was the Roman Empire stagnant?

[delta180]

The Roman empire is a very talked about empire, probably because it ruled the lands that now encompass France, Spain, Britain and Turkey, which were all early modern superpowers that helped shape our modern world

Problem is I do not know what happened in the Roman Empire, generally I hear two versions of events, the first one states that the Romans were a powerful empire that enjoyed a long period of peace, the "pax romana". In this peace they built up towns and cities, bringing water and trade to people who needed it. They were welcoming and inclusive of neighbouring religions and people who were willing to trade and join their society.

The second version of events I hear about is that the Romans ruled a decadent and highly unstable empire, they feel into massive civil wars often because of the political backstabbing that was common in the Roman empire, there culture was more warlike, sexist and lacked the progressiveness of the Greek culture it was based on, rather than having theatre they enjoyed bloody gladiator games. They did not work in Rome and they enslaved entire cities in order to have a cheap workforce, demeaning their neighbours by calling them barbarians

Naturally the Romans did build aqueducts and brought Greek and Egyptian technology to the rest of their empire, but did they change create much technology themselves? As a student of mathematics, I hear lots about Greek, French, Chinese and British discoveries but very little of Roman discoveries, I think personally that is a subjective view, different cultures were interested in different disciplines, so did the Romans discover lots of major inventions that I am neglecting?

There are examples in history of people capitalising on Roman literature in order to create inventions, mainly the Islamic golden age and the renaissance, but the later Roman "Byzantine" empire, seemed unable to do the same

In terms of social advancements, the Romans did ban human blood sports when they converted to Christianity, but they ultimately failed to ease up on slavery, unlike the middle age western European Kingdoms who banned it under the authority of the Pope.

so to reiterate was Rome stagnant? Were they advancing fast enough that if they had survived we would be as advanced as we are today, or did the European golden era only happen as a result of the fall of Rome? And if Rome had never existed would we be better off or was the spread of technologies that happened within the Roman empire crucial to the later technological and social advancements?

 

[PMLF]

there culture was more warlike, sexist and lacked the progressiveness of the Greek culture it was based on

This seems more like a modern interpretation of history based on SJW nonsense.

That claim is also doubtful anyway, the Greeks and Romans were to a great extent pretty similar regarding the things you mentioned.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

.Naturally the Romans did build aqueducts and brought Greek and Egyptian technology to the rest of their empire, but did they change create much technology themselves?

Reading that part I immediately had to think of that one scene in Life of Brian...

Jokes aside I think the answer to your question about which of the two version is true is: Both.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Typically speaking Rome was very good at absorbing the technology of the states they conquered, think Macedonian concrete but fairly poor at innovating their own technological spread. Realistically the Romans caused massive stagnation in technological gain, take the example of naval architecture, the Romans basically copied Carthaginian ships in the 200s-100s and then failed to build on that technology for the next 800 years.

Rome struggled from its own monopolisation of Europe, they were secure in the fact they didn't really need to innovate much because there wasn't much to gain from investing in new ideas when they were already the centre point of civilization during the era. The most technological innovative times generally are the result of high competition between powers who need to invest to stay competitive, think the various eras of the city states or the European colonial scrambles in the 17th-20th century.

 

[delta180]

This seems more like a modern interpretation of history based on SJW nonsense.

That claim is also doubtful anyway, the Greeks and Romans were to a great extent pretty similar regarding the things you mentioned.

I personally am convinced that technological development goes hand in hand with civil rights movements, but maybe that is just because I played Victoria 2
after a bit of research I agree the Greeks and Romans are pretty similar in the ways mentioned, as I said it is a viewpoint I have heard when talking on this forum and browsing the internet

 

[Rubidium]

A lot of talk about "decadence" or lack-thereof of various civilizations is really a product of 18th and 19th century historiography (Gibbon casts a long shadow here), which tended to contrast the "vigorous" and "martial" traits of various "barbarian" races (especially whichever one said 18th or 19th-century historian claimed descent from) against "decadent" Romans (or Turks, or Chinese, or whichever other empire the historian was implicitly comparing with his own nation).

More modern historiography (especially since WWII, for obvious reasons) tends to reject this approach. Roman civilization was both constantly changing and incredibly diverse. Modern historians also tend to be less willing to take the words of Roman historians at face value, and more cognizant of the biases within the surviving sources. But as with anything else, the traditional view still deeply colors a lot of the popular image of Rome, even if the experts tend to have moved on.

So, to answer your original question: the Roman Empire had its good and bad points, like every other empire. It eventually fell, like every other empire. Beyond that, you'll have to go deeper, and remember that the Roman Republic of Scipio was very different from that of Julius Caesar, which in turn was different than that of Augustus, which was different from that of Diocletian, which was different from that of Honorius, and so on and so forth.

And Roman technological progress was certainly significant; you don't build the roads and architecture that they did without very impressive engineering technology. And they were an Empire that contained multitudes; quite a bit of "Greek" discoveries happened during the Empire (you mentioned mathematics, so you might want to look up Diophantus for one of the more striking examples).

 

[Seli]

... there culture was more warlike, sexist and lacked the progressiveness of the Greek culture it was based on, ...

Greek culture was quite warlike as well, and as far as I am aware plenty of it constituent nations *Athens as a famous example* were a lot more sexist than Rome.

 

[DukeDayve]

I think both of those empires you mentioned existed at various times. From the first to the third century AD I doubt there was a better place on planet earth to live than inside the borders of the Roman Empire. Even as a common peasant, you were still probably better off inside the empire than a common peasant outside the empire. At least you could take advantage of the peace, the roads, fresh running water, doctors with some pretty advanced treatments for their time (provided you could afford it), and there was always the option of joining the legion for steady pay, plenty of loot and whatnot. It wasn't perfect of course, nothing ever is, but on the whole... pretty nice for the time.

Then you have the whole crisis of the third century which wasn't so good, and after that the reforms of Diocletian bring in a model similar to feudalism. From this point onward I doubt the life of most people inside the empire was much different to life in the dark ages. It stabilized for a while but the trend was downward from there. Difficult to maintain and grow your lovely advanced cities when literally every penny your empire earns has to be spent on an outrageously large military to defend it from constant threats on literally every border (and everytime there's a new emperor they have to give every man in the entire army a bonus and a pay rise or he won't be emperor for long).

At a certain point, maybe for the last century before the western half fell, I doubt if there was any benefit whatsoever to living inside the empire than outside of it. I always imagine the final emperors (from Honorius onward) looking at a map of the western empire, with everything coloured red, feeling quite proud to be the emperor of that ancient and famous empire... when in reality all that's left under their control is Italy and some spots in southern Gaul and eastern Iberia. The rest is either under the control of "barbarians" who migrated there, or province governors who basically are petty kings at this point, doing whatever the hell they want, and if the emperor tried to enforce his will upon them they'd simply rebel and start yet another civil war.

I think if you could travel back in time to 400 AD (almost a century before the western empire actually officially fell) and spoke to any of its citizens outside of Rome/Milan/Ravenna, and asked them "what are your thoughts on the current state of the empire?" they'd probably say "Heh, the empire? Are we still a part of that? I thought it was long gone".

 

[delta180]

A lot of talk about "decadence" or lack-thereof of various civilizations is really a product of 18th and 19th century historiography (Gibbon casts a long shadow here), which tended to contrast the "vigorous" and "martial" traits of various "barbarian" races (especially whichever one said 18th or 19th-century historian claimed descent from) against "decadent" Romans (or Turks, or Chinese, or whichever other empire the historian was implicitly comparing with his own nation).

I am not convinced that many 18th or 19th century historians considered themselves descendant from the Germanic Tribesmen as they spent 1000 years claiming titles of Ceaser, Kaiser, Tsar and Emperor, all of which come from the Roman term for their monarch. Later Europeans often related more to the Christian, city dwelling and Empire building Romans, even Gibbon who you mentioned drew parallels between his own British empire and the Roman empire

So, to answer your original question: the Roman Empire had its good and bad points, like every other empire. It eventually fell, like every other empire.

the Roman empire did not fall like any other empire, it collapsed into multiple civil wars and was slowly annexed by its neighbours, it went though periods of resurgences and periods of decline, very unlike the more quickly collapsing Macedonian or Mongolian empires or the decentralised French, Spainish and British Empire that were forced to accept their colonies independence

And Roman technological progress was certainly significant; you don't build the roads and architecture that they did without very impressive engineering technology. And they were an Empire that contained multitudes; quite a bit of "Greek" discoveries happened during the Empire (you mentioned mathematics, so you might want to look up Diophantus for one of the more striking examples).

they had very impressive engineering technology, but inventing it is another matter, Assyrians had very similar aqueducts 300 years before the start of the Roman republic and nations like Persia built road networks connecting cities before Rome, Rome built a lot more aqueducts and roads, but you would expect that from such a large and long lasting empire
finding out about Diophantus has also not convinced me that the Romans valued mathematics, whereas the Greek mathematicians before the Roman empire were well written about and cited by later Greek mathematicians, we know very little of Diophantus, we do not know where he was born, nor do we know when he lived and his work was forgotten about until more recently

 

[Rubidium]

I am not convinced that many 18th or 19th century historians considered themselves descendant from the Germanic Tribesmen as they spent 1000 years claiming titles of Ceaser, Kaiser, Tsar and Emperor, all of which come from the Roman term for their monarch. Later Europeans often related more to the Christian, city dwelling and Empire building Romans, even Gibbon who you mentioned drew parallels between his own British empire and the Roman empire

They very much did (especially the English and Germans), seeing themselves as marrying the intellectual achievements of Rome and Greece with the dynamicism of the "noble Teutons." For instance, Edward Creasey (Victorian military historian who wrote the famous The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, which identified 15 "decisive battles" from Marathon to Waterloo) specifically chose the victory of Arminius over the Romans as one of the most important battles of history, because it kept the Teutonic blood pure from Roman adulteration. The 19th century is also when you see a major rebirth of nationalism in general, with e.g. the Grimm Brothers going around and trying to identify ancient German myths and traditions, and of course in the political sphere the Springtime of Nations.

You also had a general belief that warm climates made people from the Mediterranean naturally slow and lazy, as opposed to the more vigorous Northern Europeans (at least, in the opinion of historians from said Northern European countries, who felt that their climate made them ideal); ironically, this goes back to the writings of people like Aristotle (who had also held that climate affected the nature of people, but for him his own Greeks lived in the ideal climate, while the northern barbarians in their cold climes were incapable of true civilization).

The 18th and 19th centuries were a weird place, intellectually.

the Roman empire did not fall like any other empire, it collapsed into multiple civil wars and was slowly annexed by its neighbours, it went though periods of resurgences and periods of decline, very unlike the more quickly collapsing Macedonian or Mongolian empires or the decentralised French, Spainish and British Empire that were forced to accept their colonies independence

Almost all empires collapse over time, with periods of resurgence and decline. Alexander's Empire was very unusual in how quickly it collapsed (and even then, the Hellenistic successor states founded by his generals remained important powers for centuries, with their own resurgences and declines). Likewise, the Mongols remained going concerns for centuries in their various fragmented successor states.

All of the colonial empires you mention likewise went through resurgences and declines (the British famously bounced back from losing most of their North American territory by conquering much of Africa and Asia, for instance).

And of course that's not mentioning plenty of other empires (Ottoman, Austrian, Russian, various Chinese empires, etc.) which have undergone similar declines punctuated by periods of resurgence. Keeping an empire together is hard.

they had very impressive engineering technology, but inventing it is another matter, Assyrians had very similar aqueducts 300 years before the start of the Roman republic and nations like Persia built road networks connecting cities before Rome, Rome built a lot more aqueducts and roads, but you would expect that from such a large and long lasting empire
finding out about Diophantus has also not convinced me that the Romans valued mathematics, whereas the Greek mathematicians before the Roman empire were well written about and cited by later Greek mathematicians, we know very little of Diophantus, we do not know where he was born, nor do we know when he lived and his work was forgotten about until more recently

If you really think that Roman engineering technology over a millennium of Roman rule and expansion didn't advance beyond the Assyrians, I don't know what to tell you. A Model T and a Toyota Prius are both automobiles, but it's pretty clear that the latter is significantly more advanced than the former.

We really don't know much about Diophantus for the same reason we don't know much about plenty of other Greek and Roman figures: not a lot in general survives from the Classical era, which means what does survive paints a necessarily incomplete picture. There are plenty of equally shadowy figures both before and after the Roman empire, many of whom we know of only because they were mentioned by someone who did survive. The fact that Diophantus's work survived (at least partially; no one's work survived from then in entirety) and was expanded upon by later scholars during the Caliphate is evidence that it was at least somewhat prominent. I mainly picked him as an example off the top of my head, as one of the most important "Greek" mathematicians who was working in the Roman Empire. He's hardly unique in that regards.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[RomanItalianEuropean]

If by stagnant you mean that it didn't improve itself (and the world) I think you are wrong. Rome had the great merit to unite all the civilisations of the mediterranean into one. Keep in mind that a lot of what we appreciate of Greek, Egyptian and even Celtic cultures is what the Romans have preserved and imitated. And I think that bringing together the best of each society is an improvement of the world in itself. Without Rome, there would be no ancient classical world as we know it and as the medieval/modern people tried to recreate. Add to that the monumental network of infrastructures that they created to make possible one government over such a multitude of cultures. So they united the Mediterranean world both materially and culturally. Without this premise you don't have the ideological drive behind the modern European empires and their civilising mission. Good or bad is something they took from Rome. So one can correctly say that Rome is popularised because it ruled future colonial powers such as France, England, Portugal and Spain etc...but you can also say that these countries created such colonial empires they way they did (imposing their culture, laws, language) because they had back in their history the example of Rome.

 

[cpreston5]

I think as with most historical disputes there are elements of both sides that reflect partial truths.

Is a state which went from being a regional Italian power, to sacking Corinth and Carthage in the space of about 140 years, inherently stagnant? Obviously not. Did it struggle to adapt politically and administratively? Obviously yes.

The real question then I suppose, is how to explain and contextualise this struggle to adapt in light of the meteoric rise they experienced - from being essentially an expanded city-state, to being the rulers of what was the entire civilised world as they knew it. How many states do we know of that achieved that feat? Alexander came close, and the problem for Macedon was that the empire collapsed before we had a chance to see how adaptive it was. There are various Chinese dynasties who like Rome also achieved a hegemony of basically the furthest extent which was logistically accessible, though I don't know enough about Chinese history to properly talk about them.

I think the mere act of holding on for about five or six centuries to the same key territories is a sign of at least a moderately successful adaptation. The fifth century obviously shows that there was stagnation and a failure to adapt in many respects.

How much of that stagnation was peculiarly Roman, and how much was just typical for any state in a changing world?

 

[yerm]

Rome did not stagnate. It followed the same laws of legitimacy as nearly every nation in history, and suffered the same pitfalls. Rome's difference was it's considerable size and borders.

When led by a single leader in command of the sole army of any significant size, Rome was typically stable. When more than one leader (consul, general, brother, whatever) had independent command of a large army, legitmacy would be challenged, and either a civil war or a purge would typically follow (sometimes both). Rome reached a size so large that it HAD to regularly employ multiple armies, and civil war became unavoidable.

The alternative was to extend considerable autonomy in exchange for decentralized extended military. This had its own problems, such as nobles dominating the crown or inability to project offensively or distant regions breaking away.

For technology and innovation itself independent of her civil war problems, it's hard to justify a claim that Rome was stagnant. A great deal of progress across fields was achieved, and almost universally accepted as slowing down outside. Rome certainly copied its conquests, but proceeded to mostly become copied once near full size. Are we arguing that some other nations advanced technology more? Sure. But saying it mostly stopped under Rome is silly.

For knowledge and culture, they're close to unrivaled. Probably half the reason they're so much more famous than other massive powers is precisely because they wrote so much down and became so copied. Our knowledge of people near Rome is usually more from Roman sources than local. The world is still wrapped in a Roman-culture-backed religion (and it's offshoots).

Most notably, stagnation WAS frequently occuring in the aftermath of lost Roman rule. The dark ages I would argue were not as dark as many get led to believe... but they certainly weren't equal to Rome's pace.

 

[Denkt]

Roman empire still holds the title of the most dominant empire in its area when it was as it peek and it survived for some form for a thousand years. Economically I have heard it had a gdp per capita of around 590$ at its peak which may not sound like alot but consider that other places such as China and India may only had a gdp per capita of around 400-450$ mean that rome may had a significant higher living standard than the norm of its day and it controlled somewhere around 25%-30% of the World economy which is maybe more than the 22% or so that the British empire controlled at its peek so Rome was maybe the most dominant economy ever relative to its time.

Military, Rome lost alot of battles but seldom wars at its peak, hard to say that anyone have done better than Rome who came back strongly even after losing major battles. Rome also fought constantly and was very seldom at Peace during its rise and not only survived but became the only empire ever in its location. Even the body of Alexander the great eventually came under the Control of Rome and when the last greek states was conquered Rome was at its peak.

Even as far as medieval era, the byzantine empire was able to produce impressive victories, including against the caliphate around its peek.

Technology, remember that the greeks eventually worked for Rome and not the opposite, Roman mining production was maybe so advanced that it took to the industrial revolution to mine more than the Romans did. Rome did not only have access to the greek Technologies but Technologies across its empire and did show ability to innovate when needed such as the corvus which allowed them to completely dominate the seas against what on paper was quite a formidable navy. Roman empire probably encouraged and spread technology more than the greeks themself did.

It did change its government several times, eventually granted citizenship to everyone, roman women generally was more free than greek women.

Rome was perhaps the most successful empire ever given its dominance as well as length and consider the closest equivalent to Rome is maybe the European union so unlike other empires nobody have ever managed to create a new roman empire at its peak which makes it even more successful. So it don't make much sense to call it a stagnate empire when it was so successful and lasted so long, a stagnate nation could not have done that and Rome showed that it could bunch back from disasters maybe more than any other nation in history which maybe if anything mean it was the least stagnate nation ever to have existed.

 

[delta180]

Roman empire still holds the title of the most dominant empire in its area when it was as it peek and it survived for some form for a thousand years. Economically I have heard it had a gdp per capita of around 590$ at its peak which may not sound like alot but consider that other places such as China and India may only had a gdp per capita of around 400-450$ mean that rome may had a significant higher living standard than the norm of its day and it controlled somewhere around 25%-30% of the World economy which is maybe more than the 22% or so that the British empire controlled at its peek so Rome was maybe the most dominant economy ever relative to its time.

this is sort of what I was talking about, I associate the British empire with movements such as women's rights, the Industrial revolution, the enlightenment, abolitionism, separation of church and state ect...
I do not associate the Romans with any such movement that progressed the way we think, yet in all other ways they were Britain's equal or better

Rome did not only have access to the greek Technologies but Technologies across its empire and did show ability to innovate when needed such as the Corvus which allowed them to completely dominate the seas against what on paper was quite a formidable navy.

the Corvus was Romes answer to not being a naval dominant nation, but their is no evidence that any naval power of the time period ever used the Corvus outside of the first Punic war implying it was quickly countered other later navy and the effectiveness of the Corvus was due to the Carthagians inability to adapt their navy quickly enough rather than the strength of the Corvus
I would also consider achievements made by Greeks living under the rule of the Roman empire as part of the achievements made by the Roman empire if you would give examples of them

So it don't make much sense to call it a stagnate empire when it was so successful and lasted so long, a stagnate nation could not have done that and Rome showed that it could bunch back from disasters maybe more than any other nation in history which maybe if anything mean it was the least stagnate nation ever to have existed.

a nation has to last a long time to be stagnant and success is measured in different ways. As I said at the start, Rome had an impressive economy and built up cities in many places, in that way it was successful, by stagnancy however I was talking about innovation the Romans themselves could put their names to, not general moving forward with the times and copying yet more ideas from their neighbours, I am aware that Rome in 300bc would have been a very different place to Constantinople in 1204

 

[Eusebio]

Economically I have heard it had a gdp per capita of around 590$ at its peak which may not sound like alot but consider that other places such as China and India may only had a gdp per capita of around 400-450$ mean that rome may had a significant higher living standard than the norm of its day and it controlled somewhere around 25%-30% of the World economy which is maybe more than the 22% or so that the British empire controlled at its peek so Rome was maybe the most dominant economy ever relative to its time.

All of these statistics are made up.

 

[Pyoro]

this is sort of what I was talking about, I associate the British empire with movements such as women's rights, the Industrial revolution, the enlightenment, abolitionism, separation of church and state ect...

I'm not sure how many of these things should actually attributed to the British Empire; but in any case, still strikes me as pretty arbitrary.

Roman law for example is massive and shapes our modern society till this day (heck, how many people could quote in dubio pro reo?). Women's rights might have varied during Roman times, but overall they didn't seem too awful compared to many other cases, and they had a variety of legal rights.
The Industrial Revolution might be impressive, but as been pointed out Roman industry and engineering changed Europe forever (you can still walk over Roman bridges or drive along Roman routes (obviously often repaired/repaved/whatever); there's still entire landscape changed by Roman industrial activity (usually cutting down a ton of trees, but they also drained swamps or mined out hills or whatever...)). Also, while they hardly invented the concept of "walls" or "windows" (as a random example) their architecture was impressive enough that modern German still uses Roman words for a variety such elementary building components (and the various impressive public buildings they built go without saying).
Of course, various philosophies were also developed and advanced during Roman times, like (late) Stoicism (also some influences on Christianity), and of course lot of Christian and early Christian philosophy was developed under the Romans. They also developed other "soft skills"; I mean everyone knows about rhetoric and "oratio" for a reason, right?
They also did a bunch of arty stuff regarding dyes and mosaics and they also spread for example glassblowing technology (I think it's unknown who actually invented that though).

I'm sure you can point out a ton of other stuff regarding military ideas or administrative practices (coincidentally a lot of <these words are Latin, too ^^) and whatnot else.

I think it's a little bit deceptive to look at the Roman Empire from a modern perspective; of course it'll look weirdly stagnant to us, where all the advances they made look vaguely trivial and all the ones they didn't oddly ignorant (how can you not invent a printing press earlier?! All you need is a bunch of blocks! It's super-simple! Everyone should have invented it 3000 years ago!). But compare it to other Empires and I really don't buy that they invented any less, relatively for when it existed.

 

[delta180]

Roman law for example is massive and shapes our modern society till this day (heck, how many people could quote in dubio pro reo?).

not me, but that is beside the point, I can find no evidence the Romans came up with this phase and it does not appear in any copies of the Digest/Digesta (Roman law book) I have available to me, remember that Latin was widely used by Catholic European countries to write important documents as late as the 18th century, please do cite a source if you have one

The Industrial Revolution might be impressive, but as been pointed out Roman industry and engineering changed Europe forever (you can still walk over Roman bridges or drive along Roman routes (obviously often repaired/repaved/whatever); there's still entire landscape changed by Roman industrial activity (usually cutting down a ton of trees, but they also drained swamps or mined out hills or whatever...)). Also, while they hardly invented the concept of "walls" or "windows" (as a random example) their architecture was impressive enough that modern German still uses Roman words for a variety such elementary building components (and the various impressive public buildings they built go without saying).

building bridges, draining swamps, mining out hills and chopping trees was not new discoveries even in Roman times, lots of people have told me that the Romans were advanced engineers, which I agree with, but no one has told me what they were doing differently that other people before them had not done

Of course, various philosophies were also developed and advanced during Roman times, like (late) Stoicism (also some influences on Christianity), and of course lot of Christian and early Christian philosophy was developed under the Romans. They also developed other "soft skills"; I mean everyone knows about rhetoric and "oratio" for a reason, right?
They also did a bunch of arty stuff regarding dyes and mosaics and they also spread for example glassblowing technology (I think it's unknown who actually invented that though).

I said in my first post that I recognise that Rome changed culturally when it Christianised, oratio and the banning of gladiatorial fights was part of that, but that was one period of time and while it can be argued that Rome directly caused the spread of Christianity, I do not believe that Rome encouraged it on purpose, but as a Christian I am probably bias
with regards to dyes, mosaics and glassblowing, we have evidence that all these devices were invented well before the Roman times, again if they made changes to the process of creating these devices, I would consider that a sign of progression

I think it's a little bit deceptive to look at the Roman Empire from a modern perspective; of course it'll look weirdly stagnant to us, where all the advances they made look vaguely trivial and all the ones they didn't oddly ignorant (how can you not invent a printing press earlier?! All you need is a bunch of blocks! It's super-simple! Everyone should have invented it 3000 years ago!). But compare it to other Empires and I really don't buy that they invented any less, relatively for when it existed.

I would like to see it in a different way, but I actually have no idea what advances they made, if you could tell me the Romans invented the wheelbarrow, the fork and the stirrup I would agree that the Romans were great, but that has not been the response just yet

 

[Calad]

Problem is I do not know what happened in the Roman Empire, generally I hear two versions of events, the first one states that the Romans were a powerful empire that enjoyed a long period of peace, the "pax romana". In this peace they built up towns and cities, bringing water and trade to people who needed it. They were welcoming and inclusive of neighbouring religions and people who were willing to trade and join their society.

Follow the money.

Borders of Roman Empire became permanent after Augustus killed the Republic. Afterwards there were expansions, like Britannia and Mauretania (which were permanent) but then there were more failed and abandoned attempts like Dacia, Mesopotamia and Armenia. Caledonia was conquered but abandoned, and there were multiple of raid into Germania but nothing came out.

You can see that the dynamic engine that had driven the republic, despite all of its flaws, had died out. It was the republic that created the empire, but empire allowed Rome to be stable. Had there been different reforms, both empire and republic could have survived.

What does that has to do with money? Easy: the senators funded the military and public works. It wasnt capitalism, but definitely more dynamic than all wealth and power concentrated to the emperor. This is why the republic was dynamic, the empire wasnt. The empire was stagnant, and as making personal gains and profit was dangerous to the emperor it was discouraged and evenly forbidden.

This escalated to the ridicilous extends, like when Rome was sacked, it was the most wealthies empire with most manpower but couldnt use it because the emperor couldnt allow senators to wield any real power. In republic era the senators would have raised armies to defend their capital, but the emperor didnt need to because it was only one city, and he wasnt even there! So Rome was sacked and he lost nothing but everyone else did. This was the scale of political corruption and failure of institutions.

The best example of decay of Rome is art. Here you can see it pretty clearly, the art itself decayed. The first real quality drop comes around year of five emperors, you can see that the hair, clothes and faces becomes more elaborated. There is some recovery around the tehtrachy, but statues are more elaborated and more coins are used, but it is all downhill from there. Even the coins become less elaborated. The statues of Theodosian dynasty are a weak imimation of Augustus, and then the statues disappear completely and are replaced by mosaics.

Keep scrolling down, and even the mosaics become more elaborated, medievalic. This is how Rome lost its wealth, as the art went down so went public constructions and quality of military.

Follow the money. The republic became wealthy by allowing senators to wield power to make profit, the empire collapsed because it forbidden them. The only way how senators could gain power, was palace intrigues, assasinations and other plots. As a emperor, the worst possible thing for you is a megawealthy elite who has no real ways to use their authority.

 

[Director]

Rome expanded around the Mediterranean, which provided cheap and easy bulk transport. Even as late as the American Revolution, it cost less to ship goods across the Atlantic than to move them 100 miles inland. They could not expand west onto the Atlantic, south into the African desert, east of Syria into the Arabian desert or north of the Balkans and east of France - the latter two because overland travel was difficult, the area was not cultivated and the tribal population relatively large.

So - like China, they expanded to their natural political, economic and transportation limits and were unable to go farther. But the chief cause of decline was that they were unable to establish a stable system for the succession and transmission of power. Repeated internal conflicts ate the system up and Rome collapsed.

@Calad - the Republic was wealthy because it conquered and looted the entire Mediterranean basin. Those funds went into vast slave farms while unemployable peasants moved into the cities for cheap subsidized food. That system collapsed because of the regular cycle of revolts, power shifts from the Optimates to the Populares and back accompanied by seizures, purges of opponents and riots.