The Decoman Empire: The Fall Of The Roman Empire

842 Words 4 Pages
What is commonly referred to as the “fall of Rome” wasn’t at its essence a fall at all. It was a gradual decline, following years, decades, even centuries of conquering peoples and acquirement of riches. Throughout the centuries, the Roman Empire had many RISES and declines as does any world power that survives for as long as the Roman Empire did. The question is why this decline was the last decline, what led Rome to a point that the Empire failed to recover as it had in the past. Roman armies had conquered many lands and peoples under even more consults, caesars, and emperors. The Roman border grew over centuries, acquiring riches and cultures, and yet failed to truly assimilate and eradicate the cultures of the peoples they overtook (Freeman, 509). Many of these areas, such as Egypt and Greece, predated Roman culture and therefore felt superior even to the Romans …show more content…
In particular, the Goth leader Alaric sought to obtain a settlement for his people within the Roman Empire, and failing diplomatically the only avenue left to him was force, and force he employed (Freeman, 609). Ultimately it was Alaric that sacked Rome in 410 AD, demoralizing the Roman people (Freeman, 611). The Goths vacated the city, yet the moral damage had been done: Rome could be conquered (Freeman, 610). In the 430s Aetius attempted to revive the empire utilizing Hunnic mercenaries, however the Hunns came to be led by Attila, who was more aggressive and persisted in raiding in Italy until his death in 445AD (Freeman, 613). By the late fifth century AD the end of Rome as a world power was in immediate site: almost everything outside of Italy had been lost (Freeman, 608). Fear and competing egos took over, and there was no revival or recovery possible, essentially the Roman Empire had ‘fallen’ (Freeman,

Related Documents