Fall of the Roman Empire. The collapse of the Roman Empire into eastern and western Why did Rome fall

"Christianity is to blame for the death of the Roman Empire" - This accusation did not appear today. At first, the ancient pagans tried to exonerate themselves from their guilt, then it was developed and deepened by the researchers of the Enlightenment (Gibbon, Voltaire) and happily finally picked up by modern network anti-Christians, who, having vulgarized and simplified it, actively promote it among people unfamiliar with history:

- "Anger and rage arose and began to reign when the Christians destroyed their country, as they once destroyed the Roman Empire. Throwing us all back a couple of centuries. Destroying the remnants of science, culture, technology." (c) arvi
- "It was not external enemies that destroyed the great Roman Empire. It was destroyed from the inside by Christians and Jews. Such a turn of events was known to the Magi of the ancient Aryans."
(c) Konstantin Lipskikh
- "What destroyed the Roman Empire? What corroded, like a wormhole, a great power, with a powerful army and magnificent law?
The Roman Empire was destroyed by Christianity. It turned strong people, slowly, without tension, who believed in their gods, into rushing, tense from religious dogmas, deadheads, unable to preserve what their ancestors had created.(c) Azveryuxa
________________________________________ ________________________

However, the point of view of most modern independent researchers is far from this primitive assessment, because even Gibbon recognized the presence of very different causes of this catastrophe.
Most historians agree that the crisis of the Roman Empire began in the first centuries of our era and this crisis was associated with such areas as the economy, social tension, moral decay, etc.
The decline of morals divided the Romans into patricians, living their lives in depraved orgies, and plebeians, whose slogan was "bread and circuses." Barbarian mercenaries began to serve predominantly in the army. Depraved emperors undermined the very prestige of power. As a result, in less than a century (from 192 to 284), 32 emperors were replaced on the Roman throne (the era of "soldier emperors"), and most of them died a violent death.
Along with the political crisis, the empire was weakened by economic and demographic problems.

“Rome did not produce anything, it only consumed. But if in the I-II centuries. Roman officials knew how to organize the exploitation of the provinces and reward their robbed population by establishing a firm order with some legality (not always observed), then in the III-IV centuries. there was no more talk about it. Soldier emperors turned the country into an arena of civil wars for power. And since the legionnaires had to be rewarded, there were wholesale confiscations of the possessions of rich landowners and squeezing money out of poor parcel farmers. The latter, in turn, raped the land of their plots (parcels), trying to feed themselves today, because it was scary and pointless to think about tomorrow's executions. The population was steadily declining, and the survivors were losing the will to resist. Not the living forces of the ethnos, but the social structure and state tradition held the grandiose building of the Roman Empire in this era. It couldn't go on for long."
(L. Gumilyov "Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the earth")

“The collapse of the western provinces of the Empire in the 5th century was the result of their long decline. In this far-reaching process, the barbarian invasions were only a catalyst. Some historians, such as Gibbon, have emphasized the decadent luxury of the ruling class. Others emphasized socio-economic factors - monetary and price inflation, tax burdens, bureaucracy, the decline of agriculture, resulting in what Ferdinand Lot called the "caste regime". The ossification of social stratification took place against the background of "a complete change in the psychology of people." And finally, the "geographical extent of the Empire beyond measure": the Empire could not endure military tension indefinitely. (Normann Davis "History of Europe")

"Under the protection of this fortification, the city was engaged in exploitation and consumption, without producing anything: after the Hellenistic era, no technical innovations appeared, the economy was supported by robbery and victorious wars, which provided an influx of slave labor and precious metals scooped from the treasures accumulated in the East He excelled admirably in the art of self-preservation: war is always defensive, despite the appearance of conquest, law was built on precedents, preventing innovation, the spirit of statehood ensured the stability of institutions, architecture is par excellence the art of dwelling.
This masterpiece of conservatism, which was the Roman civilization, from the second half of the II century. under the influence of the forces of destruction and renewal, it was eroded.
A powerful crisis of the III century shook the building. The unity of the Roman world began to fall apart; its heart, Rome and Italy, was paralyzed and did not supply blood to the body parts of the empire that were trying to start an independent life: the provinces first emancipated and then went on the offensive. Spaniards, Gauls, immigrants from the East increasingly filled the Senate. Originally from Spain - the emperors Trajan and Adrian, from Gaul - Antoninus; under the Severan dynasty, the emperors are Africans, and the empresses are Syrians.

But what about Christians? Christians, remembering the words of Christ "To God - God's, and to Caesar - Caesar's" were the most exemplary citizens of the empire, not submitting only to religious violence. The decline in morals also affected the Christians (Salvian denounced him), but to a much lesser extent than the pagans.

"In the 4th century, the most combat-ready and disciplined Roman troops consisted of members of Christian communities. Even Julian the Apostate was forced to use them. However, they categorically refused to fight against their fellow believers, for example, the Bagauds, rebels in Gaul at the end of the 3rd century. Such adherence to principles sometimes happens uncomfortable, but it was she who made the legionnaires, brought up in the strict rules of Christian communities, more reliable than the demoralized citizens of the Roman world, who did not believe in Jupiter and Mars and had long lost their idea of ​​loyalty and conscience. (L. Gumilyov "Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the earth")

“As for your assertions that Christians are the basest and meanest people because of their greed, luxury and dishonesty, we will not deny that there are such among us. But to protect our name it would be enough not to all of us were such that not the majority of us were like that. On any body, no matter how immaculate and clean, a birthmark will certainly appear, a wart will grow, freckles will grow in height. The clearest weather does not clear the sky so that not a shred remains on it clouds.
…
They also make another reproach to us: they say that we are completely useless for social activities. How is this possible? We live with you, we have the same food, the same clothes, the same economy, the same needs, we are not at all like the Brahmins and Indian gymnosophists (wise men): we do not retire to the forests and do not run away from the society of people. We remember that we owe everything to the goodness of God, the Creator of the universe; we reject nothing of what he has made of us; but we fear exaggeration and abuse. We are with you in your squares, markets, in your bathhouses, shops, hotels, markets, and in all places necessary in the relationship of life. You and I swim, fight, cultivate the land, trade, trade for your own use. I do not understand how we can be useless to you if we live with you and spend money for your benefit.(Tertullian "To the Gentiles")

Christians mourned the fall of Rome no less than pagans
"... many Christians, for whom the Roman Empire was the cradle of Christianity destined by Providence, expressed the same disgust for the conquerors.
Saint Ambrose saw barbarians as inhuman enemies and urged Christians to defend with weapons in their hands "the fatherland from the barbarian invasion." Bishop Synesius of Cyrene called all the conquerors Scythians, who were a symbol of barbarism, and cited the lines
“My voice trembles, and sobs seize my throat as I dictate these words,” groans St. Jerome in Palestine. “It is conquered, this city that has conquered the whole world.”
(Le Goff Jacques. CIVILIZATION OF THE MEDIEVAL WEST)

So the accusations of modern anti-Christians of the guilt of Christians are somewhat exaggerated.

Russia is the Third Rome, as it was said under Ivan III, and the concept spread during the reign of the Romanovs. Do the "Roman" inhabitants today remember the history of their predecessors - the First and Second Rome? Especially - Byzantium?

And if the “network elite” today claims to be a public one, you need to know the history.

1. Where did the concepts of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire come from?

It must be understood that the empire of the Romans in ancient times was nothing more than an effective system of holding territories for constant robbery. Even under Octavian Augustus, the contenders for the throne divided the state into parts among themselves - some better, some worse. And in the III century, when Rome was shaken by the strongest crisis in its history, the local nobility strengthened their power so much that they proclaimed "provincial empires." There were, for example, the Galic Empire of the Step, the Palmyran Empire of Zenobia.

Since that time, it has become obvious that the maintenance of the empire is an impossible task for one ruler and his bureaucratic officials. During the 4th century, the West-East division intensified. The final political fragmentation occurred in 395, when Theodosius, the last emperor of a unified Rome, died. Since then, the West has been gradually absorbed by the barbarians - the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, and the Eastern - existed until 1453 in the form of Byzantium.

2. Why is the fall of the Western and Eastern Empires separated by a thousand years?

The answer is very simple. In the West, the Romans conquered very primitive tribes - Gauls, Spaniards, Africans. As a result, as soon as the central dictatorship weakened, the state cracked at the seams. In the east, the Romans captured regions with ancient history - Greece, Egypt, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia. Slavery and class division existed there for centuries, so as soon as Rome began to fall in the East, the local elites “on the contrary rallied” here, that is, they began to defend their interests.

3. And what is the "Holy Roman Empire"? You confused me... I heard something about her.

The Holy Roman Empire is a completely different story. When the Germans conquered Rome, they were so enamored with the culture they enslaved that sooner or later tradition had to take over. Charlemagne (768-814) united almost all western tribes into one state, creating a new empire. He introduced them to Christianity, having received in Rome the regalia from the hands of the Pope himself.

Naturally, the Byzantines never recognized Charles. For them, he was an upstart and a usurper. Then the empire of Charles collapsed. Its western part became the prototype of today's France, the eastern - Germany. "On the basis" of Germany, a state appeared - the Holy Roman Empire. It was a confederation of medieval princes, but it existed rather formally, as an idea. As a political structure, she lived right up to 1804, until Napoleon abolished the throne. From the 15th century, the empire became simply a way of regulating internal German affairs, and the princes had absolute independence in foreign policy regarding their own lands.

4. And where did the word "Byzantium" come from?

The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire began to be called Byzantines in the West after its fall, which occurred as a result of the invasion of the Turks. In reality, the "Byzantines" always considered themselves Romans, the only heirs of Rome. Byzantium created its own type of state, aimed at Christianization within the peoples themselves, hence the discrepancy between "Orthodoxy" and "Catholicism": the Orthodox saw the point precisely in the search for internal resources for growth, evolution, while the Catholics were more engaged in the aggressive expansion of the influence of Christianity.

There is an opinion that "Byzantium is a very boring, constantly degraded state." But it's not. Emperor Justinian I (527-565) conquered Italy, North Africa, part of Spain. It was his fixed idea - to revive a single Rome. But devastating wars were no longer within the power of the empire, and soon many territories had to be given away - including to the Arabs, a new enemy. Despite all the problems, in the IX-XI centuries, the empire remained the strongest state in the world. Until in 1071 another new enemy, the Turks, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Romans at Manzikert. Asia Minor was lost, the enemies again stood at the walls of Constantinople. But the empire has risen again and struck back!

In 1204, the crusaders took Constantinople. Now the enemies were already Catholics. And although the conquerors with their idea of ​​the “Latin Empire” did not last long, Byzantium could hardly have been helped. Corruption, moral decay, religious strife... In 1453, the Turks took Constantinople, renaming it Istanbul and making it the center of their state.

5. Does the conflict between Catholics and Orthodox also come from the history of Rome?

Exactly. When Rome adopted Christianity in the 4th century, the highest church centers were in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. Antioch and Alexandria are cities in the East. Therefore, the local church "states" quickly fell under the influence of Constantinople. But Rome - on the contrary, surrounded by barbarians, rushed to the Germans. And so the Pope of Rome appeared - in fact, for the Byzantines, a usurper of the name of the patriarch. The popes successfully established power in the West - the niche was empty. Well, in 1054 there was a final split: the events around him are a long and separate story.

6. Why did the Roman Empire collapse at all?

The main reason is the absolute crisis of the economy. Rome rested on constant conquests. And where to get slaves if there are no wars? Slave labor was not reproduced in the conditions of peaceful life. And the larger Rome was, the more difficult it was to keep the peoples in subjection. And by the end of their history, the Romans looked more like aesthetes and lovers of eroticism, poets and philosophers than harsh warriors, in whose traditions, according to ancient rites, every tenth warrior in a unit that fled from the battlefield was executed.

The second point is the constant onslaught of the Germans. From the III century, the Germans, who were just savages until that time, began to actively build political alliances. In their midst, nobles appeared, princes, dukes (her-zog) - who later became these "medieval feudal lords." They longed for conquest and the destruction of the empire, which for a long time oppressed them and drove them into the forests. In addition, the Romans were so lazy to fight that they began, roughly speaking, to buy one tribe of Germans in order to defend themselves from another. The Germans eventually realized that Rome was weak - and simply took it completely, agreeing with each other. And the Romans were sitting in villas, reading lofty poems and thinking about what ribbon to put on the hippodrome ... Instead of fighting.

7. How did the feudal kingdoms of the Germans appear on the territory of the Roman Empire?

This is where medieval "feudalism" was born in the West. The emperor, being an indisputable authority in the eyes of all the peoples of the surrounding world, considered it normal to give some tribe land from his possessions. Moreover, Rome needed it - because of the decline in the economy, entire regions were empty ... And the Germans settled with their families, with weapons, were ready to defend themselves and territories from enemies: the Goths - from the Franks, the Visigoths - from the Ostrogoths, the Vandals - from the Alleman and etc.

For a German to receive such a "gift" was incredibly honorable. This was a “recognition of the world elite” - in general, the savage from the forest was completely brainwashed. After a couple of decades, these savages already had a good command of manners and culture, knew how to wear a toga and loved boys in the baths. And they needed the empire less and less, and Rome, on the contrary, desperately needed them. The emperors already put up with the laws of the Germans in their lands, then they put up with almost complete independence, then they had to give them more and more land ... By the way, Hitler's historians wrote that the ancient Germans "drowned homosexuals in swamps with their families." One question - where do homosexual families come from? And the second - when reading the memoirs of some late Roman authors, you constantly see a very close cultural Roman-Germanic affinity, so the question is debatable.

8. Why couldn't Rome play on the contradictions by calling against the Germans ... I don't know, the same Slavs?

Incredible, but true - two peoples claimed the role of the head of the Western Empire at once: the Gauls and ... Slavs. Well, of course, not the Slavs, but the Huns, but the Huns included Proto-Slavic tribes in their horde. A potential leader who could change the course of history was Attila, who led the very horde - the Great Migration of Nations, which subsequently attacked Rome. The army of Attila was countless, and the emperor was weak. Had they come to an agreement or somehow resolved the issue, even if militarily, everything would have been different.

But by that time, the Germans had learned to get along well with the Romans. The Romans also mastered the principles of work and communication well. The local nobility gave bribes to the leaders for protecting their interests before the emperor, the Germans were evil - but already familiar. Everyone got along. And the Huns here would be clearly somehow superfluous. In the battle of 451 at the Catalunian fields, which is also called the "Battle of the Nations", the armies of various German tribes and the Romans defeated the Hun hordes. Attila was going on a new campaign - his strength was inexhaustible, but chance intervened in the case .... There are rumors that he was poisoned. After that, the Hun armies were thrown back, and his horde disintegrated.

9. After all, Rome was not the only state of antiquity, right?

Of course, it is foolish to say that Rome was the center of the world. There was also the Chinese Kingdom, and the state in southern Sudan, in Ethiopia - Aksum. There were Arab tribes, there were states in Central Asia and India. But the Romans still outnumbered almost everyone. The only thing, almost the entire history of Rome from the 1st century, is a constant struggle with Persia: many emperors dreamed of conquering the latter, following the example of Alexander the Great. At first it was Parthia - the Arshakid dynasty, then it fell and the true "Persians" returned to power. The Romans and Persians continued to fight during the Byzantine era. As a result, Persia was so weakened by the struggle, although it almost defeated Byzantium in the last war, that its territories were taken by the Arabs - Islamized and turned into part of the Caliphate. But the Persians, unlike the Egyptians or Africans, never became Arabs in essence - even they have their own Islam now, of the Shiite type - and here not without the influence of the snobbery of their ancient culture.

10. What territories did the Romans try to conquer, but did not succeed?

Under Trajan (I-II century), the empire included the lands of Britain, Dacia (modern Romania), Mesopotamia, Armenia and Ancient Assyria. It was a period of maximum, but very short-lived heyday. But unlike the vast empire of Macedon (and the Roman power was even larger), Rome existed for a very long time - and we still see the fruits of its history. And speaking of territories, there were many possessions where the Romans brought their troops, but could not resist. Germany - for example. Or the same Scotland - the Romans periodically invaded there, but more to pacify the warlike Celts.

Andrey Movchan, Head of the Economics Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center

A disaster is always the result of a combination of several different causes. If we talk about the fall of the Roman Empire, then among the many reasons, one stands out, in my opinion, the most significant - this is an economic catastrophe associated, oddly enough, with some version of the resource curse. As it developed and moved towards the colonies, the Roman Empire restructured its economy in such a way that the deal - law and security in exchange for industry and economy - caused the very center of the empire, the metropolis itself, to seriously skew its business. There were quite complex processes going on. On the one hand, since quite a lot of trophies were exported from the colonies, and then taxes and goods, prices in the metropolis went up. In the metropolitan market, a rather serious financial crisis gradually arose, associated with too high capital valuation and low risk valuation. Gradually, property, raw materials and technical dependence on the colonies arose, where the inhabitants of Rome gradually began to leave. It really turned out to be more profitable, safer and more convenient to live there, there were more opportunities. In fact, the center began to empty. Because of this, the connection between the colonies began to weaken. The central force was no longer able to form either the social apparatus that controlled the system, or the centralized army of the appropriate level and type, or the appropriate structure that would allow the economy to be efficient.

There are many examples of this - for example, in Italy they completely stopped growing bread, since it was unprofitable, they stopped growing meat, mostly people in this territory began to engage in financial business. If you look at what happened over time, the colonies themselves were not self-sufficient, they were not able to defend themselves, they were very highly specialized in terms of economy. The connections between them began to break down, since the hub for communication was the center - Rome. In general, this led to a very serious weakening of the system, the loss of the internal motivational structure. Naturally, there were external enemies. Naturally, there were a large number of conflicts of interest, including within the colonies and between the leaders of the colonies. And in the end it just led to the collapse of the structure.

Victor Sonkin, candidate of philological sciences; author of Here Was Rome, laureate of the Illuminator Prize

The opinions of various experts on this subject have changed quite regularly over the past few centuries. I think that it will most likely never be possible to say definitively what was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, at least in the near future. Surely there will be many reasons, and we simply cannot know about many of them now, since a lot of time has passed. Any such hypothesis would be only a hypothesis. Naturally, historians have already written a lot about such things. And that the management structure has changed, and that the population of the Roman Empire has changed a lot, and that at that time the birth rate has changed quite a lot. All this, of course, led to some kind of change.

But why exactly this combination led to the fact that the state ceased to exist is rather difficult to say. One more thing to keep in mind is that at first the Roman Empire was a royal society, then republican, then imperial, then even more imperial. It has lasted long enough, over 1000 years, that I think it may have just outlived its useful life.

Vadim Erlikhman, Candidate of Historical Sciences; ZhZL series editor

The fall of the Roman Empire - like the fall of the present West, the decline of Europe - was a long-term phenomenon. As you know, in fact, it fell for three centuries. This phenomenon had the main reason for the erosion of the foundations of this very empire, thanks to which it became an empire. Namely, the three foundations. The first is the erosion of the social basis, that is, the small Italic peasantry, the main force of the Roman army, the Roman political class. We know that the rise of the empire replaced it all with slaves. As a result, this estate perished, and this became the main reason. The second is the erosion of the republican political foundation of the empire. Because we know that both the emperor and other institutions were, formally and in reality, a superstructure on top of the republican institutions of Rome. They disappeared precisely thanks to the development of the empire, which destroyed all this as an anachronism and could not resist, because free people developed and defended the empire, and turning into slaves, like any empire makes its citizens slaves, in the end they could not and did not want to defend it.

T The third was the erosion of the ethno-cultural basis. That is, we know that in any empire, no matter how multinational it may be, there is a certain ethnic group - the core, the basis of this empire. And the Romans, the Italians, who created this empire, gradually dissolved into the barbarians and other peoples, to a large extent adopted their culture, their religion. Accordingly, the Roman religion was replaced first by various Eastern cults, and then by Christianity. You can take this as progress, but for the empire it was, of course, a disaster, because neither these cults nor Christianity corresponded to its imperial nature, although it would seem. As a result, this crisis of the empire, which began in the 3rd century, by 476 had not even reached its climax, it happened much earlier, but the final outcome, which we call the fall of the empire. Although it was already just a sanitary action to eliminate the remnants of the empire and design on its ruins a new Europe and, in general, a new medieval world.

Stanislav Kucher, journalist

When I was 14 years old, I got a book - the script for the film "Star Wars". This book began with words that I then translated into Russian and still remember: “Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand the attack of any storm, storm from the outside, the empire slowly but surely rotted from the inside.” In fact, in my opinion, this is exactly what happened to the Roman Empire. The same thing happened to most other empires. She is rotten from the inside. Why did this happen? Most likely, because the Romans were unable to control the cult of their bonds and values ​​throughout the vast territory of the empire.

Probably, any student who does not skip history lessons will be able to tell when the Roman Empire collapsed. But today not everyone knows and remembers the reasons for the collapse of the state, which seemed unshakable and even eternal for several centuries. We'll try to fix this. And let's start from the time when Rome was just gaining power, so that it would become clearer what processes were going on in the state, when it collapsed and why it happened.

How did the Romans gain power?

This powerful state existed for almost five centuries - like most others, at first rapidly gaining influence, and then losing it even faster.

As an empire, it appeared in 27 BC. But Rome itself, becoming more and more powerful and enlightened, was founded as early as 753 BC. The first ruler was Romulus - according to legend, he was fed along with his brother Remus by a she-wolf. Over the next seven centuries, the country has seen everything - wars, betrayals, fraternal strife, a change of rulers.

However, all this time the state and the people were gaining power. As a result, 27 years before the advent of our era, a powerful political association was formed, which called itself an empire. At that moment, under the influence of Emperor Augustus, there was a really huge territory - almost the entire Mediterranean basin several hundred kilometers deep (Europe, Asia, Africa), as well as the entire territory of Western Europe, including part of modern Great Britain.

The Romans even managed to defeat the Hellenes, a powerful people who had great influence throughout the region. Alas, after several centuries of prosperity and recovery, the inevitable decline began.

Decay date

If you are interested in when the Roman Empire collapsed, the year can be quite accurately - 395 AD. However, one should not think that this was the end of a powerful state. Not at all, just the far-sighted and wise emperor Theodosius the First, trying to postpone the almost inevitable death of his state, divided it into two parts. Perhaps this was a mistake, but after that one of the parts existed for almost a century, and the other for almost a millennium and a half, leaving many traces in the history of mankind.

Separately, it is worth clarifying one nuance. Many novice historians are seriously interested in when the Holy Roman Empire collapsed, considering it to be the power that Caesar and Augustus glorified, tens of thousands of legionnaires carrying civilization on the tips of their gladias. Of course, this is a serious mistake. After all, the Holy Roman Empire appeared only in 962. And even in its heyday, it included only the northern part of Italy, which is the successor to the Roman Empire. But it included the entire territory of modern Germany, the Czech Republic and some regions of France. It was located in Central Europe, that is, much to the north and partly on lands that had never been part of the empire of Rome. Emperors have repeatedly sent their legions here, but few have returned from these harsh places.

And this empire collapsed only in 1806, surviving not only the Western Roman Empire, but also the Eastern.

Background of the fall

Let's start with the fact that it had a huge area. Judge for yourself - from Austria in the north to Algeria in the South, from England in the west to Turkey in the east. It is indeed a gigantic political entity that would be very difficult to keep track of even today, in the era of the Internet and high-speed aircraft. What can we say about the ancient centuries - any news, even the most important, reached the emperor in the best case after a few days, and more often - weeks.

Of course, with such a size of the empire, corruption flourished in many places, especially on the outskirts, although Rome itself was infected with it - most of the influential officials did not leave the capital and were simply content with the privileges that the actions of their fathers and grandfathers granted them.

Neighborhood with the barbarians also did not add peace to either ordinary people or politicians. If earlier the legionnaires boldly threw back superior forces, using tactics and advanced weapons, now those in power preferred to solve the problem by bribery. Many barbarian leaders received titles, were part of the ruling elite.

The army was rapidly disintegrating. An important role was played by extremely low salaries - the highest ranks simply took the lion's share of the money intended for legionnaires for themselves. But even more terrible blow was the loss of patriotism. Previously, legionnaires went on the most dangerous missions with delight, knowing that if they died, then for the glory of Rome and Caesar. Now, seeing in the ruling elite the Gauls, Franks, Ostrogoths, Saxons and representatives of other tribes whom the true Romans used to consider second-class people, many simply deserted, not wanting to shed blood for an empire that had lost honor and a single nationality.

Reasons for the crash

It is simply impossible to say unequivocally why the Roman Empire collapsed. You can only identify the main reasons.

Let's start with the economy. She kept herself primarily on slaves. Even the poorest citizens of the empire were considered shameful to work in the fields or construction - for this there were people from the slave class. But the slaves did not want to remain a wordless property. More and more rebellions broke out. Sometimes tiny, during which overseers were killed and the owners' villas were burned. Sometimes large-scale, covering entire cities.

The weakness of the army also affected - few people wanted to shed blood on the borders, protecting the empire from the Gauls and Franks, knowing that people from these tribes had long taken a place in the government.

All this led to the fact that instability reigned in the country. People were simply afraid to give birth to children, uncertain that they would be able to feed and protect them.

And the absence of children deprived the lives of many people of meaning. If it is not possible to bequeath one's wealth to descendants, then what is the point of increasing it? Many citizens of the empire preferred to spend whole days in pleasant and harmful activities: feasts, depraved orgies, excessive consumption of wine.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that by the time the Roman Empire collapsed, that powerful people who created it simply did not exist.

Fatal set of circumstances

As mentioned above, it is impossible to name the only reason for the collapse of the empire. To date, experts put forward as many as 210 versions! But that they were intertwined in the most unfortunate way, it can be said without a doubt.

People who are not ready to give birth to children, a decline in morality, a completely demoralized army, external and internal enemies, instability - some reasons clung to others, which led to the fact that it became impossible to manage a huge empire.

He made his contribution and a sharp transition from the usual paganism to Christianity. Supporters of the new religion zealously began to destroy culture and science, to which the Romans had been going for several centuries. Perhaps this accelerated the process of the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Into what parts was the empire divided?

If you are interested in what states the Roman Empire broke up into, then this question can be answered unequivocally: none. Because officially the collapse did not happen. It's just that Emperor Theodosius the First divided his possessions into two parts. He bequeathed the Western Empire to his eldest son Flavius, and the Eastern Empire to the younger Honorius. He sensibly reasoned that it would be easier to restore order in a smaller area than in a huge one. But there was no official breakup. There was the usual administrative division. So it is impossible to say that the Roman Empire split into two parts. Alas, this did not save either the Roman Empire or the people of Rome.

The fate of the east

The further future of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known to us as Byzantium, developed, if not brilliantly, but quite well. For many centuries, the people managed to repel raids from the southeast, although over time they had to pay off more than once from their northern neighbors - from the Vikings to the Slavs, who went on military campaigns against them.

Alas, gradually the Ottoman Empire, having gained enormous power, was able to crush a fragment of the once powerful state. And we know exactly when the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed - it happened when the Sultan captured Constantinople, finally turning Byzantium into part of his empire.

What happened to Western

The history of the Western Roman Empire turned out to be much shorter. It lasted less than a century and was abolished in 476. Why did the Western Roman Empire collapse? Because, unlike the Eastern one, it was constantly subjected to raids by more powerful barbarians - people from the harsh Central and Northern Europe.

Once just an unpleasant neighborhood with the barbarians has become critical. Constant raids finally crippled the power of the country. Scorched crops, devastated cities - the Romans could not resist this. As a result, on September 4, 476, the leader of the barbarians Odoacer deposed the last emperor - the young one, having founded a new state - Italy. Well, the Western Roman Empire collapsed.

So the history of a powerful empire began with Romulus and Romulus ended.

Consequences

When the Roman Empire collapsed, many cultural and scientific achievements were lost. To again reach those heights in construction, medicine and mathematics, Europeans had to spend many centuries.

Cultural monuments, carefully guarded for centuries, were destroyed by Christians as a relic of godless paganism.

But even worse, the fall of the Roman Empire (more precisely, Byzantium) allowed countless hordes of Turkic peoples to penetrate the territory of Europe and shed the blood of local residents for several centuries, driving hundreds of thousands of people into slavery.

What states were formed on the territory of a powerful empire

But the fall of the Roman Empire did not bury Europe, as many philosophers predicted. On the territory of its western part, albeit not immediately, such states as Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and also partially Algeria and Egypt arose.

On the lands where the Eastern Roman Empire was once located, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also partly Turkey, Ukraine, and Hungary appeared.

Conclusion

This concludes our brief excursion into history.

Now you have a much better understanding of when and for what reasons the collapse of the Roman Empire occurred, which means you can show off your erudition in any conversation.