To what extent did the plague impact on the fall of the Roman Empire? If at all? And another question, read on...

by jlenders

As the title suggests, I am really interested in to what extent the plague contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. Basically what prompted this question was my reading of "Disease - The Extraordinary Stories Behind History's Deadliest Killers", I was reading about the plague, and it made a rather interesting claim, but when I read it I thought I must bring it to the attention of this sub, because it is a rather bold claim. It goes:

"The first great plague to bear the characteristic swollen buboes was the plague of Justinian in 541-4. Spreading from Egypt to Europe, the Plague of Justinian may well have played a role in the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire."

This is a really fascinating, and exciting claim. But I'm not going to get too excited with myself until I have it verified. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it does make sense that at the time of the plague, if I remember correctly it swept right through Rome (as high as Milan and Genoa), right down to Sicily, or is it Sardinia?), so the plague was everywhere and affecting everyone.

As for my second question, after the events of the plague did this encourage the empire to develop contamination procedures, eventually giving rise to what we see as quarantine today?

I look forward to hearing back, as this is really quite exciting for me!

Quixxeemoto

There has to be more to it then that, the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, almost 70 years before the plague of Justinian. Perhaps the author was referring to the collapse of Eastern Roman control of Italy?