Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
5 comments
In conventional views the fall of the Roman Empire was traditionally argued to have occurred around the year 476, with Romulus Augustulus as the last emperor and the West Roman Empire. The empire was argued to have fell due to a loss of territory after Barbaric invasions.
However, there is great evidence to demonstrate how Rome never officially fell at this time or for centuries after.
While the Roman Empire in the West began to decline, the Roman Empire in the East (which often goes forgotten) was still thriving one thousand years after 476. Ironically, Constantinople- the capital of the East Roman Empire- had surpassed the East of the Roman Empire politically and economically, being surrounded by sea ensured secure trade and defence. The new barbarian leader in the West after Augustulus was even commended by the Roman emperor in Constantinople. [1] This demonstrating the power the Roman Empire still had even when supposedly being ‘taken down’ in 476 by the barbarians.
Historian Brian Perkins has argued there was no abrupt ‘fall’ of Rome as history often portrays it. Instead, it was a transition of culture. [2] As an example, fashions in Rome altered with the introduction of the shield as an accessory and Latin evolved into an array of languages named the ‘romance vernaculars.[3] Yet the colosseum still stood and could not be matched. Moreover, a major project of research into the period 300-800 was branded ‘The Transformation of the Roman World’, hinting not at all at a fall or even decline of the Roman Empire. The Empire lived on through the people, buildings, and customs of Rome, even without the great markings of an empire like an emperor.
References:
[1] E. A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire (Wisconsin, 2002)
[2] B. W. Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation (Oxford, 2006)
[3] https://www.historyextra.com/period/qa-when-did-italian-replace-latin-as-the-language-of-italy/
Something momentous happened in 476 though, nevertheless. There is an argument that the Roman Empire, led from Rome, in form that would have been recognisable to Julius Caesar, did indeed fall then.
Is the argument against it that there is something euro-centric about our assumptions about the roman empire, or that - in purpose and style and self-perception - there really was very little difference between the Empire led from Rome and from Byzantium?
I agree, the Roman Empire in the West ceased to continue from 476, with Augustulus being the last emperor, this is hard to dispute. Equally, the argument I have attempted to pose (as you mentioned) is that we often take a very euro-centric view on the Fall of Rome, often failing to consider the continuation of the empire in Byzantium.
One might argue that the "Roman Empire" needs to include Rome? So when Rome fell to the Vandals could it be argued that Rome fell but a new empire was formed from Constantinople?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!