Why did the Western Roman Empire fall?

In order to genuinely understand the causes of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, it is
important to understand both the cause for the literal sacking of Rome in 410AD, but also it is
vital to understand the wider context which made this possible, as well as the implications which
it had, and the impact on the rest of the Roman empire. Obviously, the Sacking of Rome will act
as the lynchpin in understanding the fall of the Western Empire, however it is not all
encompassing, and in many ways, elements of the empire carried on for many years after the
empire Fell. The question of Why the Western Empire fell is therefore a broad and difficult
question to answer. However, it can be broken down into roughly 6 main areas. These areas
being the loss of a common language, growing disagreement between the classes, a growing
trade deficit and failing economy, the devaluation of money, cuts to the military across the board,
and finally a desire for excess and the growth of unchecked debauchery. All of these played a
major factor in the downfall of the empire, and to attempt to blame an individual factor or cause
would be an incredibly narrow and naïve view of the events. There are more reasons even that
those listed, however, all most all major events which lead to the downfall could be argued to be
a component part of one of those issues. It was a combination of events which lead to the fall,
and not a single factor or event.
On significant area that can be seen to be key in the fall of the Western Roman empire was the
loss of a single identity. The single most significant piece of evidence for this is the loss of a
single common language. Originally, all of Rome and the Empire had spoken Latin, and whilst
Greek and a couple of other languages were spoken by some, Latin was the language and
spoken by all. Towards the end of the empire, other languages were spoken, but most
importantly, there where those who only spoke Celtic or Lybian, and not Latin, which meant that
parts of the empire were no longer just not a part of the same imperial identity (something which
would have been damaging enough) but rather now meant that there were part of the empire
which could physically communicate with each other, therefore driving a wedge between
provinces. This was hugely damaging to the empire. This forced the empire to act as a collection
of provinces as opposed to the imperial hegemon which it wanted to. As a result of this, the
empire was unable to truly gain from the benefits of its size. For example, by being so large, the
empire should have been able to field armies with units from all over the provinces, however this
language barrier made it impossible to achieve such a feat, and as such were only truly able to
act as a collection of provinces act in in mutual support, as opposed to anything more
sophisticated. Further to this, the growing communication problem made it notably harder to
communicate between provinces for the purposes of trade. This meant that the provinces
became far more reliant upon themselves for supplies, as importing them was significantly harder
than when Latin was the universal language. The loss of a common language did not on its own
cause the fall of the western Roman Empire, but rather meant that when Rome was sacked the
provinces around it had already built a sense of self sustenance and identity, and there was
therefore no need to try to continue as the western Empire, the key failing of the loss of a
common language can therefore be described as not causing the fall of the empire, but rather in
ensuring that the empire was not able to rebuild when it became damaged.
Class in Rome had always been a contentious area, as it had been in all civilisations before it,
and the romans were generally good at managing the issues which arose from it. The idea of
‘bread and circuses’ worked, and in a time where Rome was a deeply successful state, and
political mobility was a possibility, this worked, as the poorest were given provisions to survive,
and those doing well had the promise of personal and financial growth. There were therefore
very few significant issues regarding class when Rome was successful. However, when the
wealth and power of Rome was damaged at all, greater problems arose. For example, by the fall
of the empire, the chance for social climbing had slimmed greatly, as the growth which had
provided these opportunities had slowed, and the surplus which had once provided for the bread
and circuses was stretched to provided the bare minimum for those who needed it. Therefore, it
would be fair to say that the systems of government which had once strengthened the role of
class within roman society, now actively caused issues, as it was not able to support those
which it had once propped up. This very quickly became skewed to portray an image of the
system giving up on its people, and therefore caused significant class discontent. This
discontent can be seen as a sign of the structure of Roman society failing, as in previous years,
one of its greatest strengths was the level of unity it was able to get from its citizens, who acted
in the best interest of the state, with a belief that it was the symbiotic relationship where the state
supported its citizens, and the citizens protected the state. When this suddenly wasn’t the case,
and the state was not able to support its citizens, but still demanded that its citizens defend it,
there was a level of discontent which came very quickly and left the Roman state significantly
weakened, as the people of Rome had in many ways, lost faith in the system, and were
therefore not willing to die in order to defend it, hence why it is possible for Rome to be sacked,
without the total destruction of all its armies – something that would have been unimaginable not
ever a few centuries prior.
The Roman empire was based off of the pursuit of excess. It always had been. The Roman
ideals are selfish from the absolute outside, consider for example the tale of Romulus and
Remus, which idolises the pursuit of individual desire over compromise and cooperation. Whilst
there were also myths which gave a different view (i.e. The Aeneid) there overwhelming belief
was the best way to live was to be as rich and power as possible and to enjoy that wealth. This
worked as an aim in previous centuries, where hard work could reward a person with great
wealth and the ability to live a happy retirement, during the time before the fall of the Western
Empire, personal fortunes were far less earned, and many more were inherited and squandered.
The elite of Roman society lost interest in accruing wealth and instead lived lives of unchecked
debauchery. This meant that by the time of the fall, most significant industries were owned not
by those who were most qualified to run it, or most interested, but rather by those who had
inherited it, and therefore had little interest in the company itself, but rather just its profit. The
obsession with maximum profit and excess meant that these businesses were, whilst incredibly
lucrative, also very weak and therefore chocked invention and progress, which instead became
far more successful in the eastern Empire. This self-indulged attitude lead to significant trade
leaving the Western Empire and instead becoming focused on the far more lucrative Eastern
Empire. This meant that when Rome did fall, the Western Empire was in such an economically
poor state that it was unable to recover. The fall itself cannot be blamed on this constant desire
for excess, but rather it was responsible for Rome’s inability to bounce back from a fall, which
had been one of its saving graces in centuries past. The Romans had suffered major defeats but
had always had a state with a mindset that allowed them to recover and build back up – being
successful as a result of their endurance over anything else. The desire for excess had reduced
this endurance and therefore could be seen as a reason for the fall of the empire, but not as a
cause of the sacking of Rome.
The Western Roman empire had been successful in previous centuries as a result of its massive
trade ability and had centred itself as the trading hub of the Mediterranean and therefore the
civilised world. When the split into East and West occurred, the trade was also split in half,
however over time the Eastern empire through better fiscal policy and through better
geographical positioning became far more prominent in terms of trade. As a result of this, the
trade previously experienced in Western Rome was nowhere near what it had previously been. It
would therefore be a fair assessment that the main cause for the loss of trade seen in the West
was the Success seen in the East. It was however far more the actions of the West that can been
seen to have played a role in causing the fall of the Western Empire. When the West became
less competitive than the East, instead of attempting to become more competitive and improving
trade links, the empire instead took a far more inward focused approach to trade and prioritised
that above external trade. This meant that when the empire fell, they were not supported
externally by other nations or empires economically and were therefore able to fail as an empire.
Furthermore, because there were already trade links within the empire, there were already sub-
divisions amongst the provincial levels in order for trade to work, which acted to further
exacerbated the issues seen throughout the failings of the empire, as this pre-existing
independence allowed for the empire to easily and naturally break apart with little need from its
provinces to stay together.
Over time, Roman currency became less valuable. This was due to several factors, notably that
trade across western Rome generally began to shrink. This was due in part, as previously
mentioned, to the fact that language became a barrier, and hindered long distance trade, but
trade also shrank as a result of expansion from the empire. As a result of the empires continued
expansion, trade links became strained as the link between Rome and its furthest out territories
became ever more distant made it increasingly expensive to maintain link with these provinces.
By becoming so large, and creating an empire so large, it acted as a collection of provinces as
opposed to a single unified empire. Due to this, there were significantly different values for
products across the empire – leading to the devaluation of money in certain areas. Further to
this, debasement of coinage in an attempt to solve the shortage of money only further
exacerbated the problem and pushed provinces to rely on not only the denarii but also the
traditional barter system. The provinces never did away with the Roman currency, but rather also
saw the adoption of other systems of payment. The adoption of the barter system meant that
provinces were no longer financially reliant on the power of Rome, and links back to the
underlying theme that the main cause of the fall wasn’t the fall itself, but rather Rome’s inability to
recover like it previously had once fallen, and this is typified when looking at the financial state of
Rome. Had Rome fallen, yet retained its financial dominance of the Mediterranean, it would have
been incredibly difficult to displace Rome, and the Western Empire would likely have recovered.
However, as the Roman system of finance lacked a monopoly on the provinces, it was easily
replaced after the fall, and was not able to be used in keeping the empire going. As a result of
this, the fall of the Western Empire cannot be attributed to the economic failings and devaluation
of money, but instead, the financial failings can be said to be another factor which ensured the
empire was unable to recover after the fall.

As Rome became a successful and larger state, its growth put those living in Rome itself far away
from the borders and violence that had once been on its doorstep. This gave the feeling of a greater
sense of security and stability for those living there, as they were under no real threat. This led to
significant military cuts causing a weaker level of military, as it was seen as unnecessary to defend
the mostly safe and stable Rome. Therefore, the military shrunk, with many legions not receiving the
reinforcements they needed, meaning that legions weren’t disbanded, but rather were shrunk over
time through a lack of reinforcements to the point that they were ineffective as a force. This meant
that when the military was called upon, they were massively undermanned. As a result of this, when
the military swelled in order to face the Barbarians, they were made of inexperienced recruits and
lost the hard-earned experience that had made the Romans great. This problem was further
exasperated by the fact that there were no significant military campaigns that would have allowed
the Romans to gain experience. Therefore, every time a senior troop retired; the army lost
experience that it was not replacing. As a result of this, by the time of the fall of the Western Empire,
the Roman army was inexperienced and undermanned, making it a far cry from the mighty fighting
machine it had once been. Overall, it would be fair to say that the problems seen within the military
were a microcosm of the problems seen within roman society as a whole, with the mainstay of the
population losing the tenacity that had been so significant in the decades previously, and was
replaced with a lust of excess and desire. Further to this, the loss of an appetite by the public for an
aggressively strong military meant that the majority of the Army was weak and unable to deal with
threats as they grew, to the point that threats became untenable. In addition, the higher standard of
life seen in the late western empire could be seen as a cause for the failings of the military – with the
standard of living so much higher than previously, a life in the army was notably less desirable, and
therefore even were it properly funded, it would have struggled to recruit properly.

In conclusion, the fall of the Western Roman empire was a combination of failings and saying that it
was a single factor would be an incredibly naïve view of the events. However, the largest reason for
its eventual fall was in all of the factors being left unresolved in such a way as the provinces were no
longer dependant on Roman society in order to survive, and over the last several hundred years had
moved towards self-sustenance already. The two most prominent examples of this being trade and
the military. Many provinces had begun trading at lower levels and had gained a level of
independence as a result of this, being able to become involved in trade without the Western
Empire, as they had already been doing it. Militarily, the provinces had been providing security for
themselves for a while as a result of the reduced use of the military by the Roman Empire and more
garrison role that they carried out, as campaigning had become costly un was not as rewarding as it
had originally been. This meant that private militaries had already begun to form in order to provide
security at the provincial level. Overall, the biggest failing which can be said to have caused the fall
of the western Roman Empire was allowing the provinces to act in such a way that by the time of the
fall, they were a collection of small kingdoms working together to form a larger empire, and were no
longer reliant upon the systems of government for anything, thus removing the need to continue as
an empire.