter to get what they needed.” The idea that Rome had extreme inflation majorly affected Rome falling.

    To seal the deal, there were multiples wars going on and Rome didn’t have a enough military personnel. “For years, the well-disciplined Roman army held the barbarians of Germany back. Then in the third century A. D. The Roman soldiers were pulled back from the Rhine-Danube frontier to fight civil war in Italy. This left the Roman border open to attack. Gradually Germanic hunters and herders from the north began to overtake Roman lands in Greece and Gaul (later France)” says Rome.Info. These two wars made it so there were little troops defending the border letting germans invade and take Roman land. The multiple wars completed the fall of the roman empire.

    Ever since these problems arose, Rome was doomed. Even if they had fixed all these there were still more reasons. Ranging from public health issues to even inferior technology. There were practically infinite reasons that they they collapsed. All in all, the fall of Rome was inevitable.

  • Yea the fall was invitable

    All empires fall eventually
    corrupted leaders
    economic troubles
    overpowering military
    invaders
    so i think that the fall was invitable because of my support arguements if this helped go and add your opinion for yes YEZ rome has declined and it wad invitable i can't spell invitable ughhh this is hard

  • Rome's fall was Inevitable

    Because Rome fell, and nothing was done to prevent it. Also there could be something to happen that prevented it, but you can't keep everyone happy always. If you try to hard it still falls. So i think that rome will have fallen eventually, whether when it did or later, but eventually.

  • It was great

    There was a way to stop the all they had was money but they had a weak leader so that means they needed to step there game up and show that there are wo what they say they are but when the huns came to take over and money was a problem that's when things started to fall apart in rome and that is why I think that this whole thing could of been avoided

  • The fall of Rome was not inevitable

    I believe that the fall of Rome was inevitable because, for example, its economy had had a catastrophic financial crisis and were no longer able to sustain themselves agriculturally and unwilling to adapt. This is related to the failing politics in Rome. The political structure of Rome was very corrupt and dysfunctional. Emperors were not able to utilize the power they should have had over all of Rome, and reform would be extremely difficult because Rome broke up and came into control of local lords.

  • It Was Inevitable

    The start of the fall was when Rome's population fell from around one million to six thousand by 500. Plagues, poisoning, and other things lead to this population decline. Roman luxurious lifestyles and disinterest in producing children also played a role in a lower population. Economics also played a part in this. The economic decline was due to Rome's system of conquest and enslavement. The flow of slaves began to dwindle and slaves were no longer cheap, so estates throughout the Empire could no longer live off the abuse of human resources, which they leaned on heavily. Politics also led to the downfall. Incompetent emperors and oppressive taxation brought the Empire down.

  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    I believe that the fall of Rome was inevitable because, for example, its economy had had a catastrophic financial crisis and were no longer able to sustain themselves agriculturally and unwilling to adapt. This is related to the failing politics in Rome. The political structure of Rome was very corrupt and dysfunctional. Emperors were not able to utilize the power they should have had over all of Rome, and reform would be extremely difficult because Rome broke up and came into control of local lords.

  • The way they supported their agriculture led to their downfall.

    They way that Rome was using slaves as workers was going to lead to be part of their downfall because the it was the times were changing and rome was left behind. When the flow of cheap slaves began to dry up, estates throughout the Empire could no longer live off the abuse of human resources on which they had formerly depended. They no longer had the resources to continue at the pace that they were.

  • Yes it was inevitable

    Yes, the fall of Rome was inevitable because; all major empires will eventually fall. There was a steady decline in population across the entire empire from the second century CE and on. Looking at economics, economic data point to other factors which doubtlessly contributed to the situation. Well-documented among the travails of third-century Rome—a full two centuries prior to its notorious "fall"—is a particularly long period of financial crisis which inaugurated the slow collapse of the economy in the West.

  • In my opinion the Fall of Rome was inevitable.

    There were too many weak rulers with no clear law of who would rule next. Then there were was also diseases and a famine. Another problem they had was that they put less gold into the coins which made them lose their value so people stopped paying taxes and stopped using money altogether and instead began to barter. Next they also had a temporary paid army instead of a loyal permanent army.

  • Completely Not Inevitable.

    If Rome had simply managed better I guarantee that they would have been able to survived much longer than they did. If they would have held less wars they would have been able to become friendly allies with many other city-states and such. The fall of Rome definitely wasn't inevitable.

  • Rome definitely didn't have to fall.

    They could have rejected christianity. If they rejected christianity then they would have stayed tougher and stronger. Christianity would be obliterated and nobody would doubt their rule. If Rome did NOT expand their borders then Rome would have lasted longer than it did. Soldiers would not have to worry about being spread out too far, and emperors would have more control over a smaller area.

  • It was definitely not inevitable.

    Rome could have not expanded their border, making it less land to govern and protect. They also could have made more stable laws that make the nobles unable to use their wealth and power against the common people. This way, Rome wouldn't have to worry about corrupt people in power.

  • The Fall was not inevitable

    First of all, we are against if the Fall of Rome was inevitable or not. We are going to give you reasons to prove this statement. If Rome did NOT expand their borders then Rome would have lasted longer than it did. Soldiers would not have to worry about being spread out too far, and emperors would have more control over a smaller area. If Rome was more friendlier then we would not need to have war. Everybody would be allies then. “Although historians generally agree on the year of the fall, 476 CE, they often disagree on its causes.”If they use the plague, then they are suggesting that Rome would’ve lasted a thousand years longer. If they bring up war, then we could say that if Rome was friendlier, then they would only have to worry about minor disagreements. If they brought up technology, then we could counter with the fact that Rome invented aqueducts, concrete, and roads, without corruption. These are our final reason on why the Fall of Rome was not Inevitable. They could have rejected christianity. If they rejected christianity then they would have stayed tougher and stronger. Christianity would be obliterated and nobody would doubt their rule. “The rise of Christianity as a fundamental cause of the fall’

  • No The fall of Rome is Inevitable

    First of all, we are against if the Fall of Rome was inevitable or not. We are going to give you reasons to prove this statement. If Rome did NOT expand their borders then Rome would have lasted longer than it did. Soldiers would not have to worry about being spread out too far, and emperors would have more control over a smaller area. If Rome was more friendlier then we would not need to have war. Everybody would be allies then. “Although historians generally agree on the year of the fall, 476 CE, they often disagree on its causes.” http://www.ancient.eu/article/835/ If they use the plague, then they are suggesting that Rome would’ve lasted a thousand years longer. If they bring up war, then we could say that if Rome was friendlier, then they would only have to worry about minor disagreements. If they brought up technology, then we could counter with the fact that Rome invented aqueducts, concrete, and roads, without corruption. These are our final reason on why the Fall of Rome was not Inevitable. They could have rejected christianity. If they rejected christianity then they would have stayed tougher and stronger. Christianity would be obliterated and nobody would doubt their rule. “The rise of Christianity as a fundamental cause of the fall’

  • No The fall of Rome is Inevitable

    First of all, we are against if the Fall of Rome was inevitable or not. We are going to give you reasons to prove this statement. If Rome did NOT expand their borders then Rome would have lasted longer than it did. Soldiers would not have to worry about being spread out too far, and emperors would have more control over a smaller area. If Rome was more friendlier then we would not need to have war. Everybody would be allies then. “Although historians generally agree on the year of the fall, 476 CE, they often disagree on its causes.” http://www.ancient.eu/article/835/ If they use the plague, then they are suggesting that Rome would’ve lasted a thousand years longer. If they bring up war, then we could say that if Rome was friendlier, then they would only have to worry about minor disagreements. If they brought up technology, then we could counter with the fact that Rome invented aqueducts, concrete, and roads, without corruption. These are our final reason on why the Fall of Rome was not Inevitable. They could have rejected christianity. If they rejected christianity then they would have stayed tougher and stronger. Christianity would be obliterated and nobody would doubt their rule. “The rise of Christianity as a fundamental cause of the fall’

  • No The fall of Rome is Inevitable

    First of all, we are against if the Fall of Rome was inevitable or not. We are going to give you reasons to prove this statement. If Rome did NOT expand their borders then Rome would have lasted longer than it did. Soldiers would not have to worry about being spread out too far, and emperors would have more control over a smaller area. If Rome was more friendlier then we would not need to have war. Everybody would be allies then. “Although historians generally agree on the year of the fall, 476 CE, they often disagree on its causes.” http://www.ancient.eu/article/835/ If they use the plague, then they are suggesting that Rome would’ve lasted a thousand years longer. If they bring up war, then we could say that if Rome was friendlier, then they would only have to worry about minor disagreements. If they brought up technology, then we could counter with the fact that Rome invented aqueducts, concrete, and roads, without corruption. These are our final reason on why the Fall of Rome was not Inevitable. They could have rejected christianity. If they rejected christianity then they would have stayed tougher and stronger. Christianity would be obliterated and nobody would doubt their rule. “The rise of Christianity as a fundamental cause of the fall’

  • If Rome Perfected Their Mistakes That Sparked The Collapse

    Any action could've been done better, or had a better approach to it, obviously the same applies to empires of the classical era. If Rome hadn't performed their fair share of mistakes such as the external causes of splitting the empire, and the multiple invasions, or the many more internal causes like establishing unreasonable taxes, it is possible the Roman empire might've survived for much longer than it did.

  • A run of bad luck

    Ultimately if you play the game of civilizations long enough you will lose. And thats all you need to do for it to be over. You can overcome crisis after crisis, invasion after invasion, but eventually there will be that perfect storm that brings enough negative elements together that stress your civilization past its breaking point. That however, is true of any civilization. I say not inevitable because in theory rome could have lasted many hundreds of years past the time which it did, unlike those who say yes. Rome had issues yes its true, an unhealthy reliance on mercenaries, environmental change affecting farming, a financial crisis, an outdated slave economy, and rampant corruption. It was certainly having trouble changing itself from an expansionist empire to one which could maintain its own borders without change. However this is a common issue that many civilizations and even businesses face regularly. The problem of switching from a period of dependent rapid growth to a self sustaining body. Ultimately if some of the natural and environmental disasters had not occurred, or had genetic chance resulted in a number of successive effective reformers rather than corrupt patrician indulgers, I believe Rome could have made the transition to a self sustaining body without relying on further military conquest. Rome's fall was due to a string of bad luck during a stressful time rather than an inherent flaw in the civilization itself. To that point its noted that Rome was greatly missed after the fall by almost all its former inhabitants in the end both near and far, people still had a need for Rome and its order, supporting the idea that it was not an inherent flaw in the underlying concept of Rome, but rather a chance occurence during a time in which there was little room for failure.

  • Romes fall was not inevitable

    If you believe that Rome's fall was inevitable, I guarantee that you will believe that it's not. I believe that it was not. Rome was a country that prospered and influenced a lot of the modern things we use today. In fact, some people think that Rome was doomed to fall after Constantine. If you look at how the country was governed, then you will find out that the last 3 emperors could have stopped the decline of Rome. In fact, if Hadrian did not pull back his troops and kept them there than most of the conflict would have never happened and there would be none of the Germanic troops crossing the Rhine River. There would have been no conflict between the Germanics and the Romans. There would be no flaws in their defences. Another way for them to prosper is to not have one family keep the job their parents had or any family member. They should let them have free reign to do whatever they want to do. Also, they could have built more mines or mining places and have the senate working not only running the senate but doing work and helping out. They should also not make everyone have the same prices on food products and pay the same to employees. They should (like we do) have a minimum of money paid to employees, so they can pay them more that the minimum wage or the exact wage. If they were to do that they would have businesses prospering or failing. People think that Rome was doomed to fall because of the government and the way they made the coins lose value and people started to barter so there were not taxes. If they were in a difficult time they should cut down on festivals of even cancel festivals. People believe that Rome's government was so difficult, one minded, and selfish at times. I can agree with that. That is all true, but if they were to govern it a little better and not kill of heirs to the throne and kill people who were emperors at the time. They could have stopped it.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
loves17 says2015-10-28T17:36:42.813
The fall of Rome was inevitable because Rome grew too fast. Firstly, the Roman government could not support it's people, commerce or size and the Roman emperors created an crumbling government. The empire was too far spread to control all of its territory which made huge problems for the Roman army and government because it was easier for the Romans abroad to rebel. The split between the Western and Eastern Rome was a huge rift between the empire, eventually destroying the Western Roman Empire. This is an example of how corrupt and unstable governments can destroy an empire. The adoption of Christianity also tore up the empire. Natural disagreements between religions was inevitable after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. - Sofia & Irene