Amazon.com Widgets
  • Was the Fall Of Rome Inevitable?

    Rulers were weak, Ineffective,
    and corrupt.
    • There was no system for choosing
    a new emperor.
    • The empire was too big to govern
    well.
    • The army relied on permanent
    paid soldiers not temporary citizen
    volunteers.
    • Plague and famine weakened
    the population.
    • The empire relied too much on
    slavery.
    • People refused to pay taxes, And the
    government could not raise enough
    money.
    • Without enough money the government
    put less gold in its coins,
    money lost its value, And prices
    began to rise.
    • The cost of the army was too
    high, And it declined in size over
    time.
    • Attacks by outside invaders and
    lack of money for roads and
    bridges caused trade to decline.
    • The division of the empire into
    East and West caused a lack of
    unity

  • Erererer er er er er

    E e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e eee eeeee

  • Just like humans every human you eventually die. I think that is what happens with civilizations too.

    Er er re
    re
    re
    er
    re
    er
    e
    er
    e
    e
    r
    r
    e
    r
    e
    r
    er
    e
    rer


    r
    r
    r
    r
    r

    r
    r

    r

    r
    r
    r
    r
    r

    r
    r
    r
    r
    r
    r

    r
    r
    r
    r
    r
    r
    r
    r
    r

    rr

  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    The reason for the decline of the Roman Empire is the Antoine Plague 3.5 million people to 7 million people died in Ancient Rome because of the Antoine Plague it took out a solid 1/3 of the Roman Empire this caused the decay in infrastructure and killed one of the great leaders, Marcus Aurelius causing a chain of terrible leaders.

  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    One of most widely accepted causes - the influx of a barbaric horde - is discounted by some who feel that the mighty Rome, the eternal city, could not have so easily fallen victim to a culture that possessed little or nothing in the way of a political, social or economic foundation. They believe the fall of Rome simply came because the barbarians took advantage of difficulties already existing in Rome - problems that included a decaying city (both physically and morally), little to no tax revenue, overpopulation, poor leadership, and, most importantly, inadequate defense. To some the fall was inevitable.

  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    One of most widely accepted causes - the influx of a barbaric horde - is discounted by some who feel that the mighty Rome, the eternal city, could not have so easily fallen victim to a culture that possessed little or nothing in the way of a political, social or economic foundation. They believe the fall of Rome simply came because the barbarians took advantage of difficulties already existing in Rome - problems that included a decaying city (both physically and morally), little to no tax revenue, overpopulation, poor leadership, and, most importantly, inadequate defense. To some the fall was inevitable.

  • The fall of Rome was inevitable

    One of most widely accepted causes - the influx of a barbaric horde - is discounted by some who feel that the mighty Rome, the eternal city, could not have so easily fallen victim to a culture that possessed little or nothing in the way of a political, social or economic foundation. They believe the fall of Rome simply came because the barbarians took advantage of difficulties already existing in Rome - problems that included a decaying city (both physically and morally), little to no tax revenue, overpopulation, poor leadership, and, most importantly, inadequate defense. To some the fall was inevitable.

  • Rome's fall was inevitable

    The Roman Empire fell due to its lack of proper government and leaders. The main reasons of the fall include the economic crisis, political problems, military dilemmas and social complications.


    The main reason of the Fall of the Roman Empire would be the political problems. This is because without proper leadership, with especially large empires, the citizens will not know who to listen to or follow. In the 50-plus years that was a pure nightmare to Rome, there were at least 22 leaders. This made the Government very unstable. With the unstable government, talented people refused to serve in the government. With that, people without much skill started working for the government. They took bribes, and the government crumbled down.


    Another reason was the economic crisis. With the terrible leaders, the rich began to think paying taxes were not a good proposition. With taxes not paid, the government could not afford essential possessions such as military and roads. To pay these off, the government put less gold in its coins. This made inflation begin. But when the citizens found out about the terrible action and the rising prices, they began to barter instead of using money from the government. All the chaos eventually caused the economy to also collapse.


    Along with all the trouble that was caused in the economy and government, the social community was also going insane. Because of the taxes not paid, the military could not drive out enemies. The Germanics invaded Rome, taking Rome’s crops and destroying fields. This lead to hunger, and also no money for farmers. Artisans produced less, and businesses closed. By then, school was not a priority for even the rich. The social part of Rome was already considered deceased.

  • Pro side doesn't know what inevitable means

    Inevitable means that it is unavoidable. If a few errors were corrected: BAM! Rome is saved. For example, Diocletian could have not divided the Empire. That would have helped. They could of also just stayed put and stopped expanding when they felt the empire was unmanageable. The pro side is just saying what caused Rome's down fall, not that Rome was unsaveable.

  • Pro side doesn't know what inevitable means

    Inevitable means that it is unavoidable. If a few errors were corrected: BAM! Rome is saved. For example, Diocletian could have not divided the Empire. That would have helped. They could of also just stayed put and stopped expanding when they felt the empire was unmanageable. The pro side is just saying what caused Rome's down fall, not that Rome was unsaveable.

  • Er er er er

    E e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

  • IT was 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.

  • It COULD have been saved

    Inevitable means that it is unavoidable. If a few errors were corrected: BAM! Rome is saved. For example, Diocletian could have not divided the Empire. That would have helped. They could of also just stayed put and stopped expanding when they felt the empire was unmanageable. The pro side is just saying what caused Rome's down fall, Not that Rome was unsaveable.
    Report Post

  • No it could have been saved

    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 no no

    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

  • No no no

    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

  • It was salvagable

    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

  • Pro side doesn't know what inevitable means

    Inevitable means that it is unavoidable. If a few errors were corrected: BAM! Rome is saved. For example, Diocletian could have not divided the Empire. That would have helped. They could of also just stayed put and stopped expanding when they felt the empire was unmanageable. The pro side is just saying what caused Rome's down fall, not that Rome was unsaveable.

  • Pro side doesn't know what inevitable means

    Inevitable means that it is unavoidable. If a few errors were corrected: BAM! Rome is saved. For example, Diocletian could have not divided the Empire. That would have helped. They could of also just stayed put and stopped expanding when they felt the empire was unmanageable. The pro side is just saying what caused Rome's down fall, not that Rome was unsaveable.

  • 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.


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
>