Who Was Rome’s Most Dangerous Enemy, And Why?

Anastasia

15^th November 2020

Who was Rome s most dangerous enemy, and why?

To answer the question, Who was Rome s most dangerous enemy, and why? we must work backwards by first asking, what caused the collapse of the Roman Empire? For Rome s goal, or any empire s goal for that matter, was to stay in power for as long as possible. &We can begin to identify Rome s enemies as those who threatened its longevity, causing its collapse and in turn, taking its most precious entity, its power. This essay will argue that Rome had a multitude of dangerous enemies, amongst them the birth of Christianity, and even Rome itself. Many factors contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire and naturally they are inextricably connected, however when determining who was Rome s most dangerous enemy, we must attempt to decipher what the greatest contributor was to its final collapse. Although many external factors such as uprisings and rebellions threatened the Roman Empire and internal factors such as corrupt governance weakened the state, I would argue that it was the birth and wide spread of Christianity, which was legalised and recognised as the Empire s main religion in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine that ultimately finalised the collapse of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was established in 31 BC when Augustus Caesar proclaimed himself the first emperor. The empire came roughly to an end in 1243 AD with the fall of Constantinople (however it is worth noting that scholars to this day still debate on the exact date of the Roman Empire s collapse). The Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years - the longest Empire in the history of civilization as we know it. It s lasting legacy on the course of civilization to modern day is evident in our politics, democracies, languages, city structures, art and architecture and even the names of our countries and cities. For example, Britain, being derived from Britannia and London from Londinium - the names attributed by the Romans upon their conquest of Britain in 43 AD. Like any empire, Rome s goal was to remain in control of as many countries for as long as possible. And like any empire, which we now know with the hindsight of history, it was fated to collapse.

The Roman Empire had countless enemies throughout its rule, ranging from warlords such as Boudicca, Sparticus, King Shapur, King Alaric (who led the Visigoths) and Hannibal. The Roman s desire to continuously expand provoked rebellion from foreign territories. For example, we can look at The Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, which ended in 146 BC after the military leader Hannibal defeated the Romans at the Battle of Cannae. Infamously leading an army of elephants over the Alps, Hannibal provided a huge threat to the Roman army. However, once more, the Romans had eventually successfully repressed the foreign efforts and won, adding the territory of Hispania to their Empire. Another example of rebellion was fronted by Sparticus, an escaped slave and Thracian gladiator, who led a rebel army of 70,000 in 71 BC. This huge feat demonstrated the power of oppressed peoples gathering to resist the Romans.

Another group who provided a severe threat to the Roman s expansion were the Gauls, who were infiltrating all Europe (Frank Welsh, The History of the World , 73). A raid in 390 BC had shocked the Romans by destroying their capital (Welsh, 75). However, despite the reoccurring threat provided by the Gauls, they were successfully suppressed in 215 BC and provided, in Welsh s words, little further trouble (76). In 60/61 AD, the Romans expanded their territory to Britannia, which saw another powerful resistance led by Boudica, the queen of the British Celtic Iceni tribe, who led a coalition in open rebellion against the Romans in 60 or 61 AD. Although certainly impressive in sheer size and barbarianism , this resistance was eventually defeated by the Romans. King Shapur in 268 AD serves as another example of an enemy that endangered Rome, being the first to succeed in actually capturing an Emperor Emperor Valarian - who in the end was forced to live as a captive under the Sasanians. Furthermore, Attila the Hun united a tribe of Nomadic Barbarians against the Romans in 451 AD and provided such a threat that the Roman s coined him the nickname of the scourge of god . In response to a request for land being denied, King Alaric led a tribe called the Visigoths. King Alaric could have been an ally, but the Romans denied his requests and this provoked a rebellion. Alaric in turn formed a troupe and invaded Italy. By 409 AD his army camped outside of Rome itself, invading the city. This is marked by many historians as the beginning of the end the Roman Empire in the West. Furthermore, Frank Welsh observes how later in the fifth century, Germanic tribes poured across the Rhine into the empire, sacking Rome Three Times (Welsh, 47). Evidently, outside forces continuously tried to fight against Rome s expansion. Through such examples of Rome s greatest enemies, it becomes evident that The Roman Empire faced a constant threat from external leaders who battled against their rule in an attempt to remain free. However, time and time again, the Roman s exceptional military organisation and discipline served them to win these wars, defeat their numerous enemies and continue expansion in the face of such battles.

Another great threat that posed the success of the Roman Empire was the very infrastructure on which it was built. Rome, in a way, acted as its own greatest enemy. On the one hand, Rome was a republican city-state, and on the other, a multicultural empire. The tension created by this inevitably led to civil war and conflict within Rome. The corruption within the government led to political instability, which I argue heavily contributed to the Empire s fall. From the second century, Rome had seen many weak leaders, with 20 Emperors in a period of just 75 years. In many ways, the inner workings of the government body were heavily corrupted. For example, The Praetorian Guard, who were bodyguards to the emperor, exploited their power and corruptly decided who they would promote or kill, to determine who would be next in line for the throne. Furthermore, The Senate was corrupt at its core and would not fulfil its duty in maintaining balance and ensuring that the Rulers would not dangerously exceed in their ambitions.

The corrupted rule of the Senate, the overly zealous ambitions of the emperor and the disruption caused by so many different appointments of rulers led to increased dissatisfaction amongst the people and citizens of Rome. This led to civil war, which put a huge strain on the success of the empire. For example, in the third century, the Emperor Alexander Severus was murdered by his own troops. Political instability followed as a result, plunging the empire into a crippling civil war. Severus was the first emperor to be overthrown by his own troops due to military discontent. After his death his economic policies were abandoned and as a result the Roman currency devalued. This initiated a tumultuous era coined as the Crisis of the Third Century which many historians speculate brought the empire to the verge of ruin. In addition to this, it now became challenging to find men to join the army. Foreigners were instead recruited, including the Goths and barbarians who, as aforementioned, constantly rebelled against Roman occupancy and fought for land. As a result, the foreigners recruited into the army often failed to remain loyal to the empire and often rebelled against the Romans.

Moreover, Rome s territorial ambitions naturally led to its huge geographical expansion, which resulted in increased difficulty to rule over the entirety of the empire. An attempt to mitigate this problem was presented in the third century by Emperor Diocletian, who decided to split governance in the empire between Milan in the West and Byzantium in the East. However, in doing so, Diocletian weakened his (and succeeding emperors ) rule over the empire, causing division between the West and East and a failure to work in unison to fight against external threats. As a result, the East prospered whilst the West saw increasing economic decline and continual attacks, eventually collapsing in the fifth century.

In addition to the external threats of battles and the internal threat of weak governance and poor decision making, the rise of Christianity provided an increasingly significant threat to the longevity of the Roman Empire. The emergence of Christianity and its eventual dominion as the world s leading religion provided not only a huge turning point in the course of history itself, but also in the course of the Roman Empire and its eventual collapse.

Christianity had an initially turbulent history and negative response from the Romans, with Christians experiencing years of persecution at their merciless hands. However, by 313 AD the religion had been legalised by Emperor Constantine and announced as a state religion in 380 AD. Many historians argue that the acceptance of Christianity as the religion of the Empire undermined the status of the emperor. Prior to Christianity, the polytheistic pagan worship of multiple gods meant that the emperor could similarly be upheld and worshiped as a god. However, with the emergence of a monotheistic religion, the status of an emperor as a god was brought into question, as there could now only be one divine being. It is important to also note that the longevity of the Roman Empire lay not only in its military innovation, strength and conquest, but also in the spread of its propaganda and ideals through its literature and art. The ideals of the Roman Empire and the emperor as divine and worthy of worship were being steadily replaced by an all-consuming dedication to a new ruler, Christ.

The high status now held by Christian doctrine increased the power of the Church and the papacy. Appointed emperors, such as Charlemagne, would now seek to be coronated by the Pope. Tom Holland elaborates on the subconscious effect the status of the church had on Francophile successors, the descendants of Charlemagne, rulers who unlike the early Roman Emperors exceedingly lacked in confidence. Holland writes: Decades on, few even amongst the Franks themselves could deny that their imperial pretentions were in a state of chronic disrepair kings and emperors ruled with all the authority of ghosts (40). Holland attributes the insecurities of these rulers largely to the re-balance of power between state and church Christianity shifting the balance of power to the hands of popes leaving emperors questioning their own legitimacy to the throne.

To conclude, through a brief overview of the many enemies of Rome, it has become evident that a combination of external and internal factors led to its demise. Rome had many external enemies, who continuously battled against the Roman Empire s expansion. Rome itself had internal weaknesses which served as an enemy to its own success. The rise of Christianity played a significant role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, as it undermined the foundation upon which it was built and the emperor s status as a divine leader, worthy of worship, sacrifice and ultimate obedience. The Roman Emperors, arguably, were replaced by a new global leader, their most dangerous enemy, Christ himself.

Works Cited

Gibbon, Edward. The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire Volume 2 . 1776. Penguin Classics.

Holland, Tom. Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom . 2008. Abacus.

Welsh, Frank. The History of the World: From the Dawn of Humanity to the Modern Age . 2011. Quercus Publishing.

This resource was uploaded by: Anastasia