What were the major factors contributing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

This comes up a lot and I answer it over and over again. Do a search, or here's an old answer:

"The Empire ULTIMATELY fell in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks besieged and captured Constantinople and killed the last Emperor of the Romans, Constantine XI Palaiologos. We are in the habit of calling it the Byzantine Empire by then, but that is a modern convention. It was still the direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

But that's not what most people who ask this question really want to know about. They want to know about the fifth century, when effective central Roman rule in western Europe disintegrated.

A lot of nonsense is said on this subject and continues to be rehashed. No one in the history-buff public pays attention to what actual contemporary scholars on the subject are saying. Yahoo probably won't allow me enough words to address all the nonsense.

It was not barbarian invasions (every invading barbarian group, even Attila's Huns, were either beaten or settled with a treaty on the empire's terms). It was not Christianity making Romans too otherworldly to run an empire (the eastern half of the empire that lasted another thousand years was more thoroughly Christian than the West). It was not lead pipes in the aqueducts giving everyone brain damage (a stupid idea in the first place). It was not economic decline (though economic problems may have underlain some of the real issues).

Rome had ALWAYS been vulnerable to civil strife among rivals in its overmighty military establishment. This had been what brought the Republic down and changed it to the Empire, and after that, whenever the succession was unclear, the army was the route to the throne and rival generals stationed in different provinces fought it out. It so happened that previous civil wars had clear winners who were able to hold the empire together.

The fifth century saw just one more civil power struggle with so many players it's difficult to sort out here. But the western empire disintegrated, in brief, because nobody really emerged as the winner that time. The men who sacked Rome in 410 were Roman soldiers -- soldiers of barbarian Gothic background, for the most part, but Roman soldiers nevertheless. Odoacer, who deposed the last western emperor in 476, was a Roman general - again, a general of barbarian background, but a sworn Roman military officer nevertheless. One might better think of these people as "immigrants" to get the idea. They were playing a Roman game by Roman rules.

Odoacer wasn't strong enough to make his writ run in Gaul, in Spain, in Britain or in Africa, and he couldn't get the eastern Emperor to acknowledge him (the east still supported the long-exiled Julius Nepos), so he wound up calling himself King of Italy and the other Roman warlords (most of them also of barbarian/immigrant extraction) in other provinces of the empire followed suit, governing their respective spheres of influence as "kings" of whoever the main ethnic component of the local soldiery were -- Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians, or what have you.

If you look at a map of post-Roman world, one fact should jump out that's generally overlooked -- every single one of these "barbarian kingdoms" stands entirely WITHIN the old Roman frontiers! They were not invaders from outside grabbing Roman territory for themselves, they were insiders who took the reins of local power for themselves as the central government tore itself apart. There is no need to ask why the Romans didn't resist the barbarians, and then try to blame it on religion or economics or a lack of fighting spirit or whatever. The barbarians were the new Romans.

* 2 months ago"

There were quite a few factors that contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The most prominent ones:

- the political and leadership crisis of the 3rd century CE

- the power and influence of the Generalissimo's [i.e. Merobaudes, Bauto, Arbogast and Stilicho]

- the decline of the Latin population [yes, there is a hypothesis that lead poisoning contributed]

- the decline of the Roman army, partially due to decrease in native Romans as soldiers

- the split of the Roman Empire into West and East [the east had the greater wealth and trade]

- the constant invasions and settlements of various "barbarian" tribes

- the rise of christianity destroyed the old stability of the empire

- the agrarian crisis, where the small farmer had no work and income due to slave labour

So you see, I understand why you are struggling since it is such a massive subject. There were many different contributing factors and scholars still argue today about which ones were the greatest. Edward Gibbon, who wrote a 6-volume series on just this subject, took 17 years to research and write it and it is rumoured that he had a nervous breakdown at the end. The rumour probably started due to his ill health. It can be argued that his mammoth work contributed to his ill health.

The financials of the Roman Empire came about through expansion and the extensive use of slave labor for its industry. In the later empire however the "easy" expansions at the empires' borders were largely gone and with the use of comparatively "cheap" slave labor for a large percentage of the work force there were naturally a fair number of unemployed people who for want of a better way to explain it were a huge drain on Rome's society (the whole "bread & circuses" aspect etc.). In the Imperial era of course following the Augustus-Nero period the essentially revolving Emperors led to horrible bouts of instability and/or (mostly and) intense bouts of violence. Essentially there were too many people, with too many without work, political instability and corruption (particularly at the highest levels) were rampant

As was also stated quite truthfully in the answer preceding this one a hypothesis that has been around awhile is that the extensive use of lead in their eating implements.

I think part of the answer is that they where victims of their own success, they got spoiled and lazy, instead of fighting their own wars, they hired others to do the dirty work and got cheap about giving them the proper supplies and armor, the military and almost every other aspect started to slowly move to lower quality due to apathy, it corroded the society slowly over time.

their enemies, the Germanics in the north on the other hand where moving in the opposite direction, become more bold and vigorous

Widespread central nervous system damage from exposure to lead eating instruments played a significant role.