Why Rome Fell (a Condensed Version) :: essays research papers fc

wherefore Rome Fell (a condensed version)The sun had long ago set, the newborn moon about peeked out from behind ascattering of thin, high clouds. From a vantage point atop one of seven hills Icould see glimpses of how this nifty city must once have looked. The mammothbuildings seem to confound their long years and are once again as they were huge, cultism inspiring, it is as if a portal in time had opened and I am afforded aglimpse into what was Rome. What could have effortd this once master of onlycities to fall? This composing pass on attempt to describe some of the explanations broadly speaking accepted, or should I say argued, and possibly shed some light up on whatcould have caused the fall of what was, unquestionably, the most powerful empirein history.I feel that I must begin with the explanations given by Edward gibbon.While few agree entirely with his logic, his Decline and radiate on the RomanEmpire is certainly unavoidable in a paper such as this. His work cou ld be bestsummed up by the word confusing. According to David Jordan, the causes forRomes fall march across the pages of the Decline and Fall, patently withoutpattern, and seemingly unrelated to each other. This quote taken from theseventh chapter of Jordans gibbon and his Roman Empire sum up my feelingsconcerning the work however, I will attempt to show some of Gibbons Causes forthis decline.Two of Gibbons causes are the political blunders of its emperors andtheir see for personal glory. These are especially obvious in his chapterson Constantine. In them Gibbon accuses the emperor of destroying Rome for his aver personal glory. Another cause would have to be the anti-Roman nature ofChristianity. Gibbons argues that the insensible penetration of Christianitywas fatal to the empire by undermining the genius of a great people. On apessimistic note, Gibbon also lists as a causes the inevitable collapse of all gracious institutions, some arguments on the corrupting nature of luxury, a nd somedetailed reflections on the vanity of human wishes. While the argumentspresented are lengthily backed, they seem to bewray in explaining the true natureof the fall.Others, many others disagree with Gibbons explanations and proffertheir own for approval. One such author is David Woomersley who in his work,The Transformation of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , openly attacksGibbons work calling it a inconsiderate instrument with which to dissect thesecenturies. That quote, taken from chapter sixteen, is one of many which showthe lurid disagreement of the two ideas.