The Fall of the Roman Empire

Discuss the factors involved in the fall of the Roman empire. Be sure to mention militaristic, economic, political and societal reasons, as well as any others you deem necessary.

The Roman Empire was an influential reign of time, land, and society. With people who demonstrated such qualities as gravitas and dignity, it was quite an empire to defeat. Because of its vastness, in size and in influence, its decline cannot be attributed to one pinpointed cause. Instead, the fall of Rome is reasoned to have occurred because of militaristic, economic, political and societal problems: some controllable, and some consequential. Specifically, disease, political and economic turmoil, and social and societal change, all attributed to the downward spiral of the Roman Empire.

The first factor in the fall of Rome was disease. Although not necessarily preventable, it was definitely consequential. Because of overcrowding in cites and under managed areas, disease sprouted more easily and spread more quickly. Because of economic turmoil, many Romans were poor, and those who were not poor spent money on more luxurious and frivolous things instead of necessities. Consequently, many urban areas were poor and unkempt and were a catalyst for the spread of disease. Lead poisoning was a big problem to the Romans and its detrimental effects were even more greatly increased because of the quickly spreading diseases.

The economic turmoil that eventually brought down the quality of Roman living was not only caused by poor or frivolous spenders, but also because of a floundering government. For a while, sequential rulers, all of whom were successful in their reign, ruled Rome. At the end of each ruler's reign, he would choose an appropriate successor. Marcus Aurelius was the last good choice, and the first to make a bad choice. He chose his son Commodes. Commodes ended the string of great rulers with a failing term. After Commodes, two rulers tried to salvage Rome from its slide down the slippery slope of failure: Diocletian and Constantine. Diocletian tried to improve the economy by locking people into jobs and locking prices. Although it seems like it might work in theory to stop decline. What it ended up doing was preventing any improvement. Because everything was locked, there was no way to improve, and so Rome was stuck in economic stagnation. After Diocletian, Constantine stepped up to the plate. He even tried moving

...