The history of Ancient Rome takes a significant period of time and is considered in detail within 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 fall turned out to be quite natural and predictable. Like many other civilizations, having reached the peak of its development during the reign of the Antonine 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 single out this period of history in their writings as a separate stage that deserves closer study. However, most scientists still consider it very important to understand such a term as the “crisis of the Roman Empire” for the entire world history, and therefore we have devoted this interesting topic todayan entire article.
Crisis Time Slot
The crisis years in the Roman Empire are usually counted from the assassination of one of the emperors of the new dynasty of the Severes. 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 layers of society and aspects of the life of the state. The inhabitants of the empire felt the full impact of the political, economic and social crisis. Also, destructive phenomena affected trade, crafts, the army and state power. However, many historians argue that the main trouble of the empire was primarily a spiritual crisis. It was he who launched the processes that later led to the collapse of the once powerful Roman Empire.
Crisis as such is defined by the time interval from 235 to 284. However, one should not forget that this period was the time of the most striking manifestations of destruction for the state, which, alas, were already irreversible, despite the efforts of some emperors.
A brief description of the Roman Empire at the beginning of the third century
Ancient society is distinguished by its heterogeneity. It includes completely different segments of the population, so as long as they exist in a specific and orderly system, then you cantalk about the flourishing of this society and state power in general.
Some historians see the factors of the crisis of the Roman Empire in the very foundations on which Roman society was 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 to invest in it a minimum of effort and money. The influx of slaves was constant, and their price allowed we althy Romans not to worry about the maintenance of slaves bought on the market. The dead or the sick were always replaced by new ones, but the decline 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 classic crisis of the slave society in all its manifestations.
If we are talking about a spiritual crisis, then often its origins are seen in the second century. It was then that society gradually but surely began to move away from the once accepted principles of the harmonious development of man, the former worldview and ideology. The new emperors were increasingly striving for sole power, rejecting the participation of the senate in solving state issues. Over time, this paved a real chasm between different segments of the population and the rulers of the empire. They no longer had anyone to rely on, and the emperors became toys in the hands of socially active and cohesive 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. In contrast to previous times, they became more united and representeda worthy adversary to the Roman soldiers, who have lost incentives and some of the privileges that previously inspired them in battle.
It is easy to understand how destabilized the situation in the empire by the beginning of the third century. Therefore, the crisis phenomena became so destructive for the state and completely destroyed its foundations. At the same time, one should not forget that the Roman Empire faced 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 are considered by most historians to be the most important and significant. However, in fact, one should not underestimate the influence of other causes 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 reason in as much detail as possible and analyze it.
Military factor
By the third century, the empire's army had weakened significantly. First of all, this is due to the loss by the emperors of their authority and influence on the generals. They could no longer rely on the soldiers in certain matters, and they, in turn, lost a lot of incentives that previously encouraged them to faithfully serve their state. Many soldiers were faced with the fact that the generals appropriated a large share of their salaries. Therefore, the army gradually turned into an uncontrollable group with weapons in its hands, lobbying only for its own interests.
Onagainst the backdrop of a weakening army, dynastic crises began to appear more and more clearly. Each new emperor, despite his attempts to maintain power, could no longer effectively manage 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 managing the army for the benefit of the development of the state and the protection of its lands.
Gradually, the army lost 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 was practically no one to recruit recruits. And those who were already in the ranks of the soldiers did not feel like risking their lives for the sake of constantly replacing emperors. It is worth noting that large landowners, faced with an acute shortage of slaves, and, consequently, with certain difficulties in farming, began to treat their workers very carefully and did not at all want to part with them for the sake of replenishing the army. This situation led to the fact that recruits were people who were absolutely unsuitable for combat missions.
In order to compensate for the shortage and losses in the ranks of the army, the military leaders began to take on the service of the barbarians. This made it possible to increase the size of the army, but at the same time led to the penetration of foreigners into various structures of government. This could not but weaken the administrative apparatus and the army as a whole.
The military question played a very important role in the development of the crisis. After alllack of funds and defeats in armed conflicts led to an increase in tension between the people and the soldiers. The Romans no longer saw them as defenders and respected citizens, but as marauders and bandits who robbed local residents without hesitation. In turn, this negatively affected the economic situation in the country, and also undermined 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, aggravated the economic and demographic manifestations of the crisis.
The economic crisis of the Roman Empire
In the development of the crisis, economic reasons also contributed, which, according to many historians, became the main mechanism that led to the decline of the empire. We have already mentioned that by the third century the slave-owning society of the empire began to gradually decline. This primarily affected the middle class landowners. They stopped receiving an influx of cheap labor, which made it unprofitable to farm within small villas and land holdings.
Large landowners also noticeably lost in profits. There were not enough workers to process all the properties and they had to significantly reduce the number of cultivated territories. So that the lands would not be empty, they began to lease them. Thus, a large plot was divided into several small ones, which, in turn, were surrendered to both free people andslaves. Gradually, a new system of columnar bearings is being formed. The workers who rented the land became known as "colons", and the plot itself became known as "parcel".
Such relationships were very beneficial for landowners, because the colonies themselves were responsible for cultivating the land, preserving the crop and regulating labor productivity. They paid their landlord in natural products and were completely self-sufficient. However, colonial relations only exacerbated the economic crisis that had begun. Cities began to gradually decline, urban landowners, unable to lease plots, went bankrupt, and individual provinces became more and more distant from each other. This process is closely connected with the desire of some owners to separate themselves. They built huge villas, fenced with high fences, and around them were numerous colonial houses. 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 from the moment the landowners were separated, the empire's economy began to rapidly collapse.
Each new emperor sought to improve the financial situation by increasing taxes. But this burden became more and more exorbitant for the ruined owners. This led to popular riots, often entire settlements turned for help to military leaders or large landowners who were trusted among the people. For a small fee, they took care of everything with the tax collectors. Many justredeemed privileges for themselves and further separated themselves from the emperor.
This development only exacerbated the crisis in the Roman Empire. Gradually, the number of crops decreased by almost half, the development of trade stopped, which was largely affected by the decrease in the amount of precious metal in the composition of Roman coins, the cost of transporting goods regularly increased.
Many historians claim that the Roman people actually disappeared during this period. All layers of society were separated and the state in the general sense of the word began to disintegrate into separate warring groups. 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 rich strata of the population became more and more actively isolated, they opposed themselves to the government of the empire and lobbied for their own interests. Their land holdings gradually began to resemble real feudal principalities, where the owner had almost unlimited power and support. It was difficult for the emperors to oppose the we althy Romans with any bloc supporting them. In many situations, they clearly lost to their opponents. Moreover, the senators have almost completely retired from state affairs. They did not occupy significant positions, and in the provinces they often assumed the functions of a second power. Within this framework, the senators created their own courts, prisons and, if necessary, gave protection to criminal elements that were persecuted by the empire.
Against the background of the growing stratification of society, the city and its entire administrative apparatus were losing their significance, social tension was growing. This led to the withdrawal 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 the causes were spiritual differences.
During the decline of the Roman Empire and the manifestation of the failure of its ideology, all kinds of religious movements began to raise their heads on the territory of the state.
Christians stood apart, receiving support from the people, due to the fact that religion itself gave a certain idea of stability and faith in the future. The Romans massively began to be baptized and after a while the representatives of this religious movement began to represent 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 throughout the empire, sometimes they simply hid from the army, and sometimes they resisted the soldiers with the help of the people.
The spiritual crisis further divided the Romans and pushed them apart. If social inequality provoked tension, then the spiritual crisis did notleft absolutely no hope for the reunification of society within a single state.
Political reasons
If you ask historians about what contributed to the crisis of the Roman Empire to a greater extent, they will definitely name the political reason. The dynastic crisis became a catalyst for the collapse of the state and the institution of power.
Against the background 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 split into two parts. The eastern regions were economically more developed, and they were in dire need of 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 mostly landowners lived, advocated independence. They sought to oppose themselves to state power, relying on the columns and the people.
Political instability manifested itself in the frequent change of emperors, who at the same time became hostages of those social groups that supported them. Thus, "soldier" emperors, enthroned by legionnaires, and "senatorial" emperors appeared. They were supported by senators and some disparate sections of society.
The new Severan dynasty 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 faced all the crisis phenomena shaking the state from all sides.
The emperors of the new age and their reforms
In 1933, 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, in his new post, he decided to carry out an 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 regions of the empire. The provincials enjoyed the opportunity to receive high positions and significant salaries. The new emperor gave the legionaries a number of benefits and indulgences, the Romans were especially surprised by the permission to marry and leave the military barracks in order to equip a house for their family.
Septimius tried with all his might to show his isolation from the Senate. He announced the succession of power and declared his two sons as his heirs. New people from the provinces began to come to the Senate, many regions received a new status and rights during the reign of the first North. Historians evaluate this policy as a transition to a military dictatorship. It was also fueled by successes in foreign policy. The emperor had quite successfully conducted several military campaigns, strengthening his borders.
The sudden death of the North brought his sons to power. One of them - Caracalla - took advantage of the support of the army and killed his brother. In gratitude, he took a number of measures to secure the special position of the legionnaires. For example, the emperor was the only one who could judge a warrior, and the salary of soldiers rose to incredible proportions. But against this background, the economic crisis manifested itself more clearly, there was not enough money in the treasury, and Caracalla severely persecuted the we althy landowners of the western regions, taking their property into their hands. The emperor ordered a change in the composition of the coin and deprived the Roman citizens of their privileges. Previously, they were exempted from a number of taxes, but now all residents of the provinces and regions were equalized in rights and had to equally bear the tax burden. This increased social tension in the empire.
Alexander Sever: a new stage
With each new ruler, the situation in the state worsened, the empire gradually approached its crisis that ruined it. In 222, Alexander Severus ascended the throne in an attempt to stabilize the situation in the Roman Empire. He went halfway to the senators and returned some of their former functions to them, while the impoverished Romans received small plots of land and equipment for their cultivation.
During the thirteen years of his reign, the emperor could not significantly change the situation in the state. The crisis of trade relations led to the fact that many segments of the population began to receive salaries with products of production, and some taxes were levied in the same way. The outer borders were also undefended and subjected to frequent barbarian raids. All this only destabilized the situation in the empire and led to a conspiracy against Alexander Severus. His assassination was the beginning of a crisis that completely shook the once great Roman Empire.
Climax of the crisis
S235th year, the empire is shaken by a leapfrog of emperors, all this is accompanied by civil wars and numerous social problems. The empire waged continuous wars on its borders, the Romans often suffered defeats and once even surrendered their emperor. The rulers succeeded each other, proteges of senators overthrew proteges of legionnaires and vice versa.
During this period, many provinces united and declared their independence. The land magnates raised powerful rebellions, and the Arabs confidently seized pieces of the empire, turning them into their own territories. The empire needed a strong government that would stabilize the situation. Many saw her in the new emperor Diocletian.
The end of the crisis and its consequences
In 284, Emperor Diocletian ascended the throne. He managed to stop the crisis and for almost a hundred years, relative calm reigned in the state. In many ways, this result was ensured by the strengthening of the 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 lavish ceremonial, 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 taxburden more heavy.
It is worth noting that the emperor severely persecuted Christians and under him mass executions and arrests of followers of this religion became habitual.
The emperor's hard hand managed to stop the crisis, but only for a while. Subsequent rulers did not have such power, which led to the intensification of crisis phenomena. In the end, the Roman Empire, exhausted and torn apart by internal contradictions, began to surrender under the onslaught of the barbarians and finally ceased to exist as a single state in the year 476 after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
