Internal crisis

The Roman Empire was unarguably the largest and mightiest empire to have
ever flourished during its time.The rise of the Empire of Rome was based on
large scale imperial expansion including the geographical shift in the centre of
gravity from the ancient world to Italy that arouse from a new socio-
economic scenario of growth ,high productivity, rise of trade and towns and
improved standard of living. Its conquests were unmatched and its
voluminous expanse, rivalled by none. The empire prospered under the
leadership of its leaders and a steady supply of slaves.It saw the introduction
of large scale agriculture marked by growth of huge farming tracts known as
latifundia. Roman Republic first united this large scale landed property
worked upon by gang slaves in the countryside on a major scale..But the third
century Rome attributes(one of the) causes for its internal crisis to slavery.
The sudden end to the supply of slaves, economic, social and political
fragmentation set the stage for the onset of anarchy. The period of unrest was
followed by the rise of Feudalism which transformed the world. The essay will
elucidate upon the aforementioned internal crises encountered by the empire
and how they lead to the eventual decline of the empire.

Slavery as a mode of production was established first in Greece but it was in

Rome that it heralded the classical phase of the Roman civilization. According
to Keith Hopkins there are seven processes that affected the growth of slavery
in Rome: continuous wars, influx of booty, investment in land formation of
large estates, impoverishment of peasantry, immigration of peasants to towns
and growth of urban market. Slavery is held by some as a reason of labour
shortage and consequently, a reason for decline of rural and industrial
productivity. The technological stagnation resulted from a large number of
slaves. Augustus’ pacification of foreign policy caused a supply shock in the
slave market. The declining market accentuated the need for a working
middle class in order for the continuity of trade and surplus. The easy supply
of slaves was the biggest deterrent for technological advancement. While at
the same time the propertied class maintained its distaste for trade. The
 Page |1

consequence for all this was an inchoate crisis in the social and economic
system by the early third century that developed into a pervasive breakdown
of traditional political order. The empire faced attacks from the various
groups around its borders--the German tribes, the Goths and Visigoths, the
Huns and so forth--which further increased the cost of maintaining the
structure. Eventually invaders not only cut off outlying regions, but
penetrated to the heart of the empire. The old trade routes were broken apart,
the towns declined and the individual members of the landed aristocracy
were forced increasingly to fend for themselves. They did so through various
processes that led to a uniform class of dependent peasants- some former
slaves and some former free peasants.

Another factor equally important which operated to accomplish the decline of

the roman civilization was probably imperialism. Nearly all the problems
which plagued the country were traceable to some extent to the conquest of
the empire. It was this which was largely responsible for the creation of the
city mob for the growth of slavery. The strife between classes and social
groups in unison with the political corruption contributed further to the
decline. The need to maintain a huge military machine and the influx of alien
ideas which the Romans could not easily assimilate, exhausted the state.
Slavery caused all technological development to grow slow which led to little
or no technical progress in the long run. The lack of technical knowledge led
to overall inefficiency which was a factor for inflation. Arnold J. Toynbee states
that an economy based upon slave labour precluded a middle class with
buying power. The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. The lavish
lives of Emperors and increasing military expenditure, however, continued. In
summary, financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting
them steadily eroded. Consequently, due to economic failure, the enemies of
the Empire had better armour and weapons as well as larger forces. The
decrepit social order offered so little to its subjects that many saw the
barbarian invasion as liberations. This was directly linked to decline in
slavery.
 Page |2

The four pillars on which the Roman Empire rested includes the emperor, the
army, civil service and municipality. When each of these weakened, the
structure as the whole stood on the verge of collapse. During the first and
second centuries of the Common Era people of Rome enjoyed peace and
prosperity. But after that the empire was put in a chaos by the rising
instability of the administration structure. The government and the army did
not conquer any more new lands .At the same time the heavy burden of
maintaining the existing frontiers, extending up to 6000 miles, fell upon them
along with the fear of attack from the barbarians of the north and the new
Persian power that emerged from the south. The empire depended on the
army and the emperor for the maintenance of peace and security. But both of
them were in a sort of unstable position. By now there was a shift in the
answer to the question of who could rule the empire that is a shift from an
Italian to a non-Italian. Even the army became less Roman. The thirst for
power used different legions against each other. Almost all of these rulers
were dethroned one by one using violence. It is said that between 217 and
285 among the 29 emperors who ceased power one after the other, out of
which only one died a natural death. Diocletian (284-305) indeed tried to
rescue the kingdom by dividing it into 2-the western and the eastern. The
Eastern part (Adriatic region) was under the rule of Constantine (306-337)
who made Constantinople his capital. It survived for another 1000 years with
well-placed trade and defence along with bread and circuses transplanted
from Rome. The western part however could not resist the attack of the
Barbarians. Let us now throw light into the decline of the empire with
economy in specific terms.

The economy of Rome was predominantly agrarian. Though nature was

generous enough to always provide the empire a surplus, to have exploited
the same, there existed (as mentioned above, technological stagnation) simple
techniques like the human hands and muscles. As the productivity decreased
invention of new techniques did not actually happen .The working condition
was improved by stopping the inter-tribal wars in the Barbarian west and
conflicts between rulers in the Hellenistic east. Irrigation system of Egypt and
Carthage was also improved. In spite of all these the economy was bound to be
damaged in the third century. To add to the worse plague, civil war and
barbarian attacks took place. Labour became scarce on the land and the trade
declined. According to H.Heaton this was a situation where the state had to
take more out of less, like a larger army, a larger civil service etc.
 Page |3

The booty was now collected from the victims of civil war and from those who
offended the emperor. There was also debasement of currency in the years of
unbalanced budgets. Forced unpaid labour taxation became prevalent. Poll
tax, land tax, customs duty; sales tax and inheritance tax are some of them.
The collection of the taxes was the responsibility of the municipality. The
crisis of the third century impaired the ability of the municipalities to raise the
taxes. Unpaid services were demanded from people who were forced to form
guilds (collegia).For instance the shipping guild was expected to carry grain
free from Egypt and the bakers to bake bread for free. When victims tried to
escape from this guild a decree forbade them to move and made their
memberships in the guilds compulsory and hereditary. The officials who
supervised the guilds showed more interest in what his imperial master got
out of it. Consequently the guild policy reduced the income on which it was
depending. Urban industries weakened and the towns declined further.

Beginning in the third century, the emperors had to increase the military
establishment despite a growing manpower shortage caused by a declining
birthrate. This decision led to Germanization of the army and to German
colonization within the Empire. Thus, the West was becoming "barbarized".
Civilians distrusted their own armies and the soldiers conspired against their
commanders who in turn wanted to do away with the king of that time. Thus
new emperors were proclaimed. Some of these emperors survived for only a
few months, dispatched by rival armies or even by the troops who had
recently proclaimed them. But with the accession of Diocletian in 284 AD, the
empire enjoyed greater stability for the next two decades, and some of the
material and financial damage was repaired, although not entirely
successfully.

In the context of economic instability the empire looked back to the land for
income. In the provinces of Spain, Gaul, Britain and Rumania there was
granting of land to veterans. The recipient of the land developed production,
sale and export (to Rome) of goods in the piece of land granted to him.

As the state administration weakened the control of local life fell into the
hands of the landlord. He became the neighbourhoods ruler, fortifying his
 Page |4

villa, policing the area, collecting tax and even trying cases in his own court.
His estate became self-sufficing economic and administrative unit. The
western roman empire ended with the class of great landowners exercising
far reaching power over the coloni and slaves,with stagnant or decaying town
and with a shrinking commerce. This marked a new mode of production,
namely the feudal mode of production.In this way, a new way of organising
production took root. The reorganising occurred in such a way that
occupation and social status became hereditary and fixed. These changes
diminished the freeman’s mastery over himself or his power to determine his
occupation. It reduced the distance between him and the slave, and slowly the
latter along with free domestic servants and workshop labourers passed into
the condition of serfdom.
This transition from slavery to feudal serfdom was a gradual process. Another
reason for this transition was that when the conquests ceased in Rome, slave
supply also ceased. This led to the end of an internal sale of slaves since each
family of slave owners tried to preserve its own hereditary laws. Thus, there
was an improvement in the conditions of the already existing slaves in the
society. As a consequence, slaves grew more attached to the households or
the lands of their masters.

The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay: the causes of destruction
multiplied with the extent of conquest: and,as soon as time or accident had
removed the artificial supports the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure
of its own weight. The introduction of Christianity also had some effect on the
decline and fall of the roman empire. The emperors anxious for their personal
safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting
the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to the sovereign and to
the enemy: the vigour of the military Empire was relaxed. In conclusion, the
seditious social culture, political fragmentation and economic debacles tamed
the mighty Roman Empire which was later crippled by external factors. The
decline gave rise to the idea of feudalism which transcended the world into a
new phase of existence. It allowed for a more complex exertion of individual
hegemony for those in power and further dteriorated the position of the lower
echelons of society by imposition and forceful enforcement.
Page |5