The Roman Empire lasted from 27 BCE to 476 CE. It began after the Battle of Actium when Julius Caesar’s nephew, Augustus Caesar, became the emperor. The beginning of the decline was when the emperor, Valens, was defeated during the Gothic War, and it is generally accepted that it officially ended when the Germanic king, Odoacer, overthrew Romulus Augustus.
There are multiple theories as to what led to Rome’s
decline. We will be focusing on the environmental factors, but it’s important
to know that it was likely the combination of many things. One theory is that
Christianity led to Rome's decline. When it first rose within the empire, it
was opposite of everything that the Romans had believed in previously.
Christianity was monotheistic whereas their previous religion was polytheistic
and actually saw the emperor as one of the gods. Because there was now only one
god, who was not the emperor, it weakened his credibility. It also cost money
to build new Christian churches and that money could have been used to maintain
the empire. Another factor is that in 330 CE, the empire was split into the
western and eastern empires. The eastern thrived whereas the western slowly
collapsed, which is actually which part of Rome we are discussing when we describe "the fall of Rome." The eastern
empire survived for a few hundred more years. They also ended up with a weak
military and a poor government. The government was corrupt (Rome never even had
a set way of determining who the next emperor would be) and toward the end of
the empire, when the economy started to fail, they couldn't afford much as far
as military went and ended up with German soldiers that had no real tie to Rome
and therefore had no loyalty and ultimately were not good fighters. Whatever it
was, it ultimately made it quite easy for invaders to take over the Roman
Empire and overthrow the emperor.
The one we’re examining here is the idea that taker-caused environmental problems ultimately led to its inability to sustain itself. We know what we know because of historians’ studies of Roman writings, archaeological reports, and scientific studies done on the land. It’s even evident when looking at the landscape now, which is not heavily forested, and much of it is dry.
In early Roman times, they saw the landscape as sacred and
tried to please the gods by treating it well and not killing animals in temple
forests. However, then the Romans had to increase their economy, and so they
decided that the gods would want them to prosper and therefore it was okay to
use their environment for their own good. Because they had made people from
other lands their slaves, they believed that it was okay to do the same to
nature and, in a sense, make it its slave also. Basically, they didn’t realize
what they were doing is wrong; they were just doing what they thought they had
to for their empire to thrive. They were starting to get a larger population
than they could control, and this made sustaining these people and giving them
the resources they needed more important than taking care of the environment
because they couldn’t foresee the future.
The two biggest problems were deforestation and by
consequence, soil erosion. A lot of this destruction started with the need for
military tools. There are many [military] structures that demanded timber in
their construction: camps, forts, palisades, and other defense works, warships,
boats, and barges loaded with barrels.
Because of this deforestation, this also increased the
extinction of animals. By chopping down the trees, they were destroying the
animal’s habitat. They didn’t help this by casually killing animals for sport,
as well as hunting the ones that were occasionally raiding their herds. By
doing this, they assumed they were doing more good than harm.
Pollution was another environmental struggle for the Romans,
as well as their overall health. They didn’t have a very good sewage system,
and neither did their surrounding territories. They also didn’t have good
technologies to reduce the pollutants so they continued to poison the water and
air. A lot of wealthy people actually had water brought into their houses using
lead pipes, which we all know is dangerous, so they didn’t exactly have the
best plumbing systems either. They also put lead in makeup, wine, and bathtubs.
Also, because the Coliseum was a source of entertainment and a lot of people
gathered there, there was a lot of room for the spread of diseases. This only
worsened by the fact that there was blood everywhere making the spread of
disease easier. Recently, scientists have found DNA including the oldest form
of Malaria at a site in Rome, so it’s likely that the public health situation
had a lot to do with the decline of the Roman Empire.
The main ethical issue here is that the Romans didn’t treat
their environment with any real respect at all, at least towards the end of the
empire. Even though they didn’t have very complex technologies that can use up
resources before we can even realize they’re gone, anything is going to be
harmful over a long enough period of time, and that did inevitably happen to
them. They placed a demand on their resources that was unreasonable and used up
renewable resources before they were able to replenish, then used up
unrenewable resources even quicker. Their main focus was keeping a stable and
thriving economy, and they couldn’t seem to figure out how to balance both that
and an environmentally sustainable society.
We can learn a lot from the problems that the Romans had,
and relate it all back to Ishmael. Their decline actually mimics our society
today frighteningly well. As Ishmael says, “takers are captives of a
civilizational world that compels us to destroy it.” I think it’s very clear
here that Romans were compelled to destroy their world. They were so obsessed
with keeping a good economy that they destroyed their environment in the
process. Rome also had broken the peacekeeping law by using up more resources
than they needed to survive. As mentioned before, they were killing off
predators to save their own herds, and cutting down forests and ultimately
destroying other animals’ habitats, therefore denying competitors access to
resources. They threatened the diversity of their society and that is one of
the reasons that lead to their downfall.
Works Cited
Hughes, J. Donald. An environmental history of the world humankind's changing role in the community of life. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.
"Roman Empire -- Ancient History Encyclopedia." Ancient History Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2013. <http://www.ancient.eu.com/Roman_Empire/>.
"ushistory.org." ushistory.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. <http://www.ushistory.org>.
"Rome.info > Fall of the Roman Empire, decline of ancient Rome." Rome.info > Rome tourist information, Ancient Rome travel guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. <http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment