Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?
#16
Quote:On the contrary, you could also argue that Rome, as it existed previously, ceased to exist because of the crisis period of the 3rd Century. The reformations and changes to Roman society, economy, government, religion, etc. The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

That's more the direction I follow :wink:

I would also add the Constitutio Antoninian which, imo, lead straight to the 3rd century crisis.

I take a huge shortcut here but Rome, republic or empire, has been a politic, social and religeous ensemble from +/-200BC to 200AD. Rome (city), Italy and its citizens were the main drives of its power.
In the 3rd century, the power switched to generals and usurper. Different regions and cities within the roman theritory got more significance which lead to a political, economical and even cultural partition of the empire. Gaul had the wealth of its armies, Africa the resources, the East both, leaving Italy and Rome with only its symbols and past glory.

Constantine named the great reinforced this partition by moving it's capital to the East.
thanks for reading, David Hennion
Reply
#17
Quote:On the contrary, you could also argue that Rome, as it existed previously, ceased to exist because of the crisis period of the 3rd Century. The reformations and changes to Roman society, economy, government, religion, etc. The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.
Semantics. That just our modern labels being stuck for the benefit of our modern understanding. Just like, during the 19th century, German historians 'invented' the Byzantine empire because that suited them better. Needless to say, I disagree. I think I also have problems with that description 'The Fall' of the Roman Empire (in which we always have to insert the word 'Western'). This seems to have been 'invented' just as well, and mainly for novelists and (later) movie makers. It's SO full of (melo)drama! I've written this more than I can remember: my bet is that if you asked a citizen in southern Gaul, Spain or Italy, what they thought of the Fall of the (western) Empire, chances are you would get a blank stare, because no-one had realised that this had happened, or wehn exactly. Some might have thought you were mad or dangerous.

In other words, we are looking to describe a non-event. Discussions about the 'loss of centralist power in the West' or something like that would be more to the point. Roman society evolved, economies changed, new powers arose, and all that not devoid of violent change.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
Quote:Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

There was nothing un-Roman about Constantine, or his version of Christianity either! 'Paganism' by this point was veering increasingly towards a monotheistic interpretation anyway, and Constantine continued issuing Sol Invictus coins until at least 317. The 'pagan' Licinius had ordered a mass pre-battle prayer to a singular diety four years previously. Quite possibly, at the time, few people noticed the religious shift in the imperial household.


Quote:we are looking to describe a non-event. Discussions about the 'loss of centralist power in the West' or something like that would be more to the point.

Centralised power over a diverse area might be one definition of empire though... ;-)

When a new power centre arises, the empire dies - but the death can take decades.

In the modern world we're used to political changes happening very quickly and publicly - states collapse, governments fall, and new rulers stand up to give stirring speeches about the new world being born etc (Nehru's 'Freedom at Midnight' speech being the classic modern example, I suppose).

In antiquity, these sort of changes happened very gradually, and often without a lot of publicity. So, as you say, your Gallic or Spanish citizen may indeed have just assumed he was still a part of the Roman empire, until he found himself having to pay taxes to some Goth or Frankish king instead...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#19
Quote:We also have to look at the "crisis period" of the 4th century. After the battle of Adrianople, the Western Empire never really recovered. What we see is a central state run by "late Romans" whose fathers were Vandal and Gothic. If we account for the leadership directly following that unfortunate battle and subquent death of Theodosius, we can see Fritigern, Alatheus, and Safrax, as those responsible for the decline and fall that ocurred exactly 100 years later. Cool

And the sad fact is-- it didn't have to happen... if it were not for the greed and mismanagement of Lupicinus and Maximus Magnus. :whistle: In that backlash-battle, we can even view Fritigern and his comrades as the "good guys." And that is testament to Roman incompetence that extended forward from that date until the last whimper. :|

Adrianople was the Eastern Empire, the West wasn't directly affected by it until the 390's
Reply
#20
Quote:I doubt many historians would concur.
However, the OP asked for our thoughts. He didn't ask us to regurgitate what historians have already said.
Quote:
Quote: The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

Sure it was a big change. But Gibbon saw it as paving the way for the fall, not the fall itself. Down to fifth century there was still too much continuity with the past to speak of a fall.
Precisely. Which is why I gave the other extreme opposite view that continuity and authority continued through the church. This thread was initiated with an inquiry about opinion. I gave what I viewed as the two most extreme examples (although I had considered mentioning Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana which Neutra brought up, as the "beginning of the end" point as well), with the understanding that a majority of opinions will fall somewhere in between. As I said in the beginning of my comment. It depends on what each individual person defines as the Empire. When do you consider Rome to longer be Roman.

Just as a few others have since said, it was more of a gradual process, than a single event. What finite date you choose, comes down to is whether you want to view death as the first ring of the death bell, or the as the final reverberations fade from the valley. Is it the appearance of the very first cancer cell, or the point at which the last brainwave stops?
Marcus Julius Germanus
m.k.a. Brian Biesemeyer
S.P.Q.A.
Reply
#21
Quote:Adrianople was the Eastern Empire, the West wasn't directly affected by it until the 390's

I beg to differ, but you cannot detach events directly following Adrianople from the fall of the Western Empire. The "Scythian" chain was tightly linked; and clinking from 376 through 78-82-94-95, we find connections leading to a disenfranchised Alaric, to a highly proportionate number of Goths-Heruli-Alans within Roman ranks, their use as "cannon fodder," leading to an even more ambivulent mass of federates who would eventually inherit the West. Quite frankly, all considering the flawed Roman management, I think the Goths deserved what they gained, an Eastern tribe who became Keepers of the West.

In the above post, Marcus Julius produces a good point: everything actually begins with Constantine and the Council of Nicea, the death of paganism, a proliferation of monasticism filled by second-born sons, a warped Christian Church, the outlawing of Arianism into the hinterlands of the Barbaricon, and the first signs of influential Gothic feoderati (the Schoolae), the Goths again used by Constantinus, the Hell's-bells cry, "The Huns are coming!"-- all of it leading to an apparently imbecilic emperor (Down's Syndrome?) controlled by his eunuch Count of Domestics, the slaying of the last two competant generals, and the Vandals stripping gold roofs of the Forae. Not much went correctly, and nothing left to play with or lose. Cool
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#22
Quote: my bet is that if you asked a citizen in southern Gaul, Spain or Italy, what they thought of the Fall of the (western) Empire, chances are you would get a blank stare, because no-one had realised that this had happened,

"Since the Roman state is now either dead or at the very least dying in those areas where it still seems alive."

--Salvian mid fifth century. He was in southern Gaul btw.
Reply
#23
Fortunatus...
Jass
Reply
#24
Interesting question.


Quote:"Since the Roman state is now either dead or at the very least dying in those areas where it still seems alive." --Salvian mid fifth century.
It is curious that Salvian's younger contemporaries Augustine and Jerome clearly still believed that the empire was intact, but their vested interest was in protecting Christianity from chaos. Quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus ("When Rome falls, so falls the universe").
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#25
Horace Odes 3.30.6-9 identifies the durability (in his mind, permanent) of the Roman Empire with the ritual of worshipping the Capitoline gods:

Non omnis moriar multaque pars mei
vitabit Libitinam; usque ego postera
crescam laude recens, dum Capitolium
scandet cum tacita virgine pontifex.

I will not wholly die, and a large part of me
Will avoid the funeral pyre, with posterity's praise
Renewed I will grow, as long as the priest
Will climb the Capitol together with the silent maiden.

By Horace's reckoning, then, the Roman Empire ended in 391 when Theodosius proscribed the Vestal Virgins and ended support for the official cult.
Reply
#26
Quote:Horace Odes 3.30.6-9 identifies the durability (in his mind, permanent) of the Roman Empire with the ritual of worshipping the Capitoline gods:

Non omnis moriar multaque pars mei
vitabit Libitinam; usque ego postera
crescam laude recens, dum Capitolium
scandet cum tacita virgine pontifex.

I will not wholly die, and a large part of me
Will avoid the funeral pyre, with posterity's praise
Renewed I will grow, as long as the priest
Will climb the Capitol together with the silent maiden.

By Horace's reckoning, then, the Roman Empire ended in 391 when Theodosius proscribed the Vestal Virgins and ended support for the official cult.

Interesting but one can hardly take a single data point. I do think that the religious element is crucial and when you start losing things like the lustratio things go a bit awry. On the other hand one must bear in mind Rome's long standing habit to import cults and the prerogative of the "King" in handling religious matters. In that sense what you get in the East is just the inevitable extension.

Anyway, this isn't really my area, I just really wanted to say you have the best name on the site. I think I'm going to relax with my battered old Plautus text now....thanks for reminded me of one hell of a play.
Jass
Reply
#27
Quote:If an 'Empire' is a political entitiy that has expanded its sphere of control far beyond its original boundaries,then the East did not last until 1453, as by that time it only controlled the area around Conmstantinople plus a few other small territories: hardly an 'Empire'. (The same argument applies to 'Trebizond etc.) Possibly 1204 and the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth crusade?

I think this part of your post is the most accurate way to think about it. There was only one empire. It is inaccurate to say the "Western Roman Empire" or the "Eastern Roman Empire". We can instead say "the Western provinces" or "the Eastern provinces". The division of the Empire was purely administrative and started by Diocletian. Subsequent to his reign we see a multiplication of emperors reaching six at one point. So, just because there are multiple emperors with their own courts that doesn't mean new empires were formed.

Yes, with 1204 at least we can say that the emperors up until that point could legitimately claim an unbroken line reaching all the way back to Augustus.


Quote:You might argue that Roman rule extended far into the medieval period in the form of the church. As the Imperial government assumed control of the church, and later the church established it's authority over the western world, the continuity of authority from Rome over the rest of the Empire's lands (and even more) was maintained.
If someone argued along these lines I think his argument would be largely based on anachronistic thinking. The papacy's spiritual authority in the former western provinces wasn't well established in the first millenium. The Pope did not appoint the bishops, that right was usually usurped by kings and nobles.


Quote:In the above post, Marcus Julius produces a good point: everything actually begins with Constantine and the Council of Nicea, the death of paganism, a proliferation of monasticism filled by second-born sons, a warped Christian Church, the outlawing of Arianism into the hinterlands of the Barbaricon, and the first signs of influential Gothic feoderati (the Schoolae), the Goths again used by Constantinus, the Hell's-bells cry, "The Huns are coming!"-

Why does everything begin with Constantine? Why doesn't it begin with Decius, his unprecedented persecution of Christianity, and his unprecedented defeat and death at the hands of the Goths along with his son and co-emperor?

People tend to forget that the Goths slayed three Roman emperors in battle. And it happened in the same general area. See the Battle of Abritus.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#28
Quote:Why does everything begin with Constantine? Why doesn't it begin with Decius, his unprecedented persecution of Christianity, and his unprecedented defeat and death at the hands of the Goths along with his son and co-emperor?

People tend to forget that the Goths slayed three Roman emperors in battle. And it happened in the same general area. See the Battle of Abritus.

Back to you, Theo

My point centers on Roman complacency, the rise of the Church and exorcism of Paganism, and a gradual take-over by the Goths (and Vandals, Heruli, etc.) in key military positions, to the point that Romans were a 1% minority on the battlefield. We have first-born sons cutting off their thumbs to avoid service, second-born sons becoming monks, and sisters (Placidia-types) who willingly marry Athaulfs because the good boys can't get it up, perhaps because they ate too much MSG in their garum or drank too much lead-infused water. The Romans, by the time of Constantine, were something staight out of a John Carpenter movie-- "The Living Dead."

We have the Council of Nicea, a recognition of the Church as the ONE and ONLY official religion, even irking the Goths and Vandals all the more for sticking with an Arianism now outlawed into the Hinterlands yet flourishing. Fact is, Constantine was a poor excuse for a human and even less a Churchman, and Theodosius was called "The Great" due to his Church-licking, for he certainly wasn't much of a general, even getting canned and sent back home with his tail between legs. He spawns a near-idiot, and then a complete idiot, and a daughter who coddles up to Attila the Hun, while Placidia chooses a virile "straight shooter" from the Wrong Side of the tracks. It's the Peter's Principle-- and if things could go wrong, they certainly did. :whistle:

Frankly, I think the Romans deserved what they got; and the real heros of their day were Stilicho, Fritigern, Alaric, and Athaulf. They were square shooters, intelligent, and reasonably honest in their dealings. Wink

Glad you brought up Decius, though. There was a wrikled hard case, stepped on hard by Cniva and probably a Taifali cavalry. How fitting he died in a swamp.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#29
Quote:It is curious that Salvian's younger contemporaries Augustine and Jerome clearly still believed that the empire was intact,

Well it still was (as they predated Salvian) but on the way out. After the sack of Rome in 410, Jerome wrote "the lamp of the world is extinguished." Augustine's The City of God basically said a human thing like Rome was necessarily imperfect and can't last.


Quote:but their vested interest was in protecting Christianity from chaos. Quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus ("When Rome falls, so falls the universe").

On the other hand there was a widespread feeling among the holy joes that the crumbling of Rome heralded the "second coming." Btw I don't know Latin but I thought "mundus" means world, not universe.
Reply
#30
Quote:Why doesn't it begin with Decius, his unprecedented persecution of Christianity, and his unprecedented defeat and death at the hands of the Goths along with his son and co-emperor?

Well, Rome did revive pretty well by the end of the third century. Whereas from Constantine on, it was pretty much downhill.

Quote:People tend to forget that the Goths slayed three Roman emperors in battle.

Three? I knew of Decius.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BBC The Rise and Fall of an Empire Kefka 24 6,917 10-17-2011, 05:22 PM
Last Post: Kefka
  Before Fall of Empire Armies (Romans, Huns and Goths...) P. Lilius Frugius Simius 23 4,649 05-30-2005, 04:05 PM
Last Post: P. Lilius Frugius Simius

Forum Jump: