Internal crisis

The Roman Empire was unarguably the largest and mightiest empire to have ever flourished during its time.The rise of the Empire of Rome was based on large scale imperial expansion including the geographical shift in the centre of gravity from the ancient world to Italy that arouse from a new socio- economic scenario of growth ,high productivity, rise of trade and towns and improved standard of living. Its conquests were unmatched and its voluminous expanse, rivalled by none. The empire prospered under the leadership of its leaders and a steady supply of slaves.It saw the introduction of large scale agriculture marked by growth of huge farming tracts known as latifundia. Roman Republic first united this large scale landed property worked upon by gang slaves in the countryside on a major scale..But the third century Rome attributes(one of the) causes for its internal crisis to slavery. The sudden end to the supply of slaves, economic, social and political fragmentation set the stage for the onset of anarchy. The period of unrest was followed by the rise of Feudalism which transformed the world. The essay will elucidate upon the aforementioned internal crises encountered by the empire and how they lead to the eventual decline of the empire.

Slavery as a mode of production was established first in Greece but it was in Rome that it heralded the classical phase of the Roman civilization. According to Keith Hopkins there are seven processes that affected the growth of slavery in Rome: continuous wars, influx of booty, investment in land formation of large estates, impoverishment of peasantry, immigration of peasants to towns and growth of urban market. Slavery is held by some as a reason of labour shortage and consequently, a reason for decline of rural and industrial productivity. The technological stagnation resulted from a large number of slaves. Augustus’ pacification of foreign policy caused a supply shock in the slave market. The declining market accentuated the need for a working middle class in order for the continuity of trade and surplus. The easy supply of slaves was the biggest deterrent for technological advancement. While at the same time the propertied class maintained its distaste for trade. The consequence for all this was an inchoate crisis in the social and economic system by the early third century that developed into a pervasive breakdown of traditional political order. The empire faced attacks from the various groups around its borders–the German tribes, the Goths and Visigoths, the Huns and so forth–which further increased the cost of maintaining the structure. Eventually invaders not only cut off outlying regions, but penetrated to the heart of the empire. The old trade routes were broken apart, the towns declined and the individual members of the landed aristocracy were forced increasingly to fend for themselves. They did so through various processes that led to a uniform class of dependent peasants- some former slaves and some former free peasants.

Another factor equally important which operated to accomplish the decline of the roman civilization was probably imperialism. Nearly all the problems which plagued the country were traceable to some extent to the conquest of the empire. It was this which was largely responsible for the creation of the city mob for the growth of slavery. The strife between classes and social groups in unison with the political corruption contributed further to the decline. The need to maintain a huge military machine and the influx of alien ideas which the Romans could not easily assimilate, exhausted the state. Slavery caused all technological development to grow slow which led to little or no technical progress in the long run. The lack of technical knowledge led to overall inefficiency which was a factor for inflation. Arnold J. Toynbee states that an economy based upon slave labour precluded a middle class with buying power. The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. The lavish lives of Emperors and increasing military expenditure, however, continued. In summary, financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded. Consequently, due to economic failure, the enemies of the Empire had better armour and weapons as well as larger forces. The decrepit social order offered so little to its subjects that many saw the barbarian invasion as liberations. This was directly linked to decline in slavery.

The four pillars on which the Roman Empire rested includes the emperor, the army, civil service and municipality. When each of these weakened, the structure as the whole stood on the verge of collapse. During the first and second centuries of the Common Era people of Rome enjoyed peace and prosperity. But after that the empire was put in a chaos by the rising instability of the administration structure. The government and the army did not conquer any more new lands .At the same time the heavy burden of maintaining the existing frontiers, extending up to 6000 miles, fell upon them along with the fear of attack from the barbarians of the north and the new Persian power that emerged from the south. The empire depended on the army and the emperor for the maintenance of peace and security. But both of them were in a sort of unstable position. By now there was a shift in the answer to the question of who could rule the empire that is a shift from an Italian to a non-Italian. Even the army became less Roman. The thirst for power used different legions against each other. Almost all of these rulers were dethroned one by one using violence. It is said that between 217 and 285 among the 29 emperors who ceased power one after the other, out of which only one died a natural death. Diocletian (284-305) indeed tried to rescue the kingdom by dividing it into 2-the western and the eastern. The Eastern part (Adriatic region) was under the rule of Constantine (306-337) who made Constantinople his capital. It survived for another 1000 years with well-placed trade and defence along with bread and circuses transplanted from Rome. The western part however could not resist the attack of the Barbarians. Let us now throw light into the decline of the empire with economy in specific terms.

The economy of Rome was predominantly agrarian. Though nature was generous enough to always provide the empire a surplus, to have exploited the same, there existed (as mentioned above, technological stagnation) simple techniques like the human hands and muscles. As the productivity decreased invention of new techniques did not actually happen .The working condition was improved by stopping the inter-tribal wars in the Barbarian west and conflicts between rulers in the Hellenistic east. Irrigation system of Egypt and Carthage was also improved. In spite of all these the economy was bound to be damaged in the third century. To add to the worse plague, civil war and barbarian attacks took place. Labour became scarce on the land and the trade declined. According to H.Heaton this was a situation where the state had to take more out of less, like a larger army, a larger civil service etc.

The booty was now collected from the victims of civil war and from those who offended the emperor. There was also debasement of currency in the years of unbalanced budgets. Forced unpaid labour taxation became prevalent. Poll tax, land tax, customs duty; sales tax and inheritance tax are some of them. The collection of the taxes was the responsibility of the municipality. The crisis of the third century impaired the ability of the municipalities to raise the taxes. Unpaid services were demanded from people who were forced to form guilds (collegia).For instance the shipping guild was expected to carry grain free from Egypt and the bakers to bake bread for free. When victims tried to escape from this guild a decree forbade them to move and made their memberships in the guilds compulsory and hereditary. The officials who supervised the guilds showed more interest in what his imperial master got out of it. Consequently the guild policy reduced the income on which it was depending. Urban industries weakened and the towns declined further.

Beginning in the third century, the emperors had to increase the military establishment despite a growing manpower shortage caused by a declining birthrate. This decision led to Germanization of the army and to German colonization within the Empire. Thus, the West was becoming “barbarized”. Civilians distrusted their own armies and the soldiers conspired against their commanders who in turn wanted to do away with the king of that time. Thus new emperors were proclaimed. Some of these emperors survived for only a few months, dispatched by rival armies or even by the troops who had recently proclaimed them. But with the accession of Diocletian in 284 AD, the empire enjoyed greater stability for the next two decades, and some of the material and financial damage was repaired, although not entirely successfully.

In the context of economic instability the empire looked back to the land for income. In the provinces of Spain, Gaul, Britain and Rumania there was granting of land to veterans. The recipient of the land developed production, sale and export (to Rome) of goods in the piece of land granted to him.

As the state administration weakened the control of local life fell into the hands of the landlord. He became the neighbourhoods ruler, fortifying his villa, policing the area, collecting tax and even trying cases in his own court. His estate became self-sufficing economic and administrative unit. The western roman empire ended with the class of great landowners exercising far reaching power over the coloni and slaves,with stagnant or decaying town and with a shrinking commerce. This marked a new mode of production, namely the feudal mode of production.In this way, a new way of organising production took root. The reorganising occurred in such a way that occupation and social status became hereditary and fixed. These changes diminished the freeman’s mastery over himself or his power to determine his occupation. It reduced the distance between him and the slave, and slowly the latter along with free domestic servants and workshop labourers passed into the condition of serfdom.

This transition from slavery to feudal serfdom was a gradual process. Another reason for this transition was that when the conquests ceased in Rome, slave supply also ceased. This led to the end of an internal sale of slaves since each family of slave owners tried to preserve its own hereditary laws. Thus, there was an improvement in the conditions of the already existing slaves in the society. As a consequence, slaves grew more attached to the households or the lands of their masters.

The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay: the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest: and,as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The introduction of Christianity also had some effect on the decline and fall of the roman empire. The emperors anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to the sovereign and to the enemy: the vigour of the military Empire was relaxed. In conclusion, the seditious social culture, political fragmentation and economic debacles tamed the mighty Roman Empire which was later crippled by external factors. The decline gave rise to the idea of feudalism which transcended the world into a new phase of existence. It allowed for a more complex exertion of individual hegemony for those in power and further dteriorated the position of the lower echelons of society by imposition and forceful enforcement.