Rome’s border walls were the beginning of its end | Hacker News Reader

Rome’s border walls were the beginning of its end

nationalgeographic.com

17 pointssmacktoward24 comments

This is a rediculous ahistorical argument.

The Roman empire did not collapse right after Hadrian. Indeed, the next two emperors after Hadrian are often called "good emperors" (Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius), and Rome was quite strong then. I don't know of anyone else who seriously claims that building the border walls in any way led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the fortifications were specifically designed to make the empire easier to defend, and given what happened afterwards, there's decent evidence that these fortifications did help in the empire's defense.

Anyone interested in the history of the western Roman empire would be well-served to listen to the excellent "History of Rome" podcast by Mike Duncan: https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/ For this purpose, you should listen to episode #179 ("The End") at https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/201... . Duncan says that there isn't just one cause of the fall of the western Roman empire - instead, they were overwhelmed by a confluence of multiple factors. Duncan says, "The decline and fall... is not going to be able to be explained away by 1 or 2 simple causes... (each of the many problems) played off other in a synergistic orgy of destruction". Episode #179 discusses this in more detail. Indeed, there were efforts near the end that might have saved it.

The real issues are complicated and don't easily fit into a "left" or "right" discussion. If anything, the beginning of the end was that the border walls were penetrated, not that border walls were built, so you could argue that the border walls were necessary to have allowed the empire to have lasted as long as it did. On the other hand, part of the reason they were penetrated was because the Romans didn't let the Germans have real power within their empire and didn't do a good job integrating Germans into their empire. On the gripping hand, in many ways the collapse was in part because Rome had become accustomed to fielding armies by paying mercenaries who were loyal only to their commanders, instead of having soldiers who saw themselves as Roman citizens fighting for the Roman government... and as Duncan notes, paying off an 'other' to not invade is not a lasting solution. ("The empire was no longer able to raise a national army, it could only pay for protection. And this, I can assure you, is an unsustainable model of self-defense.")

And of course, only the western Roman empire fell in 476; the eastern Roman empire continued for about another thousand years.

I'll add my own viewpoint. One of the biggest problems of Roman empire as a whole (compared to the previous republic) was its failure to have a way to peacefully select the next ruler. This lack of legitimacy led to occasional outbreaks of civil war that repeatedly sapped Roman strength. I think that is a key problem that led to the fall of the western Roman empire when it did. The eastern Roman empire had same problem as well. For example, legitimacy issues in the eastern Roman empire led to serious problems after Basil II, and their civil wars fatally weakened them.

There are definitely lessons to be learned from Rome (and history in general), but that requires more careful examination of what actually happened.

The idea of a singular fall of the Roman Empire is also way overemphasized. The standard date of the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire was not seen as momentous at the time and largely arises from Gibbon's work--the actual economic and cultural shock of the fall depends on where in the empire you lived, and took a few centuries to play out.

It's also worth pointing out that Rome was not the only empire to fall apart at this time. The Parthians and the Han Empire (i.e., Persia and China) both collapsed in the third century, contemporaneously with Rome's Crisis of the Third Century. And, honestly, I'm of the opinion that said crisis is a better date for the end of the Roman Empire than Gibbon's preferred date.

To piggyback this a bit: I highly recommend YouTuber Shaun’s videos on this topic

[Stefan Molyneux’s Fall of Rome - A Response] (https://youtu.be/BHW3Y_p2llo)

[Immigration and the Fall of Rome] (https://youtu.be/WqCCx4wj79o)

i just want to give you kudos for use of 'On the gripping hand'

Am I wrong for believing that the author has drastically oversimplified their argument to make it seem like walls were the downfall of the roman empire? I've studied the fall of the roman empire for years on and off, and am no expert, but in decades prior, not once were the existence of walls ever mentioned as the reason for the downfall of society.

Some societies have over-relied on such defenses, true. But that is not the same as a pure causation. In those situations the problem is cultural, and either the people have become lazy and or divided.

I'm not saying you didn't read the article, but the article is from 2012 and is about archaeology.

I've been listening to the fall of Rome podcast. Never the walls have been mentioned there either. It seems a cheap try to make a political argument.

The author seems a bit more nuanced. Seems reasonable to point out that "walls were the reason for the downfall of society" != "beginning of the downfall of their society".

the subtitle should perhaps read 'Rome’s border walls coincided with the beginning of its end' or similar; the article doesn't really argue that the walls caused the downfall, more documenting the associated history

for whatever it's worth the title is 'Roman Frontiers', the HN title is the subtitle

The whole discussion around border walls has been thrown into the theater of the absurd.

The issues are simple even if they are hard to implement.

    1. Do we want to control who comes over our border or not? 
    A. Where are the weakest points of entry?
    B. How do we protect those points?

Any politician who has a negative opinion of border walls or fences should have to answer the first question and parts A and B with a solid plan.

Stop the rhetoric and don't disagree with a plan for border security just because you don't like the person who suggested it.

Yes, you are wrong. It's clear you haven't even read the article. The article is an overview of (semi-)recent* archeological research into Roman frontier fortifications. The general conclusion that it draws was that the Romans focused too much on fortifying their frontiers, which provided them with a sense of complacency. Once the frontiers were breached, it was already over. Sorta like the Maginot line. It also suggests that fortification-building towards the end of the empire was a symptom of the decline itself, not a cause (or cure).

All the off-topic comments here about politics are by people who didn't read the article.

*It's from 2012.

Nah.

The real problem was the Marian reforms. With professional army the imperium was able to expand to a size that was impractical to rule. Also success was so thorough that there were no strong enemies left to practice your troops against. And no enemies that would weld the society into single cohesive nation. War protects from despotism, as Kant said. When you don't have to fear war, the wannabe despots start to rob what they can.

Hadrian only saved what he could. And giving the empire some 400 years more life as he did so. And the walls of Constantinople lasted still thousand years after Hadrian had led the way of wall building.

Now if you wish to connect dots to possible downfall of U.S. Then the critical things would be instituting selective service after Vietnam war. And then collapse of soviet union and now U.S. is also lacking credible enemy. With any luck China will quickly rise as competitor.

I love reading about Ancient Rome and this article has some really interesting information I’d never known before. The origin of the word “limits” I found particularly interesting.

Unfortunately the title and overall aim of the article detract from all the good information it contains. In particular, the article’s attempt to remain topical and relevant by linking Rome’s downfall to an issue we face today do not do justice to the well-documented and well-researched conclusions historians have drawn to date. If it offered new evidence, that might be a different story. It feels like a rehashing of “Rome expanded so far its resources were spread thin” but with the focus being on the wall itself, which is a little disingenuous. So it’s hard to shake the feeling that this is a thinly veiled political piece, which is really unfortunate because there is a lot of great knowledge mixed in.

The article is from 2012, so hardly aimed at an issue we face "today."

It explicitly references the US-Mexico border. Although I did assume it was written post-2016, the point should still stand.

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a desolation, they call it peace." (from Agricola by Tacitus, a Caledonian chief describing Rome, 98AD)

This is what Rome was doing before it built its limes, brutally and indiscriminately conquering their frontiers. Feels like this is being indirectly advocated for.. which is odd, considering its modern comparison.

Can support other comments in this thread from my reading of Adrian Goldsworthy's whole catalog.. Rome's decline was drawn out and complicated; it would be simplistic and wrong-headed to say it was because it built walls on its frontiers.

Which of the following two is most likely to have precipitated the fall? The debasement of the sesterce, or the desire the defend the empire using walls? Correlation != causation

Is this article implying a US-Mexico border wall would be the the beginning of the US's end?

As a counter example, why hasn't China crumbled like Rome?

China did crumble. It was conquered by the tribes the Great Wall was (possibly) meant to keep out. Then it overthrew them. Multiple times.

You should read the article and find out for yourself. Let us know when you're done!

Edit: Fair enough.

I tried but was met with an un-closable modal and I didn't feel like creating a NG account so I closed it.

Construction of the Great Wall is actually considered a major reason for the fall of China's short-lived first empire (Qin, BC 221-206). By forcing people into inhuman labor, it fostered rebellions.

The title implies that, which I think is the aim. It’s a little clickbaity and probably intended to cause that exact reaction. The article itself doesn’t really make that implication as strongly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com