document_title: Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire

question_text: when do historians date the fall of rome

question_tokens: when do historians date the fall of rome

text: Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire

text: Overview of historiography

text: Historiographically, the primary issue historians have looked at when analyzing any theory is the continued existence of the Eastern Empire or Byzantine Empire, which lasted almost a thousand years after the fall of the West. For example, Gibbon implicates Christianity in the fall of the Western Empire, yet the eastern half of the Empire, which was even more Christian than the west in geographic extent, fervor, penetration and vast numbers continued on for a thousand years afterwards (although Gibbon did not consider the Eastern Empire to be much of a success). As another example, environmental or weather changes affected the east as much as the west, yet the east did not "fall."

text: Theories will sometimes reflect the particular concerns that historians might have on cultural, political, or economic trends in their own times. Gibbon's criticism of Christianity reflects the values of the Enlightenment; his ideas on the decline in martial vigor could have been interpreted by some as a warning to the growing British Empire. In the 19th century socialist and anti-socialist theorists tended to blame decadence and other political problems. More recently, environmental concerns have become popular, with deforestation and soil erosion proposed as major factors, and destabilizing population decreases due to epidemics such as early cases of bubonic plague and malaria also cited. Global climate changes of 535–536, perhaps caused by the possible eruption of Krakatoa in 535, as mentioned by David Keys and others,[4] is another example. Ideas about transformation with no distinct fall mirror the rise of the postmodern tradition, which rejects periodization concepts (see metanarrative). What is not new are attempts to diagnose Rome's particular problems, with Satire X, written by Juvenal in the early 2nd century at the height of Roman power, criticizing the peoples' obsession with "bread and circuses" and rulers seeking only to gratify these obsessions.

text: One of the primary reasons for the vast number of theories is the notable lack of surviving evidence from the 4th and 5th centuries. For example, there are so few records of an economic nature it is difficult to arrive at even a generalization of the economic conditions. Thus, historians must quickly depart from available evidence and comment based on how things ought to have worked, or based on evidence from previous and later periods, on inductive reasoning. As in any field where available evidence is sparse, the historian's ability to imagine the 4th and 5th centuries will play as important a part in shaping our understanding as the available evidence, and thus be open for endless interpretation.

text: The end of the Western Roman Empire traditionally has been seen by historians to mark the end of the Ancient Era and beginning of the Middle Ages. More recent schools of history, such as Late Antiquity, offer a more nuanced view from the traditional historical narrative.

text: There is no consensus on a date for the start of the Decline. Gibbon started his account in 98.[citation needed] The year 376 is taken as pivotal by many modern historians.[citation needed] In that year there was an unmanageable influx of Goths and other Barbarians into the Balkan provinces, and the situation of the Western Empire generally worsened thereafter, with recoveries being incomplete and temporary. Significant events include the Battle of Adrianople in 378, the death of Theodosius I in 395 (the last time the Roman Empire was politically unified), the crossing of the Rhine in 406 by Germanic tribes, the execution of Stilicho in 408, the sack of Rome in 410, the death of Constantius III in 421, the death of Aetius in 454, and the second sack of Rome in 455, with the death of Majorian in 461 marking the end of the last opportunity for recovery.

text: Gibbon took September 4, 476 as a convenient marker for the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.[citation needed] Some modern historians question the significance of the year 476 for its end.[5] Julius Nepos, the Western emperor recognized by the Eastern Roman Empire, continued to rule in Dalmatia, until he was assassinated in 480. The Ostrogothic rulers of Italia considered themselves upholders of the direct line of Roman tradition, and the Eastern emperors considered themselves the sole rightful Roman rulers of a united empire.[citation needed] Roman cultural traditions continued throughout the territory of the Western Empire, and a recent school of interpretation argues that the great political changes can more accurately be described as a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall.[6]

text: Overview of events

text: The decline of the Roman Empire is one of the traditional markers of the end of Classical Antiquity and the beginning of the European Middle Ages. Throughout the 5th century, the Empire's territories in western Europe and northwestern Africa, including Italy, fell to various invading or indigenous peoples in what is sometimes called the Migration period. Although the eastern half still survived with borders essentially intact for several centuries (until the Muslim conquests), the Empire as a whole had initiated major cultural and political transformations since the Crisis of the Third Century, with the shift towards a more openly autocratic and ritualized form of government, the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, and a general rejection of the traditions and values of Classical Antiquity. While traditional historiography emphasized this break with Antiquity by using the term "Byzantine Empire" instead of Roman Empire, recent schools of history offer a more nuanced view, seeing mostly continuity rather than a sharp break. The Empire of Late Antiquity already looked very different from classical Rome.

text: The Roman Empire emerged from the Roman Republic when Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar transformed it from a republic into a monarchy. Rome reached its zenith in the 2nd century, then fortunes slowly declined (with many revivals and restorations along the way). The reasons for the decline of the Empire are still debated today, and are likely multiple. Historians infer that the population appears to have diminished in many provinces—especially western Europe—from the diminishing size of fortifications built to protect the cities from barbarian incursions from the 3rd century on. Some historians even have suggested that parts of the periphery were no longer inhabited because these fortifications were restricted to the center of the city only. Tree rings suggest "distinct drying" beginning in 250.[7]

text: By the late 3rd century, the city of Rome no longer served as an effective capital for the Emperor and various cities were used as new administrative capitals. Successive emperors, starting with Constantine, privileged the eastern city of Byzantium, which he had entirely rebuilt after a siege. Later renamed Constantinople, and protected by formidable walls in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, it was to become the largest and most powerful city of Christian Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Since the Crisis of the Third Century, the Empire was intermittently ruled by more than one emperor at once (usually two), presiding over different regions. At first a haphazard form of power sharing, this eventually settled on an East-West administrative division between the Western Roman Empire (centered on Rome, but now usually presided from other seats of power such as Trier, Milan, and especially Ravenna), and the Eastern Roman Empire (with its capital initially in Nicomedia, and later Constantinople). The Latin-speaking west, under dreadful demographic crisis, and the wealthier[citation needed] Greek-speaking east, also began to diverge politically and culturally. Although this was a gradual process, still incomplete when Italy came under the rule of barbarian chieftains in the last quarter of the 5th century, it deepened further afterward, and had lasting consequences for the medieval history of Europe.

text: Throughout the 5th century, Western emperors were usually figureheads, while the Eastern emperors maintained more independence. For most of the time, the actual rulers in the West were military strongmen who took the titles of magister militum, patrician, or both, such as Stilicho, Aetius, and Ricimer. Although Rome was no longer the capital in the West, it remained the West's largest city and its economic center. But the city was sacked by rebellious Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455, events that shocked contemporaries and signaled the disintegration of Roman authority. Saint Augustine wrote The City of God partly as an answer to critics who blamed the sack of Rome by the Visigoths on the abandonment of the traditional pagan religions.

text: In June 474, Julius Nepos became Western Emperor but in the next year the magister militum Orestes revolted and made his son Romulus Augustus emperor. Romulus, however, was not recognized by the Eastern Emperor Zeno and so was technically an usurper, Nepos still being the legal Western Emperor. Nevertheless, Romulus Augustus is often known as the last Western Roman Emperor. In 476, after being refused lands in Italy, Orestes' Germanic mercenaries under the leadership of the chieftain Odoacer captured and executed Orestes and took Ravenna, the Western Roman capital at the time, deposing Romulus Augustus. The whole of Italy was quickly conquered, and Odoacer was granted the title of patrician by Zeno, effectively recognizing his rule in the name of the Eastern Empire. Odoacer returned the Imperial insignia to Constantinople and ruled as King in Italy. Following Nepos' death Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths, conquered Italy with Zeno's approval.

text: Meanwhile, much of the rest of the Western provinces were conquered by waves of Germanic invasions, most of them being disconnected politically from the East altogether and continuing a slow decline. Although Roman political authority in the West was lost, Roman culture would last in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond.

text: The first invasions disrupted the West to some degree, but it was the Gothic War launched by the Eastern Emperor Justinian in the 6th century, and meant to reunite the Empire, that eventually caused the most damage to Italy, as well as straining the Eastern Empire militarily. Following these wars, Rome and other Italian cities would fall into severe decline (Rome itself was almost completely abandoned). Another blow came with the Persian invasion of the East in the 7th century, immediately followed by the Muslim conquests, especially of Egypt, which curtailed much of the key trade in the Mediterranean on which Europe depended.

text: The Empire was to live on in the East for many centuries, and enjoy periods of recovery and cultural brilliance, but its size would remain a fraction of what it had been in classical times. It became an essentially regional power, centered on Greece and Anatolia. Modern historians tend to prefer the term Byzantine Empire for the eastern, medieval stage of the Roman Empire.

text: Highlights

text: The decline of the Western Roman Empire was a process spanning many centuries; there is no consensus when it might have begun but many dates and time lines have been proposed by historians.

text:
The Crisis of the Third Century (234–284), a period of political instability.
The reign of Emperor Diocletian (284–305), who attempted substantial political and economic reforms, many of which would remain in force in the following centuries.

text:
The reign of Constantine I (306–337), who built the new eastern capital of Constantinople and converted to Christianity, legalizing and even favoring to some extent this religion. All Roman emperors after Constantine, except for Julian, would be Christians.
The first war with the Visigoths (376–382), culminating in the Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378), in which a large Roman army was defeated by the Visigoths, and Emperor Valens was killed. The Visigoths, fleeing a migration of the Huns, had been allowed to settle within the borders of the Empire by Valens, but were mistreated by the local Roman administrators, and rebelled.
The reign of Theodosius I (379–395), last emperor to reunite under his authority the western and eastern halves of the Empire. Theodosius continued and intensified the policies against paganism of his predecessors, eventually outlawing it, and making Nicaean Christianity the state religion.

text:
The Crossing of the Rhine: on December 31, 406 (or 405, according to some historians), a mixed band of Vandals, Suebi and Alans crossed the frozen river Rhine at Moguntiacum (modern Mainz), and began to ravage Gaul. Some moved on to the regions of Hispania and Africa. The Empire would never regain control over most of these lands.
The second war with the Visigoths, led by king Alaric, in which they raided Greece, and then invaded Italy, culminating in the sack of Rome (410). The Visigoths eventually left Italy and founded the Visigothic Kingdom in southern Gaul and Hispania.
The rise of the Hunnic Empire under Attila and Bleda (434–453), who raided the Balkans, Gaul, and Italy, threatening both Constantinople and Rome.
The second sack of Rome, this time by the Vandals (455).
Failed counterstrikes against the Vandals (461–468). The Western Emperor Majorian planned a naval campaign against the Vandals to reconquer northern Africa in 461, but word of the preparations got out to the Vandals, who took the Roman fleet by surprise and destroyed it. A second naval expedition against the Vandals, sent by Emperors Leo I and Anthemius, was defeated at Cape Bon in 468.

text:
Deposition of the last Western Emperors, Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustus (475–480). Julius Nepos, who had been nominated by the Eastern Emperor Zeno, was deposed by the rebelled magister militum Orestes, who installed his own son Romulus in the imperial throne. Both Zeno and his rival Basiliscus, in the East, continued to regard Julius Nepos, who fled to Dalmatia, as the legitimate Western Emperor, and Romulus as an usurper. Shortly after, Odoacer, magister militum appointed by Julius, invaded Italy, defeated Orestes, and deposed Romulus Augustus on September 4, 476. Odoacer then proclaimed himself ruler of Italy and asked the Eastern Emperor Zeno to become formal Emperor of both empires, and in so doing legalize Odoacer's own position as Imperial viceroy of Italy. Zeno did so, setting aside the claims of Nepos, who was murdered by his own soldiers in 480.
Foundation of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy (493). Concerned with the success and popularity of Odoacer, Zeno started a campaign against him, at first with words, then by inciting the Ostrogoths to take back Italy from him. They did as much, but then founded an independent kingdom of their own, under the rule of king Theodoric. Italy and the entire West were lost to the Empire.

text: Theories and explanations of a fall

text: The various theories and explanations for the fall of the Roman Empire in the West may be very broadly classified into four schools of thought, although the classification is not without overlap:

text:
Decay owing to general malaise
Monocausal decay
Catastrophic collapse
Transformation

text: The tradition positing general malaise goes back to Edward Gibbon who argued that the edifice of the Roman Empire had been built on unsound foundations to begin with. According to Gibbon, the fall was - in the final analysis - inevitable. On the other hand, Gibbon had assigned a major portion of the responsibility for the decay to the influence of Christianity, and is often, though perhaps unjustly, seen as the founding father of the school of monocausal explanation.

text: On the other hand, the school of catastrophic collapse holds that the fall of the Empire had not been a pre-determined event and need not be taken for granted. Rather, it was due to the combined effect of a number of adverse processes, many of them set in motion by the Migration of the Peoples, that together applied too much stress to the Empire's basically sound structure.

text: Finally, the transformation school challenges the whole notion of the 'fall' of the Empire, asking to distinguish between the fall into disuse of a particular political dispensation, anyway unworkable towards its end, and the fate of the Roman civilisation which under-girded the Empire. According to this school, drawing its basic premise from the Pirenne thesis, the Roman world underwent a gradual (though often violent) series of transformations, morphing into the medieval world. The historians belonging to this school often prefer to speak of Late Antiquity instead of the Fall of the Roman Empire.

text: Decay owing to general malaise

text: Edward Gibbon

text: In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88), Edward Gibbon famously placed the blame on a loss of civic virtue among the Roman citizens. They gradually entrusted the role of defending the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them. Gibbon held that Christianity contributed to this shift by making the populace less interested in the worldly here-and-now because it was willing to wait for the rewards of heaven.

text: The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.

text: In discussing Barbarism and Christianity I have actually been discussing the Fall of Rome.

text: Vegetius on military decline

text: Writing in the 5th century, the Roman historian Vegetius pleaded for reform of what must have been a greatly weakened army. The historian Arther Ferrill has suggested that the Roman Empire – particularly the military – declined largely as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions. This "Germanization" and the resultant cultural dilution or "barbarization" led not only to a decline in the standard of drill and overall military preparedness within the Empire, but also to a decline of loyalty to the Roman government in favor of loyalty to commanders. Ferrill agrees with other Roman historians such as A.H.M. Jones:

text: ...the decay of trade and industry was not a cause of Rome’s fall. There was a decline in agriculture and land was withdrawn from cultivation, in some cases on a very large scale, sometimes as a direct result of barbarian invasions. However, the chief cause of the agricultural decline was high taxation on the marginal land, driving it out of cultivation. Jones is surely right in saying that taxation was spurred by the huge military budget and was thus ‘indirectly’ the result of the barbarian invasion.[8]

text: Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke

text: In contrast with the declining empire theories, historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of institutions founded in Republican times. In their view, the Empire could never have lasted longer than it did without radical reforms that no Emperor could implement. The Romans had no budgetary system and thus wasted whatever resources they had available. The economy of the Empire was a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on riches from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.

text: An economy based upon slave labor precluded a middle class with buying power. The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. Material innovation, whether through entrepreneurialism or technological advancement, all but ended long before the final dissolution of the Empire. Meanwhile, the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded. In the end, due to economic failure, even the armor and weaponry of soldiers became so obsolete that the enemies of the Empire had better armor and weapons as well as larger forces. The decrepit social order offered so little to its subjects that many saw the barbarian invasion as liberation from onerous obligations to the ruling class.

text: By the late 5th century the barbarian conqueror Odoacer had no use for the formality of an Empire upon deposing Romulus Augustus and chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet, although legally he kept the lands as a commander of the Eastern Empire and maintained the Roman institutions such as the consulship. The formal end of the Roman Empire on the West in AD 476 thus corresponds with the time in which the Empire and the title Emperor no longer had value.

text: Michael Rostovtzeff, Ludwig von Mises, and Bruce Bartlett

text: Historian Michael Rostovtzeff and economist Ludwig von Mises both argued that unsound economic policies played a key role in the impoverishment and decay of the Roman Empire. According to them, by the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire had developed a complex market economy in which trade was relatively free. Tariffs were low and laws controlling the prices of foodstuffs and other commodities had little impact because they did not fix the prices significantly below their market levels. After the 3rd century, however, debasement of the currency (i.e., the minting of coins with diminishing content of gold, silver, and bronze) led to inflation. The price control laws then resulted in prices that were significantly below their free-market equilibrium levels. It should, however, be noted that Constantine initiated a successful reform of the currency which was completed before the barbarian invasions of the 4th century, and that thereafter the currency remained sound everywhere that remained within the empire until at least the 11th century - at any rate for gold coins.

text: According to Rostovtzeff and Mises, artificially low prices led to the scarcity of foodstuffs, particularly in cities, whose inhabitants depended on trade to obtain them. Despite laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually became depopulated and many Roman citizens abandoned their specialized trades to practice subsistence agriculture. This, coupled with increasingly oppressive and arbitrary taxation, led to a severe net decrease in trade, technical innovation, and the overall wealth of the Empire.[9]

text: Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. He claims that the emperors increasingly relied on the army as the sole source of their power, and therefore their economic policy was driven more and more by a desire to increase military funding in order to buy the army's loyalty. By the 3rd century, according to Bartlett, the monetary economy had collapsed. But the imperial government was now in a position where it had to satisfy the demands of the army at all costs. Failure to do so would result in the army forcibly deposing the emperor and installing a new one. Therefore, being unable to increase monetary taxes, the Roman Empire had to resort to direct requisitioning of physical goods anywhere it could find them - for example taking food and cattle from farmers. The result, in Bartlett's view, was social chaos, and this led to different responses from the authorities and from the common people. The authorities tried to restore order by requiring free people (i.e. non-slaves) to remain in the same occupation or even at the same place of employment. Eventually, this practice was extended to force children to follow the same occupation as their parents. So, for instance, farmers were tied to the land, and the sons of soldiers had to become soldiers themselves. Many common people reacted by moving to the countryside, sometimes joining the estates of the wealthy, and in general trying to be self-sufficient and interact as little as possible with the imperial authorities. Thus, according to Bartlett, Roman society began to dissolve into a number of separate estates that operated as closed systems, provided for all their own needs and did not engage in trade at all. These were the beginnings of feudalism.[10]

text: Joseph Tainter

text: In his 1988 book The Collapse of Complex Societies, American anthropologist Tainter presents the view that for given technological levels there are implicit declining returns to complexity, in which systems deplete their resource base beyond levels that are ultimately sustainable. Tainter argues that societies become more complex as they try to solve problems. Social complexity can include differentiated social and economic roles, reliance on symbolic and abstract communication, and the existence of a class of information producers and analysts who are not involved in primary resource production. Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning resources, or other forms of wealth). When a society confronts a "problem", such as a shortage of or difficulty in gaining access to energy, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge.

text: For example, as Roman agricultural output slowly declined and population increased, per-capita energy availability dropped. The Romans solved this problem in the short term by conquering their neighbours to appropriate their energy surpluses (metals, grain, slaves, etc.). However, this solution merely exacerbated the issue over the long term; as the Empire grew, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc., increased. Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory. At that point, the Empire fragmented into smaller units.

text: We often assume that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were better off (all but the elite, presumably.) Archeological evidence from human bones indicates that average nutrition improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire.

text: In Tainter's view, while invasions, crop failures, disease or environmental degradation may be the apparent causes of societal collapse, the ultimate cause is diminishing returns on investments in social complexity.[11]

text: Adrian Goldsworthy

text: In The Complete Roman Army (2003) Adrian Goldsworthy, a British military historian, sees the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire not in any 'decadence' in the make-up of the Roman legions, but in a combination of endless civil wars between factions of the Roman Army fighting for control of the Empire. This inevitably weakened the army and the society upon which it depended, making it less able to defend itself against the growing numbers of Rome's enemies. The army still remained a superior fighting instrument to its opponents, both civilized and barbarian; this is shown in the victories over Germanic tribes at the Battle of Strasbourg (357) and in its ability to hold the line against the Sassanid Persians throughout the 4th century. But, says Goldsworthy, "Weakening central authority, social and economic problems and, most of all, the continuing grind of civil wars eroded the political capacity to maintain the army at this level."[12] Goldsworthy set out in greater detail his theory that recurring civil wars during the late fourth and early fifth centuries contributed to the fall of the West Roman Empire (395-476), in his book The Fall of the West: The Slow Death of the Roman Superpower (2009).

text: Monocausal decay

text: Disease

text: William H. McNeill, a world historian, noted in chapter three of his book Plagues and Peoples (1976) that the Roman Empire suffered the severe and protracted Antonine Plague starting around 165 AD. For about twenty years, waves of one or more diseases, possibly the first epidemics of smallpox and/or measles, swept through the Empire, ultimately killing about half the population. Similar epidemics, such as the Plague of Cyprian, also occurred in the 3rd century. McNeill argues that the severe fall in population left the state apparatus and army too large for the population to support, leading to further economic and social decline that eventually killed the Western Empire. The Eastern half survived due to its larger population, which even after the plagues was sufficient for an effective state apparatus.

text: Archaeology has revealed that from the 2nd century onward, the inhabited area in most Roman towns and cities grew smaller and smaller. Imperial laws concerning "agri deserti", or deserted lands, became increasingly common and desperate. The economic collapse of the 3rd century may also be evidence of a shrinking population as Rome’s tax base was also shrinking and could no longer support the Roman Army and other Roman institutions.

text: Rome's success had led to increased contact with Asia though trade, especially in a sea route through the Red Sea that Rome cleared of pirates shortly after conquering Egypt. Wars also increased contact with Asia, particularly wars with the Persian Empire. With increased contact with Asia came increased transmission of disease into the Mediterranean from Asia. Romans used public fountains, public latrines, public baths, and supported many brothels all of which were conducive to the spread of pathogens. Romans crowded into walled cities and the poor and the slaves lived in very close quarters with each other. Epidemics began sweeping though the Empire.

text: The culture of the German barbarians living just across the Rhine and Danube rivers was not so conducive to the spread of pathogens. Germans lived in small scattered villages that did not support the same level of trade as did Roman settlements. Germans lived in single-family detached houses. Germans did not have public baths nor as many brothels and drank ale made with boiled water. The barbarian population seemed to be on the rise. The demographics of Europe were changing.

text: Economically, depopulation led to the impoverishment of East and West as economic ties among different parts of the empire weakened. Increasing raids by barbarians further strained the economy and further reduced the population, mostly in the West. In areas near the Rhine and Danube frontiers, raids by barbarians killed Romans and disrupted commerce. Raids also forced Romans into walled towns and cities furthering the spread of pathogens and increasing the rate of depopulation in the West. A low population and weak economy forced Rome to use barbarians in the Roman Army to defend against other barbarians.

text: Environmental degradation

text: Another theory is that gradual environmental degradation caused population and economic decline. Deforestation and excessive grazing led to erosion of meadows and cropland. Increased irrigation without suitable drainage caused salinization, especially in North Africa. These human activities resulted in fertile land becoming nonproductive and eventually increased desertification in some regions. Many animal species become extinct.[13] The recent research of Tainter stated that "deforestation did not cause the Roman collapse",[14] although it could be a minor contributing factor.

text: Also, high taxes and heavy slavery are another reason for decline as they forced small farmers out of business and into the cities, which became overpopulated. Roman cities were only designed to hold a certain amount of people, and once they passed that, disease, water shortage and food shortage became common.[citation needed]

text: Lead poisoning

text: Publishing several articles in the 1960s, the sociologist Seabury Colum Gilfillan advanced the argument that lead poisoning was a significant factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.[15][16][17] Later, a posthumously published book elaborated on Gilfillan's work on this topic.[18]

text: Jerome Nriagu, a geochemist, argued in a 1983 book that "lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman empire." His work centred on the level to which the ancient Romans, who had few sweeteners besides honey, would boil must in lead pots to produce a reduced sugar syrup called defrutum, concentrated again into sapa. This syrup was used to some degree to sweeten wine and food.[19] If acidic must is boiled within lead vessels the sweet syrup it yields will contain a quantity of Pb(C2H3O2)2 or lead(II) acetate.[19] Lead was also leached from the glazes on amphorae and other pottery, from pewter drinking vessels and cookware, and from lead piping used for municipal water supplies and baths.[20]

text: The main culinary use of defrutum was to sweeten wine, but it was also added to fruit and meat dishes as a sweetening and souring agent and even given to food animals such as suckling pig and duck to improve the taste of their flesh. Defrutum was mixed with garum to make the popular condiment oenogarum and as such was one of Rome's most popular condiments. Quince and melon were preserved in defrutum and honey through the winter, and some Roman women used defrutum or sapa as a cosmetic. Defrutum was often used as a food preservative in provisions for Roman troops.[21]

text: Nriagu produced a table showing his estimated consumption of lead by various classes within the Roman Empire. However, to produce the table Nriagu assumes all of the defrutum/sapa consumed to have been made in lead vessels:[20][22]

text:
Population
Source
Lead level in source
Daily intake
Absorption factor
Lead absorbed

Aristocrats

Air
0.05 µg/m3
20 m3
0.4
0.4 µg/day

Water
50 (50–200) µg/l
1.0 liter
0.1
5 (5–20) µg/day

Wines
300 (200–1500)
2.0 liters
0.3
180 (120–900) µg/day

Foods
0.2 (0.1–2.0) µg/g
3 kg (7 lb)
0.1
60 (30–600) µg/day

Other/Misc.

5.0 µg/day

Total

250 (160-1250) µg/day

Plebeians

Less food, same wine consumption.
35 (35-320) µg/day

Slaves

Still less food, more water, 0.75 liters wine
15 (15-77) µg/day

text: Lead is not removed quickly from the body. It tends to form lead phosphate complexes within bone.[23] This is detectable in preserved bone.[24] Chemical analysis of preserved skeletons found in Herculaneum by Dr. Sara C. Bisel from the University of Minnesota indicated they contained lead in concentrations of 84 parts per million (ppm),[24] whereas skeletons found in a Greek cave had lead concentrations of just 3ppm. However, the lead content revealed in many other ancient Roman remains have been shown to have been less than half that of modern Europeans[25] which have concentrations between 20-50ppm.[24]

text: Criticism of lead poisoning theory

text: The role and importance of lead poisoning in contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire is the subject of controversy and its importance and validity is discounted by many historians.[19] John Scarborough, a pharmacologist and classicist, criticized Nriagu's book as "so full of false evidence, miscitations, typographical errors, and a blatant flippancy regarding primary sources that the reader cannot trust the basic arguments."[26] He concluded that ancient authorities were well aware of lead poisoning and that it was not endemic in the Roman empire nor did it cause its fall.

text: Although defrutum and sapa prepared in leaden containers would indubitably have contained toxic levels of lead, the use of leaden containers, though popular, was not the standard and copper was used far more generally. The exact amount of sapa added to wine was also not standardised and there is no indication how often sapa was added or in what quantity.

text: Additionally, Roman authors such as Pliny the Elder[27] and Vitruvius recognised the toxicity of lead. Vitruvius, who flourished during Augustus' time, writes that the Romans knew very well of the dangers.

text: Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead [cerussa, lead carbonate, PbCO3] is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome.

text: Nevertheless, recent research supports the idea that the lead found in the water came from the supply pipes, rather than another source of contamination. It was not unknown for locals to punch holes in the pipes to draw water off, increasing the number of people exposed to the lead.

text: Thirty years ago, Jerome Nriagu argued in a milestone paper that Roman civilization collapsed as a result of lead poisoning. Clair Patterson, the scientist who convinced governments to ban lead from gasoline, enthusiastically endorsed this idea, which nevertheless triggered a volley of publications aimed at refuting it. Although today lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome's demise, its status in the system of water distribution by lead pipes (fistulæ) still stands as a major public health issue. By measuring Pb isotope compositions of sediments from the Tiber River and the Trajanic Harbor, the present work shows that "tap water" from ancient Rome had 100 times more lead than local spring waters.[28][29][30]

text: Catastrophic collapse

text: J. B. Bury

text: J. B. Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire (1889/1923) challenged the prevailing "theory of moral decay" established by Gibbon as well as the classic "clash of Christianity vs. paganism" theory, citing the relative success of the Eastern Empire, which was resolutely Christian. He held that Gibbon's grand history, though epoch-making in its research and detail, was too monocausal. His main difference from Gibbon lay in his interpretation of facts, rather than disputing any facts. He made it clear that he felt that Gibbon's thesis concerning "moral decay" was viable—but incomplete. Bury's judgment was that:[31]

text: The gradual collapse of the Roman power ... was the consequence of a series of contingent events. No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable.

text: Bury held that a number of crises arose simultaneously: economic decline, Germanic expansion, depopulation of Italy, dependency on Germanic foederati for the military, the disastrous (though Bury believed unknowing) treason of Stilicho, loss of martial vigor, Aetius' murder, the lack of any leader to replace Aetius—a series of misfortunes which, in combination, proved catastrophic:

text: The Empire had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and ... it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms. It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence.

text: The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline'". The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above.[31]

text: Peter Heather

text: Peter Heather, in his The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005), maintains the Roman imperial system with its sometimes violent imperial transitions and problematic communications notwithstanding, was in fairly good shape during the first, second, and part of the 3rd centuries AD. According to Heather, the first real indication of trouble was the emergence in Iran of the Sassanid Persian empire (226–651). As reviewed by one writer on Heather's writing,

text: The Sassanids were sufficiently powerful and internally cohesive to push back Roman legions from the Euphrates and from much of Armenia and southeast Turkey. Much as modern readers tend to think of the "Huns" as the nemesis of the Roman Empire, for the entire period under discussion it was the Persians who held the attention and concern of Rome and Constantinople. Indeed, 20–25% of the military might of the Roman Army was addressing the Persian threat from the late third century onward ... and upwards of 40% of the troops under the Eastern Emperors.[32]

text: Heather goes on to state—in the tradition of Gibbon and Bury—that it took the Roman Empire about half a century to cope with the Sassanid threat, which it did by stripping the western provincial towns and cities of their regional taxation income. The resulting expansion of military forces in the Middle East was finally successful in stabilizing the frontiers with the Sassanids, but the reduction of real income in the provinces of the Empire led to two trends which, Heather says, had a negative long-term impact. First, the incentive for local officials to spend their time and money in the development of local infrastructure disappeared. Public buildings from the 4th century onward tended to be much more modest and funded from central budgets, as the regional taxes had dried up. Second, Heather says "the landowning provincial literati now shifted their attention to where the money was ... away from provincial and local politics to the imperial bureaucracies." Having set the scene of an Empire stretched militarily by the Sassanid threat, Heather then suggests, using archaeological evidence, that the Germanic tribes on the Empire's northern border had altered in nature since the 1st century. Contact with the Empire had increased their material wealth, and that in turn had led to disparities of wealth sufficient to create a ruling class capable of maintaining control over far larger groupings than had previously been possible. Essentially they had become significantly more formidable foes.

text: Heather then posits what amounts to a domino theory—namely that pressure on peoples very far away from the Empire could result in sufficient pressure on peoples on the Empire's borders to make them contemplate the risk of full scale immigration to the empire. Thus he links the Gothic invasion of 376 directly to Hunnic movements around the Black Sea in the decade before. In the same way he sees the invasions across the Rhine in 406 as a direct consequence of further Hunnic incursions in Germania; as such he sees the Huns as deeply significant in the fall of the Western Empire long before they themselves became a military threat to the Empire. He postulates that the Hunnic expansion caused unprecedented immigration in 376 and 406 by barbarian groupings who had become significantly more politically and militarily capable than in previous eras. This impacted an empire already at maximum stretch due to the Sassanid pressure. Essentially he argues that the external pressures of 376–470 could have brought the Western Empire down at any point in its history.

text: He disputes Gibbon's contention that Christianity and moral decay led to the decline. He also rejects the political infighting of the Empire as a reason, considering it was a systemic recurring factor throughout the Empire's history which, while it might have contributed to an inability to respond to the circumstances of the 5th century, it consequently cannot be blamed for them. Instead he places its origin squarely on outside military factors, starting with the Sassanids. Like Bury, he does not believe the fall was inevitable, but rather a series of events which came together to shatter the Empire. He differs from Bury, however, in placing the onset of those events far earlier in the Empire's timeline, with the Sassanid rise.

text: Bryan Ward-Perkins

text: Bryan Ward-Perkins's The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005) takes a traditional view tempered by modern discoveries, arguing that the empire's demise was caused by a vicious circle of political instability, foreign invasion, and reduced tax revenue. Essentially, invasions caused long-term damage to the provincial tax base, which lessened the Empire's medium- to long-term ability to pay and equip the legions, with predictable results. Likewise, constant invasions encouraged provincial rebellion as self-help, further depleting Imperial resources. Contrary to the trend among some historians of the "there was no fall" school, who view the fall of Rome as not necessarily a "bad thing" for the people involved, Ward-Perkins argues that in many parts of the former Empire the archaeological record indicates that the collapse was truly a disaster.

text: Ward-Perkins' theory, much like Bury's, and Heather's, identifies a series of cyclic events that came together to cause a definite decline and fall.

text: Transformation

text: Henri Pirenne

text: In the second half of the 19th century, some historians focused on the continuities between the Roman Empire and the post-Roman Germanic kingdoms rather than the rupture. In Histoire des institutions politiques de l'ancienne France (1875–89), Fustel de Coulanges argued that the barbarians simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions.

text: Henri Pirenne continued this idea with the "Pirenne Thesis", published in the 1920s, which remains influential to this day. It holds that even after the barbarian invasions, the Roman way of doing things did not immediately change; barbarians came to Rome not to destroy it, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life. The Pirenne Thesis regards the rise of the Frankish realm in Europe as a continuation of the Roman Empire, and thus validates the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor as a successor of the Roman Emperors. According to Pirenne, the real break in Roman history occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries as a result of Arab expansion. Islamic conquest of the area of today's south-eastern Turkey, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Spain and Portugal ruptured economic ties to western Europe, cutting the region off from trade and turning it into a stagnant backwater, with wealth flowing out in the form of raw resources and nothing coming back. This began a steady decline and impoverishment so that by the time of Charlemagne western Europe had become almost entirely agrarian at a subsistence level, with no long-distance trade. Pirenne's view on the continuity of the Roman Empire before and after the Germanic invasion has been supported by recent historians such as François Masai, Karl Ferdinand Werner, and Peter Brown.

text: Some modern critics have argued that the "Pirenne Thesis" erred on two counts: by treating the Carolingian realm as a Roman state and by overemphasizing the effect of the Islamic conquests on the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. Other critics have argued that while Pirenne was correct in arguing for the continuity of the Empire beyond the sack of Rome, the Arab conquests in the 7th century may not have disrupted Mediterranean trade routes to the degree that Pirenne argued. Michael McCormick in particular has argued that some recently unearthed sources, such as collective biographies, describe new trade routes. Moreover, other records and coins document the movement of Islamic currency into the Carolingian Empire. McCormick has concluded that if money was coming in, some type of goods must have been going out – including slaves, timber, weapons, honey, amber, and furs.

text: Lucien Musset and the clash of civilizations

text: In the spirit of "Pirenne thesis", a school of thought pictured a clash of civilizations between the Roman and the Germanic world, a process taking place roughly between 3rd and 8th century.

text: The French historian Lucien Musset, studying the Barbarian invasions, argues the civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a synthesis between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it. To support this conclusion, beside the narrative of the events, he offers linguistic surveys of toponymy and anthroponymy, analyzes archaeological records, studies the urban and rural society, the institutions, the religion, the art, the technology.

text: Late Antiquity

text: Historians of Late Antiquity, a field pioneered by Peter Brown, have turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire fell at all – refocusing instead on Pirenne's thesis. They see a transformation occurring over centuries, with the roots of Medieval culture contained in Roman culture and focus on the continuities between the classical and Medieval worlds. Thus, it was a gradual process with no clear break. Brown argues in his book that:

text: Factors we would regard as natural in a 'crisis'—malaise caused by urbanization, public disasters, the intrusion of alien religious ideas, and a consequent heightening of religious hopes and fears—may not have bulked as large in the minds of the men of the late second and third centuries as we suppose... The towns of the Mediterranean were small towns. For all their isolation from the way of life of the villagers, they were fragile excrescences in a spreading countryside."[33]


document_title: Nuclear power in Germany

question_text: when did germany build its first nuclear power plant

root

text: Nuclear power in Germany

text: History[edit]

text: German publications of the 1950s and 1960s contained criticism of some features of nuclear power including its safety. Nuclear waste disposal was widely recognized as a major problem, with concern publicly expressed as early as 1954. In 1964, one author went so far as to state "that the dangers and costs of the necessary final disposal of nuclear waste could possibly make it necessary to forego the development of nuclear energy".[10]

tag: p

text: As in many industrialised countries, nuclear power in Germany was first developed in the late 1950s. Only a few experimental reactors went online before 1960, and an experimental nuclear power station in Kahl am Main opened in 1960. All of the German nuclear power plants that opened between 1960 and 1970 had a power output of less than 1,000 MW and have now all closed down. The first commercial nuclear power plant started operating in 1969. Obrigheim, the first grid station, operated until 2005. (Neckarwestheim.) A closed nuclear fuel cycle was planned, starting with mining operations in the Saarland and the Schwarzwald; uranium ore concentration, fuel rod filling production in Hanau; and reprocessing of the spent fuel in the never-built nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf. The radioactive waste was intended to be stored in a deep geological repository, as part of the Gorleben long-term storage project.

text: In the early 1960s there was a proposal to build a nuclear power station in West Berlin, but the project was dropped in 1962. Another attempt to site a reactor in a major city was made in 1967, when BASF planned to build a nuclear power station on its ground at Ludwigshafen, to supply process steam. Eventually the project was withdrawn by BASF.[10]

text: In the early 1970s, large public demonstrations prevented the construction of a nuclear plant at Wyhl. The Wyhl protests were an example of a local community challenging the nuclear industry through a strategy of direct action and civil disobedience. Police were accused of using unnecessarily violent means. Anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired nuclear opposition throughout Germany and elsewhere.[11]

text: The Rheinsberg Nuclear Power Plant was the first (mostly experimental) nuclear power plant in East Germany. It was of low power and operated from 1966 until 1990. The second to be commissioned, the Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant, was planned to house eight of the Russian 440 MW VVER-440 reactors. The first four went online between 1973 and 1979. Greifswald 5 operated for less than a month before it was closed, the other three were cancelled during different stages of their build-up. In 1990, during the German reunification, all nuclear power plants were closed due to the differences in safety standards.

text: The Stendal Nuclear Power Plant in East Germany, was to be the largest nuclear power station in Germany. After German reunification, and due to concerns about the Soviet design, construction was stopped and the power station was never completed. In the 1990s the three cooling towers which had been erected were demolished, and the area is an industrial estate today.

text: Operators[edit]

text: As of 2016[update] the nuclear power plant operators in Germany comprise:

text:
E.ON Kernkraft GmbH
EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG
RWE Power AG
Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH

tag: ul

text: Construction companies[edit]

text: In September 2011, Siemens, which had been responsible for constructing all 17 of Germany's existing nuclear power plants, announced that it would exit the nuclear sector following the Fukushima disaster and the subsequent changes to German energy policy. It will no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that "Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades".[9][12] Peter Löscher has supported the German government's planned energy transition to renewable energy technologies, calling it a "project of the century" and saying Berlin's target of reaching 35% renewable energy sources by 2020 was feasible.[13]

text: An October 2016 story in the Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that Finnish operator TVO is calling on Siemens to take financial responsibility for the completion of Unit 3 of the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland, because its project partner, the French Areva Group, is being broken up by the French government. Unit 3 has a history of delays and its future profitability is in doubt.[14][15]

text: Accidents[edit]

text:
Nuclear power accidents in Germany[16][17]

Date
Location
Description
Cost (in 2006 US$ million)

4 May 1986
Hamm-Uentrop, West Germany
Operator actions to dislodge damaged fuel elements at the thorium high-temperature reactor release excessive radiation to 4 km2 surrounding the facility
267

17 Dec 1987
Hesse, West Germany
Stop valve fails at Biblis Nuclear Power Plant and contaminates local area
13

24 Nov 1989
Greifswald, East Germany
A near core meltdown occurs at Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant. Three out of six cooling water pumps were switched off for a test. A fourth pump broke down and control of the reactor was lost; 10 fuel elements were damaged
443

tag: table

text: Closures and phase-out[edit]

text: During the chancellorship of Gerhard Schröder, the social democratic-green government had decreed Germany's final retreat from using nuclear power by 2022, but the phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during chancellorship of center-right Angela Merkel the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule.[18] This delay provoked protests, including a human chain of 50,000 from Stuttgart to the nearby nuclear plant in Neckarwestheim.[19] Anti-nuclear demonstrations on 12 March attracted 100,000 across Germany.[20]

text: On 14 March 2011, in response to the renewed concern about the use of nuclear energy the Fukushima incident raised in the German public and in light of upcoming elections in three German states, Merkel declared a 3-month moratorium on the reactor lifespan extension passed in 2010.[21] On 15 March, the German government announced that it would temporarily shut down 8 of its 17 reactors, i.e. all reactors that went online before 1981.[22] Former proponents of nuclear energy such as Angela Merkel, Guido Westerwelle, and Stefan Mappus have changed their positions,[23] yet 71% of the population believe that to be a tactical manoeuvre related to upcoming state elections.[24] In the largest anti-nuclear demonstration ever held in Germany, some 250,000 people protested on 26 March under the slogan "heed Fukushima – shut off all nuclear plants".[25]

text: On 30 May 2011, the German government announced a plan to shut all nuclear reactors by 2022.[26] Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen stated of the decision, "It's definite. The latest end for the last three nuclear power plants is 2022. There will be no clause for revision".[4] Prior to the decision, Germany's renewable energy sector already provided 17% of Germany's electricity and employed about 370,000.[7] The decision to phase-out nuclear power has been called the swiftest change of political course since unification.[27] Only a year earlier Angela Merkel's government overturned a decade-old decision to close all nuclear plants by 2022.[27]

text: Physicist Amory Lovins has said: "Chancellor Merkel was so shocked by Fukushima that she turned Germany’s energy focus from nuclear (of which she closed 41% and will close the rest within a decade) to efficiency and renewables. That’s supported by three-fourths of Germans and opposed by no political party".[28]

text: Merkel stated that Germany "[does not] only want to renounce nuclear energy by 2022, we also want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 40 percent and double our share of renewable energies, from about 17 percent today to then 35 percent". The chancellor noted the "helplessness" of Japan to manage the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Merkel asserted that Germany's energy policy would be safe, reliable, and independent from imports, with affordable prices for both consumers and industry. Increased investment in natural gas plants would provide a backup to ensure consistency for those times when the solar, wind and hydroelectric sources did not meet demand.[7]

text: At the time of the Japanese Fukushima disaster, Germany was getting just under a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power.[7] After the Fukushima disaster, the following eight German nuclear power reactors were declared permanently shut down on 6 August 2011: Biblis A and B, Brunsbuettel, Isar 1, Kruemmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Philippsburg 1 and Unterweser.[29]

text: Some German manufacturers and energy companies have criticized the phase-out plans, warning that Germany could face blackouts.[30] However, this did not happen.[31] Germany remained a net exporter of about 7016180000000000000♠5 TWh of power in 2011 after exporting 7016637200000000000♠17.7 TWh in 2010, according to data published by the energy utility association "AG Energiebilanzen" in February 2012.[32] Swedish Energy company Vattenfall went in front of the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to seek compensation from the German government for the premature shut-down of its nuclear plants.[33][34]

text: On 5 December 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the nuclear plant operators affected by the accelerated phase-out of nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster are eligible for "adequate" compensation. The court found that the nuclear exit was essentially constitutional but that the utilities are entitled to damages for the "good faith" investments they made in 2010. The utilities can now sue the German government under civil law. E.ON, RWE, and Vattenfall are expected to seek a total of €19 billion under separate suits.[35][36][37] Six cases were registered with courts in Germany, as of 7 December 2016[update].[38][39]

text: Nuclear waste liability buyout 2016[edit]

text: On 19 October 2016, the German cabinet (Bundeskabinett) finalized a deal with nuclear power plant operators E.ON, EnBW, RWE, and Vattenfall over long-term nuclear waste disposal. Under the agreement, the four operators are freed of responsibility for storing radioactive waste – that responsibility is instead transferred to the state. In return, the operators will pay a total of €17.4 billion into a state-administered fund to finance the interim and final storage of nuclear waste. They will also pay an additional "risk surcharge" of €6.2 billion (35.5%) to cover the eventuality that costs exceed current projections and that the interest accrued by the fund is lower than expected. The operators will be responsible for decommissioning and deconstructing their own nuclear power plants, as well as preparing their radioactive waste for final storage. Critics, including the German Renewable Energy Federation and BUND, claim the total of €23.6 billion would prove insufficient and that future taxpayers will carry the risk.[40] The draft law is available in German.[41] It is due to be enacted in early 2017.

text: Role for coal and renewables[edit]

text: Since nuclear power generated almost a third of the electricity in Germany, many thought that the country would have to import energy as the nuclear phase-out progressed. At first, Germany was still selling more electricity than it bought, due to its renewable energy industry.[42] Renewable energy supplied a record 20.8% of Germany’s electricity in the first half of 2011, from wind power, solar power, biomass and hydro. Germany installed over 7,400 MW of solar in 2010 and another 7,000 MW will be added in 2011. Solar and wind capacity is expected to grow by 32% from 2012–2013. The surge in renewable energy is credited with driving down the price of electricity in Germany.[42]

text: Germany has combined the phase-out with an initiative for renewable energy and wants to increase the efficiency of fossil power plants in an effort to reduce the reliance on coal. According to the former German Minister for the Environment Jürgen Trittin, in 2020, this would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the efforts to fulfill the Kyoto protocol. Critics of the German policy have called it a mistake to abandon nuclear power, claiming the only alternative to nuclear power was coal and abandoning nuclear power was therefore contradictory to the goal of lowering CO2 emissions.[43]

text: As a result of its efforts and subsidies, Germany has developed advanced non-conventional renewable energy for electricity generation, particularly in photovoltaic and wind turbine installations. At the same time, Germany continues to rely heavily on coal power, with usage increasing to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy.[44]

text: The German nuclear industry has insisted that its shutdown would cause major damage to the country's industrial base. In 2012, member firms of the Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft (VIK) reported power failures of several seconds duration, combined with a rise in frequency fluctuations. These were reportedly caused by network overloads due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants, and an increase in wind power generation.[45] VIK also fear that industrial control units will be damaged by outages.

text: The cost of replacing Germany's nuclear power generation with renewable energy has been officially estimated by the German Ministry of Economics at about €0.01/kWh (about €55 billion for the next decade), on top of the €13 billion per year already devoted to subsidizing renewables. However, unofficial estimates of the ministry, and of the Rhenish-Westphalian Institute for Economic Research (RWI), German Energy Agency (DENA), Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZBV), and the government-owned development bank (KfW), put the cost several times higher, at about €250 billion ($340 B) over the next decade.[46][47]

text: In March 2013, the administrative court for the German state of Hesse ruled that a three-month closure imposed by the government on RWE's Biblis A and B reactors as an immediate response to Fukushima Daiichi accident was illegal.[48] The state ministry of the environment acted illegally in March 2011, when an order was issued for the immediate closure of the Biblis units. RWE complied with the decree by shutting Biblis-A immediately, however as the plants were in compliance with the relevant safety requirements, the German government had no legal grounds for shutting them. The court ruled that the closure notice was illegal because RWE had not been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the order.


document_title: Automotive industry

question_text: what is the largest auto company in the world

text: Automotive industry

text: History[edit]

text: The automotive industry began in the 1860s with hundreds of manufacturers that pioneered the horseless carriage. For many decades, the United States led the world in total automobile production. In 1929, before the Great Depression, the world had 32,028,500 automobiles in use, and the U.S. automobile industry produced over 90% of them. At that time the U.S. had one car per 4.87 persons.[3] After World War II, the U.S. produced about 75 percent of world's auto production. In 1980, the U.S. was overtaken by Japan and then became world's leader again in 1994. In 2006, Japan narrowly passed the U.S. in production and held this rank until 2009, when China took the top spot with 13.8 million units. With 19.3 million units manufactured in 2012, China almost doubled the U.S. production, with 10.3 million units, while Japan was in third place with 9.9 million units.[4] From 1970 (140 models) over 1998 (260 models) to 2012 (684 models), the number of automobile models in the U.S. has grown exponentially.[5]

text: Safety[edit]

text: Safety is a state that implies to be protected from any risk, danger, damage or cause of injury. In the automotive industry, safety means that users, operators or manufacturers do not face any risk or danger coming from the motor vehicle or its spare parts. Safety for the autmobiles themselves, implies that there is no risk of damage.

text: Safety in the automotive industry is particularly important and therefore highly regulated. Automobiles and other motor vehicles have to comply with a certain number of norms and regulations, whether local or international, in order to be accepted on the market. The standard ISO 26262, is considered as one of the best practice framework for achieving automotive functional safety.[6]

text: In case of safety issues, danger, product defect or faulty procedure during the manufacturing of the motor vehicle, the maker can request to return either a batch or the entire production run. This procedure is called product recall. Product recalls happen in every industry and can be production-related or stem from the raw material.

text: Product and operation tests and inspections at different stages of the value chain are made to avoid these product recalls by ensuring end-user security and safety and compliance with the automotive industry requirements. However, the automotive industry is still particularly concerned about product recalls, which cause considerable financial consequences.

text: Economy[edit]

text: Around the world, there were about 806 million cars and light trucks on the road in 2007, consuming over 980 billion litres (980,000,000 m3) of gasoline and diesel fuel yearly.[7] The automobile is a primary mode of transportation for many developed economies. The Detroit branch of Boston Consulting Group predicts that, by 2014, one-third of world demand will be in the four BRIC markets (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Meanwhile, in the developed countries, the automotive industry has slowed down.[8] It is also expected that this trend will continue, especially as the younger generations of people (in highly urbanized countries) no longer want to own a car anymore, and prefer other modes of transport.[9] Other potentially powerful automotive markets are Iran and Indonesia.[10] Emerging auto markets already buy more cars than established markets. According to a J.D. Power study, emerging markets accounted for 51 percent of the global light-vehicle sales in 2010. The study, performed in 2010 expected this trend to accelerate.[11][12] However, more recent reports (2012) confirmed the opposite; namely that the automotive industry was slowing down even in BRIC countries.[8] In the United States, vehicle sales peaked in 2000, at 17.8 million units.[13]

text: World motor vehicle production[edit]

text: 1960s: Post war increase

text: 1970s: Oil crisis and tighter safety and emission regulation.

text: 1990s: production started in NICs

text: 2000s: rise of China as top producer

text: 1950s: UK, Germany and France restarted production.

text: 1960s: Japan started production and increased volume through the 1980s. US, Japan, Germany, France and UK produced about 80% of motor vehicles through the 1980s.

text: 1990s: Korea became a volume producer. In 2004, Korea became No. 5 passing France.

text: 2000s: China increased its production drastically, and 2009 became the world largest producing country.

text: By year[edit]

text:
Year
Production
Change
Source

1997
54,434,000
—
[16]

1998
52,987,000
 2.7%
[16]

1999
56,258,892
 6.2%
[17]

2000
58,374,162
 3.8%
[18]

2001
56,304,925
 3.5%
[19]

2002
58,994,318
 4.8%
[20]

2003
60,663,225
 2.8%
[21]

2004
64,496,220
 6.3%
[22]

2005
66,482,439
 3.1%
[23]

2006
69,222,975
 4.1%
[24]

2007
73,266,061
 5.8%
[25]

2008
70,520,493
 3.7%
[26]

2009
61,791,868
 12.4%
[27]

2010
77,857,705
 26.0%
[28]

2011
79,989,155
 3.1%
[29]

2012
84,141,209
 5.3%
[30]

2013
87,300,115
 3.7%
[31]

2014
89,747,430
 2.6%
[32]

2015
 90,086,346
0.4%
[33]

2016
 94,976,569
4.5%
[34]

text: By country[edit]

text: The OICA counts over 50 countries which assemble, manufacture or disseminate automobiles. Of that figure, only 13, boldfaced in the list below, possess the capability to design automobiles from the ground up.[36][37]

text:
Algeria
Argentina
Australia (main page)
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh (main page)
Belarus (main page)
Belgium
Brazil (main page)
Bulgaria (main page)
Canada (main page)
China (main page)
Colombia
Czech Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Finland
France (main page)
Ghana
Germany (main page)
Hungary (main page)
India (main page)
Indonesia (main page)
Iran (main page)
Italy (main page)
Japan (main page)
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya (main page)
Morocco (main page)
Malaysia (main page)
Mexico (main page)
Netherlands
Pakistan (main page)
Philippines
Poland (main page)
Portugal
Romania (main page)
Russia (main page)
Serbia (main page)
Slovakia (main page)
Slovenia
South Africa (main page)
South Korea (main page)
Spain (main page)
Sweden (main page)
Taiwan
Thailand (main page)
Tunisia
Turkey (main page)
Ukraine (main page)
United Kingdom (main page)
United States (main page)
Uzbekistan (main page)
Venezuela
Vietnam

text:
Top 20 motor vehicle producing countries (2016)

Country
Motor vehicle production (units)

China

28,118,794

United States

12,198,137

Japan

9,204,590

Germany

6,062,562

India

4,488,965

South Korea

4,228,509

Mexico

3,597,462

Spain

2,885,922

Canada

2,370,271

Brazil

2,156,356

France

2,082,000

Thailand

1,944,417

United Kingdom

1,816,622

Turkey

1,485,927

Czech Republic

1,349,896

Russia

1,303,989

Indonesia

1,177,389

Iran

1,164,710

Italy

1,103,516

Slovakia

1,040,000

"Production Statistics". OICA.

text: By manufacturer[edit]

text: This is a list of the 15 largest manufacturers by production in 2016.[35]

text:
Rank
Group
Country
Vehicles

1
Toyota
Japan
10,213,486

2
Volkswagen Group
Germany
10,126,281

3
Hyundai
South Korea
7,889,538

4
General Motors
United States
7,793,066

5
Ford
United States
6,429,485

6
Nissan
Japan
5,556,241

7
Honda
Japan
4,999,266

8
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy / United States
4,681,457

9
Renault
France
3,373,278

10
PSA
France
3,152,787

11
Suzuki
Japan
2,945,295

12
SAIC
China
2,566,793

13
Daimler
Germany
2,526,450

14
BMW
Germany
2,359,756

15
Changan
China
1,715,871

text: By market segment[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2018)

text: Company relationships[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Stake holding[edit]

text: It is common for automobile manufacturers to hold stakes in other automobile manufacturers. These ownerships can be explored under the detail for the individual companies.

text: Notable current relationships include:[citation needed]

text:
Daimler AG holds a 20% stake in Eicher Motors.
Daimler AG holds a 10.0% stake in KAMAZ.
Daimler AG holds an 89.29% stake in Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation.
Daimler AG holds a 6.75% stake in Tata Motors.
Daimler AG holds a 3.1% in the Renault-Nissan Alliance.
Daimler AG holds a 12% stake in Beijing Automotive Group,
Daimler AG holds an 85% stake in Master Motors.
Dongfeng Motor holds a 12.23% stake and an 19.94% exercisable voting rights in PSA Groupe.
FAW Group owns 49% of Haima Automobile.
FCA holds a 10% stake in Ferrari.
FCA holds a 67% stake in Fiat Automobili Srbija.
FCA holds 37.8% of Tofaş with another 37.8% owned by Koç Holding.
Fiat Automobili Srbija owns a 54% stake in Zastava Trucks.
Fiat Industrial owns a 46% stake in Zastava Trucks.
Fujian Motors Group holds a 15% stake in King Long. FMG, Beijing Automotive Group, China Motor, and Daimler has a joint venture called Fujian Benz. FMG, China Motor, and Mitsubishi Motors has a joint venture called Soueast, FMG holds a 50% stake, and both China Motor and Mitsubishi Motors holds an equal 25% stake.
Geely Automobile holds a 23% stake in The London Taxi Company.
Geely Automobile holds a 49.9% stake in PROTON Holdings and a 51% stake in Lotus Cars.[38]
Geely Holding Group holds a 9.69% stake in Daimler AG.
Geely Holding Group holds an 8.3% stake and a 15.9% exercisable voting rights in AB Volvo.
General Motors holds a 94% stake in GM Korea and SAIC Group holds a 6% stake.
General Motors holds a 20% stake in Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines.
Isuzu owns 10% of Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines.
MAN SE holds a 17.01% voting stake in Scania.
Marcopolo owns 19% of New Flyer Industries.
Mitsubishi Group holds 20% of Mitsubishi Motors.
Nissan owns 34% of Mitsubishi Motors and had the since October 2016,[39] thus having the right to nominate the chairman of Mitsubishi Motors’s board and a third of its directors.[40]
Nissan owns 43% of Nissan Shatai.
Porsche Automobil Holding SE has a 50.74% voting stake in Volkswagen Group. The Porsche automotive business is fully owned by the Volkswagen Group.
Renault and Nissan Motors have an alliance (Renault-Nissan Alliance) involving two global companies linked by cross-shareholding, with Renault holding 43.4% of Nissan shares, and Nissan holding 15% of (non-voting) Renault shares.
Renault-Nissan Alliance holds a 3.1% share in Daimler AG.
Renault holds a 25% stake in AvtoVAZ
Renault holds an 80.1% stake in Renault Samsung.
SAIPA holds a 51% stake in Pars Khodro.
Toyota holds a 100% stake in Daihatsu.
Toyota holds a 50.1% stake in Hino.
Toyota holds a 16.7% stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, parent company of Subaru.
Toyota holds a 5.9% stake in Isuzu.
Toyota holds a 5.05% stake in Mazda, while Mazda holds 0.25% stake in Toyota[41].
Volkswagen Group holds a 99.55% stake in the Audi Group.
Volkswagen Group holds a 37.73% stake in Scania (68.6% voting rights), a 53.7% stake in MAN SE (55.9% voting rights), Volkswagen is integrating Scania, MAN and its own truck division into one division.
Paccar inc. has a 19% stake in Tatra.

text: Joint ventures[edit]

text:
AB Volvo and Eicher Motors has a 50-50% joint venture called VE Commercial Vehicles.
Beijing Automotive Group has a joint venture with Daimler called Beijing Benz, both companies hold a 50-50% stake. both companies also have a joint venture called Beijing Foton Daimler Automobile. BAG also has a joint venture with Hyundai called Beijing Hyundai, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
BMW and Brilliance have a joint venture called BMW Brilliance. BMW owns a 50% stake, Brilliance owns a 40.5% stake, and the Shenyang municipal government owns a 9.5% stake.
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Groupe PSA (CAPSA), both hold a 50-50% stake,
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Suzuki (Changan Suzuki), both hold a 50-50% stake,
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Ford and Mazda (Changan Ford Mazda), CAG holds a 50% stake, Ford holds a 35% stake, and Mazda holds a 15% stake.
Chang'an and Ford have a joint venture called Chang'an Ford Nanjing. Jiangling and Chang'an have a joint venture called Jiangxi Jiangling.
Chery has a joint venture with Tata Motors called Chery Jaguar Land Rover, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Chery and Israel Corporation has a joint venture called Qoros, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Daimler AG and BYD Auto have a joint venture called Denza, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Dongfeng Motor and Nissan have a 50-50% joint venture called Dongfeng Motor Company.
Dongfeng Motor and PSA Group have a 50-50% joint venture called Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroen,
Dongfeng Motor has a 50-50% joint venture with Honda called Dongfeng Honda,
Dongfeng Motor has a joint venture with AB Volvo called Dongfeng Nissan-Diesel,
Dongfeng Motor has a 50-50% joint venture with Renault named Dongfeng Renault in Wuhan, which was founded in the end of 2013
Ford Motor Company and Navistar International have a 50-50 joint venture called Blue Diamond Truck.
Ford and Sollers JSC have a 50-50 joint venture called Ford Sollers.
Both Ford and Koç Holding own a 41% stake in Ford Otosan.
Ford and Lio Ho Group have a joint venture called Ford Lio Ho, Ford owns 70% and Lio Ho Group owns 30%.
FAW Group and GM has a 50-50 joint venture called FAW-GM,
FAW Group has a 50-50 joint venture with Volkswagen Group called FAW-Volkswagen,
FAW Group has a 50-50 joint venture with Toyota called Sichuan FAW Toyota Motor and both companies also have another joint venture called Ranz.
General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), both have two joint ventures in Shanghai General Motors and SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile. Both also hold an equal 50% stake in General Motors India Private Limited.
General Motors and UzAvtosanoat have a joint venture called GM Uzbekistan, UzAvtosanoat owns 75% and General Motors owns 25%. General Motors and UzAvtosanoat also have a joint venture called UzDaewooAvto both each hold a 50-50 stake.
General Motors, AvtoVAZ, and EBRD have a joint venture called GM-AvtoVAZ, Both GM and AvtoVAZ owns 41.61% and EBRD owns 16.76%.
Hyundai Motor Company and Kibar Holding has a joint venture called Hyundai Assan Otomotiv, Hyundai Motor Group owns 70% and Kibar Holding owns 30%.
Isuzu and Anadolu Group have a 50-50% joint venture called Anadolu Isuzu.
Isuzu and General Motors has a 50-50% joint venture called Isuzu Truck South Africa.
Isuzu, Sollers JSC, and Imperial Sojitz have a joint venture called Sollers-Isuzu, Sollers JSC owns 66%, Isuzu owns 29%, and Imperial Sojitz owns 5%.
Mahindra & Mahindra and Navistar International has a joint venture called Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited. Mahindra & Mahindra owns 51% and Navistar International owns 49%.
MAN SE and UzAvtosanoat have a joint venture called MAN Auto-Uzbekistan, UzAvtosanoat owns 51% and MAN owns 49%.
Navistar International and JAC has a joint venture called Anhui Jianghuai Navistar.
PSA Groupe and Toyota have a 50-50% joint venture called Toyota Peugeot Citroen Automobile Czech, and another joint venture with Chang'an called Chang'an PSA automobile.
Sollers JSC is involved in Joint ventures with Ford (Ford Sollers) and Mazda to produce cars.
Tata Motors also formed a joint venture in India with Fiat and gained access to Fiat's diesel engine technology.
Tata Motors and Marcopolo have a Tata Marcopolo, Tata owns 51% and Marcopolo owns 49%.
ZAP owns 51% of Zhejiang Jonway.

text: Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume[edit]

text: The table below shows the world's 10 largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups, along with the marques produced by each one. The table is ranked by 2016 production figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) for the parent group, and then alphabetically by marque. Joint ventures are not reflected in this table. Production figures of joint ventures are typically included in OICA rankings, which can become a source of controversy.[42][43]

text:
Marque
Country of origin
Ownership
Markets

1. Toyota (Japan)

Daihatsu
Japan
Subsidiary
Europe, Asia (except South Korea, South Asia (excluding Sri Lanka)), Africa, South America

Hino
Japan
Subsidiary
South East Asia, Japan, North America, Central America, South America, Caribbean

Lexus
Japan
Business Unit
South East Asia, China, Japan, South Korea, Middle East, United States, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India

Toyota
Japan
Division
Global, except Iran

2. Volkswagen AG (Germany)

Audi
Germany
Subsidiary
Global, except Iran

Bentley
United Kingdom
Subsidiary
Global

Bugatti
France
Subsidiary
Global, except Australia

Ducati
Italy
Subsidiary
Global

Lamborghini
Italy
Subsidiary
Global

MAN
Germany
Subsidiary
Global, except North America

Porsche
Germany
Subsidiary
Global, except Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba

Scania
Sweden
Subsidiary
Global, except North America

SEAT
Spain
Subsidiary
Europe, China, Singapore, Mexico, Central America, South America, Middle East, Northern Africa

Škoda
Czech Republic
Subsidiary
Europe, Asia (except Indonesia, The Philippines, Iran, Japan, South Korea, North Korea), Central America, South America, Dominican Republic, Northern Africa, Western Africa, Australia, New Zealand

Volkswagen
Germany
Division
Global

Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles
Germany
Subsidiary
Global

VTB
Brazil
Business Unit
Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa

3. Hyundai (South Korea)

Genesis
South Korea
Business Unit
South Korea, Russia, United States, Canada, Middle East

Hyundai
South Korea
Division
Global

Kia
South Korea
Subsidiary
Global, except Japan

4. General Motors (United States)

Buick
United States
Business Unit
North America, China, Israel

Cadillac
United States
Business Unit
North America, Middle East, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea

Chevrolet
United States
Business Unit
Global, except Australia, New Zealand

GMC
United States
Business Unit
North America, Middle East (except Israel)

Holden
Australia
Subsidiary
Australia, New Zealand

JieFang
China
Business Unit
China

SAIC-GM
China
Business Unit
China

UzDaewoo
Uzbekistan
Business Unit
Central Asia, Russia

5. Ford (United States)

Ford
United States
Division
Global

Lincoln
United States
Business Unit
North America, Middle East, Japan, South Korea, China

Troller Veículos Especiais
Brazil
Subsidiary
South America, Africa, Australia, Europe

6. Nissan (Japan)

Datsun
Japan
Division
Indonesia, India, Russia, South Africa

Infiniti
Japan
Subsidiary
Global, except Japan, South America (excluding Chile), Africa (excluding South Africa)

Nissan
Japan
Division
Global

7. Honda (Japan)

Acura
Japan
Division
China, Kuwait, North America, Russia

Honda
Japan
Division
Global

8. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (Italy)

Abarth
Italy
Subsidiary
Global, except Iran

Alfa Romeo
Italy
Subsidiary
Global, except Iran, China, Taiwan, the Philippines

Chrysler
United States
Division
Global, except Europe (excluding United Kingdom, Ireland), Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia, South East Asia (excluding Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore)

Dodge
United States
Division
Global, except Europe, Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia, South East Asia (excluding Indonesia, the Philippines)

Fiat
Italy
Subsidiary
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa), Iran, South East Asia

Fiat Professional
Italy
Business Unit
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa), Iran, South East Asia, United States, Canada

Jeep
United States
Division
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia (excluding India, Sri Lanka), South East Asia (excluding Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore)

Lancia
Italy
Division
Europe, except United Kingdom, Ireland

Maserati
Italy
Subsidiary
Global

Ram
United States
Division
North America, Brazil, Middle East, Peru

9. Renault (France)

Dacia
Romania
Subsidiary
Europe, North Africa

Lada
Russia
Subsidiary
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Egypt

Renault
France
Subsidiary
Global

Renault Samsung Motors
South Korea
Subsidiary
South Korea

10. Groupe PSA (France)

Citroën
France
Division
Europe, Central and South America, Northern and Western Africa, South Africa, Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand, Asia (except India, Pakistan, Bangladesh)

DS
France
Division
Europe, China

Peugeot
France
Division
Global, except USA, Canada, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh

Opel
Germany
Subsidiary
Europe (except United Kingdom), North Africa, South Africa, Middle East, Singapore, Chile

Vauxhall
United Kingdom
Subsidiary
United Kingdom

text: Car brands and parent companies[edit]

text: The table below lists most car brands and their parent companies.

text:
Parent (Owner)
Parent Origin
Brand
Brand Origin

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Abarth
Italy

Honda
Japan
Acura
Japan

Polaris Industries
United States
Aixam
France

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Alfa Romeo
Italy

Renault
France
Alpine
France

Aston Martin
United Kingdom
Aston Martin
United Kingdom

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Audi
Germany

SAIC-GM-Wuling
China/United States
Baojun
China

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Bentley
United Kingdom

BMW
Germany
BMW
Germany

Brilliance
China
Brilliance
China

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Bugatti
France

General Motors
United States
Buick
United States

BYD
China
BYD
China

General Motors
United States
Cadillac
United States

Caterham
United Kingdom
Caterham
United Kingdom

Chang'an
China
Chang'an
China

General Motors
United States
Chevrolet
United States

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Chrysler
United States

Groupe PSA
France
Citroën
France

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Cupra
Spain

Renault
France
Dacia
Romania

Toyota
Japan
Daihatsu
Japan

Nissan
Japan
Datsun
Japan

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Dodge
United States

Dongfeng Motor Corporation
China
Dongfeng
China

Groupe PSA
France
DS
France

Dongfeng Motor Corporation
China
Dongfeng Fengshen
China

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Fiat
Italy

Wanxiang
China
Karma
United States

Ford
United States
Ford
United States

Ferrari
Italy
Ferrari
Italy

Geely
China
Geely
China

Hyundai Motor Group
South Korea
Genesis
South Korea

General Motors
United States
GMC
United States

Toyota
Japan
Hino Motors
Japan

General Motors
United States
Holden (HSV)
Australia

Honda
Japan
Honda
Japan

Hyundai Motor Group
South Korea
Hyundai
South Korea

Nissan
Japan
Infiniti
Japan

Isuzu Motors
Japan
Isuzu
Japan

Jaguar Land Rover
United Kingdom
Jaguar
United Kingdom

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Jeep
United States

FAW Group / FAW-GM
China/United States
Jie Fang
China

Kantanka Group Conglomerate
Ghana
Kantanka
Ghana

Koenigsegg
Sweden
Koenigsegg
Sweden

Hyundai Motor Group
South Korea
Kia
South Korea

Renault
France
Lada
Russia

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Lamborghini
Italy

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Lancia
Italy

Jaguar Land Rover
United Kingdom
Land Rover
United Kingdom

Toyota
Japan
Lexus
Japan

Ligier
France
Ligier
France

Ford
United States
Lincoln
United States

Geely
China
Lotus
United Kingdom

Geely
China
LTI
United Kingdom

Yulon
Taiwan
Luxgen
Taiwan

Mahindra & Mahindra
India
Mahindra
India

Suzuki
Japan
Maruti Suzuki
India

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Maserati
Italy

Mastretta
Mexico
Mastretta
Mexico

Daimler AG
Germany
Maybach
Germany

Mazda
Japan
Mazda
Japan

McLaren Automotive
United Kingdom
McLaren
United Kingdom

Daimler AG
Germany
Mercedes-Benz
Germany

SAIC Motor
China
MG
United Kingdom

Ligier
France
Microcar
France

BMW
Germany
Mini
United Kingdom

Nissan / Mitsubishi Group
Japan
Mitsubishi
Japan

Morgan Motor Company
United Kingdom
Morgan
United Kingdom

National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS)
Sweden
NEVS
Sweden

Nissan
Japan
Nissan
Japan

Peter Dyson
United Kingdom
Noble
United Kingdom

Groupe PSA
France
Opel
Germany

Pagani Automobili
Italy
Pagani
Italy

Perodua
Malaysia
Perodua
Malaysia

Groupe PSA
France
Peugeot
France

PGO
France
PGO
France

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Porsche
Germany

Geely / DRB-HICOM
China / Malaysia
PROTON
Malaysia

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Italy
Ram
United States

GM Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Ravon
Uzbekistan

Renault
France
Renault
France

Rimac Automobili
Croatia
Rimac
Croatia

SAIC Motor
China
Roewe
China

BMW
Germany
Rolls Royce
United Kingdom

Saleen
United States
Saleen
United States

Iran Khodro
Iran
Samand
Iran

Renault
France
Renault Samsung Motors
South Korea

Volkswagen Group
Germany
SEAT
Spain

BAIC Motor
China
Senova
China

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Škoda
Czech Republic

Daimler AG
Germany
Smart
Germany

Mahindra & Mahindra
India
SsangYong
South Korea

Subaru Corporation
Japan
Subaru
Japan

Suzuki
Japan
Suzuki
Japan

Tata Motors
India
Tata
India

Tesla
United States
Tesla
United States

Saipa
Iran
Tiba/Miniator
Iran

Toyota
Japan
Toyota
Japan

Uniti Sweden AB
Sweden
Uniti
Sweden

Groupe PSA
France
Vauxhall
United Kingdom

Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd. (Dongfeng-Nissan)
China/Japan
Venucia
China

Volkswagen Group
Germany
Volkswagen
Germany

Geely
China
Volvo Cars
Sweden

Vuhl
Mexico
Vuhl
Mexico

SAIC-GM-Wuling
China/United States
Wuling
China

Innoson
Nigeria
IVM
Nigeria