Editing Empire (section)

=== Roman Empire ===
{{Further|Fall of the Western Roman Empire}}
The fall of the [[Fall of the Western Roman Empire|western half of the Roman Empire]] is seen as one of the most pivotal points in all of human history. This event traditionally marks the transition from classical civilization to the birth of Europe. The Roman Empire started to decline at the end of the reign of the last of the [[Five Good Emperors]], Marcus Aurelius in 161–180 A.D. There is still a debate over the cause of the fall of one of the largest empires in history. Historian [[André Piganiol]] argues that the Roman Empire under its authority can be described as "a period of terror",<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Piganiol |first=André |year=1950 |title=The Causes of the Fall of the Roman Empire |journal=The Journal of General Education |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=62–69 |jstor=27795332}}</ref> holding its imperial system accountable for its failure. Another theory blames the rise of Christianity as the cause, arguing that the spread of certain Christian ideals caused internal weakness of the military and state.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bury |first=John |title=History of the Later Roman Empire |publisher=Dover Publications |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-486-20398-0 |location=New York}}</ref> In his book ''The Fall of the Roman Empire'', historian [[Peter Heather]] contends that there were many factors, including issues of money and manpower, which produced military limitations and culminated in the Roman army's inability to effectively repel invading barbarians at the frontier.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Heather |first=Peter |title=The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-19-532541-6 |location=New York, Oxford}}</ref> The Western Roman economy was already stretched to its limit in the 4th and 5th centuries C.E. due to continual conflict and loss of territory which, in turn, generated loss of revenue from the tax base. There was also the looming presence of the Persians which, at any time, took a large percentage of the fighting force's attention. At the same time the Huns, a nomadic warrior people from the steppes of Asia, are also putting extreme pressure on the German tribes outside of the Roman frontier, which gave the German tribes no other choice, geographically, but to move into Roman territory. At this point, without increased funding, the Roman army could no longer effectively defend its borders against major waves of Germanic tribes. This inability is illustrated by the crushing [[Battle of Adrianople|defeat at Adrianople]] in 378 C.E. and, later, the [[Crossing of the Rhine]] in 406 C.E.

An empire can [[Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire|fall for many reasons]]. However, why the fall of the Roman Empire was fatal, and why the post-classical Europe never repeated its ancient unity, is a completely different question. [[Eurocentrism]] in the Roman case led to the theory of inevitable imperial fall and Western [[declinism]] in imperiology, which remains the only widely believed case of [[Historical determinism|historical inevitability]]. To describe any [[polity]] as an empire is usually to damn it as doomed to disappear,<ref>[[Dominic Lieven|Lieven, Dominic]] (2012). "Empire, history and the contemporary global order," ''Proceedings of the British Academy'', vol 131: p 130, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2012/pba131p127.pdf</ref> usually due to [[imperial overstretch]]. [[Comparative history]], however, alters the Eurocentric theory. The Chinese Empire rose synchronously with Rome and never fell. More precisely, China underwent several disintegrations but each time reunified. Asking why post-Roman Europe, contrary to China, never reunified reveals factors which the [[case study]] of the [[Fall of the Western Roman Empire|fall of Rome]] cannot reveal. The latter question was addressed in [[Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires#Political_pattern|this comparative analysis]].