The Middle Ages: The Byzantine and Islamic Empires

Sample Lesson - Introduction

Lesson 1.01: The Fall of the West and the Rise of the East

This statue of Constantine: The bronze-y representation of the Western Roman spirit gone Eastern.
(Source)

Here's a dose of obvious: sequels are usually better if you're familiar the original story. It goes Part One, then Part Two; Semester A, then Semester B; Episode IV, then Episode V. We argue this formula shouldn't be messed with even when studying history.

To understand the Byzantine Empire (a.k.a Eastern Roman Empire), you have to understand the Roman Empire (a.k.a Western Roman Empire)…or least the part where it crumbled to bits. Here's our overly simplified rundown of "fall" of Rome and the "rise" of the Byzantine Empire.

1. Roman Emperor Constantine rocks the Western world by favoring Christianity (illegal at the time) and moving the empire's capital from Rome to the city of Constantinople in the East.
2. The Roman Empire has a series of loser rulers who generally mismanaged the whole show.
3. Barbarian (read: non-Roman) tribes want in on the decaying empire's land and resources and rise to positions of power.
4. The Eastern Roman Empire seemingly resists the same decay and invasion that plagues the West.
5. The Western Roman Empire becomes a shadow of its former self, and is, for all empiric intents and purposes, finished.
6. The East, run from the capital Constantinople, is kind of "meh" about the whole decay of Rome thing and is decidedly solidifying itself into what would become known as the Byzantine Empire.

While this list is pleasantly streamlined, pinpointing the exact cause of the West Roman Empire's fall isn't simple at all. Historians have been trying to sort that out for years.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 1.1.01a: Conversion: All the Cool Kids Are Doing It

If you ask us, it seems like an odd move for the Roman emperor to buck the status quo of a stable-ish empire in favor the day's pesky, illegal religion. Well, according to ye old historical accounts, Emperor Constantine felt he had a good reason to do so. Here's how it all went down.

I Dreamed a Dream of Christ Gone By

In 312 C.E., Roman Emperor Constantine was enjoying the classic Roman emperor gig—maintaining law and order, wearing strappy sandals, expanding the empire's territory—until one night he had a dream.

On the night before a big, important battle, Constantine saw the Greek letters chi (sounds like a hard c), and rho (sounds like an r) in the sky. "Of course," he thought, "these are the letters that begin the name Christ. It's a sign."

Not sure we'd come to the same conclusion with our 21st-century brains, but that's Constantine thought. He felt compelled to put these letters on his shield, believing that they would protect him in battle. And, as far as he could tell, it totally worked. He and his army won the battle. Before anyone could say "conversion," Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire east, away from Rome entirely and set up shop in Constantinople. (Yes, he did name the city after himself.)

How About That Conversion?

On top moving the whole capital, Constance legitimized and legalized Christianity in a fancy document called the Edict of Milan. The meant he acknowledged Christianity as a real religion and gave Roman citizens the okay to practice it. Constantine's conversion and eventual legitimization of Christianity was like calling up a player from the minor league to the majors; Christianity was definitely in the big league with this move. All of a sudden, Christians all over the Roman Empire were able to worship without fear of being persecuted, thrown into the slammer, or turned into lion-food. Furthermore, this solidified the relationship between church and state…literally.

Not all historians agree that Constantine's conversion was actually sincere, though. The dream makes for a sensational piece of rhetoric, but it's hard to tell if it really happened. And there's no way go back in time and make Constantine confess the truth, so historians are left to theorize.

It's important to note that despite Christianity being illegal at the time, more and more people were converting to it anyway. Because of that, many historians think Constantine's adoption of Christianity as just a shrewd move to deal with the ever-growing presence of the Christians in the empire. Constantine could throw these Christian's a bone, while still hedging his bets with the Roman gods on the side. No one can say for sure.

Our Man, Eusbebius

Since we can't go back and chat with Constantine, we have to rely on historical texts to give us a clue on what went down…or what people wanted us to think went down.

Allow us to introduce Eusebius, a.k.a the Father of Church History. He wrote an important work entitled Ecclesiastical History, aponderous tome that basically chronicled the history of the early Catholic Church. Eusebius also made himself Constantine's go-to advisor, which, in our opinion, makes him pretty qualified to write the end-all, be-all account of Constantine's conversion.

(At least one from a Christian perspective.)

Read Eusebius' (don't worry, it's not too long) version of Constantine's dream. 

As you read, take note of

• what happened in Constantine's dream and its aftermath.
• signs of Eusbius' bias or religious agenda. (The guy isn't called the Father of Church History for no reason. He clearly has a bias.)

CHAPTER XXVII.
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance.

While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven; while one alone who had pursued an entirely opposite course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme God during his whole life, had formal I him to be the Saviour and Protector of his empire, and the Giver of every good thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, manifestations of his power and very many tokens: and considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other, being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of death (4) ); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his father's God alone.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ACCORDINGLY he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person.

But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS.

At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

CHAPTER XXIX.

He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on ; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.

CHAPTER XXX.

AT dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period.

From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner.

The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.

CHAPTER XXXII.

These things were done shortly afterwards. But at the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other God save Him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen.

They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had appeared was the symbol of immortality, and the trophy of that victory over death which He had gained in time past when sojourning on earth. They taught him also the causes of His advent, and explained to him the true account of His incarnation. Thus he was instructed in these matters, and was impressed with wonder at the divine manifestation which had been presented to his sight.

Comparing, therefore, the heavenly vision with the interpretation given, he found his judgment confirmed; and, in the persuasion that the knowledge of these things had been imparted to him by Divine teaching, he determined thenceforth to devote himself to the reading of the Inspired writings.

Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny. 

(Source)

Did Constantine and Christianity "Break" the Roman Empire?

Some historians say that the rise of Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Ever since Constantine's legitimization, Romans all over the empire were openly converting to Christianity. A bunch stopped believing in the Roman gods, and stopped worshipping the emperor as a god. Some of them even stopped paying taxes. (Bet Constantine's successors loved that.)

Moving the capital to Constantinople was significant, too. While moving a capital doesn't necessarily mean death for an empire (just remember that New York used to be the capital of the United States, and we're still here), the move changed something crucial in the Roman Empire. Traditionally, the western city of Rome in and of itself was a huge part of the "Roman identity." So if you take the seat of the "Roman" Empire out of Rome, you're changing up the formula.

The move also ensured that an alternative Roman political and economic culture sprung up in the East. It laid its groundwork and meant a new set of noble Romans existed there. If you have an alternative hot spot city, the preservation of the original is less essential, leaving the issues in the West more vulnerable to decay.

Here's the thing, though: you can't pin the whole decline of the Western Roman Empire on Constantine. During his reign as emperor, he initiated many policies that actually stabilized the empire for a time. Constantine strengthened the economy by introducing a new currency (the solidus) that went on to be used for more than a millennium. He also fended off the barbarian invaders who were knocking at the door of the empire's borders.

In the end, it's unclear if Constantine's religious reform kicked off the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That's our agonizingly vague answer. We told you—historians can't agree.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 1.1.01b: The Decline of the Roman Empire

You've probably heard that Rome wasn't built in a day. Well, it didn't fall in a day either. The decline of the Roman Empire, specifically in the West, happened steadily over more than two centuries and historians can't agree on why.

More likely than not, it fell as the result of a bunch of different factors. Some are convinced that it was the result of barbarian invasions, while others firmly believe that it was due to the reforms around Christianity. Still others maintain that it was because of weak and corrupt leaders or an unstable economy. Honestly, there are so many factors it's amazing it even lasted for a single century, much less five.

Read a succinct rundown of the Western Roman Empire's decline here.

As you read note the following:

• The idea of a Roman worldview is one of Rome's greatest unifying forces. That's important because the loss of that worldview is basically equivalent with Rome's decline.
• The author regularly refers to the influence of Greek culture on the Romans. This will be important later on because the Byzantine Empire thought of itself as Greek and Roman.
• The author references Edward Gibbon. There's more of him below.

Mr. Gibbon

Edward Gibbon was the guy who for years had the final word on the fall of Rome. He wasn't messing around; it took him six whole volumes and 12 years (1776 – 1788) to say what he had to about the fall of Rome. Gibbon waxed poetic about the barbarian invaders, the weak leaders, the unstable economy, the rise of Christianity, the corruption of the Roman people and just about everything else that had anything at all to do with Rome. Too many rowdy spectators at the Coliseum? Pigeon poop on Emperor Augustus' bust? A pothole in the Via Appia? Surely it must have contributed to the Empire's demise somehow.

Someday, if you find yourself with a lot of time on your hands or you're trapped under something heavy, you should check it out. It is, after all, the foremost analysis of the fall of Rome. Lucky for you, someone has condensed what he had to say into a brief selection. 

Read an excerpt of that selection right here:

…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 story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.

The victorious legions, which, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. 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 their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigor of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.

The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the translation of the seat of empire; but this history has already shewn that the powers of government were divided rather than removed. The throne of Constantinople was erected in the East; while the West was still possessed by a series of emperors who held their residence in Italy and claimed their equal inheritance of the legions and provinces. This dangerous novelty impaired the strength, and fomented the vices, of a double reign; the instruments of an oppressive and arbitrary system were multiplied; and a vain emulation of luxury, not of merit, was introduced and supported between the degenerate successors of Theodosius.

Extreme distress, which unites the virtue of a free people, embitters the factions of a declining monarchy. The hostile favourites of Arcadius and Honorius betrayed the republic to its common enemies; and the Byzantine court beheld with indifference, perhaps with pleasure, the disgrace of Rome, the misfortunes of Italy, and the loss of the West. Under the succeeding reigns, the alliance of the two empires was restored; but the aid of the Oriental Romans was tardy, doubtful, and ineffectual; and the national schism of the Greeks and Latins was enlarged by the perpetual difference of language and manners, of interest, and even of religion.

Yet the salutary event approved in some measure the judgment of Constantine. During a long period of decay, his impregnable city repelled the victorious armies of Barbarians, protected the wealth of Asia, and commanded, both in peace and war, the important straits which connect the Euxine and Mediterranean seas. The foundation of Constantinople more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East than to the ruin of the West.

As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.

Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.

Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies, and perpetual correspondence, maintained the communion of distant churches: and the benevolent temper of the gospel was strengthened, though confined, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics.

The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but, if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed, which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the Barbarian proselytes of the North.

If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.

This awful revolution may be usefully applied to the instruction of the present age. It is the duty of a patriot to prefer and promote the exclusive interest and glory of his native country; but a philosopher may be permitted to enlarge his views, and to consider Europe as one great republic, whose various inhabitants have attained almost the same level of politeness and cultivation. The balance of power will continue to fluctuate, and the prosperity of our own or the neighbouring kingdoms may be alternately exalted or depressed; but these partial events cannot essentially injure our general state of happiness, the system of arts, and laws, and manners, which so advantageously distinguish, above the rest of mankind, the Europeans and their colonies.

The savage nations of the globe are the common enemies of civilized society; and we may inquire with anxious curiosity, whether Europe is still threatened with a repetition of those calamities which formerly oppressed the arms and institutions of Rome. Perhaps the same reflections will illustrate the fall of that mighty empire, and explain the probable causes of our actual security.

(Source)

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 1.1.01c: West vs. East

There's one crucial thing to understand: the factors that led to the fall of the western half of the empire didn't affect the eastern half in the same way. That's why the East managed to stick around for another 1000 years and become the Byzantine Empire.

Barbarian "Invasion"

If you ask why Rome fell, the mainstream answer is that barbarian invaders overran it: angry and violent barbarians break into the city of Rome, sack it, and that was it for the Western Roman Empire. Nice and simple, right?

Wrong. There's a better answer—a more complex one.

The actual city of Rome had a long history of tension with barbarian groups. When we say barbarian what we mean is non-Roman groups who didn't identify with that "Rome-is-the-Best" worldview. These groups are made of Germanic people, from all over what's now central Europe. More often than not, these groups followed a tribal warrior leader that they were particularly loyal to. This leader was always the biggest, strongest guy on the block. They're the one who's going to keep you safe.

Western Rome saw how competent these barbarian warriors were and hired them into the Roman army. Rome made one huge mistake, though. As the post-Constantine Roman Empire aged, the West got lazier about enforcing this Rome-is-the-Whole-World point of view onto the people it absorbed into the empire. The result was that the Western Roman Empire had a bunch of citizens and soldiers from barbaric tribal backgrounds who couldn't care less about being Roman. (Like, why should they care?)

If a bunch of your soldiers and citizens aren't loyal to emperor, you run a serious risk of one of those local tribal leaders going rogue, storming the capitol, and taking over. And that's just what happened in the West—multiple times.

Overall, we'd argue that 1) if your citizens don't believe in or accept the authority of your empire and 2) you don't have the loyal military might to keep those citizens in line…then what you have isn't really an empire. In other words, you blew it.

So what about the Eastern Roman Empire? Put simply, the East didn't have the same relationship with barbarians as the West did. They didn't hire them into the army and they weren't out trying to conqueror them. Also, the city of Constantinople was a more secure and fortified than Rome. When your number one city stands strong, you're going to endure for longer. Second, there just weren't as many tribal groups that posed serious threats to the capitol. And when there were barbarians that did seem scary (the Huns), the rulers in Constantinople just paid them to go away. "Take the gold, and leave us alone" would have been an apt motto for them. Hey, if it keeps you standing.

Manageable Territory

Went it came to managing an unruly collection of conquered peoples and territory, the Eastern Roman Empire had it way easier than the West.

The purple on this map here is the Eastern Roman Empire in 390 C.E. It's smaller and all that purple was old turf; people had been squabbling over control of it for longer. All that red in the west by the sea. That was wilder and fresher territory.

Some historians point out that people of the Eastern Roman Empire were simply "better" at being part of an empire. That made maintaining control over that area so much easier. The region had several millennia of being dominated by big-bad empires: Egyptian empires, Persian empires, Greek empires, Roman empires. The barbarian tribes of the West were accustomed to doing their own thing. That made them waaaay less easy to control.

Roman Rulers: Barbarians, Theodosians, and Assorted Mix of Generals

There weren't a lot of winners in the lineup of Western Roman emperors following Constantine. The whole western package really fell part in fifth century—specifically 476 C.E. That year, barbarians successfully invaded the city of Rome and ousted the extremely ineffective emperor at the time. These barbarians didn't want to burn Rome to the ground or anything. They just wanted the resources and the glory—that's how you thrived in the fifth century, after all.

Once they were in, they either set up puppet rulers who did whatever the big barbarian boss told them to do, or just declared themselves emperor. It's important to note that these warlord barbarian rulers weren't necessarily "bad" at leadership. It's more like their style of leadership didn't work on an empire-level scale.

Let's clarify: Imagine for a second that you're a barbarian warlord.

• You're a strong fighter and want to be top dog.
• All your authority comes from your fellow warriors being personally loyal to you and you alone.
• There's only so many people can be that tight with you (there's no mass media or Twitter to expand your fan base). Therefore, your numbers will be small.
• Now get this: the warlord a few miles yonder can just look at his own loyal troops and be like "I should be emperor!"
• You duke it out.
• Whoever's stronger wins and gets to be in charge.

That's how the Western Roman Empire ended up with emperors who lasted for mere weeks. That's not a stable empire; it's warlord culture, and it's distinctly different from what had going down in Rome for centuries before.

Here's what the East was up to. Again, the East wasn't made up by as many Germanic tribal cultures that maintained this warlord lifestyle. Instead, they had their own leaders who hung out in Constantinople and ruled from there. How successful they were at ruling though is a different issue.

Meet the Theodosian Dynasty. This dynasty founded by the delectably-named Flavius Theodosius ruled as emperor of East. He was succeed by his son, confusingly also named Flavius Theodosius, who managed to get in charge of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires beginning in 392 C.E.

He'd be the last guy to claim both halves. After that, that there would solidly be two Theodosian emperors at the same time: one in the west and one in the east. (Source)

Eventually both the western and eastern halves of the Theodosian dynasty died without heirs. And when there's no heir, some random guy who seems promising gets appointed. Look, if we went into the nitty-gritty details of the handful of western and eastern emperors there were in the fifth century, we'd be here until the twenty-second century.

The major takeaway is that the era of grand, history-redefining Roman leaders was no more. It was totally finished in the west, and it'd be over in the east until 518 C.E. when a guy named Justinian rose to power. More on him in Lesson 2.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 1.01a: Dream a Little Dream

The events of Roman history have long made for cinematic experiences: Spartucus, Gladiator, every Jesus movie ever. So in the spirit of the immense entertainment value this material holds, we'd like you to write the script for a scene in a film about Constantine's conversion.

This is the specific scene we'd like you to write: Constantine's just had the dream that's made him want to acknowledge Christianity. Now he's telling his troops about it and how they're now fighting under a Christian banner.

We'd say this calls for some kind of rallying speech and/or some cheeky back-and-forth between Constantine and his men. We'll give you an example down below. First, some requirements.

Your script should:

• be about 200 to 300 words long.
• describe Constantine's vision in detail.
• show diverse reactions from Constantine's army upon hearing this development.
• include one to three sentences of stage directions.

Feel free to get goofy with it, just make sure all the information's consistent with the spirit of the events. Think about whether it would have been difficult for Constantine to convince his soldiers. It seems likely that some soldiers would be skeptical of this sudden change in their leader. Maybe some of them secretly liked the whole Christianity thing. If you think Constantine's conversion was a strictly political move, consider adding in a sneaky aside in which he tells the camera his real feelings on the matter.

Just food for thought. Here's a little sample to help you get started:

[Constantine, clad in strappy sandals and cape blowing in the breeze, stands atop a war chariot, shield raised.]

CONSTANTINE: Behold my new shield!

SOLDIER 1: What's that odd design on it? Have you been on Pinterest again?

CONSTANTINE: No, no, my good man. I had a dream last night and when I woke up, I felt compelled to emblazon my shield with the vision I had.

SOLDIER 2: Dreamed a little dream, did you, Constantine?

CONSTANTINE: Indeed. I saw the chi and the rho in the sky, clear as day. I am confident that it was God sending me a message.

SOLDIER 1: It's all Greek to me. Seriously. Those are Greek letters.

CONSTANTINE: How astute of you. They are, indeed, the first two letters of the savior's name, Christ.

As you can see, there's room for humor. Feel free to roll with it. Enter your finished script in the box below.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 1.01b: Take a Stand

While historians can't agree on why Rome fell, they generally agree that Rome's fall was a long time coming. We'd like to know what you make of all this. Did the Western Roman Empire have it coming? Which factors doomed it the most? Write a thesis-based paragraph of 8 to 10 sentences in which you

• choose one of the factors contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire.
• explain why it was the most significant factor.

You're crafting an argument here, so be assertive in whatever stance you decide to take. If you think was barbarian invaders did the Western Roman Empire in, say so with no apology. You must also back up your claims with evidence (from the readings) and well-reasoned analysis.

If you're struggling to remember how to write a thesis statement, Shmoop's got you covered. Head over to our essay lab for a quick refresher. You might also check out this video for additional thesis-writing guidance.

Here's how we'd go about starting our paragraph:

While there are a number of factors that contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire, Western Rome's series of ineffective leaders was the most significant. In the face of instability from struggling economy and increasingly assertive barbarian generals, there was no competent and effective leadership to address these problems.

Since there's little agreement on the most contributing factor to Rome's fall, make like a true historian-in-training and feel free to argue something different than we've done in the modeling above.

Enter your finished paragraph of 8 to 10 sentences in the box below.