Did Rome Really Fall in AD 476 ?

This morning I read an excellent article by Edward J. Watts, "Rome Didn't Fall When You Think It Did. Here's Why That Fabricated History Still Maters Today". Watts contends that Justinian I really caused the fall of Rome, & substantiates this idea with facts that are hard to refute. In school kids are taught that Odoacer's removal of Romulus Augustus in AD 476 was the "official" fall of Rome, however, the facts don't support this.



Rome enjoyed 60 years of prosperity after Odoacer's takeover (Watts also points out that Odoacer wasn't a Goth), & the war that Justinian I waged to win Rome back again was the event that really caused the fall of Rome.

https://time.com/6101964/fabricated-fall-rome-lessons-history/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IMHO Rome started falling right after Marcus Aurelius. Imagine being alive then. Where would you go, what would you do? Kinda like here and now, only their architecture was better.

 

It’s not particularly fashionable among classicists to employ these strict demarcations. I still think they’re useful in terms of organizing broad patterns of history. But a lot of classicists prefer to discuss the process of gradual transition in the west, as large Roman landowners turn into the feudal chiefs of the early middle ages, and the church basilica replaces the grand administrative buildings and apparatus of imperial Rome. Changes at the top matter, but the daily life of citizens, particularly outside major urban areas, is probably affected more by other factors.

Lovely coins! Well chosen.

 

Educate me, The above Solidus is attributed to Theoderic. How is this established?
The insert says "Rome mint". What on the coin indicates this?

 

The mintmark I'd guess, COMOB. And probably the style.

 

tibor, The coin I posted was struck in Rome while it was under control of Theodoric. but was struck in the name of the Byzantine emperor Anastasias. For comparison see the coins posted below. The bottom coin was struck in the reign of Anastasias at the Constantinople Mint. There are important stylistic differences that make it easy to identify these coins .

 

This theory kind of corresponds to the period termed "Late Antiquity" by Peter Brown. He argues that a certain dynamism remained even after "Rome" fell.

He is Rollins Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University. He is credited with having brought coherence to the field of Late Antiquity, and is sometimes regarded as the inventor of the field. His work has concerned, in particular, the religious culture of the later Roman Empire and early medieval Europe, and the relation between religion and society.

One also could make a case that the idea of the Roman Empire remained until the year 800, when Charlemagne was crowned holy roman emperor by the pope, largely because he regarded the rule of Irene in Constantinople as illegitimate as she was a woman. Prior to that the kings and chieftains of Barbarian Europe acknowledged the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor as at least, a representative figure of Roman power.

 

See the Pirenne thesis-- that Rome existed until Arabs took control of the Mediterranean




Nobody really believes it, but it is still a useful and interesting debate.

 

Don't do ancients but thought it was earlier. All I really know is this song lyric: "...The glory that was Rome is of another day." But what day/year it all ended, etc...I know not.

 

The Byzantine emperors and the citizens thought of themselves as "Roman". The idea of a separate "Byzantine" empire first appeared in the 16th century. The Turks of the middle ages referred to Anatolia as "Rum" ("Rome") and the Christian population as "Romans". In 476, the Roman general Odoacer (of Germanic background) deposed the young Romulus under the pretense that a separate western emperor was unnecessary and kindly offered to look after the west himself - in the name of the sole emperor Zeno, of course. He received the support of the Senate and was granted the title 'Patrician' by Zeno. Not so much a fall but a bloodless coup. The young Romulus had himself been a usurper, placed on the western throne by his father, the general Orestes. By 476, Rome itself had not been the capital of the empire in nearly a century and a half. In fact, it wasn't even the most important city in Italy. Although 476 marks the point at which the west began to drift away, the Roman Empire continued to exist as a polity for another millennium.

 

Your post is a good follow-up to the Watts article .

 

The Ostrogoth kingdom in Eastern Rome lasted 40 years. It fell to Justinian who put an end to that kingdom which was then governed by THEODORIC.
Here's a rare coin of that Ostrogoth king that I was so lucky to own.

 

I bet the smell'd knock your sox off!

 

Did Rome fall in 476 AD? That depends on the definition of two things, Rome and fall. Sorry to be so pedantic but the answer really does depend on how Rome is defined and what it means for an empire to "fall".

 

Interesting question in the title and one that legions of professors of late antiquity have pondered over. The debate, however, is not whether Rome (the western Empire) fell in AD 476, when Odovacer (who btw was a Thuringian on his fathers side and a Skirian on his mothers side) send Romulus Augustulus in retirement, but it is a question of whether it was a collapse or a transition.

There is no doubt that the western empire disintegrated not in AD 476, but over a period of around 100 years. Important sign posts of the disintegration are AD 378, the defeat at the battle of Adrianople, when Rome lost its emperor and its eastern army in one single battle with the Goths. The Gothic foedus of AD 382, when foreign people were accepted to live and rule independently within the empire. 406/407, when the Vandals, Suevians and Burgundians crossed the Rhine frontier into Gaul. 410, when Rome lost control over Britain and the Goths sacked Rome.

In 429 the Vandals took Africa from the Romans, cutting off grain supply. The city of Rome had not been self-sufficient since BC 200. For the first time in 600 years the city could no longer feed its inhabitants from its own hinterland. In the course of the 5th century, Rome lost control over much of Spain and Gaul to Suevians, Visigoths and Franks.

When Attila entered northern Italy in around 450 the emperor was ineffective. He barricaded himself in Ravenna, which was a nearly impregnable fortress at the time. Most significantly, at that time the church, i.e. the pope was the only institution that could negotiate with the Huns. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church is a Roman institution that survived the disintegration of the empire to this day.

At least since the middle of the 5th century, all western Roman emperors were puppets of Germanic generals who effectively ran the empire. In AD 476, Odovacer only made overt, what had long been known, when he declared that no emperor of the west was needed. The last pretence of a western empire seized to exist, which makes this event so significant.

The Goths in Italy stabilized the decline, by recreating effective government and making attempts to preserve what was left of the western Empire and Roman culture. Unfortunately, Justinian never realized what great service the Goths were doing to the people in Italy and adjacent regions. Instead, he started a war, which devastated the Roman heartland and paved the way for more barbarian people, like the Langobards to take control.

I show here a coin from my collection that is closely linked to the decline of Empire and the emergence of medieval society.

It is an imitative Solidus found in Kent, England. The model was probably a Solidus of Valentinian III (425-455) from Ravenna, minted around AD 430-445, or possibly a Gallic imitation of such a Solidus.

I think the coin dates to say 475 to 550, so decades after the death of Valentinian III and maybe even 100 years after the Romans had lost control over Britain. However, the people who made the coin, possibly Angles, Saxons or Jutes still looked back to Roman models, as they would do for centuries to come.






PS: The coin is hard to photograph. I chose a black background this time, which brings out the detail. However, the color is much paler, which betrays a low gold content.

 

Actually I believe that Pirenne's thesis is still worthy of much respect. His thesis that the Arab conquests turned the Mediterranean from a body of water connecting Europe, Asia and Africa to a body of water separating them is an excellent way to see the end of the Ancient World.

 

@Tejas Wonderful write up. The gold coin is amazing!!

 

Under Gothic king Theodahat, the mint of Rome produced the last bronze coin that can be said to be worthy of the Roman empire. Probably the last coin with a realistic portrait for many centuries. The eastern Roman mints, including at Constantinope produced nothing of this quality.

Here is one of my Theodahat folles, which I think is the star of the entire Gothic series:

Theodahad, 534-536, Follis of 40 Nummi,

Mint: Rome,

Weight: 9.08 gr.

D N THEOD - AHATVS REX // VICTVRAP RINCIPVM -- SC

Bust: D2

Great realistic style, fine brown tone and among the most attractive exemplars available.

MEC 141, MIB 81



Note the syncretism, i.e. the reverse shows Victoria on a prow, as a Roman image including even the SC letters referring to the Senate of Rome, which has long seized to be a real political factor. Yet, the obverse shows the king in Germanic gear. The king has long hair and a moustache. The helmet is a Germanic Spangenhelm (the cheek guards have been omitted). So he is not shown in a Roman helmet but a deliberate attempt was made to portray Theodahat has a Germanic king.

Here is an example of a Spangenhelm from Krefeld, Germany:

 

@Tejas An excellent summary. Thank you.
I was wondering about your comment re the photograph "much paper." I don't understand what you mean.

 

Sorry I meant to write „paler“, i.e. the coin is pale gold. I corrected it in the text above.