Rome's Ups And Downs Analysis

Picture a scenario where a child has just been pushed down, and he or she is on the ground deciding how to react. Without the external force, the action of pushing the child down, there is no opportunity for the child to internalize he or she’s emotions. The child can’t react to a situation that has not happened. If brought to real life, Rome would be the child in this situation with war would be the pushing force. Yes, in the article “Storming the Heavens: Soldiers, Emperors, and Civilians in the Roman Empire,” Antonio Santosuosso has a point. He believes the army aristocrats grew too powerful from war thus internal conflicts began, but we have to remember how they came to power. Aristocrats would conquer land during war and give this land to gain followers allegiance. The key point here is that war was caused by external threats on Rome’s borders, and without those threats no war could have happened and the achievement for land would be lack thereof. External problems caused the fall of Rome but its internal problems, the way in which Rome
As Peter Heather points out in his article, “The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe,” for many of the individual battles, Rome was not too phased. It was not until the Hun started to make their way around the borders of Europe that led to the possible demise of Rome. The Hun united Rome’s enemies and were constantly fighting Rome left and right. The question now was, why did these battles impact this huge Empire so much more compared to others battles? The answer wasn’t the battles themselves, or the strength of the Hun’s army but the external force of time. The battles were fought with such a “protracted process” (Heather 108) that it allowed for, as I mentioned earlier, a timely manner for the unification of enemies to come together and defeat Rome. Due to the external force of time, Rome could not withstand the Hun’s united