Fall Of Rome Analysis
The Roman Republic and its fall is the subject of dispute among many historians. There are many possible contributing factors that could have led to its downfall that it's challenging to figure out which ones are the true cause. In the dialogue, The Fall of Rome, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Peter Heather contribute their own theories pertaining to the way in which the Great Roman Empire fell.
One thing that both Ward-Perkins and Heather can agree upon for a major contributing factor to the dissolution of the Roman Empire is the presence of barbarians. Both Ward-Perkins and Heather also agree that when the barbarians came along they got into a conflict with the Romana over land. In the text, the first question asks “Recent scholarship has argued …show more content…
Instead of saying the fault was in their geographic location, Heather contributes the collapse to the lack of resources. His example is of the Sassanians attempt to overthrow the Roman hegemony in the Near East. “After 300 AD, Persia remained a superpower and about a third of the Empire’s forces had always to be stationed on the eastern front. This directly affected its capacity to deal with further crises elsewhere, as did the fact that most of the available fiscal slack in its generally rigid agricultural economy had already been used up to fund the larger military establishment raised to face down the Persians.” He gives more examples but you can more or less make the same conclusion from them, Romans made strategic mistakes and didn’t use their resources in the best way. In the end, Rome was unable to defend themselves properly because they lacked the resources to do so effectively. Even though Rome tried to expand and make more progress on the foreign front they fell short domestically.
Bryan Ward-Perkins and Peter Heather talk about their theories of how the Roman Empire fell. Their theories conclude that the fall of Rome was caused by violence. They also talk about why the Western Empire was unable to fight off the fifth-century military challenge. Their theories point toward events and chance instead of structural weaknesses. Throughout this dialogue, you get
One thing that both Ward-Perkins and Heather can agree upon for a major contributing factor to the dissolution of the Roman Empire is the presence of barbarians. Both Ward-Perkins and Heather also agree that when the barbarians came along they got into a conflict with the Romana over land. In the text, the first question asks “Recent scholarship has argued …show more content…
Instead of saying the fault was in their geographic location, Heather contributes the collapse to the lack of resources. His example is of the Sassanians attempt to overthrow the Roman hegemony in the Near East. “After 300 AD, Persia remained a superpower and about a third of the Empire’s forces had always to be stationed on the eastern front. This directly affected its capacity to deal with further crises elsewhere, as did the fact that most of the available fiscal slack in its generally rigid agricultural economy had already been used up to fund the larger military establishment raised to face down the Persians.” He gives more examples but you can more or less make the same conclusion from them, Romans made strategic mistakes and didn’t use their resources in the best way. In the end, Rome was unable to defend themselves properly because they lacked the resources to do so effectively. Even though Rome tried to expand and make more progress on the foreign front they fell short domestically.
Bryan Ward-Perkins and Peter Heather talk about their theories of how the Roman Empire fell. Their theories conclude that the fall of Rome was caused by violence. They also talk about why the Western Empire was unable to fight off the fifth-century military challenge. Their theories point toward events and chance instead of structural weaknesses. Throughout this dialogue, you get