⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items: spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!

The precedent for forceful usurpation of power came from Augustus, before him Caesar, and before that Sulla. The Roman Republic had always had non- violent regime change before that

In the early Republic, the Romans were good at assimilating other tribes and groups in Italy into their own culture. Etruscans, Samnites, and Greek colonies in the south switched to speaking Latin, and thought of themselves as Roman more than what they were. The assimilation didn't work as well outside of Italy. Claudius tried to assimilate Gauls into being Romans, but the Roman senators looked down on Gauls, and laughed at the idea. The lack of assimilation outside of Italy made the Empire's population more of an us versus them atmosphere, and causing division.

6:30 For those wondering, this art represents the pretorian guards visiting Emperor Pertinax to get their monthly salary. Luckily the guards were content with Pertinax paying them in non-cash.

From everything I've read the primary cause for the fall of Rome was not all those other things that people talk about, which Rome could have survived. The ultimate cause for the fall of Rome was the lack of a mechanism for peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next. Too many civil wars were fought over succession.

For someone that has been interested and studying Roman military history for over 50 years your channel is very welcome! Thank you.

Actually you still do not see the real reason behind the fall of Rome. Rome was built on Roman militia composed of landowners and free men who served in times of crisis, then went back to their farms and businesses. Their loyalty was to Rome, not to any leader. The Roman army became a professional military force of mercenaries whose only loyalty was to whoever paid them. When the time came that the young Roman men no longer wanted to fight for Rome, the empire fell.

To me, a criminally underrated element is just…time. Not just the internal cracks, moreso that the tribes and factions surrounding Rome had centuries to learn its culture, weaknesses and general military strategy, as well as develop better arms, armor and tactics themselves. Rome dominated so much because, through its trials and tribulations, it became the most sophisticated army in antiquity. The war with macedon showed that best. But you can’t stay there forever, unless you actively put in the work to improve alongside those around you. Which Rome tried, but failed.

*This is all Julius Caesar's fault because he could not take the time to sire a legitimate male heir.*

Diocletian found a pretty good way to guarantee a working succession machine but then .. they threw it down the toilet ..

Early in the video I could feel the comments forming in my head. By the end of the video you had earned my silence. Well done.

To my mind the reason the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did was because, as factional as they were, they could pull back from the brink in time. But they lost that ability around the time of Valens. Dioclesian had introduced the idea of retirement but the emperor was too powerful and losing that power would be fatal to the ousted ruler and his supporters. You can see this in the modern world where disputed cannot be resolved if at least one side will not accept a loss.

I am more curious about when and why scientific progress, economic development, and artistic expression began to decline. This decline likely began to occur prior to the fall of the empire. But did it happen due to the civil strife and lack of political stability that eventually led to the fall of the empire or were there other factors at play? When did libraries become more scarce and why? What led to less scientific pursuit?

Economy that was primarily funded by conquest and exploitation of the new provices, in combination with the limited capabilities in logistics and communications. Armies that were more often then not paid by generals, not by the state. And several hundred other reasons. The empire, that grew from a small predatory city-state, managed to survive surprisingly long and left us a lasting legacy. And the main question should be not "why it fell" but "how did it manage not to fall earlier.

The constant civil wars of the Roman Empire might strike us as horribly unproductive, but if we compare the longevity of the Roman Empire and the enduring quality of their military to similar pre-industrial hegemonic powers (Achaemenid Persia, or the Han, Tang, Song, Yuan dynasties of China), I think the Romans should get some credit for avoiding the atrophy that undermines military performance a few generations into the hegemonic pax. For example, let’s suppose the adoptive monarchy of the 5 Good Emperors evolved into a successful system of government that kept civil wars to a minimum for centuries - when the climate change induced migrations came, would the soft legions of that timeline have held up against the Goths and Huns for as long as the legions in ours?

That’s a very interesting video. As an American, I can relate to what you’re saying, in terms of varying people. The people from Seattle, for example, are far different than people from New England as they are far different from the people from Texas or Florida and so on. so it’s very easy for a small country such as New Zealand to be coherent and unified, while a larger country such as the United States, which, as you put it out similar size to the Roman Empire is constructed of people from far differing values and norms.

One theory that I have heard is that the fall of Rome was caused by a natural catastrophe around 535 AD, which was manifested by a darkening of the sun for about 18 months, among other things. This may sound ridiculous because the Roman Empire was overrun by German tribes in the 400's. So how could this have been caused by an event around 535 AD? The theory that I have heard is that the natural disaster that we think occurred around 535 AD actually occurred about 300 years earlier. It is our chronology which is at fault. According to what some researchers believe to be the correct chronology, it was the natural disaster that triggered the Third Century Crisis, from which the Roman Empire never recovered. If you can find the time and can read German, try reading Hans-Erdmann's book, "Das Grosste Irrtum der Weltgeschichte." Difficult to read, but fascinating.

In every age, in every era The deeds of men remain the same

Also most of the major battles that come to mind to me are either big defeats (Cannae, Carrhae,) or battles against each other (Phillipi, Actium) rather than victories as such (Zama, Chalons-sur-Marne)

I saw the title of this video and I was waiting to furiously type the real reason for the fall, but then you said it. It's what I always tell people...civil wars! Plus the succession planning or lack thereof. You got it right.

The SPQR shop is keeping this man in their basement bruh

The Christian sub-sects didn't hate each other. They would have heated arguments over doctrine, but that was always the case even inside each sect. They didn't hate each other afterward though.

I’m listening, for the second time, to Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome, which is excellent (I often fall asleep if listening at night, so I listen a second time to hear what I missed the first time). Wickham discusses the many factors that prevented the restoration of the Western Roman Empire in the first few centuries after the barbarian invasions, despite many attempts by the Eastern Emperors, the barbarian new kings of the former western provinces, and others. It’s fascinating and I learned so much about the period just after the “Fall” of the Western Empire. The Fall was, I believe, caused by the co-occurrence of many factors, as you say here, Sebastian, but another interesting question is why the West couldn’t be recovered as part of the Empire. Love your channel, thank you so much for your great work.🙂

Everyone describes the symptoms, but never the cause. - extreme bureaucracy was a symptom - greed and excess was a symptom - barbarian invasion was a symptom - ending the Republic was a symptom - indulgence and disloyal customs were symptom - weak borders relative to expanse was a symptom - loss of identity, a symptom - inability to adapt to survive changes, a symptom - no more faith in the system, a symptom - loss of traditions, a symptom These "circular logic type" answers are just as inadequate as they feel, because they don't explain the collapse. "Why these failures?" Because we've always had these failures. "Then why the collapse at the third century specifically?" Because they've reached a breaking point over time." If these failures were so significant, and occurred over so much time, how come no one could see the breaking point? "They could." How come no one stopped it? "They tried." How come no one could succeed in stopping it? "Because it was too great a decline." How come no one could see how great the decline was? "They could." But then how come no one could stop it? "It was too great." But they could in the past, though! "Because it was not that great." How did it get so unstoppable then? "Over time." But if it was so obvious and significant a decline, what was the point where no one could see how great the decline was, enough to stop it?" There was no one point. "How is this explanation any different from saying we don't know what caused it to happen?" It just is... And so on and so on. The truth that I've come to is that the lack of punishment for the Senate's murderous crimes caused people to lose faith in the system. Foreigners under despots were still attracted to Rome's power, sure, and kept the machine of the Empire running for 600 years (after the crimes of the Senate) by way of fueling the State with its needed cheap slavery, but the ideals of Rome were stolen by the Senate when they became a criminal Senate; an event so shocking, there was no prepared recourse and no punishment for the crime (except a figurative one, about a century later when Julius Caesar stripped away their power until of course the Senate murdered him, too). If Empires are conquered, and great Empires are always conquered from within, then the conquering of great Empires from within always starts at the top. Citizens of the Republic suddenly realized that getting ahead was not by building the system (as foreigners would continue to do for 6 centuries onward), they realized that the system was so big, chipping away at it, as the Senate does, gains you more enormous power more efficiently, because it syphons the efforts of those who still believe in the system. It always starts from the top; Corruption pays when you have a corrupt leadership, and there was always plenty of believers in Rome to exploit the labors of. It was the unpunished murder of the sacrosanct Tribune of the Plebs, Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. committed by the Senate that taught the Roman citizens that this traitorous mindset against the ideals of the Republic would lead to power. And the appeal under the threat of circumstances otherwise was too great for them to ignore: They'd have to execute much of the Senate, and rebuild a lot of the Republic's core institutions. It was the right thing to do, but that would take labor, life commitments, working together, expense of wealth, sacrifice of luxuries, a temporary decline in lifestyle. The Roman Tribe excelled in doing these things. They became masters of the western world through their practical imagination. But you have to understand, in the era of victory over the Punic Wars, Rome had lost their brutal and virtuous citizenry: The last 'native' Roman was Sulla, and everyone had had enough. Now all that everyone wanted was just "a piece of the pie." The victories caused jealous levels of indulgence, and the Republic's citizens stopped looking for ways to sacrifice in support of future generations, and started looking for ways to "get while the getting was better than it's ever been before on Earth," leaving those unskilled future generations scrambling for a wealth merely hoping to be at a level their parents had experienced. What I'm saying is: These people were wholey unprepared to deal with the responsibility of reforming their entire government, even though it was "The Roman Way." A way that was lost to all future generations of Rome, because as United States is now learning... No matter how good things get; there is no stability in life or in government without both punishment and sacrifice. Without interest in these brutal realities that built Rome's greatness, the citizens just start ploying against each other in increasingly more imaginative ways until they were ripe for an invasion. Guard your ideals well, teach your family of real virtues in life, and contribute to humanity; All of these things contribute pieces to our collective existence in ways we may not immediately see. And there's my take on the Real Answer, as to how Rome fell.

The Roman Empire never fell. It dissolved, evolved, dispersed, and exists to this very day.

You are right and it continues even today...

The western Roman Empire relied on German supreme commanders and German troops for the mobile armies. These generals did not have the loyalty to the Roman state that a Roman general would have and ultimately that's why the Empire was "retired" in the West - the decision of a German general. Of course how it got to this situation is because of long term failure to have a stable succession and multiple outbreaks of plague. The decline of the Empire culturally can be assigned to the conversion to Christianity - because it reduced the classical tradition and classical culture - and especially the decision to allow non-senators to be generals, this meant that common soldiers from the outer provinces could become generals and thence emperors, without the classical culture of the senatorial class.

Remember kids. All of this was Quintilius Varus' fault...

True, Many factors played a role but of those many had a common source: greed Be it the numerous generals or senators that valued the personal glory over the stability of the Empire. Be it the damned Pretorians who whorship only money. Or be it the simple Soldier who does not care which Usurpator pays best. Same goes for economic disasters like running inflation and empty treasuries (next to lack of economics knowledge xD)

To save the Roman Empire you have to prevent Julius Cesar assassination and have Octavian get military exprerence under him or Anthony and Cleopatria have to win the battle of Actium.

it was f*cking Ricimer again wasnt it? Goddammit!!

One of the underappreciated reasons for the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire has to be that the Eastern Roman Emperor made his consent to be the Western Roman Emperor essential. Odoacer may have named himself as mere King of Italy to avoid the wrath of the Eastern Roman Empire.

If Rome had a consistent figurehead dynasty from the beginning like Japan (probably direct descendants of Romulus) then that would’ve provided a consistent common figure to rally around, with an Augustus figure acting more like a Shogun. Though in some ways a Shogun can be compared to a Magister Militum, the latter never established dynasties. But yeah overall a generationalky consistent and peacefully elected figurehead that everyone could agree on that has a degree of religious authority would have greatly changed how their society handled a large state. Maybe if the Empire had survived long enough the Papacy could have taken on this role, but the way it played out in Constantinople was that the bishop was solidly beneath the emperor.

Again, very insightfull. I am glad that people like you, that give new information, exists.

The Republic, with its unwritten and convoluted constitution, relied on the reasonableness of its body politic to survive. When that reasonableness went away, the Republic was replaced with the Empire. So it's entirely plausible that the lack of reasonableness was at the root of the failure of the Empire.

I am at 0:47 in the video. Rome fell because of weather as a result of low sunspot activity which caused a cascading chain of events.

Augustus I would say was at fault for the lack of a succession system

Answer - If you thin the paint to make it go further, you might achieve the coverage you want but it won’t last as long or hold up as well. End of story .

The good emperor Claudius was an exception I suppose.

You hit the nail on the head, not a lot of Historians understood that.350 years of civil wars was the demise of the Republic,everything else was just amplifier it.And there is a lesson to learn from all this, and do not allow next one to came to same fall.....

I like your hypothesis. Well done. It ties well with Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies. Infighting over limited resources and unsustainable organizational structures.

This "most important reason" changes with changes in time and changes in our thinking.

For Romans in Rome's quarrel spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, in the brave days of old. Then none was for a party; then all were for the state; Then the great man helped the poor, and the poor man loved the great. Then lands were fairly portioned; then spoils were fairly sold: The Romans were like brothers in the brave days of old. Now Roman is to Roman more hateful than a foe, And the Tribunes beard the high, and the Fathers grind the low. As we wax hot in faction, in battle we wax cold: Wherefore men fight not as they fought in the brave days of old. -- "Horatius at the Bridge" (1842) Thomas Babington Macaulay

Brilliant history telling 10/10, thank you 😊❤

Rome never fell: it's been right here, in our hearts, all of this time.

Drying up of productive mines in Hispania, leads to currency debasement, leads to fewer troops, leads to invasions, leads to population decline, and spirals into more decline.

I think Tiberius was convinced by the captain of the Praetorian Guard, Sejanus, to put the Praetorian camps together. Giving the Guard the ability to plot and conspire. That certainly had to have had an impact down the line.

The reason Tribalism destroys empires is because of the human (and animal) instinct to fight over resources. We see this in the USA today and other places over human history. When there is a dispute over resources humans split into factions, or tribal groups to defend those resources or take those of the other groups. Yes it is tribalism that caused the fall of Rome but the real cause was as it always has been, the fight for resources. When the roman economy fell due to corruption and greed, the middle class collapsed, poverty increased, elites took all the resources they could gain and the result was riots, rebellion, civil wars and the eventual collapse of the empire. The barbarian tribes, also eager to take the spoils (resources) Rome had to offer then came in and conquered Rome while it was on its knees....Human Tendencies for greed leads to corruption and the taking of resources by force. Trickle up economics like seen in Rome caused by this greed and corruption robbed the lower classes of what little wealth they had, and destroyed the middle class that were the business owners, guildsmen and craftsmen who thrived in business. Massive increases in taxes caused by greed and corruption stole the wealth of these classes and put it in the hands of the elites which led to anger, strife, rioting, and rebellion. The barbarians realised that Rome was collapsing internally and like physics tells us, they rushed in to fill that void...

I always thought the lack of clear inheritance law was the biggest problem Roman Empire had, I find it very strange that the man like Octavian didn't come up with something (Iknow of course about his problem with finding the suitable replacements, nevertheless there was no clear law stating who and not by name, but by the position should be next in line. Later on in Europe you can read about prince such and such who's 17th in the line to the throne, and everyone knows it, it's a public knowledge. And that's exactly what Rome lacked

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Self inflicted, constant civil wars destroyed the empire!

I love your videos, thank you

That Time Machine meme is halariously accurate 😂😂

Danke, sehr spannende Einsichten!

This video was very well done and has done a great job not only in explaining why Rome fell, but how all great civilizations decline and fall. Your observations reflect mine as well and, like you said at the end, I hope we can overcome our tribalism, at least to some extent, before it's too late.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". Historians often speak of the Antonine Plague as triggered by the anger of the gods when a temple in Parthian Seleucia was destroyed by the army of Lucius Verus. How much more angry would have been the gods in whose name Rome swore eternal friendship with Carthage at the conclusion of the Second Punic War? Serious opinion: It was complicated, but the Antonine Plague seems to have marked a serious decline in the aura of invincibility of the Roman empire (Sshh .... don't mention Quintilius Varus). I remain to be convinced Britannia was worth the massive aggravation that came with some distinctly soggy and unproductive sub-prime real estate. Can't help wondering if, with the benefit of four and a half centuries of hindsight, Claudius might've agreed and wished he'd turned his armies eastwards, to restore the area between the Rhine and Elbe to Roman control, ultimately advancing to create a far shorter and more easily defended border further east.

The one reason is the same group that wrecks everything everywhere they go.

for these contenders for the Imperial, it was a matter of life-or-death to win, at best the loser would be just blinded.

The real problem was that Rome had devised a system of nearly autonomous city-states each governed by upper class members of what developed into a Greco-Roman culture--a system that began to fall apart as a myriad of problems grew too much to handle. The only new mechanism the Roman Empire developed was to make the guy at the top an open authoritarian, which worked just long enough to make them think this was a final solution to their political, military, and economic problems. They simply went in the wrong direction.

The romans maybe didnt hade the best farming skills, and focused to much on food imports!

The barbarian invasions *were* the most important reason and the proximate cause of the collapse of Roman civilization. Other causes, such as political instability within the Roman Empire or the decline of the army are certainly important but they are important only insofar as they weakened the defences of the Empire and allowed the barbarians to succeed. If there had been no external pressure, then political instability alone could not have caused the collapse.

In my opinion, another crucial reason to why Western Rome fell was the incompetence of it's leaders. They had like 60 straight years with two of the worst emperors in history (Honorius and Valentinian III), and then they had basically just puppet emperors under Ricimer (excluding Majorian)

There are no wires in human brains. Engineering metaphors are inaccurate and inadequate to understand human behavior, however convenient they are for representing a personal bias. Still, humans do behave in various ways for various reasons, and evolution does impact human development individually and socially. Selecting which trait one wants to represent as "hard-wired" while ignoring other equally important traits--privileging hunting while ignoring gathering, emphasizing individual competitiveness while ignoring cooperation, empathy, community and solidarity--does not yield a truth about history but about the historian. However, this is one of my favorite youtube channels, and I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise, that selfishness and aggression have definite limits as means for establishing any social institution, and bigger is almost always not so much better as just louder in proclaiming itself essential and wonderful. I've loved every video of yours I've seen and look forward to the next.

It never fell the church and the city london is still here that’s more than enough proof

Good stuff Maiorianus!!!

The biggest reason was unpayable debt as Michael Hudson shows. Civil war and barbarian invasions a secondary maldevelopment.

Without any jest, I think Crassus getting offed in Parthia was the first death flag, The Severans being the second and most irreparable one, and Constantine was the deathblow.

Constantius II was probably the closest thing Rome had to someone stopping the Civil wars. Honestly, had he ruled longer, or had better brothers, Rome probably wouldn't be nearly as rife with civil war in the late period. He did the smartest thing anyone could do in a civil war: make the warring person (Julian) his successor and then die before any bloodshed. This is even more impressive given that Julian and Constantius hated each other. And then an illegitimate Constantinian betrayed Julian and Jovian came to power, then Valentinian and Valens... who was immediately betrayed by the same illegitimate Constantinian and almost lost power. Now the system was unstable again.

Italy had invasions going back at least to the 5th century BCE. They sacked time back then, too Celts invaded northern Italy for centuries. Guis Marius had to deal with them also. The core problem is inequality. Romans, in both the republic and empire, had small self sufficient land holders. By the 5th century CE many citizens were tied as serfs to the land. Stilico had asked the senate of Rime for men, but was denied; it would have necessitated taking men off the large land holdings to do so, and thus cost them money. The east survived due to those same small land holdings. That was the basis of the theme system, after all.

A lot of conquered nations were unhappy campers in the Roman Empire. They revolted often. Accordingly, Rome always had to maintain a large expensive army.

I think you are very correct!

1. Uncontrolled immigration. 2. Decadence and pleasure seeking. 3. Over expansion. 4. Loss of national identity. 5. Devalued currency. 6. Internal bureaucratic corruption. My opinion. 7. Christianity sustained the Eastern Empire until the near 1400's.

Even from the beginning Roman control of the Mediterranean was close to imposible. Augustus realized this when he broke up rule with Anthony and Crassus.

It was a growth in military and political power in the regions combined with a fall in centralised power leading to a 'breakup' rather than a 'fall'. These smaller roman kingdoms would eventually lose wars to their neighbours in a process that didn't end until the fall of Constantinople, at which point Rome could be said to be over. There is a lot of emphasis on the sacks of Rome but by this time the city had very little power and was just a prize to be taken to show off your power. The fact is that the empire became too big for centralised administration and power projection. Natually falling apart into more natural regional chunks, with their own leaders and armies and culture.

They had a succession system but it fell apart with Augustus: Germanicus was the intended successor but he died early and Tiberius had to be instated. Roman adoption was used by Caesar to Octavian and may have been used by Marcus Aurelius if his general didn’t turn down his offer of co-emperor (and two emperors before Aurelian’s time seemed closer to the republic’s two consuls rather than two empires) then Commodus wouldn’t have continued the trend of sons succeeding fathers and once again have a succession crisis. Adoption prevented incompetent sons or grandsons from power while hypothetically the most effective young ambitious Men would be selected as successors. Perhaps this would evolve into a political role and simply become a job rather than a good chance the son is selected by a corrupt father. If the son proved himself the most competent of everyone then the emperor could formally adopt him and perhaps make him co-emperor to learn how to run the State. No king, no Mandate of Heaven, and it would have prevented so many civil wars as the military leaders would be candidates and likely wouldn’t want to rebel if they only had one legion while someone else sworn in has half-most of them in his pocket Edit: the system isn’t perfect but considering the Ancient world I thought it was the most stable, only problem is an emperor may be fooled or change (become senile/crazy) and then the system would be disrupted. If it was standard procedure though then the senate would try selecting the best choice, the Praetorians probably wouldn’t assassinate as often or sell the Throne, and the Generals wouldn’t place their bid at fighting after over a century of peace within the Empire

It was inflation, especially when Egypt left the empire !

You left a lot 1. Difference between christian and pagan 2. Patrician vs plebian slave 3. Monarchy vs republic There are many reasons for civil war

Really best video on Rome

Excellent episode nice work

Great analysis...maybe they needed a better maths system as well

There are beautiful episodes by Schwerpunkt looking at the Romano-Germanic armies in the West before and after the fall of the Imperial administration that I strongly recommend. Looking forward to new content and cooperation with other channels

I think it was Governance that eventually made the Western Roman Empire fall. It was chaotic

Great video

Well done! I agree with your theory. In the US today we are in a "Cold Civil War" it seems to me. Eventually the south will secede in some manner, with any luck without violence.

Actually, the number one cause was inflation. The coinage lost much of its value, because inferior metals were used. It got so bad that grain merchants could not make any profit, which was enforced by the authorities. Grain, thus , was in short supply, causing hunger at times. Revolutionary France and Weimar Germany collapsed because of inflation, bringing in totalitarian regimes. It looks as though the USA is on the verge of financial collapse itself.

The entire Roman Empire suffered economic decline, population decline, barbarian immigration and devastating wars, military weakness and more during the 3rd to 7th centuries AD, YET ( and somehow this is so often overlooked) only parts of the Empire - chiefly in the West - broke away. Otherwise, the remaining Empire continued to evolve in the centuries that followed, despite facing further threats thereafter. Without addressing that point, you can't really address why the parts that did decline and fall, actually did so.

Great video and ending, yes, if things don't work out for us, someone in 2000 years or so time will be talking about the leaders and egotism that destroyed our civilisation. Hopefully that won't happen. I think your solution to the end of the Roman empire is probably ultimately the only one but all the rest had some impact as well. If only they had developed an Internet or better communications (as well as electricity etc)

The irony is that the reason we got so many amazing emperors was because we had civil wars and wars. Those who faced such adversity and came out on top were truly special, because, if you stay and ponder for a bit, lets say the romans had a stable succession like the chinese did. What then? Yes, we would get longer periods of peace, but the rulers at the top would completely degrade over time and fall into hedonism, thus sparking very nasty coups that could end the empire.

I am not a "Roman Historian", and cannot present counter-arguments, to these "Reasonable Sounding" explanations, especially how hard-wired our brains are. --- I heard an intriguing explanation, I don't know whether or not is true, but fascinated me, as a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire. --- The intriguing explanation that fascinated me, is that the fall of the Western Roman Empire, was at least PARTIALLY DUE to "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY"!!! --- Specifically, this "Advanced Technology" only applied to Rome's Navy, but a number of Empires have thrived with small land masses, but effective Navies. --- The story goes, is that when Rome invaded Carthage across the Mediterranean Sea, almost all of the Roman ships were designed with the latest "Advanced Technology", a built-in "Boarding Plank", that could be lowered onto enemy ships, allowing Roman Soldiers to quickly take over enemy ships. --- In typical "Military Industrial Complex" fashion, when problems with the "Design" arose, nobody wanted to "tell the boss", and lose the "Contract". --- Turned out, the "Advanced Technology Boarding Planks", rendered the ships extremely unstable, with many of the ships tipping over in open water, giving the Carthaginians an easy "Naval Victory". True or not, I love stories of Civilizations destroying themselves with "Advanced Technology". --- The fabled "Atlantis" may fall into that category. So many Historians OPINE about the ability to "Discover" the Technology of Atlantis, without considering the PROBABILITY, that the "Technology of Atlantis" caused the DESTRUCTION of Atlantis. --- Many Historians OPINE about the Obvious "Extreme Technology" of the Great Pyramid, without considering that The Great Pyramid is now a broken-down hunk of Granite, no longer working, that may have contributed to the DESTRUCTION of an Egyptian Empire. --- My personal policy on "Artificial Intelligence", is to AVOID "AI", and let "AI" lead its Users, OUT OF MY WAY.

I don't think the succession system was as much of a problem ss you propose here. The Roman Empire outlasted all the kingdoms of Europe with a clear succession system. Despite the fact that the monarchs of Europe on average reigned longer than Roman Emperors, the Empire itself and the office of Emperor outlasted them all. In many ways the succession system worked in Rome's favor because the office didn't die with the death of a dynasty. The Roman Empire itself is the longest lasting Empire in history 27 BC to 1453 AD.

A bit of a cop out,it's like saying the reason for relationships failing his the HEART!I'll stick the other Historical reasons,inflation,Christianity,invasions ect...

Being egoistic is purely natural, even if you think you are acting altruistic the motivating factor will still be egoistic. So the problem of the Roman Empire was not, that powerful people acted egoistic, but rather that the political system allowed them to commit egoistic acts, which harmed the empire. In a good political system egoism strengthens the society, which the political system of the Roman Empire did not accomplish.

Great point, maybe it can be summarized in a culture of violence and hard-power struggle that was incompatible with such a complex and sophisticated civilization that really needed new more refined formulas (like burocracy, economy and technology) and social contracts to thrive further especially given the relaxation in constant territorial conquests and related spoils of war (that could be linked to many other factors like epidemics, demography, religion, etc) Edit: Also the extreme family-centric culture and all the related problems like corruption and tribalism which are particularly incompatible with such a large and complex empire

Communication failures due to people unable to properly conjugate verbs.

Currency inflation and the polarisation of rich and poor. When you bet everything on your control of the money supply instead of the loyalty of your people your days are always numbered.

There are many events that are cited as contributing to the end of the empire, but in the past, the empire always rebounded. So, what changed? Why couldn't the empire rebound again? The switch of the entire empire to Christianity completely changed people's way of thinking, their behaviour and even their morality. The focus and loyalty of each citizen on Rome and the Empire was forever lost. Previously, being a Roman and holding Roman citizenship was something special, previous even. Under Christianity it became meaningless and worthless. The way people saw Rome and the Empire was completely changed and replaced as their focus switched to a new King who was above even the Emperors who were no longer living gods, but just men. What's more, the new King was eternal, offering greater rewards and greater punishments. I don't think many people truly understand how much of an impact this had on the people and citizens and ultimately, the Empire.

The basic reason: the empire expanded too far, and thus the inability to communicate effectively.

Absolutely correct ✅

Bottom line: its a problem of political governance, which emerges as soon as humans pass a certain threshold in number. Same for all life. The threshold is simply different. Here threshold of some other life in maximal number of individual that can coordinate naturally. Chimpanzees about 50. Lions around 15. Termites: hundreds of thousands. Ants: depends on species, as for bees, but can go to thousands and even millions. Some like cicadas live too briefly for any need to coordinate. Some bacteria can coordinate by millions, others not. Humans is about 100-150. Beyond that we need politics, which are basically shared stories.

The social media & modern connections & travel are actively polarising society rather than uniting it. I don't think 'tribalism' is hard wired as you say, nor is it what helped us through hard times. That is just family & clan ties. It is also natural for groups to grow & combine to be better able to exploit resources. The distances across the Empire were a major problem as 'rescue' missions could not always reach troubled areas before incursions had done serious harm, or even taken over land, often leaving inadequate local defence. The gradual loss of revenues, & recruits & resources, caused a 'snowball' like effect as each area was weakened by the loss of it's neighbour. Of course it was poor leadership that often led to disaster, which otherwise need not have happened. The continuing east shows that Rome's fall was not inevitable.