The history of Ancient Rome takes a considerable period of time and is considered in detail in the framework of the school curriculum, as well as in institutes. Rome left the world many cultural monuments, scientific discoveries and art objects. It is difficult for archaeologists and historians to overestimate the legacy of the empire, but its decline turned out to be quite logical and predictable. Like many other civilizations, having reached the peak of its development during the reign of the Antonin dynasty, the Roman Empire in the 3rd century entered a stage of deep crisis, which caused its collapse. Many historians consider this turn of events so natural that they do not even distinguish this period of history in their writings as a separate stage that deserves closer examination. However, most scholars still consider it very important to understand the term “crisis of the Roman Empire” for the whole of world history, and therefore today we devoted an entire article to this interesting topic.
Crisis Time Interval
The crisis years in the Roman Empire are usually counted from the murder of one of the emperors of the new dynasty of the North. This period lasted for fifty years, after which relative stability was established in the state for almost a century. However, this did not lead to the preservation of the empire, but rather, on the contrary, became a catalyst for its collapse.
During the crisis, the Roman Empire faced a number of serious problems. They affected absolutely all sectors of society and the side of the life of the state. The inhabitants of the empire fully felt the influence of the political, economic and social crisis. Also destructive phenomena affected trade, crafts, the army and state power. However, many historians claim that the main crisis of the empire was primarily a spiritual crisis. It was he who launched the processes that subsequently led to the collapse of the once powerful Roman Empire.
The crisis as such is determined by the time interval from two hundred and thirty-fifth to two hundred and eighty-fourth. However, one should not forget that this period became the time of the most striking manifestations destructive for the state, which, alas, were already irreversible, despite the efforts of some emperors.
Brief description of the Roman Empire by the beginning of the third century
Ancient society is distinguished by its heterogeneity. It includes completely different layers of the population, so as long as they exist in a certain and orderly system, we can talk about the heyday of this society and state power as a whole.
Some historians see the crisis factors of the Roman Empire in the very foundations on which Roman society is built. The fact is that the prosperity of the empire was largely ensured by slave labor. This is what made any production profitable and allowed investing in it a minimum of effort and money. The influx of slaves was constant, and their price allowed the prosperous Romans not to worry about the content of slaves bought in the market. The dead or sick have always been replaced by new ones, however, the decrease in the flow of cheap labor forced Roman citizens to completely change their usual way of life. We can say that by the beginning of the third century, the Roman Empire was overtaken by the classical crisis of slave society in all its manifestations.
If we are talking about a spiritual crisis, we often see its origins in the second century. It was then that society gradually but surely began to move away from the once accepted principles of harmonious human development, the former worldview and ideology. The new emperors were increasingly striving for sole power, rejecting the participation of the Senate in resolving state issues. Over time, this paved a real chasm between different sections of the population and the rulers of the empire. They no longer had anyone to rely on, and emperors became toys in the hands of socially active and close-knit groups.
It is noteworthy that by the third century the Roman Empire began to regularly clash on its borders with the tribes of the Baravars. Unlike earlier times, they became more united and represented worthy opponents of the Roman warriors who had lost the incentives and some privileges that had previously inspired wings in battle.
It is easy to understand how the situation in the empire was destabilized by the beginning of the third century. Therefore, the crisis has become so destructive for the state and completely destroyed its foundations. At the same time, one should not forget that the Roman Empire was faced with a large-scale crisis that engulfed domestic and foreign policy, as well as the economic and social components of the well-being of the Romans.
The economic and political causes of the crisis of the Roman Empire, most historians consider the most important and significant. However, in fact, one should not underestimate the influence of other factors on the situation in the state. Remember that it was the combination of all factors that became the mechanism that led to the collapse of the empire in the future. Therefore, in the following sections of the article, we will describe each cause in as much detail as possible and analyze it.
Military factor
By the third century, the army of the empire had significantly weakened. First of all, this is due to the loss by emperors of their authority and influence on generals. They could no longer rely on the soldiers in various issues, and those, in turn, lost the mass of incentives that previously encouraged them to serve their state faithfully. Many soldiers were faced with the fact that commanders appropriated a large share of their salaries. Therefore, the army gradually turned into an uncontrollable group with weapons in their hands, lobbying only for their interests.
Against the background of a weakening army, dynastic crises began to manifest themselves more vividly. Each new emperor, despite his attempts to maintain power, could no longer effectively rule the state. There were periods in the history of the empire when the rulers were at the head of the empire for only a few months. Naturally, in such a situation it was difficult to talk about the possibility of commanding the army for the benefit of the development of the state and the protection of its lands.
Gradually, the army was losing its combat effectiveness due to the lack of professional personnel. At the beginning of the third century, a demographic crisis was recorded in the empire, so there were practically no one to recruit recruits. And those who were already in the ranks of the soldiers did not feel the desire to risk their lives for the sake of constantly changing emperors. It is worth noting that large landowners, faced with an acute shortage of slaves, and, consequently, with certain difficulties in farming, began to be very careful about their workers and did not want to part with them for the sake of replenishing the army. This situation led to the fact that people who were absolutely unsuitable for combat missions became new recruits.
In order to compensate for the shortfall and losses in the ranks of the army, the military leaders began to take the barbarians. This allowed to increase the number of troops, but at the same time led to the penetration of foreigners into various structures of government. This could not but weaken the managerial apparatus and the army as a whole.
The military issue played a very important role in the development of the crisis. Indeed, the lack of funds and defeat in armed conflicts led to increased tension between the people and the soldiers. The Romans did not see them as defenders and respected citizens, but looters and bandits, who without hesitation robbed local residents. In turn, this negatively affected the economic situation in the country, and also loosened discipline in the army itself.
Since all processes within the state are always closely interconnected, historians argue that problems in the army led to defeats in battles and the loss of military equipment, and this, in turn, exacerbated the economic and demographic manifestations of the crisis.
The economic crisis of the Roman Empire
Economic development also contributed to the development of the crisis, which, according to many historians, has become the main mechanism leading to the decline of the empire. We have already mentioned that by the third century the slave society of the empire began to gradually decline. This primarily affected mid-level landowners. They stopped receiving an inflow of cheap labor, which made farming in the framework of small villas and land holdings unprofitable.
Large landowners also noticeably lost in profits. There were not enough working hands to process all the possessions and they had to significantly reduce the number of cultivated territories. So that the land is not empty, they began to be leased. Thus, a large area was divided into several small ones, which, in turn, were surrendered to both free people and slaves. Gradually, a new system of columnar abrasions is being formed. Workers renting land were called “columns”, and the site itself was called “parcel”.
Such relations were very beneficial to the landowners, because the columns themselves were responsible for cultivating the land, preserving the harvest and regulating labor productivity. They paid their landlord with natural products and were fully self-sufficient. However, colonial relations only exacerbated the ongoing economic crisis. Cities gradually began to decline, urban landowners, unable to rent land, went bankrupt, and individual provinces became more and more distant from each other. This process is closely related to the desire of some owners to isolate themselves. They built huge villas, fenced with high fences, and around them were numerous houses of columns. Such settlements often fully met their needs through subsistence farming. In the future, such forms of ownership will develop into feudal ones. It can be said that since the separation of landowners, the economy of the empire began to fall apart rapidly.
Each new emperor sought to improve his financial situation by increasing taxes. But this burden was becoming increasingly exorbitant for the ruined owners. This led to popular uprisings, often entire settlements turned for help to military leaders or large landowners, trusted by the people. For a small fee, they took care of absolutely everything with tax collectors. Many simply bought privileges for themselves and became even more isolated from the emperor.
Such a development of events only exacerbated the crisis in the Roman Empire. Gradually, the number of crops decreased almost twice, the development of trade stopped, which was significantly influenced by the decrease in the amount of precious metal in the composition of Roman coins, the cost of transportation of goods regularly increased.
Many historians claim that the Roman people actually disappeared during this period. All sectors of society were disconnected and the state, in the general sense of the word, began to fall apart into separate groups that were at war with each other. A sharp social stratification provoked a social crisis. More precisely, social causes only exacerbated the crisis in the empire.
Social factor
In the third century, the wealthy segments of the population began to more and more actively separate themselves, they opposed themselves to the government of the empire and lobbied their own interests. Their land holdings gradually began to resemble real feudal principalities, where the owner had virtually unlimited power and support. It was difficult for the emperors to oppose the rich Romans with any bloc supporting them. In many situations, they were clearly losing to their opponents. Moreover, senators have almost completely departed from state affairs. They did not hold significant posts, and in the provinces they often took over the functions of a second power. Within this framework, senators created their own courts, prisons and, if necessary, gave protection to criminal elements who were persecuted by the empire.
Amid increasing stratification of society, the city and its entire administrative apparatus were losing their significance, and social tension was growing. This led to the departure of many Romans from public life. They refused to take part in certain processes, relieving themselves of any duties of a citizen of the empire. At the time of the crisis, hermits appeared in the state, having lost faith in themselves and the future of their people.
Spiritual reason
During the crisis, civil wars in ancient Rome were not uncommon. They were provoked by various factors, but quite often spiritual differences became the reasons.
During the decline of the Roman Empire and the manifestation of the failure of its ideology on the territory of the state, various religious movements began to raise their heads.
Standing apart were Christians who received support from the people, due to the fact that religion itself gave a certain idea of stability and faith in tomorrow. The Romans began to be baptized en masse and after some time, representatives of this religious movement began to constitute a real force. They urged people not to work for the emperor and not to take part in his military campaigns. This situation led to the persecution of Christians in all the expanses of the empire, sometimes they simply hid from the army, and sometimes with the help of the people resisted the soldiers.
The spiritual crisis further divided the Romans and spread them on opposite sides. If social inequality provoked tension, then the spiritual crisis left absolutely no hope for the reunification of society in the framework of a single state.
Political reasons
If you ask historians about what contributed to the crisis of the Roman Empire to a greater extent, then they will unambiguously name the political reason. The dynastic crisis has become a catalyst for the collapse of the state and the institution of power.
Against the backdrop of economic, social and other problems, the Romans needed a strong emperor who could provide them with stability and prosperity. However, already in the third century it was clear that conditionally the empire had split into two parts. The eastern regions were economically more developed, and they felt an urgent need for a strong emperor, relying on the army. This would protect them from external enemies and give confidence in the future. However, the western regions of the empire, where landowners mainly lived, advocated independence. They sought to oppose themselves to state power, relying on columns and people.
Political instability manifested itself in the frequent change of emperors, who simultaneously became hostages of those social groups that supported them. Thus, “soldier” emperors, enthroned by legionaries, and “senate” emperors appeared. They were supported by senators and some disparate groups of society.
The new dynasty of the Severs was formed thanks to the army and managed to hold out at the head of the Roman Empire for forty-two years. It was these emperors who were faced with all the crisis phenomena that shook the state from all sides.
Emperors of the new era and their reforms
In one hundred and ninety-third, Septimius Severus ascended the throne, he became the first emperor of the new dynasty, supported by all the soldiers of the empire. First of all, at his new post, he decided to carry out army reform, which, however, only shook all the foundations of the Roman Empire.
Traditionally, the army consisted only of Italics, but Septimius Severus now ordered the recruitment of soldiers from all areas of the empire. The provincials took the opportunity to receive high posts and significant salaries. The new emperor gave the legionnaires a number of privileges and concessions, the Romans especially surprised the permission to marry and leave the military barracks in order to equip a house for his family.
Septimius did his best to show his isolation from the Senate. He declared the continuity of power and declared his sons two heirs. New people from the provinces began to come to the Senate, many regions during the reign of the first North received new status and rights. Historians assess this policy as a transition to military dictatorship. It was fueled by successes in foreign policy. The emperor quite successfully conducted several military campaigns, strengthening his borders.
. – – . . , , , . , , , . . , . .
:
With each new ruler, the situation in the state worsened, the empire gradually approached its crisis, which destroyed it. In the two hundred and twenty-second year, Alexander Sever ascended the throne, trying to stabilize the situation in the Roman Empire. He went to meet the senators and returned some of their previous functions to them, while the impoverished Romans received small land plots and equipment for processing them.
For thirteen years of his reign, the emperor could not significantly change the situation in the state. The crisis in trade relations led to the fact that many segments of the population began to receive a salary from products of production, in the same way some taxes were levied. External borders were also not protected and were subjected to frequent raids by barbarians. All this only destabilized the situation in the empire and led to a conspiracy against Alexander Sever. His assassination was the beginning of a crisis that completely shook the once great Roman Empire.
Climax of crisis
From two hundred and thirty-fifth, the empire has been shaken by an empire of emperors; all this is accompanied by civil wars and numerous social problems. The empire waged continuous wars on its borders, often the Romans were defeated and once even surrendered their emperor. The rulers succeeded each other, the henchmen of the senators overthrew the henchmen of the legionnaires and vice versa.
During this period, many provinces came together and declared their independence. Land tycoons raised powerful rebellions, while Arabs confidently seized pieces of the empire, turning them into their own territories. The empire needed strong power to stabilize the situation. Many saw her in the new emperor Diocletian.
The end of the crisis and its consequences
In two hundred and eighty-fourth year, the emperor Diocletian ascended the throne. He managed to stop the crisis and for almost a hundred years the state reigned relative calm. In many ways, this result was ensured by the strengthening of external borders and the reforms of Diolectian. The new emperor practically deified his power, he demanded unquestioning obedience and admiration from all subjects. This led to the introduction of a magnificent ceremony, which was later condemned by many Romans.
Contemporaries and descendants of the emperor consider the most important reform of Diolectian - administrative. He divided the state into several districts and provinces. A new apparatus was created to manage them, which increased the number of officials, but at the same time made the tax burden heavier.
It is worth noting that the emperor severely persecuted Christians and the mass executions and arrests of followers of this religion became familiar with him.
The tough hand of the emperor managed to stop the crisis, but only for a while. Subsequent rulers did not have such power, which led to an intensification of the crisis. In the end, the Roman Empire, exhausted and torn to pieces by internal contradictions, began to surrender under the onslaught of the barbarians and finally ceased to exist as a single state in four hundred and seventy-six years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.