Causes of the fall of ancient Rome. Economic problems and excessive fascination with slave labor
1. General situation in the Western Roman Empire.
In the 5th century In 395, the final political division of the previously unified Mediterranean Empire into two state entities took place: the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). Although both of them were headed by the brothers and sons of Theodosius, and in legal theory the idea of a single Empire ruled by only two emperors was preserved, in fact and politically these were two independent states with their capitals (Ravenna and Constantinople), their own imperial courts, with different tasks facing governments, and finally, with different socio-economic bases. The process of historical development in the West and in Byzantium began to take on different forms and took different paths. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the processes of feudalization retained the features of greater continuity of the old social structures, proceeded more slowly, and took place while maintaining the strong central authority of the emperor in Constantinople.
The path of the formation of the feudal formation in the West turned out to be different. Its most important feature is the weakening of the central power of the Roman emperor and its destruction as a political superstructure. Its other feature is the gradual formation on the territory of the Empire of independent political entities - barbarian kingdoms, within which the process of development of feudal relations takes on forms different from Byzantium, in particular, the form of a synthesis of new relations that are formed in the bowels of the decaying ancient structures, and relations that develop among the conquerors. - barbarian tribes and tribal unions.
The gradual weakening of the central power of the Western Roman Empire is explained by serious socio-economic changes in Roman society in the 4th-5th centuries. first of all, the decline of cities, the reduction in commodity production and trade, the ever-increasing naturalization of the economy and the shift of the center of economic life from cities to the countryside - huge latifundia, which turn into centers not only of agriculture, but also of crafts and trade in the district closest to the estate.
The social strata associated with ancient forms of economy and urban life, primarily municipal owners, or, as they were called in the 4th-5th centuries, curials, were ruined and degraded. On the contrary, the social positions of large magnates, owners of huge land masses with the most diverse population, possessing a large supply of food and handicraft products, having their own guards and fortified villas, were increasingly strengthened. Weak Western Roman emperors endowed powerful magnates, who, as a rule, belonged to the highest social stratum of the Empire - senators - and occupied important positions in the army, in the provincial administration, at the imperial court, with a number of privileges (exemption from taxes, from obligations in relation to the nearest city , vesting elements of political power over the population of estates, etc.). Such magnates, in addition to imperial benefactions, arbitrarily (in some cases with the consent of the population) extend their power (patrotsinii) to neighboring independent villages inhabited by free farmers.
Church land ownership is also being strengthened. The church communities of individual cities, ruled by bishops, now had large land holdings on which various categories of workers lived and worked - columns, slaves, dependent and free farmers. In the 5th century monasticism spreads in the West, monasteries are organized, owning vast lands. The strengthening of church, and in particular monastic, land ownership was facilitated by the voluntary gifts of believing Christians, and generous gifts of emperors, and more favorable living conditions, since church lands were exempted from heavy taxes. Rapprochement begins between secular magnates and church hierarchs. Often, members of the same senatorial family become senior officials and occupy episcopal chairs (for example, the family of the noble Gallic aristocrat Sidonius Apollinaris). It is not uncommon for a representative of the nobility to start his career as an imperial official, and then take the priesthood and become a church figure (for example, Ambrose of Milan).
An important factor in the economic situation of the Western Empire in the IV century. and especially in the 5th century. becomes the tax policy of the state. In general, we can talk about a sharp increase in the tax burden, which exceeds the economic capabilities of taxpayers, gradually plunges them into poverty, and undermines their economy. The maintenance of a luxurious imperial court, an extensive bureaucratic central and provincial apparatus, and an army required huge funds. At the same time, the general economic decline and reduction of material resources, the naturalization of the Empire, the withdrawal from the tax pressure of church lands and many magnate latifundia, the devastation of vast areas by barbarian hordes reduced the possibilities of taxpayers. The severity of the tax burden was aggravated by the theft and arbitrariness of the bureaucratic apparatus and tax collectors.
The unbearable fiscal oppression, the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy also affected the social interests of the provincial nobility, who, together with the local church communities led by the bishops, fought for their privileges, and also demanded from the weakening center more energetic measures to maintain and secure the borders and suppress the social movements of the columns, slaves, dependent and disadvantaged people. In the 5th century with each decade, the imperial government performed these most important tasks worse and worse, losing its right to exist. The provincial aristocracy and the local church, having vast land masses and an extensive staff of workers, gradually take over the functions of suppressing social movements in their areas, repulsing barbarian invasions, ignoring the orders of the emperors, and entering into separate contacts with the leaders of the border barbarian tribes. There is a narrowing of the social support of the Roman Empire, its slow but steady agony begins.
An important factor in the socio-political situation in Western Roman society in the 5th century. there is a gradual divergence of interests of the Christian church, uniting around the risky pope, and the imperial government. The church, which has a ramified organization, huge wealth and strong moral influence, also acquires political influence. The Western Roman emperors failed to neutralize this influence and bring it under their own control, as did the Byzantine monarchs. This was facilitated by the formal division of residences: the center of the Western Church was Rome - a symbol of Roman power and culture, the center of the imperial court - Mediolan, and from 402 - Ravenna. The support of the provincial nobility and active charity among the lower classes (the sale of huge stocks of food and material resources of the church) became a means of political influence for the Western church, which contrasted with the ever-increasing tax pressure of the central government. And as the authority of the Empire and its bureaucratic apparatus fell, the social and political influence of the church organization increased.
The general decrepitude of the Western Roman Empire was clearly expressed in the collapse of its military organization. The army reformed by Diocletian and Constantine by the end of the 4th century. began to reveal its weakness and low combat capability. With the reduction of material resources and the population of the Empire, mass evasion from military service, there were more and more difficulties with the recruitment of the army. The border troops turned into poorly disciplined settlements of military colonists, occupied more with their own economy than with military service.
Composed of forcibly recruited recruits, often the same oppressed columns, recruited criminals and other dubious elements, the Roman field army was losing fighting qualities. Warriors often became an instrument of the ambitious plans of their commanders or robbers of their own population, and not an effective means of protecting the state from an external enemy.
A huge army, numbering about 140,000 frontier and about 125,000 field troops, requiring colossal funds for its maintenance, was performing its direct functions worse and worse with every decade. The weakening of the army was no secret to the imperial government, and in order to strengthen the military organization, the Western Roman emperors took the path known as far back as the 4th century: the conclusion of agreements with the leaders of the barbarian tribes, according to which the latter were declared allies (federates) of the Empire, received from the emperors places to settle , food and equipment, regular pay and turned into mercenary units of the Roman army. However, it was a dangerous path. Such barbarian squads, led by their konungs (kings), by no means always obeyed imperial orders, they pursued an independent policy, often turned their weapons not so much against an external enemy, but against the civilian population for the purpose of robbery. In addition, the possibility of separate contacts with the barbarian squads on the part of the local aristocracy, along with other reasons, nourished strong provincial separatism and created the conditions for an alliance between the local nobility and barbarian leaders contrary to the interests of the imperial court.
The changed socio-economic and political conditions, and above all the establishment of imperial absolutism in the form of dominance, the strengthening of fiscal oppression and the system of general enslavement, required a revision of the classical Roman law that had previously been in force in the early Empire. By the beginning of the IV century. a huge number of various legal documents have accumulated, far from always
corresponding to each other: part of the republican laws up to the laws of the 12 Tables, some praetor edicts, decisions of the senate, interpretations and "answers" of famous lawyers, and finally, numerous constitutions of emperors from the time of the Severs, equated with laws. In order to make the legal system operational in the new changed conditions, adapt it to the needs of a despotic state and ensure at least a minimum public order, it was necessary to systematize existing legal norms, adapt them to new conditions and combine them in the form of a common and unified state code, a systematized code of the Roman rights.
At the end of the III century. the Gregorianus code was created, which included imperial constitutions from Hadrian to the end of the 3rd century; at the beginning of the 4th century. Codex Hermogenianus was drawn up, including imperial constitutions up to Constantine the Great. At the beginning of the 5th century The Code of Emperor Theodosius II included constitutions from Constantine to Theodosius II, as well as fragments and writings of major Roman jurists. A limited range of works of classical legal literature was defined: the works of Papinian, Ulpian, Paul, Modestin, Gaius, which were considered iura. The final codification of Roman law was carried out at the beginning of the 6th century. Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Justinian, who collected all the imperial constitutions.
To draw up the Code, Justinian created a Commission headed by the well-known lawyer and statesman Tribonian. Taking into account previous experience, the Commission was tasked not only to collect imperial constitutions and quotations from the works of jurists, but also to try to explain and eliminate contradictions in the texts of classical jurists.
The Code of Justinian included four parts: Institutions - a textbook based on the Institutions of Guy, Digests (Pandects) - extracts from the texts of classical lawyers in 50 books on public, private, criminal law, etc. Each book was divided into titles and paragraphs and included quotations on civil law with commentaries by Sabin, fragments of works on the Praetor Edict, a presentation of gesrops based on Papinian. In the texts of classical lawyers, obsolete concepts were replaced with the corresponding modern ones, inserts and explanations were made. The Code of Justinian included 12 books on private, criminal law, regulations on public administration, and the law of magistrates. The new laws of Justinian were included in the fourth part - Novels. The codification of Roman law was completed.
Serious changes took place in property law, all types of property, except for Roman, ceased to exist (after the edict of Caracalla, which turned all the inhabitants of the Empire into citizens, the concept of Perefinian property disappeared; after the deprivation of Italy's tax privileges under Diocletian, the allocation of special provincial property also lost its meaning). There was a fundamental revision of the ancient ideas about property, the division of things into res mancipi and res nec mancipi was abolished, movable and immovable property were equalized.
The transfer of ownership no longer needs formalism or praetoral support and remains in the form of a simple transfer - a tradition. Acts of property transfer are made in the form of a record (for example, in land books). Another way is the acquisition - property by prescription. It is adopted by the state to stimulate the cultivation of land, especially uncultivated areas. A bona fide owner, by acquisitive prescription, receives protection in rem, i.e. after ten years of ownership becomes full owner.
The state in every way encourages the long-term lease of uncultivated plots in the form of emphyteusis - the actual hiring for an annual tax. Now it turns into a legally registered lease, the tenant receives the same protection as the owner, the right to alienate and inherit. The idea of perpetual lease for private owners is based and developed on it. Claims become general. Under Justinian, emphyteusis merges with ius in agro vectigali.
State control over the development of property law manifests itself in cities, where it develops in the direction of the prohibition of decurions to alienate property without the permission of the magistrate.
Mortgage has become the main type of mortgage on all types of property. Through a mortgage, the state could provide some protection to the lower strata of the population, since the debtor, while retaining possession rights, has freedom of action up to alienation.
The change in the fundamental concepts of law has affected the change in the process. A previously rarely used extraordinary process began to develop. It was based on the right of the magistrate to exercise defense and was an administrative proceeding. The formulary process is dying out, as the difference in citizenship and types of property has disappeared. The extraordinary process becomes the norm. If the entire ordinary process (legislation and formulary) was based on the agreement of the parties, then the new process is based on the authority of the magistrate. The magistrate acts in it not as a judge, but as an administrator, defending new relations in law.
One of the decisive factors in the historical development of society and the state in the 5th century. was a revolutionary movement of the oppressed and disadvantaged sections of the population. The painful formation of new classes of producers was complicated by the presence of a despotic state, which hampered the introduction of milder forms of dependence than slavery. General enslavement, established under the dominance in the 4th century, was a system that bizarrely combined a new form of dependence and proper slaveholding relations, a system from which not only the lowest, but also the middle strata of the Roman population suffered severely. All this aggravated the social situation in the Empire, created great tension in class relations, which resulted in various forms of social and class protest. The situation was aggravated by unbearable fiscal oppression, the arbitrariness of officials and the army, including hired barbarian squads, general impoverishment, lack of internal security and stability. A feature of the mass movements of the 5th century. was their heterogeneous social composition, the participation of representatives of different classes and social groups, slaves, columns, ruined free farmers, artisans, merchants, lower urban and even some middle strata, curials. Social protest was often intertwined with separatist sentiments and religious clashes, and in this case the composition of the participants in popular movements became even more motley. Lacking clear political programs, the mass movements of the 5th century. objectively, they were directed against the despotic state, the remnants of obsolete slaveholding relations that entangled Roman society and hindered progress.
An example of a powerful, diverse in its social composition popular movement is the movement of the Bagauds in Gaul, which arose as early as the 3rd century, and in the 5th century.
flared up with renewed vigor. “What else gave rise to the Bagauds,” exclaims Salvian, “if not our exorbitant penalties, dishonesty of rulers, proscriptions and robberies perpetrated by people who turned the collection of public duties into a source of their own income, and taxes into their prey? ..” Movement of the Bagauds covered the central regions of Gaul, but it was especially strong and organized in the district of Armorica (modern Brittany). Led by their leader Tibatton, the Bagauds in 435-437. liberated Armorica from the Roman authorities and established their rule. After the defeat in 437, received from the imperial troops (including the Hunnic detachments) led by Aetius, the Bagaud movement broke out in the 440s and lasted for almost a whole decade.
In Africa, the social protest of the population took the form of religious movements. Already from the III century. African Christian communities showed separatist sentiments, which were institutionalized in the teachings of Bishop Donat. The extreme left wing of Donatism became the so-called circucellions, or agonists (fighters for the true faith), in whose movement the phenomena of social protest prevailed. “Which master,” said their opponent Augustine, “was not forced to fear his slave if he resorted to their (agonists.-V.K.) patronage? Who dared even threaten the destroyer or the culprit? Who could recover from the destroyer of wine warehouses, from the debtor demanding their help and protection? Under fear of clubs, fires, immediate death, documents for the worst slaves were destroyed so that they would leave as free ones. The withdrawn promissory notes were returned to the debtors. Everyone who neglected their rude words was forced to follow orders with even more rude scourges ... Some fathers of families, people of high birth and noble upbringing, were brought barely alive after their beatings or, tied to a millstone, rotated it, driven by scourges, like despicable cattle " . Until the end of the 420s, agonists were a serious danger to the local aristocracy and Roman power.
Heresies - religious movements that do not recognize the approved dogmas of the orthodox church - become a peculiar form of social protest. Especially widespread in the 5th century. in Gaul, there was a heresy of a native of Britain, Pelagius, who rejected the main dogma of the church about the sinful nature of people, allegedly burdened by the original sin of Adam, and on this basis, denying slavery, oppression and social injustice. Pelagianism in a peculiar religious form, by emphasizing the perfect essence of man, justified various forms of social protest of the lower classes of Roman society against increasing exploitation, fiscal oppression and the norms of slave-owning law.
Mass popular movements, various in their forms of manifestation, undermined obsolete social relations and the despotic state behind them - the Western Roman Empire.
Fundamental changes in the socio-economic structure, state organization took place in the conditions of an increasing influx of barbarian tribes to the Roman borders, their constant breakthroughs and robberies of border and deep territories. The tribal federations of the Franks, Sueves, Alemans, Burgundians, Vandals, Goths and other tribes living along the Roman frontier limes experienced a process of disintegration of the tribal system and the formation of early class relations, which was accelerated by the powerful influence of Roman civilization. There is a separation of a layer of tribal nobility, uniting around itself the militant squads of their fellow tribesmen, who prefer the military craft to any other; the militancy of the border barbarian tribes is growing. Their aggressiveness is fueled by the weakening of the military power of the Empire and the wealth of the Roman provinces.
At the end of the IV century. the so-called great migration of peoples begins, caused by the movement of a large coalition of tribes led by the Huns from the Caspian steppes in a westerly direction.
During the great migration of peoples at the end of the 4th-5th centuries. occurred on an unprecedented scale of movement of numerous peoples, tribal unions and tribes of Eastern and Central Europe. They had a huge impact on socio-economic relations, and on the political situation both in Europe and throughout the Mediterranean, on the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and brought the end of the entire ancient world closer.
These were the fundamental features and specific forms of manifestation of the social revolution, during which the ancient slave-owning Roman society and its statehood in the western part of the former Mediterranean Empire collapsed.
2. The fall of the Roman Empire.
The paths of the historical development of the Eastern and Western empires, after they finally separated in 395, differed significantly from each other. The Eastern Empire, which later became known as the Byzantine Empire, turned into a feudal state as a result of complex processes, which could last for another thousand years, until the middle of the 15th century (1453). The historical fate of the Western Roman Empire developed differently. The collapse of the slave system within its borders proceeded especially rapidly, it was accompanied by bloody wars, coups, popular uprisings, which finally undermined the former power of one of the largest states of the ancient world.
After the young Honorius (395-423) became emperor, at the beginning of the 5th century, at the head of the imperial government, there was a vandal by origin, Stilicho. He had to solve two most important tasks: firstly, the repulse of barbarian invasions of Italy itself and, secondly, the suppression of the separatist movement in Gaul.
Only with great difficulty was it possible to repel the invasion of the Visigothic squads led by Alaric in 401-402 and resume contractual relations with him. In 404-405, Italy was invaded from the Eastern Alps by the troops of the Goth Radagaisus, who reached Florence itself, but was nevertheless defeated not far from this city. All these invasions showed that the most serious danger threatens the center of the state - Italy and directly the capitals - the historical capital of the city of Rome and the residence of the emperor, which from now on was heavily fortified, surrounded by impenetrable swamps, Ravenna.
In order to protect the imperial capital, Stilicho transferred to Italy part of the maneuverable field troops from Britain and Gaul. By this he weakened the defense of the Rhine borders and all of Gaul. After parts of the troops were withdrawn, this actually meant that the empire was leaving the western provinces to their fate. This did not fail to take advantage of the tribal coalitions of the Alans, the Vandals of the Suebi, who in 407 broke through the Rhine border and, crossing the river, broke into Gaul, devastating everything in their path. The provincial aristocracy, which consisted of the Gallo-Roman nobility, had to lead the defense of their provinces, not relying on the help of the imperial government. All this led to the fact that the troops stationed in Britain and Gaul proclaimed Emperor Constantine (407-411). With great difficulty, he managed to restore the situation on the Rhine border: he pushed the Vandals and Suebi back to Spain and was able to stabilize the internal situation in Gaul, suppressed the uprising of the Bagauds.
The inaction of the central government, which was busy repelling a new raid by Alaric's troops that invaded Illyria, contributed to strengthening the position of the usurper Constantine in Gaul. It was also restless in the imperial capital itself. In 408, the seemingly omnipotent Stilicho was removed from power and killed. A group came to power, which immediately severed allied relations with Alaric, his troops again moved to Italy. This time, Alaric chose the eternal city of Rome as the goal of his campaign, which he besieged in the autumn of 408. Having paid a huge ransom, the inhabitants of Rome achieved the lifting of the siege and the withdrawal of the Visigoth troops. Alaric tried to negotiate with the imperial government. Ravenna about an acceptable peace, but the negotiations were again disrupted by the court group, and in order to put pressure on the imperial court and speed up the adoption of decisions that were beneficial for themselves, Alaric led his troops on. weakening Rome again. On the way, runaway slaves began to join the Goths. The city of Rome was abandoned to the mercy of fate by the emperor, who took refuge in the well-fortified Ravenna. Having received no support, Rome could not resist the troops of the Visigoths and on August 24, 410, the city gates of Rome were opened by slaves. The Visigoths broke into the city and brutally plundered it.
The fall of Rome made a huge impression on his contemporaries. Rome continued to exist after the invasion of the Visigoths, but its global significance was lost. The “Eternal City” was empty, in the Roman forum, where the fate of the peoples of almost the entire civilized world used to be decided, now thick grass grew and pigs grazed: The fall and brutal sack of Rome in all cultured people of the Mediterranean caused an understanding of the doom of the Roman state in general. Now no one doubted the closeness of the decline of the Western Roman Empire, its culture, and social structure. Influenced by a premonition of a catastrophe, one of the largest figures in the Christian church of the early 5th century, Regia Augustine, Bishop of the city of Hippo, began work on his famous work “On the City of God” (412-425), in which he reflected on the reasons for the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms, in including the Roman Empire. Augustine developed his theory of the divine city, which should replace the earthly kingdoms.
In the autumn of 410, the imperial government in Ravenna found itself in a very difficult situation. The Visigoths, who sacked Rome, and whose leader, after the unexpected death of the thirty-four-year-old Alaric in 410, was his nephew King Ataulf, actually blocked Italy. In Gaul, the usurper Constantine ruled, and in Spain, the tribal unions of the Alans, Vandals and Sueves who had broken through there were in charge. A gradual process of the collapse of the empire began, which was no longer possible to stop. In such conditions, the government in Ravenna was forced to change its policy towards the barbarians: the Romans made new concessions. From now on, barbarian detachments were not only hired into the service of the empire, as had been practiced since the 4th century, the emperors were forced to agree to the creation of semi-independent barbarian states on the territory of the empire, which retained only the appearance of power over them. So, in 418, in order to remove the Visigoths from Italy and remove the usurper from power, the Visigoths, led by King Theodoric, received Aquitaine, the southwestern part of Gaul, for settlement.
The Visigoths settled here permanently with their entire tribe, they came with their wives and children. Their warriors, as well as the nobility, received land plots at the expense of confiscations from the local population. The Visigoths immediately set about establishing their own economy, using the legal norms and customs in force in their environment. With local residents, Roman citizens and landowners, who continued to have the norms of Roman law, certain relations were established here. The Visigoths were regarded as conquerors, masters of the entire territory, although they were considered allies (federates) of the imperial court. Thus, in 418, the first barbarian kingdom arose on the territory of the Western Roman Empire.
But as early as 411, the imperial government recognized as federates of the empire the tribal unions of the Suebi, who are now firmly settled in the northwestern part of Spain. The tribal union of the Vandals was also recognized, who, unable to gain a foothold in Spain and took advantage of the invitation of the African governor Boniface, crossed over to Africa in 429 and formed their own Vandal kingdom there, headed by King Genzirich. Unlike the Visigoths, who maintained peaceful relations with the locals, the Vandals in their kingdom established a cruel regime in relation to the local Roman population, including landowners and Christian hierarchs. They destroyed cities, subjected them to robbery and confiscation, turned the inhabitants into slaves. The local Roman administration made feeble attempts to force the Vandals into submission, but this did not lead to any results. In 435, the empire was forced to officially recognize the Vandal kingdom as an ally of the empire, formally this kingdom undertook the obligation to pay an annual tax to Ravenna and protect the interests of the emperor, but in fact “a significant part of the African provinces for the emperor was lost.
Other barbarian state formations on the territory of the empire include the kingdom of the Burgundians, which arose in Sabaudia (southeastern Gaul) in 443, and the kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons in southeastern Britain (451).
The new semi-independent kingdoms obeyed the orders of the imperial court only if it was also in their interests. In fact, they pursued their own domestic and foreign policy, the emperors were powerless to bring them into obedience. In such a difficult political situation, the imperial court, with all sorts of maneuvers, maintained the appearance of the existence of the Western Roman Empire in the 420-450s. Barbarian kingdoms and regions were only considered to be its constituent parts. The last relative unification of the Western Roman Empire took place during the years of terrible danger that threatened it from the side of the Hunnic tribes.
In 377, the Huns captured Pannonia and at the end of the 4th - and the beginning of the 5th centuries did not pose a serious danger to Rome. As we know, on the contrary, the Romans willingly recruited Hun troops to achieve their military and political goals. So Flavius Azcius, one of the most famous Roman politicians who enjoyed great influence at the court of Emperor Valentinian III (425-455), often used mercenary Hun troops against other tribes - Burgundians, Visigoths, Franks, Bagauds, etc. However, at the beginning In the 440s, there was a sharp strengthening of the Huns, led by their leader Attila (433-453).
The Huns joined a number of tribes to their union and, taking advantage of the weakness of both the Western Roman Empire and Byzantium, which at that time was waging heavy wars with the Vandals in Africa and the Persians on the Euphrates, began devastating raids on the regions of the Balkan Peninsula. With the help of a ransom, as well as successful hostilities, the Byzantines managed to repel the attack of the Huns, and then in the early 450s they invaded the territory of Gaul, plundering and burning everything in their path. The hordes of the Huns were a mortal danger not only for the Gallo-Romans, Roman citizens and landowners, but also for the numerous barbarian tribes who lived in Gaul on the territory of the empire and had already tasted the benefits of Roman civilization. A strong coalition was created against the Huns, which consisted of Franks, Alans, Armoricans, Burgundians, Visigoths, Saxons, as well as military settlers. The anti-Hunnic coalition was led by Flavius Azcius, who had previously willingly used their mercenary units in the interests of the empire.
The decisive battle between the coalition and the Hun tribes took place on the Catalaunian fields in June 451. This was one of the largest and bloodiest battles in human history. The Gothic historian Jordan claims that the losses on both sides amounted to a huge figure of 165 thousand people, there is evidence that the number of those killed reached 300 thousand people. As a result of the battle on the Catalaunian fields, the Huns were defeated. Their extensive and fragile state formation began to disintegrate, and soon after the death of the leader Attila (453), it finally collapsed.
For some time, the Hunnic danger rallied heterogeneous forces around the empire, but immediately after the Catalaunian victory and after the Hunnic invasion was repelled, the processes of internal division of the empire intensified. The barbarian kingdoms, one after another, ceased to reckon with the emperors in Ravenna and began to pursue an independent policy.
The Visigoths undertook the conquest of most of Spain. They expanded their possessions at the expense of the imperial regions of Southern Gaul. At the same time, the Vandals captured a significant part of the African provinces and built their own fleet, after which they began to make devastating raids on Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Taking advantage of the impotence of the Ravenna court, the vandals attacked the historical capital of the empire - the city of Rome (455), which remained the residence of the head of the Western Roman Church - the pope. The vandals took and subjected the "eternal city" to an unprecedented 14-day defeat in history. They senselessly destroyed everything they could not take with them. At this time, the word "vandalism" has become a household word.
In Gaul, the kingdom of the Burgundians strengthened its position more and more. The influx of Franks, who firmly settled in its northern regions, increased here. The local nobility of Spain and Gaul believed that it was more profitable for her to establish cooperation relations with the barbarian kings, who were the real masters of the areas they had captured, than to maintain relations with the distant and powerless Ravenna emperor.
The result of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a squabble over the illusory imperial power, which began among various factions of courtiers and commanders of individual armies. Groupings, one after another, began to erect their proteges on the Ravenna throne, with whom no one reckoned and who were quickly thrown off the throne.
The only exception was the emperor Julius Majorian (457-461). He tried to find among all the chaos and devastation means for the internal and external consolidation of the empire. Majorian proposed several important reforms that were supposed to streamline the taxation itself, as well as strengthen the urban curia and middle-town landownership. All this was supposed to revitalize urban life and restore cities, to free the inhabitants of the remaining Roman provinces from debts. In addition, Majorian managed to stabilize the difficult internal situation in Gaul and Spain, where he for some time strengthened Roman domination.
One could get the impression that the power of the empire was being revived. However, the recovery is strong. The Western Roman Empire was no longer profitable either for the representatives of the provincial nobility, or, especially, for the barbarian kings. Emperor Majorian was killed, and the last attempt to restore the empire was buried in the place with him. From now on, the throne of the Western Roman Empire became a toy in the hands of the leaders of the barbarian squads. Puppet Ravenna emperors quickly succeeded each other, depending on the influence of one or another court group.
In 476, the commander of the imperial guard, which consisted of Germanic mercenaries, 0doacre, himself by origin from the Germanic tribe of the Skirs, deposed the 16-year-old emperor, who, ironically, bore the name of the mythical founder of the city of Rome and the Roman state, Romulus. For his infancy, Romulus was nicknamed not August, but Augustulus. Thus, Odoacer destroyed the very institution of the Western Roman Empire, and sent the signs of imperial dignity to Constantinople. He formed in Italy his own kingdom - the state of Odoacer. The Western Roman Empire ceased to exist, on its ruins new states began to emerge, new political formations, within which feudal socio-economic relations were formed. And although the fall of the power of the Western Roman emperor, who had long lost prestige and influence, was not perceived as a major event, in world history the year 476 became the milestone when the ancient world ceased to exist - the slave-owning socio-economic formation. A new period has begun in history - the Middle Ages.
Thus, the world-historical significance of the fall of the Western Roman Empire lies not in the very fact of its death, but in the fact that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire marked the death of the slave-owning system and the slave-owning mode of production in general. Following the disintegration of slaveholding relations in the East, which collapsed first of all in China, the main citadel of slaveholding in the West fell. A new, historically more progressive method of production has been developed.
Speaking about the death of the slave-owning society of the Western Roman Empire, one should first of all keep in mind the deep internal causes that led to this. The slave-owning mode of production has long outlived itself, it has exhausted the possibilities of its development, which has led slave-owning relations and slave-owning society to a dead end. Slavery became an obstacle to the further development of production.
In Roman; In the society of the late empire, complex contradictory combinations of old slave-owning relations with elements of new relations - feudal ones - were observed. These relations and forms were sometimes intricately intertwined with the old ones: they coexisted, because the old foundations were still quite stable and tenacious, and the emerging new forms were shrouded in a dense network of the same old relations and survivals;
In those years, the expansion of the slave-owning form of ownership began. As has been said more than once above, small and medium landownership, associated with cities and retaining to the greatest extent the features of the slave-owning economy of former times, experienced a deep decline during the period of the late empire. At the same time, there was an increase in large estates (saltus), which were no longer associated with cities. As they developed, these estates turned into a closed whole both economically and politically. They became virtually independent of the central government. Such estates already significantly differed from the classical slave-owning latifundia and anticipated in their structure some features of the feudal estate. However, under the conditions of the late Roman Empire, this new form of property could not receive unimpeded and complete development, and the estates of the Roman magnates of the 4th-5th centuries should have become only the embryo of a new form of property.
In addition, the share of small and medium-sized landownership in the economy of the late empire should not be underestimated. The farms of small landowners and curials were not completely absorbed by large estates. A number of legal (primarily the code of Theodosius) and literary (Sidonius Apollinaris, Salvian) sources unequivocally confirm the existence of curiae and related forms of landed property until the destruction of the Western Roman Empire. This circumstance becomes all the more important because the decline of cities cannot be imagined as a simultaneous and universal phenomenon, not to mention the important role of the cities of the eastern part of the empire or Africa. It should be noted that the cities of the western provinces in some cases continued to retain the importance of local economic and political centers, especially in the Rhine and Internauan regions.
A serious obstacle to the development of a new form of property was the fact that in the late Roman saltus this new form was entangled in a dense network of slaveholding relations that had not yet been outlived. The use of the labor of columns and slaves planted on the land has not yet acquired the character of feudal exploitation - this is the fundamental difference between the late Roman saltus and the feudal estate.
Despite the preservation of large masses of slaves and the use of their labor both in large and medium-sized landholdings, the colons undoubtedly became the leading figure in the agricultural production of the late empire. This is especially true for the last two centuries of the existence of the Western Roman Empire, when there was a certain leveling of the positions of all categories of the dependent population. The peculiar nature of this leveling consisted in the fact that it, as it were, united two processes that were moving towards each other: along with the general restriction of freedom, the enslavement of various categories of the dependent population, there was an extension to all these categories, including colonies, of a legal status that carried fundamentally the economic relations of a slave-owning society.
The considerable proximity of the colon to the entire system of slave-owning relations, the intermediate nature of his position between the classical slave and the medieval serf is determined, in particular, by the fact that he, like other categories of the dependent population, did not receive ownership of the instruments of production. It is well known from ancient sources that in the period of the early empire, the owner of the land gave the colonies all the tools for use. In the last centuries of the existence of the empire, the rights of landowners to the inventory used by the columns, and in general to all the property of the columns, were enshrined in law. So, for example, in the legislation of the times of Arcadius and Honorius (end of the 4th century) it is indicated that all the property of the colon belongs to his master, the code of Theodosius states that the colon does not have the right to alienate the land and in general anything from his property without the consent of the master. At the beginning of the VI century, the code of Justinian legally confirmed that all the property of the column belongs to his master. Thus, the colon, although he led an independent economy, did not enjoy any property legal capacity and did not have ownership of the instruments of production. This was the essential feature that distinguished the column from the feudal peasant. Relations with the instruments of production and those forms of distribution of products of production (dues and duties of the columns), which dominated in the late Roman Empire, to a large extent brought the column and the slave closer in the sense of their little interest in the results of their own labor. One of the most characteristic contradictions of the slave-owning mode of production was thus preserved under this new form of exploitation and in the labor of the new category of direct producers.
The lack of property rights of the colon to the tools of production was at the same time the feature that distinguished the late Roman saltus from the feudal estate. The most characteristic and defining feature of the latter should be considered that in it, along with feudal ownership of land, there is the individual ownership of the peasant in the instruments of production and in his private economy based on personal labor. The property incapacity of the column, which in this sense brought him closer to a slave, excluded such a possibility. Thus, over all these new forms of a more progressive social system (a new form of landed property, new forms of dependence), the old relations of slave-owning society weighed heavily, which hindered and limited the development of elements of the feudal mode of production.
The ruling aristocracy of the late Roman Empire was also in a state of decay. The top land magnates, who were associated with large land ownership, stood out - the owners of saltus. A certain value was retained by a rather narrow stratum of monetary and commercial nobility. The position of the slave-owning curials in the last centuries of the existence of the Roman Empire deteriorated catastrophically, but nevertheless, the curia, as it is said, persisted, and, consequently, the curials still represented a certain social and political force.
The ruling class of Roman society, both in the period of the early empire, and even in the period of the republic, never represented a single whole, but what was new was that the late Roman landed magnates owned their huge estates on a different basis than the large landowners of the era of the republic or early empire - not as members of the collective of free slave owners and landowners. At one time, belonging to such a collective, as is known, was a necessary condition for owning landed property. The late Roman land magnates, on the contrary, separated themselves from these collectives, separated from the cities, and in some cases from the central government, and therefore often felt themselves in their huge estates as independent rulers and independent kings. But the degeneration of this ruling elite into the class of feudal lords did not and could not happen, since the basis of their economic and political power was not yet a feudal form of ownership.
We should also emphasize the conservative nature of the superstructure of late Roman society and, above all, its political superstructure. The transformation of the Roman state into a gigantic machine for pumping out taxes and extortions clearly enough testifies to its inhibitory role, that it was a serious obstacle to the development of more progressive relations. Thus, for example, by legally securing the colony's lack of ownership of the instruments of production, the state, to the best of its ability, prevented their transformation into producers of the type of medieval peasants.
The imperial power in Rome in the 4th-5th centuries tried to maneuver between the new land magnates and the old curial slave-owners. If, as it is easy to see from the above, the government of Emperor Constantine openly supported the large landed magnates, then at a later time, namely under the emperor Julian, there is a desire to revive the urban curia. In this maneuvering, the well-known conservatism of the Roman state was also manifested, it was losing its social support. Perhaps it continued to be necessary for the curials, but they, gradually weakening more and more, could not themselves serve as a sufficiently strong support for it. For the landed magnates, who were increasingly moving away from the central government, the state from a certain moment, namely from the middle of the 4th century, became a hindrance. True, in those cases when it was a question of suppressing uprisings, the big land magnates turned out to be interested in the existence of the state and its assistance. The Roman state, even in the last centuries of its existence, remained basically slave-owning, because it was a product of the development of precisely slave-owning relations, protected and supported by purely slave-owning law (legal confirmation of the lack of property rights for the columns on tools of labor) and a purely slave-owning ideology - the education of contempt among free citizens to the slaves.
However, significant changes took place in the field of ideology, the largest of which was the victory of Christianity. The Christian doctrine, which arose in the form of social protest of the urban plebeians, then turned into the state religion of the slave-owning empire, but this happened already during the period of the expansion of slave-owning relations, during the crisis of the polis ideology - ancient philosophy, morality, law. Precisely because Christianity was the most striking expression of this crisis, it subsequently became possible to adapt it to the needs of the social order that had come to replace the slave system. In general, the elements of the new, those feudal institutions that arose in embryo in Roman society, did not have prospects for free development and were hampered by persistent, still not outlived slaveholding relations. This situation is quite natural and understandable, since all these institutions were formed in the Roman Empire. In the setting of a dying civilization, in the setting of a slave-owning society that was in a state of deep crisis.
The only means that could ensure the free development of the new forces was a "radical revolution" capable of completely burying the slave-owning society with its still sufficiently powerful political structure. However, this coup could not be carried out only by the internal forces of Roman society. Broad popular movements of the III-V centuries, such as the uprisings of the Bagauds, the movements of the agnostics, undoubtedly shook the Roman Empire, but were not able to completely destroy it.
This required a combination of struggle within society with such an external factor as the invasion of barbarians into the territory of the empire. As a result of the combined influence of these historical factors, the death of the Western Roman Empire, the death of the slave-owning system, came.
3. Conclusion.
Ancient Rome became the final stage in the history of the ancient world as a whole, and therefore in the evolution of its society and state. They found a vivid manifestation of both the specific features of Roman statehood and culture, and the general features of many jealous societies.
A socially divided society and statehood began to form on Italian soil later than in the countries of the East and in the Greek world. The earliest sprouts of civilization in Italy appeared in the second half of the 8th century. BC e. in the Etruscan cities and the first Greek colonies, while tribal relations were still preserved among the Italic tribes. In the 5th century BC e. the primary statehood is formed in Rome, apparently the most developed center of the Italic tribes. The formation of the actual Roman statehood and social structure from early times took place in an environment of powerful influence on Rome from the Etruscan cities and colonies of Great Greece, which determined the complex multi-ethnic and cultural basis of the emerging Roman civilization. By the middle of the III century. BC e. there was a certain smoothing of the heterogeneity of different regions of the Apennine Peninsula, overcoming the polycentrism of the cultural process and some socio-political unification, which intensified during the gradual conquest of Italy by Rome and the creation of the Roman-Italian Union as a new type of political association. The process of Romanization of Italy that began meant the creation of a new economic system, significant changes in the social class structure, a new type of government, and the foundations of a new culture. The most important feature of the process of Romanization was, on the one hand, the formation and flourishing of polis-communal institutions, on the other hand, a path was outlined to overcome them.
Romanization of Italy, on the one hand, led to the leveling of polis-communal structures under the Roman model, on the other hand, the Roman civitas itself was enriched by borrowing a number of institutions from Greek policies, Etruscan cities, and Italian tribal formations. At the same time, within the framework of the state unification of Italy, the transformation of the union of policies and communities into a new political and socio-economic whole was a completely new socio-political entity than the traditional civitas. The consolidation and Romanization of Italy intensified due to the fact that from the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. Rome embarked on the path of conquering non-Italian territories. After the Punic Wars in the 3rd c. BC e. the first non-Italic administrative units-provinces were formed. In the 1st century BC e. such provinces covered the entire Mediterranean. The creation of a provincial system with a special status of administration as conquered and occupied territories sharply distinguished Italy in its political and legal position as a country where Roman citizens or their allies live, often belonging to the same ethnic group. The robbery of the provinces and the influx of slave power and wealth into Italy contributed to the creation and introduction of classical slavery, a new type of commodity economy. The establishment of economic ties between different areas led to the unification of isolated polis-communal formations around Rome, the creation of new supra-polis institutions and relations.
The maturation of new suprapolis structures, the withering away or transformation of community institutions into institutions of a new type took place in an acute socio-political struggle, long and bloody civil wars, in the fire of which the fall of the republican system took place.
The crisis of the republic was a natural result of the centuries-old evolution of the polis and civitas as the main cells of the ancient world. In the Roman Empire, other economic, social and political structures are already taking shape. A unique world power appeared, covering the entire Mediterranean, its well-known economic and cultural unity was maintained, the Romanization of the provinces and their gradual transformation into equal parts of the state, the unification of social relations, the spread of classical slavery and Roman citizenship in the provinces took place. The organization of imperial administration, which assumed a fairly advanced civilization, and the effective control of the central government created a new situation, so different from the world of warring sovereign policies or the mechanical coexistence of autonomous policies and eastern communal structures in the Hellenistic monarchies. It was already a new imperial society, a new type of state. However, this new order grew out of the traditional polis-communal foundations. Polis institutions were significantly restructured during the transition to imperial relations, but one cannot speak of their complete destruction. The transformed polis-communal institutions were organically integrated into the imperial system, forming the basis of the Roman municipalities. Former policies turned into municipalities, newly founded cities received a municipal-type device. The municipalities had a rural territory assigned to the city, enjoyed a fairly wide autonomy, resolved their affairs at a meeting of citizens, elected local government bodies, that is, they largely reproduced the polis order. But they were no longer either sovereign policies or autonomous entities within the Hellenistic states. Roman municipalities were local administrative units, subordinate either to the provincial governor or directly to the emperor.
The well-known stability of the imperial system, the effective management by the central government and the provincial apparatus, were supplemented by the reform of the military organization, giving it a comprehensive character due to the recruitment of the army from all free sections of the population and the relatively high position of ordinary legionnaires, and provided the Empire as a whole with a certain social order and tranquility. A well-functioning economy uniting the entire Mediterranean, a well-known orderliness in social relations, stable state administration, and broad local autonomy created favorable conditions for the development of Roman culture. In the process of Romanization of the provinces, the spread of classical slavery and the socio-political relations associated with it, the mutual enrichment of the culture of the Roman-Italic, Greek culture took place, due to interaction with the Celtic, Iberian, Thracian, etc. On the basis of the Roman-Greek culture, a more complex and multi-component Mediterranean civilization, which includes the cultural achievements of other peoples. The culture of the Roman Empire of the 1st-2nd centuries, formed on the basis of the synthesis and processing of the cultural achievements of the then Mediterranean ecumene, became a kind of prototype of European culture of a later time.
In the I-II centuries. the ancient slave-owning formation reached its highest limit, slave-owning relations were revealed with maximum completeness, and the opposite of slavery and its antipode - freedom reached the greatest depth and certainty. If in the works of the Greek authors Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon the concepts of slavery and freedom were understood as abstract philosophical categories, then in the conditions of the flourishing of slavery, the Romans deepened the understanding of slavery and freedom through careful legal
1st-3rd centuries the concepts of slavery and freedom have reached such a crystallization and internal completeness that they have been preserved without any special changes in the law of the Middle Ages and modern times.
As part of the Mediterranean civilization I-II centuries. a new religious system began to form, which developed into the world religion of Christianity. Christian dogma arose through the denial of the system of values and spiritual priorities that formed the basis of ancient civilization, and at the same time it represented their latest development. The consumer attitude to life, leading to lack of spirituality and moral dead end, the cult of wealth and power, the division of the human race into free people and slaves, equated to cattle, the new dogma opposed the unity of the human race, mercy and kindness to the small and orphans, indifference to material wealth, wealth and power, the cultivation of moral life, the inherent value of each, even the smallest, human personality.
At the same time, Christian doctrine was formed on the basis of many categories of ethics and morality developed in ancient philosophy: the doctrine of a higher mind as the creator of the cosmos, the concept of a person’s moral duty, the position of the unity of the human race, including both free and slaves. Christianity as a world religion, recruiting its adherents among all peoples, devoid of narrow nationalistic frameworks, could originate, grow stronger and spread only in the expanses of the world state and only within the framework of the Mediterranean civilization, using its rich experience of the Romans in the synthesis and assimilation of the cultural achievements of many peoples of the Mediterranean.
By the 3rd century n. e. ancient civilization, based on the maximum development of slave-owning relations, enriching the treasury of world civilization with outstanding achievements, has exhausted its internal potential, entered a period of decay. Political instability, the threat of the collapse of the Mediterranean Empire became a manifestation of the general crisis of ancient civilization, its economic structure, which implies commodity production, a social structure based on a sharp contrast between the world of freedom and the world of slavery, a political system based on the dualism of a strong central authority and broad autonomy of the municipality, cultural values that no longer satisfied the needs of the bulk of the population.
At the end of the III century. The empire and its ruling class managed to overcome the general crisis and neutralize destructive tendencies. However, the socio-economic and political stabilization of the late Empire was achieved at the cost of a deep transformation of the former relations based on slavery, the ancient form of property, the ancient city, the ancient system of values. The period of the late Roman Empire became the time of the disintegration of ancient civil structures and the formation of new proto-feudal relations, i.e., in essence, the era of social revolution, in which one historical formation replaced another. In the process of social revolution IV-V centuries. feudal dependence took the place of ancient civil relations as dominant, which in the era of the late Roman Empire took the form of attaching different groups of the population to their place of residence and their occupations. The main social classes were no longer the classes of slave owners, free small producers and slaves, but the class of proto-feudal landlords and the class of the main producers, including slaves, who were in varying degrees of dependence.
In place of the ancient form of property as a unity of private and collective property in a strictly defined group of citizens, a split form of property of a new type gradually began to take root, which in the future will develop into various forms of feudal property. During the period of the late Roman Empire, the ancient political institutions underwent a significant transformation, which were replaced by the power of an absolute monarch, the Roman dominus, ruling through a huge and carefully organized bureaucratic apparatus, turning a full-fledged ancient citizen into a disenfranchised subject, whose main function was the payment of taxes that go to support omnipotent bureaucracy. The state in the period of the late Empire seeks to absorb and subjugate society, and irreconcilable contradictions gradually developed between them. A feature of the socio-political situation of the late Roman Empire was the general dissatisfaction of the population, including many sections of the ruling class, with the imperial state. The history of the late Empire is the history of an ever-increasing gap between society and the state, during which the imperial statehood, deprived of life-giving ties with society, became more and more sickly and decayed. In this process of disintegration of society and the state, the Christian church consistently consolidated its organization, which became a state within a state and was connected with society, with the most diverse strata of the population, by thousands of threads. The weakening of imperial statehood led to the fragmentation of the Empire, the separation of its eastern half into a separate state - the Eastern Empire - Byzantium, in which the formation of new feudal relations took place within the framework of a large territorial state that maintained continuity with ancient traditions. On the contrary, in the Western Roman Empire, there is an increasing degradation of imperial statehood, the alienation of society and the state, and the strengthening of the independence of a powerful church organization. The Western empire could no longer resist internal disintegration, the pressure of the barbarians on the borders. Barbarian detachments of Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Saxons, Franks break through the Roman borders and form their own kingdoms on the territory of the Western Roman Empire. The Western empire breaks up into several barbarian kingdoms, within which a complex synthesis of obsolete ancient orders and institutions of barbarian societies begins, the formation of fundamentally new relations that later developed into European feudalism.
Based on the site http://www.history.ru
Sorry for a lot of bacuffCauses of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Dryazgunov K.V.)
Publications December 27, 2006
Dryazgunov K. V.Crisis phenomena in the empire actually began in the 3rd century, when there were profound changes in political, economic and cultural life. Political anarchy associated with the constant change of emperors and usurpers in different parts of the state, combined with the invasion of the Germanic tribes, led to the destabilization of the entire empire. Barbarians constantly penetrated the border, and the emperors did not have enough time, strength and resources to drive them out of the provinces.
The economy of the Roman Empire developed unevenly for a long time. The western regions were less economically developed than the eastern ones, where more significant labor, industrial and commercial resources were concentrated, and thus an unfavorable balance of trade was formed.
According to S.I. Kovalev, the progressive barbarization of the army more and more destroyed the opposition between those who defended the empire and those who attacked it.
The crisis hit the entire state, numerous problems within it and constant intrusions from outside led to its liquidation.
Here is a list of the reasons for the fall of the empire in the form of a complex plan for their better perception.
military bloc
1. The inability of the rulers to control the actions of their commanders gave rise to:
1.1. Loss of combat capability by the army:
A) poor leadership
b) exploitation of soldiers (appropriation of most of their salaries)1.2. Dynastic crises
2. The lack of a combat-ready army due to:
2.1. Impossibility or insufficient recruitment due to:
A) demographic crisis
b) unwillingness to serve, since there were no incentives to do so (the empire no longer inspired the soldiers, did not arouse in them a patriotic desire to fight for its salvation)
c) the reluctance of large landowners to send workers to the army (the focus of recruitment shifted to the rural population, and this inevitably affected agricultural production. It would have suffered even more damage if only draft evasion had not become widespread)2.2. Large losses in the army, including most of its professional units
2.3. Recruits of "low quality" (the townspeople were unsuitable for military service, "unnecessary" people were called up from the village
3. Hiring barbarians for service led to:
A) weakening the army
b) the penetration of barbarians into the territory and into the administrative apparatus of the empire4. Mutual feeling of hostility between the army and the civilian population. The soldiers did not fight as much as terrorized the local population, which aggravated:
A) the economic situation of the population and the empire as a whole
b) the psychological climate and discipline in the army and the population5. Defeats in combat operations led to:
A) the loss of manpower and equipment of the Roman army
b) crisis demographic and economic phenomenaEconomic bloc
1. The decline of the main base of the empire's economy - medium land ownership:
1.1. unprofitable housekeeping within small villas
1.2. breaking up large estates into small plots and leasing them either to freemen or slaves. Colonial relations arose, which led to:
A) to the emergence of subsistence forms of economy: both on large plots and within the emerging rural communities of peasants
b) to the decline of cities and the ruin of urban farmers
c) to sever ties between individual provinces, the landed nobility of which aspired to independence2. A split form of property of a new type is being formed, which in the future will develop into various forms of feudal property.
3. Heavy tax burden. It was unfair, since the poorest of the agricultural areas suffered the most from it.
4. Forced engagement of citizens to provide various services
5. High cost of transporting products, stagnation in production and reduction in acreage as a result of encroachments by foreign invaders:
A) the deterioration of the situation of the population, the ruin of farms
b) tax evasion
b) the emergence of protest moods of the population
c) appeal for patronage to the military command or large local landowners, who, for a certain remuneration, assumed the responsibility to manage all the affairs of the inhabitants with the imperial tax collectors. The formation of the fortress system begins.
d) The emergence of gangs of robbers and robbers due to the inability to earn honestly6. Galloping inflation
7. Naturalization of the economy with a sharp social stratification
8. Destruction of the monetary system
The wealthy sections of the population and the government more often saw eye to eye with each other. So, for example, entire villages began to apply for patronage to the military command, which, for a certain fee, took upon itself the responsibility of managing all the affairs of the inhabitants with the imperial tax collectors. However, many more villages chose their patrons not from among the officers, but from among the big local landowners. Individuals were also looking for such patrons, for example, former owners of small peasant farms who, in desperation, left their homes and land and found shelter in the nearest large farm.
At the same time, there were still too many cases of exemption from service, which placed in a more privileged position those social groups that achieved it quite easily. Corruption was also rampant, as evidenced by numerous but ineffective attempts to combat it.
In the political sphere, it was expressed in the frequent change of emperors, who ruled for several years, if not months; many of them were not native Romans.On the other hand, the urban culture was fading away. The class of wealthy citizens, vital for the urban structure, disappeared. Urban production and trade fell into decline, the size of policies was reduced, as evidenced by archaeological evidence.
Colon received housing, a plot of land and the necessary tools for production, for which he paid the magnate part of the crop. The magnates surrounded their estates with walls, built luxurious villas in them, held fairs, recruited armed guards, and sought to free their possessions from state taxes. Such estates became new centers of social life, preparing the transition to feudal relations in the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, by the 3rd century, having hardly had time to take shape, the national culture had practically fizzled out and the Roman people as such had disappeared. Cosmopolitanism has become an integral part of the worldview of citizens, since the syncretism of the early imperial era did not lay the foundations for civil unity among the inhabitants of the empire. The state was eating itself.
The decline of Rome was due to economic, political, and social reasons, but first of all, the crisis began in the spiritual sphere and its first symptoms arose not in the 5th or 4th century, but much earlier, when the ideal of a harmoniously developed person was lost. , collapsed polis religion and ideology, which embodied the real worldview of ancient man, after the abolition of the republic and the establishment of an actual monarchy. That is, the real crisis originates from the era of Augustus, when the Roman state reached the pinnacle of its power and began a gradual rollback, as in the case of a pendulum, which, having deviated as much as possible to the side, begins to move in the opposite direction. The Roman state did not collapse after Augustus and not only existed, but even prospered, as evidenced by the reign of the Antonines (II century), called the "golden age", but its spiritual framework was already broken: Roman history lost the spiritual foundation that cemented it. In the words of one thinker, this kind of civilization is capable of "pulling its dry branches" for a long time to come.
social bloc
1. The rich and the government were in confrontation with each other. The influence of the rich increased while governments declined:
A) Class consciousness, snobbery of the rich reached extreme limits
b) The estates were something like small principalities, closed socio-economic entities that contributed to the usurpation of control over the country
c) The senators of the fourth and fifth centuries stubbornly kept aloof from the life of society. Many of them did not hold any government positions. They did not take their due part in public affairs either in Rome or in the provinces.
d) Often, senators undermined the well-being of the empire, sharply opposing imperial officials, providing refuge to deserters and robbers. Sometimes they took over the functions of justice, creating private prisons.
e) Difficulty recruiting recruits, as they lost their hands2. The ruin of the middle class (attacks by external enemies, internal rebellions, inflation, recruitment) and the decline of city councils
2.1. Decline of urban civilization
3. Strict regulation of all life to meet the needs of the army and preserve the imperial system
3.1. Loss of loyalty and personal initiative of the population
3.2. Generation of social tension:
A) economic decline
4. A cumbersome and increasingly inefficient civil service apparatus that was self-evolving as many of its institutions became hereditary.
4.2. Decreased management efficiency:
A) Unrest in various spheres of society
5. At the imperial court, there were carefully thought-out ceremonials, hypocrisy and servility flourished:
A) Reduced the effectiveness of empire management
6. Unsuccessful attempt to assimilate the living Germans, or at least reach a realistic agreement with their leaders
6.1. Deputies and military commanders subjected immigrants to blatant brutal exploitation
6.2. The Romans kept the Germans in spiritual and social isolation:
A) unrest and rebellious moods in mercenary troops
b) social tension in the German community
c) armed clashes, territorial seizures, violence against the Romans, usurpation of power7. Refusal of more and more people to participate in public life. Hermits, monks, etc. appeared:
A) Loss of labor resources
b) Fertility decline8. Violence against pagans and Christians of various persuasions
9. Christian theologians actively urged Christians not to work for Rome, either in peace or in the military field.
9.1. Social apathy:
A) the decline of spiritual and economic life
Significance of the event
The fall of the Western Roman Empire is one of the events of world importance. After all, it was the Roman Empire that was the stronghold of ancient civilization. Its vast expanses covered the lands from the Strait of Gibraltar and the Iberian Peninsula in the western direction to the eastern regions of Asia Minor. After the division of the Roman state in 395 into two states independent of each other, the eastern territories went to Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire). Byzantium, after the fall of the western half of the state in 476, lasted another thousand years. Its end is considered to be 1453.
Reasons for the collapse of the Empire
By the 3rd century, the Roman Empire had entered a period of protracted political and economic crisis. The emperors lost their importance in the eyes of the provincial governors. Each of them tried to become emperor himself. Some managed to achieve this, using the support of their legions.
In addition to internal contradictions, constant raids on the northern borders of the barbarian tribes played an important role.
Remark 1
Barbarians are peoples who are foreign to the Greeks and Romans. Derived from the ancient Greek barbaros - not Greek. The peoples spoke a language incomprehensible to the Greeks and Romans. They perceived their speech as muttering "bar-bar". All the tribes that invaded the territory of the Roman Empire and formed their kingdoms there were called barbarians.
The most influential and assertive were the Goths, Visigoths, Franks and Alemans. By the beginning of the 5th century, the Germanic tribes pressed the Turkic peoples. The most aggressive was the tribe of the Huns.
One more reason can be singled out: the weakening of imperial power. This led to the emergence of separatist sentiments on the outskirts and the desire for sovereignty of individual parts of the state.
Main events
Attempts to stop the collapse that had begun are associated with the names of the emperors Diocletian and Constantine. They managed to slow down the collapse of the empire, but they could not completely stop its approach. Diocletian left behind two important problems:
- barbarization of the army;
- infusion of barbarians into the empire.
Constantine the Great continued the work of his predecessor. His reforms continued the transformations begun and completed them. An explosion of lurking problems occurred in 410, when the Goths were able to capture the Eternal City. A little later (in 455) it was plundered again, already by vandals. In 476, the German commander Odoacer killed Romulus, the last legitimate emperor. The Western Roman Empire fell.
Remark 2
Odoacer - years of life 433-493. He led a barbarian army in 470 and led it to Rome. In 476, having killed the emperor Romulus Augustus, he becomes king of Italy.
Consequences of the fall of the Western Roman Empire
The consequences of the destruction of the state that had existed for twelve centuries were contradictory. On the one hand, the barbarization of social relations began. A large number of barbarians who poured into the territory of the empire did not accept the established Roman social norms, destroyed them and replaced them with their barbaric ideas about morality. Many cultural monuments of the Romans were destroyed, as they were of no value to the barbarian peoples. And finally, the Roman Empire was a barrier to the advance of barbarians across Europe. Its fall opened the free access of the Turkic peoples to the benefits of Roman civilization and made the Europeans dependent on barbarian raids.
At the same time, Christian ideology began to spread. Secular life was placed under the supervision of the church, the period of the Middle Ages begins.
Like the ancient Greeks, the Romans called barbarian tribes whose language was incomprehensible to them. But the great migration of peoples that began in the 4th century somewhat reduced the arrogance of the Romans, putting the empire before new, previously unknown problems.
After the Huns who came from Asia began to push the Germans to the west, Emperor Theodosius I allowed the Germans to settle in the north of the empire. But at the beginning of the fifth century other barbarian tribes, including the Huns themselves, began to invade the territory of the empire.
The Huns are a barbarian tribe that came from Central Asia. By 447, a huge army of the Huns, led by Attila, conquered all the countries located in the territory between the Black and Mediterranean Seas. The Huns defeated the Roman troops three times, but they failed to capture either Rome or Rome.
In battles with the troops of the Germans, who were in the service of Rome, the Huns conquered entire regions in Europe that used to belong to the Roman Empire. In 395, after the death of Theodosius I, the Eastern and Western empires actually ceased to be a single state, but the West continued to receive financial and food aid from the East.
In 410, the king of another barbarian horde, the Visigoths Alaric, led his troops to Rome and captured the city. In 455, Rome was sacked by another barbarian tribe - the Vandals. The Eastern Empire refused to help the completely weakened West, and in 476 the Western Empire ceased to exist. This year is considered to be the year of the fall of the Roman Empire. The last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus, was poisoned by his conquerors in exile.
The leader of the barbarian tribe of the Vandals Geiseric in 455 arrived with an army in Ostia. His soldiers captured Rome and subjected the city to terrible sack. In 12 days, they removed all valuables from the houses, tearing even the gilded tiles from the roofs of public buildings. The widow and daughters of Emperor Valentinian III were taken hostage by Geiseric.
Among the reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire, both external and internal can be distinguished. The internal reasons include the decline of the economy, the demographic crisis, civil wars tearing apart the empire and the weakening of the army.
The frequent change of emperors became a symbol of the decline of the Roman Empire. Their low competence, the constant struggle for power and the civil wars that shook the country did not at all increase the effectiveness of the Empire's management. Increasingly, representatives of non-Roman nationalities became representatives of power, which reduced the authority of power and eradicated the feeling of patriotism in citizens.
The economy was no better. Land reforms, which led to the development of subsistence farming (and the weakening of the processing industry) caused a rise in the cost of transportation and degradation of trade. Interaction between the provinces was in decline. The increase in taxes and, as a result, the fall in the solvency of the population, contributed to the ruin of small landowners, which caused centers of discontent among the general population.
The army also deteriorated. The former invincible legions of Rome were replaced by an army almost entirely composed of barbarian mercenaries.
Could the weakened Empire resist the expansion of numerous hordes seeking to seize the fertile lands of the Empire and take advantage of the benefits of a decrepit civilization?
However, most historians agree that the reason for the fall of the Western Roman Empire was not the great migration of the people and not the decline of Roman civilization - the internal problems that so weakened the Roman Empire were only external signs of the crisis of civilization, the fundamental moments of which were slavery and militarism.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire did not end Roman civilization. While the Western Empire was nearing its end, the Eastern Empire, called Byzantium, flourished. Its capital grew and grew rich. Located between Europe and Asia, this city became the largest commercial and administrative center of the empire. The borders of Byzantium extended west to Greece, south to Egypt, and east to Arabia. Although Greek was the official language in the East as well, Latin was spoken at the emperor's court. Emperor Justinian (r. 527-565) regained control over some areas in North Africa, Italy and Spain, but they could not be held for long. After the fall of Rome, the Eastern Empire existed for another 1000 years. Byzantium did not have a strong army, and Byzantine diplomats tried to resolve conflicts with their neighbors peacefully. Its inhabitants professed Christianity, and they sought to convert hostile barbarians to their religion.
The Roman state and society became the crowning achievement of European civilization in antiquity. The Latins inherited many Greek achievements and created an army and culture, legal, social and state system unique for that time. The period when the Romans were the beacon of advanced achievements for the entire continent lasted for more than a millennium. The fall of the Roman Empire plunged Europe into long centuries of forgotten heights, religious scholasticism and constant tribal strife.
The continent had to go through the barbarian centuries again before a new leap in development.
Military and political reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire
The most powerful state of the ancient period of European history fell in the 5th century under the intensified onslaught of barbarian tribes. At the same time, the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire were not limited to external aggression alone. After all, for hundreds of years the legions not only successfully resisted other peoples, but also made them their vassals, adding new lands to the possessions of their emperor.
The fall of the Roman Empire was the result of its long decay. The crisis tendencies of its decline began to appear already in the 3rd century. Thus, the constant increase in the territories of the state led to the need to recruit representatives of the conquered peoples into the army. The gradual barbarization of the troops led to the destruction of some fundamental differences between external enemies and the defenders of the system. Moreover, the newly-minted Roman legionnaires were no longer fully their own, engaging in robbery and terror of the local population. A particularly striking expression of the military-political crisis was the frequent change of the so-called soldier emperors, who were the nominees of the troops on the Roman throne, but very quickly lost their power. Such a situation throughout almost the entire III century, of course, did not contribute to the strengthening of state power. In addition, the weakened central government could no longer effectively control the border administrations and paramilitary units.
Socio-economic problems
In addition to military decline and political crises, the fall of the Roman Empire was brought closer by socio-economic trends. The decline of medium land ownership as the basis of the economic system led to the fragmentation of large land holdings into small destinies, which led to a break in trade and economic ties between regions (and, consequently, to a slowdown in economic development as a whole). During the 3rd-5th centuries, the state tried to solve its growing problems at the expense of the masses, increasing tax oppression, forced civil labor, and military service.
All this, of course, did not contribute to an increase in the prestige of the Roman government and the readiness to defend it on imperial lands. The destruction of trade relations and high inflation led to the naturalization of agriculture. Growing social stratification led to social tension. The country was destroyed from within by the movement of columns and slaves. The fall of the Roman Empire was also caused by a deep spiritual crisis. The fact is that for the entire period of the existence of this state, a single cultural and political community has not developed within its borders. There was no formation of that people who would feel the need for the unity of the western and Roman provinces. All this led to general social apathy in difficult times. For the first time, Rome fell under the blows of the Visigoths in 410, and in 476, the last emperor Romulus Augustulus, under pressure from the German leader Odoacer, was forced to give up power, thereby putting an end to the centuries-old domination of the empire.