Why the Western Roman Empire fell: several causes
Grade 6 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
How historians explain the fall
Who When What they argue Edward Gibbon, an English historian 1781 Rome grew too great, and its size led to its decline Alexander Demandt, a German historian 1984 listed more than 200 factors that writers had named Catastrophists, one group of historians recent a sharp break: fewer cities, less trade, less reading and writing Continuists, another group recent a slower change: trade went on, bishops took on governors' jobs, and new kings kept some Roman ways Researchers on climate and disease recent a disease (165 to 180 CE) and a cooler, drier climate from the mid-200s hurt farming Beside the chart: Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, General Observations (1781): "But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable [bound to happen] effect of immoderate greatness [growing too great]. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest…" Historians still disagree about which causes mattered most. The Eastern Empire lasted until 1453.
What do continuists argue, Zee asks?
- A sharp break, with fewer cities and less trade
- A disease alone ended Rome in 180
- A slower change, with Roman ways going on
- Rome grew too great to last long
Which two causes do climate and disease researchers point to, Ari asks?
- Rome's great size and its wealth
- Weak rulers and rising prices in the cities
- A disease and a cooler, drier climate
- A long list of 200 factors
In the passage, what does Gibbon say caused Rome's decline, Bo asks?
- A cooler climate in the 200s
- Its own growth into a great size
- A sudden disease that came in a single year
- Its small size and few lands
Gibbon writes that the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest. What does he mean, Esme asks?
- Conquest ended in 1781
- More conquest brought more trouble
- More conquest made Rome safer and stronger
- Rome conquered no new lands
Gibbon wrote in 1781. Why should Jun read Gibbon's view as one view, not the last word?
- Gibbon listed the 200 factors
- Gibbon wrote it in 476 CE
- Later historians named more causes
- Gibbon saw Rome fall himself
Ranking causes by when they began
Cause When Weak rulers 235 to 284 CE Money troubles (less silver in coins) the 200s CE Rule split into East and West 285 to 293 CE Groups from outside take western lands 410 to 476 CE Odovacer removes the last Western emperor 476 CE Below the chart: a long-term cause builds up over many years; a short-term cause comes just before the event. Historians weigh and rank these causes differently.
Which is a long-term cause, by the chart, Kira asks?
- The end of the Western emperors in 476
- Lands lost from 410 CE
- Money troubles in the 200s CE
- Odovacer's act in 476 CE
Luz must rank the causes of the fall. Which statement is most careful?
- Historians agree weak rulers came first
- Historians rank the causes differently
- Historians agree the climate came first
- The causes did not affect each other
Milo ranks money troubles above Odovacer's act in 476 CE. Which reason fits best?
- Inflation made Rome richer
- They began after 476 CE
- They weakened Rome for many years
- Odovacer caused the money troubles
How historians explain the fall
Who When What they argue Edward Gibbon, an English historian 1781 Rome grew too great, and its size led to its decline Alexander Demandt, a German historian 1984 listed more than 200 factors that writers had named Catastrophists, one group of historians recent a sharp break: fewer cities, less trade, less reading and writing Continuists, another group recent a slower change: trade went on, bishops took on governors' jobs, and new kings kept some Roman ways Researchers on climate and disease recent a disease (165 to 180 CE) and a cooler, drier climate from the mid-200s hurt farming Beside the chart: Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, General Observations (1781): "But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable [bound to happen] effect of immoderate greatness [growing too great]. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest…" Historians still disagree about which causes mattered most. The Eastern Empire lasted until 1453.
Noah's note says, "The whole Roman Empire ended in 476 CE." Which fix is right?
- Change 476 CE to 1781
- Change Roman to Greek
- Leave it: 476 is the date
- Change whole to Western
Pia's note says, "Demandt found one cause of the fall in 1984." Which fix is right?
- Change one cause to over 200 factors
- Change 1984 to 1781
- Leave it: he found the one cause
- Change Demandt to Odovacer
