dimmit

So, I am a big fan of The History of Rome pod-cast by Mike Duncan. Since the end of the pod-cast is fast approaching (), what with the overthrow Romulus Augustulus right around the corner, it got me thinking about the "fall" of Rome and what happened after.

First, I must be honest; I'm a little shaky on this period of Roman history. I took two courses on Roman history in college but, invariably, they focus on the the early Roman Republic, Punic Wars, Civil War period, the early emperors and Diocletian and Constantine. The "final" years of the Western Roman Empire are rushed over and the events following are almost completely ignored.

Looking at the events that occurred after Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus, I noticed that if you take that one event by itself, it doesn't seem that significant. Odoacer was simply doing what Stilicho and Ricimer did before him. Odoacer acknowledged Zeno as Emperor and held power in his name. Zeno, of course, eventually sent Theodoric to overthrow Odoacer but, again, Theodoric served as essentially a viceroy of Emperor Zeno. The next hundred years or so show that the Emperor still held significant power over Italy and some of the former lands of Rome, culminating in the reign of Justinian.

My question is, why have we come to accept the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus as the "fall" of the Rome? It can't be because Rome was no longer seen as the center of the empire because that had been the norm for over a century. Can this all be placed on the shoulders of Gibbon?

Apicius

I think we're coming a point where just defining when a single person is dead is difficult, much less an empire. There has been a lot of debate on when the western empire was done.

I think it's a trivia question at best, and misses the more astounding fact that within about 130 years, Constantine I's highest acheivements were reduced to naught (at least in the west).

Another question that occurs to me is, as a practical matter, are we talking about the end of the Roman emperors, or the beginning of the middle ages? (and hence, not so much centered on a single person).

pixi666

Big fan of THOR too

I agree with Mike Duncan on the issue: 476 AD is a useful date as a breaking off point, but the 'fall' of the western empire was a far more protracted and complex process than that small event, the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, would make you think.

Guaporense

The Western Empire gradually "melted". It was big and strong in 400 AD, it was ceasing to be a functioning polity by the 440's and it was done for in the 490's. Anyway, the decline of the empire began about 300 years before 476 AD.

KenL

I think we accept 476 A.D as the fall of the WRE simply because there was no longer anyone ruling as a 'Western Roman Emperor', even just in name. But I think there was still a pretender after Romulus Augustus was deposed though.

dimmit

I know it is used as useful breaking off point. What I was really wondering was when this was accepted as the "breaking point."

leakbrewergator

Now let me preface this post by saying I am way out of my area of specialty here, but I'm starting to gain more interest in Rome.

I just started reading this over the weekend:


The book basically is stating that the fall of Rome was all due to the invasions of the Barbarians? How accurate is this? I've read elsewhere that it was mostly an economic crisis that caused Rome's collapse?

As someone with very limited knowledge on the subject, it seems the whole numerous emperors thing was a strong catalyst for the "fall."

pixi666

Breaking point of what? If you mean the begininning of the Decline, some would say the reign of Commodus, others the revolt of Maximinus Thrax, others the construction of Constantinople, moving the focus of the empire eastward. If you mean the utter sealing of the empire's fate (i.e. nothing could stop the fall after that point), some would say the Battle of Adrianople, some would say the Sack of Rome in 410, some would say the murder of Majorian. I don't think there's really a consensus.

TheBlessedTraitor

Another THORian here!

Im inclined to follow consensus and state that the Western Empire "fell" in 476 also.

The issue is, how do we define when it really ended? in many ways the Roman Empire never fell at all (this is the thesis of some historian whose name i cannot recall at the moment) The empire had stopped being the classical empire one thinks of when they hear "roman" for hundreds of years, but had it fallen then?

I think 476 is the best we can do.

Salah

Even if you play with technicalities, '476' may or may not have any relevance. Romulus was a usurper, and several men claimed to rule the Western Empire from rump states in Gaul or Illyria in the decades following him.