Rome defeated?

i think that the western empire was already in decline-it is easy to conquer someone that is on the fall! and the reason for that is the corrupted state they had at the end!

the easterns also had some dark ages in their rule-but what i think made the difference was religion!
they successfully converted into Christianity and the emperor was counted as almost equal to god-god sent anyway...
but the crimes committed to establish that were huge and i think that Christianity led all Europeans into dark ages!before, men had achieved wonders in their spirit and after it took many aeons for them to come out and i think that even today we are not totally out of the morals in society set by Christianity!
but anyway in those years and that is important, religion and therefore Christianity was a political system!

I remember reading this in a few books: When Caesar returned to Rome after conquest of Gaul, defeating Pompeius, solving the Egyptian matters and marrying Cleopatra. He had a couple of Triumphs in Rome. In his last Triumphs he were assisted by Cleopatra and Caesarion to show the Roman population his new wife and kid. In the End of this last Triumph, Marcus Antonius should have 3 times tried to crown Caesar King at the big stairs before the Senate. And Caesar should have agreed to this first time untill he saw the loud silence amongst the plebs. He could see this felt in very bad hands but Marcus Antonius continued and tried again to place the crown on Caesar's head and the third time Marcus Antonius tried to place it, Caesar would knock it out of his hands.

I don't know how reliable this is. I just remember reading it in a couple of roman books. Can anybody confirm or bust this?

The Roman Empire fell the moment the last Emperor was killed, and this was in 476 when there was, for the first time in almost 1000 years, a King of Rome. But this wasn't some barbarian, this was a leader of one of the many German Legions within the Western Roman Empire. He deposed the last Emperor and could have declared himself Emperor, but he didn't, he declared himself King, and that action alone 'ended' the Empire. Let us not also forget that the other men claiming to be Emperor retreated to Ravenna, where they too swiftly died out.

It had, however, been in a spiral of decline for some time, due to the squabbling nature, by and large, of its rulers. The reason that the Eastern Roman Empire lasted longer was primarily because it was richer, it could afford more mercenaries, feed more men, build better fortifications. But the Eastern Empire didn't last long. While the Western Roman Empire ended fairly swiftly, 60 years between the legions leaving Britain to the fall or Rome, Constantinople lingered. With the Muslim expansion, by the 700AD mark the Byzantine Empire was much reduced in power and capability and by the time of the Great Schism the empire was half the size when Rome fell.
Not to sell the Eastern Roman Empire short they did make a very good go of it in the 6th century, Justinian the Great reconquering much of the Western Roman Empire, but inevitably, with attack from the Huns and the Bulgars, the muslims and the ever present Parthians, the Empire fell into a decline.
The reason, in my mind, that the Eastern Empire lasted far longer was the stability of its rulers, a series of strong leaders lead to the creation of powerful armies, lucrative trade and a loyal populous. Had the Western Roman Empire been given the same blessings then it too may have lingered, perhaps aiding the Eastern Empire when necessary, and vice versa. As I said earlier, the first ruler after the last Emperor wasn't an invader, but a Roman Citizen, the first to name himself King. This is the perfect example of what I mean, when I talk about instability.
The Pax Romana, established by Augustus and held throughout the time of the "Five Good Emperors" was eroded in the following centuries, thanks only to the squabbles of its leaders. The problems Rome faced, invaders, disease etc, could mainly have been avoided, had there been a strong enough ruler to take a suitable stand, but there was not.
So in my view, to be concise, the cause is political, which extenuated the other damaging factors.

Dear Daniel

Welcome to the forum..

There are thousands of theories. Just one person: Alexander Demandt, a german professor and expert in antique history has published +210 theories on reason for the fall of The Roman Empire.

However many of the theories are quite the same. My own theory on this has a couple of explanations:

Back in time before the birth of Jesus (27 BC.) Rome were a republic like many other strong cities had been ex. Carthage. It allowed citizens to work their way to the top ranks of the society by first being a "new man" and keep improving. This way the strong and moral man could get influence. With Caesar's conquest of Gaul he brought fortunes of Gold to Rome and the value of Gold decreased to 2/3 of what it had been(Inflation). However this conquest made Rome more powerful than ever and Caesar invited chiefs of each tribe in Gaul to have a seat in the Senate. Which the "Old" Senate of Rome(who flet to greek) was very disappointed with. This barbariazation of the Senate they felt in bad hands for them. Caesar's invitations, shows that he knew Rome's history very well: "King Romulus created a senate consisting 100 of Romes most powerful men. Rome where in need of womens to increase their population and therfore King Romulus invited the womens of a neightbouring tribe "The Sabine's" to a festival in Rome. He picked 100 of the newborn Romans/Sabines to join the Senate. The 5th King of Rome: Tarquinius Priscus(an Estruscian immigrant) succesfully fought the Sabines and Etruscians and reformed the Senate by adding 100 of the conquered Estruscian men. It is important to remember that King Romulus who founded Rome, invited thiefs, slaves and exiled people to populate the city. This would be the mens second chance."
So everything leads to: Caesar's plan were to recreate the Roman republic with a new, fair and uncorrupt Senate. Every province should have a man in the Senate to speak their word(Just like todays USA and their republic which is based on Roman Republic). This would benefit in any case, more equality and less riots in province. But it failed, he was assassinated by the old senate and Junius Brutus who was grand-grand-grand.....-son of Lucius Junius Brutus that about 500-years ago assassinated the Last King of Rome: Tarquinius Superbus.
Caesar's grand-nephew and adopted son Octavianus was granted Imperium and powers that actually made him Sole ruler of Rome by the Senate.

However Rome was good for some centuries on. Lots of reformations, expansions, wars and increasingly wealth but Rome became more like a dictaturial city that controlled any else and not showing much care for the population outside Rome. The Roman Republic had had loyers as Marcus Tullius Cicero who spoke for Sicilians against powerful and corrupt Gajus Verres and also for the gauls in northern Roman territory. Even though it now was a Dynasti of Emperor's it was OK untill the death of Marcus Aurelius and the comming of Emperor Commodus. For 200-years Rome lacked good and moral Emperors and the seat changed constantly. Diocletian divided the Empire into two halfs: Western and Eastern. Constantin changed the official religion to Christianity which had been an enemy religion of Rome for long time. And the main power in Rome belonged to the great Generals.
A great power in German rised and gave competition and troubles to the Romans. Odeacer even controlled it in AD. 476 as you say.

Nevertheless I don't think Rome was ever defeated. It just changed. When it was Monarchy, republic and Empire it was superior due to its superior warfare, sanitorium, law and society system. Then it changed to become superior in religion, relying on other countries. Remember that The Holy Crusades in The Dark Age and Medieval was called by The Holy Pope of Rome. At this point Rome's borders had expanded extremely, now also Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and other countries were Christians and ready to fight on The Popes request.

And where are we today? How many people in the world are Catholics? or Christians? Many. And many are not. But still we have a Civilization where we at some point would unite against ex. Muslims if they were to fight Europe, USA, Australia...

In the year 476 AD Rome was ovverun by a barbarian warchief from the goth ethnicity and sacked constantly by others in the years to come before finally coming under byzantine control 1 century later. I am just asking how come the western empire fell to barbarians and why? Had it been for political problems, economic struggles, or did they just give up.