What Actually Caused Romes Decline - Assignment Example

1 It may well surprise the historian that the Roman Empire, which controlled almost all of Europe in its time, suffered a catastrophic decline. By what means might this decline have been mitigated or even prevented?  Historians are actually divided in regards to what actually caused Rome’s decline. There are those who raise valid arguments and there are also those that posit reasons that border into the ridiculous. This division is demonstrated in the way scholars disagree about when exactly such decline occurred. For those who blamed the regime of Diocletian and his policies, the date was 284 onwards. For those who considered Constantine and his family as the progenitor of the empires woes, the year 312 is put forward, the time Constantine defeated Maxentius and unified Europe under Christianity. There are also historians who think that the Fall occurred upon Constantine’s death – in 337 – when his sons were in a mad scramble to purge the entire family. There is the school of thought that Rome’s defeat in the battle of Adrianople in 378 marked the decline. For other theories, linking Christianity and several personages and groups to the Roman Empire’s demise, a different year is given. What all these differences underscore is the fact that the Roman’s Empire’s decline was brought about by a combination of many factors that collectively weighed the Empire down to its eventual ruin. This contention is important in answering how Rome’s Fall could have been mitigated, if not entirely prevented. Out of all the diverse variables that are credited to have led the Empire to its knees, a clear pattern emerges – that the causes, as suggested by scholars, can be classified into two fundamental areas – crisis in leadership and the crisis brought about by conflict – either through civil wars or through battles against external enemies. If one has to draft a solution to check the Roman decline, he would need to develop a strategy to ensure that the emperors who have ruled Rome did not abuse power, displayed excellent judgment and decision-making and had the creativity and the will to strengthen the Roman leadership, the government and the state in such a way that it could withstand external shocks such as civil wars, rebellions and foreign invasion. Central to this strategy is the empowerment of state’s institutions so that power is not delegated into one single individual exclusively. Meanwhile, the civil wars that have perennially rocked the Roman world, gradually eroding it over time, could have been addressed as well. This is very important because the conflicts taxed the resources of the state and fomented class divisions leading to a deeper unrest among the populace. The leadership is again pivotal in this respect. The policies and decisions emanating from this position should not have reinforced class antagonism, discrimination, among other factors that prevented Rome to have a cohesive and harmonious society. Finally, the gradual transfer of power from the West towards the East should have been prevented. As the seat of power was transferred by Roman emperors to either Constantinople and Ravenna, Rome was left to itself, too far from the emperor to be protected and so removed from the Empire that when a series of barbarian attack hammered and looted the city, the emperors were powerless to do anything. When Rome was finally sacked beyond repair, the psychological impact to the Romans was immense. Had Rome been protected, by maintaining it as the seat of power, some problems could have been prevented from happening. 2.) What specific influences have epidemic diseases and famine had on the history of Europe and the world in general? Provide examples. Epidemics and famine can wipe out millions of people. These are the two most dramatic killers in history, accounting for several million deaths century upon century. Each of these two killers can claim separate casualties but they could also work together to deal a more crushing impact in a particular people and location. Here, famine is caused by natural factors while diseases – epidemics – emerge as a result. Or, diseases such as cholera and malaria raged on, affecting people’s ability to plant and gather food resulting to the widespread shortage of food. The sheer number of victims with these afflictions – diseases and food shortage – revealed the extent of the impact among humans and communities. The most immediate and direct is the loss of life and human resources. This is demonstrated best by the Great Famine that covered Europe in 1315. Because of the sudden change in weather patterns, Europeans failed to plant crops and grow livestock. After a year, all of Europe are starving and faced with skyrocketing price for food. People – from the nobles to the peasants were affected. Immediately after, diseases started to afflict people – pneumonia, bronchitis, among others. By 1325, about 10 to 25 percent of the population of most European cities died. Unlike other killers such as diseases famine had a more lingering effect on people and countries. It took more than a decade for the food supply to stabilize and within the period, criminal activity spiked up. It must be underscored that starving people would do anything just so they could survive. Violating the rules and norms of society seemed to be a better alternative than dying from hunger. Indeed, by the 13th century, Europe would become a very violent place to live in, wherein even the good individuals were forced to do bad in order to live. Meanwhile, epidemics can also deal a quick but painful blow. A case in point was Europe’s experience with the Black Plague in the middle of the 14th century. The death toll was staggering since about a third to one-half of the entire European population was decimated. The effect was not just the massive decline in population because the plague was responsible for changing the European social structure. Indeed, with all the millions upon millions of deaths, people started to look for someone to blame, which in this case became the Church and the kings and emperors or specific groups such as the Jews. In addition, and as with famine, people are incapacitated to work leading to the destruction of several industries. As shops and enterprises close, people resort to crime in order to be able to cope with the ill effects of diseases. Interestingly, famines and diseases were able to raise the standards of living of some countries suffering from these problems. However, this is caused by the deaths of many able bodied men. For instance, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the famine and the ensuing death toll made manufacturers and commercial enterprises to pay higher wage lest they immigrate to America. Read More