What happened in Rome, when the western empire “fell”? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy did the Western Roman Empire collapse but not the Eastern Roman Empire?What happened to cities in the Western Roman empire after the fall of Rome?Where were the western legions when the Roman empire fell?What happened to the stuff stolen from the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans?The role of science in enabling the survival of civilisations“Ancient knowledge” in Western Europe during Empire's fallWhat allowed or prevented Roman conquest in terms of population, climate and geography?How did Romans know if their money was debased?Was Roman expansion & casus belli as just as they claimed?How did Christianity replace Roman Paganism and other ancient religions?
Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?
Defamation due to breach of confidentiality
Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?
Are the names of these months realistic?
Purpose of level-shifter with same in and out voltages
How do I fit a non linear curve?
Inductor and Capacitor in Parallel
Cannot shrink btrfs filesystem although there is still data and metadata space left : ERROR: unable to resize '/home': No space left on device
Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?
Computationally populating tables with probability data
My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?
What does "shotgun unity" refer to here in this sentence?
In the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" video game, what potion is used to sabotage Umbridge's speakers?
Is it ok to trim down a tube patch?
Getting Stale Gas Out of a Gas Tank w/out Dropping the Tank
How to get the last not-null value in an ordered column of a huge table?
How to use ReplaceAll on an expression that contains a rule
What CSS properties can the br tag have?
Players Circumventing the limitations of Wish
From jafe to El-Guest
Yu-Gi-Oh cards in Python 3
Is it correct to say moon starry nights?
What happened in Rome, when the western empire “fell”?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy did the Western Roman Empire collapse but not the Eastern Roman Empire?What happened to cities in the Western Roman empire after the fall of Rome?Where were the western legions when the Roman empire fell?What happened to the stuff stolen from the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans?The role of science in enabling the survival of civilisations“Ancient knowledge” in Western Europe during Empire's fallWhat allowed or prevented Roman conquest in terms of population, climate and geography?How did Romans know if their money was debased?Was Roman expansion & casus belli as just as they claimed?How did Christianity replace Roman Paganism and other ancient religions?
I mean everybody knows that the western Roman Empire fell about 476 A.D. But what happened in Rome itself then? Did Romans keep living their day to day lives? Were there riots? I find it hard to find out anything about it.
roman-empire rome
New contributor
add a comment |
I mean everybody knows that the western Roman Empire fell about 476 A.D. But what happened in Rome itself then? Did Romans keep living their day to day lives? Were there riots? I find it hard to find out anything about it.
roman-empire rome
New contributor
12
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
2
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago
add a comment |
I mean everybody knows that the western Roman Empire fell about 476 A.D. But what happened in Rome itself then? Did Romans keep living their day to day lives? Were there riots? I find it hard to find out anything about it.
roman-empire rome
New contributor
I mean everybody knows that the western Roman Empire fell about 476 A.D. But what happened in Rome itself then? Did Romans keep living their day to day lives? Were there riots? I find it hard to find out anything about it.
roman-empire rome
roman-empire rome
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
23.8k973113
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
F.RaulsF.Rauls
16626
16626
New contributor
New contributor
12
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
2
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago
add a comment |
12
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
2
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago
12
12
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
2
2
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
By 476 the city of Rome had not been the center of the Empire for a long while. Diocletian, picking up the pieces after the crisis of the third century, made a point of snubbing Rome compared to the "actual" imperial capitals, which he considered more important. Moreover the sackings Rome experienced in the fifth century certainly depleted its riches and resources. From the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, page 378:
Despite considerable imperial and Ostrogothic attempts to
sustain it, Rome gradually shrank through the fifth and sixth century to a tiny
proportion of its former size; not only was there no longer the government
money to sustain it, but it also inevitably lost out from the shrinking overseas
holdings of its senatorial aristocracy.
Doubtless the Roman Senate still sitting in Rome (now no more than an anachronistic relic) was the theater of some speeches, but the historians of the time deemed them of so little consequence that they don't even mention them. But even beyond Rome, in the imperial capital of Ravenna, and all the other lands nominally under the suzerainty of the west Roman empire, the news would have been of little consequence. This passage of the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 14 page 25) is illuminating:
Since the empire’s financial base was simultaneously decreasing, the idea of
empire quickly became meaningless. The centre no longer controlled anything anyone wanted. In consequence, the late 460s and 470s saw one group
after another coming to the realization that the western empire was no longer
a prize worth fighting for. It must have been an extraordinary moment as the
realization dawned on the leaders of individual interest groups, and upon
members of local Roman landowning élites, that, after hundreds of years of
existence, the Roman state in western Europe was now an anachronism.
and ibid., page 27
A subordinate commander, Odoacer, organized a putsch, murdered Orestes, and deposed Romulus, derisively titled Augustulus, on or around 4 September 476. He then sent
an embassy to Constantinople which did no more than state the obvious. There was no longer any need for an emperor in the west.
Also, from Christopher Wickam The Inheritance of Rome (a book on Early Medieval Europe that I heartily recommend to those interested in that neglected period)
Italy is actually the region of the western empire which lived through least change in the 470s, for Odovacer ruled much as Ricimer had, at the head of a regular army. Italy did not experience an invasion and conquest until 489–93, with the arrival of Theoderic the Amal and his Ostrogoths, and Theoderic (489–526) ruled in as Roman a way as possible, too.
In addition to what I wrote, the "fall of the Western Empire" is a bit of a misnomer. It was not, at the time, perceived as a change in political order: all the lands formerly in the Roman Empire were still under the nominal authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. The West versus East division was, at least on paper, only an administrative one, and the two Emperors had theoretically been coequal heads of state, with the same authority on every component piece. The situation on the ground was very much different, but Odoacer mantained the polite fiction of being the "viceroy" of the Emperor in Italy and even recognized and minted coins in the name of Julius Nepos, the nominal new Western emperor. The loss of authority of the Roman Empire over what were formerly its Western lands was a slow and gradual process, and while 476 is a convenient date (the last year in which a sitting emperor resided in the Italian peninsula), it's quite arbitrary.
Other dates that could be reasonably advanced for the loss of imperial control of Italy are 572, when most of Italy was conquered by the Lombards, a power that did not recognize even the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor, or 751 with the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or even 1130, when the Empire lost its last Italian possessions in Southern Italy[1]. The date of 476 is convenient to write on school exams, but its significance shouldn't be overstated.
[1] Personal note: If I were asked to chose one date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, gun to the head, I'd lean towards 751 because the fall of the Exarchate had all kind of consequences (most importantly the Pope deciding to throw his support behind the Frankish Carolingians), while 476 was not even the last time that the whole of Italy was under direct Imperial control (that'd be 572).
New contributor
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
add a comment |
It is hard to describe what really happened: we only know what is written in the documents of that time which reached us, and they are not very abundant. There is a very nice book
(fiction) by Pascal Quignard, On Wooden Tablets: Apronenia Avitia (translated from the French, original title: Les Tablettes de buis d’Apronenia Avitia, Gallimard, 1984).
In it the author describes the life of a person at that time, and it seems to reflect very well our present knowledge on what really happened.
To state it shortly: nothing happened. People probably hardly noticed the event that we call "the fall of Rome". The reason is that the fall of Rome was a gradual process which lasted for more than a generation. Nothing that dramatically affected the life of most people happened in this particular year 476. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 made apparently more impression.
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
add a comment |
Also, unlike other empires that fell, Rome splintered into other kingdoms, hence the largely latin-influenced cultures, which exists today (except for the Ostrgoths and Visigoths - they didn't accept the new policy and were persecuted), so a "fall" would not be the most accurate term.
Also, the Roman Empire transformed into a political power after Constantine gave up his seat of power to what became the Roman Catholic system (countries still pay some kind of homage to this system, regardless of their mainstream religion - very fascinating). So it appears the Roman empire got even bigger than it was, as opposed to it falling.
A transformation is a better suited description.
New contributor
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
F.Rauls is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51848%2fwhat-happened-in-rome-when-the-western-empire-fell%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
By 476 the city of Rome had not been the center of the Empire for a long while. Diocletian, picking up the pieces after the crisis of the third century, made a point of snubbing Rome compared to the "actual" imperial capitals, which he considered more important. Moreover the sackings Rome experienced in the fifth century certainly depleted its riches and resources. From the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, page 378:
Despite considerable imperial and Ostrogothic attempts to
sustain it, Rome gradually shrank through the fifth and sixth century to a tiny
proportion of its former size; not only was there no longer the government
money to sustain it, but it also inevitably lost out from the shrinking overseas
holdings of its senatorial aristocracy.
Doubtless the Roman Senate still sitting in Rome (now no more than an anachronistic relic) was the theater of some speeches, but the historians of the time deemed them of so little consequence that they don't even mention them. But even beyond Rome, in the imperial capital of Ravenna, and all the other lands nominally under the suzerainty of the west Roman empire, the news would have been of little consequence. This passage of the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 14 page 25) is illuminating:
Since the empire’s financial base was simultaneously decreasing, the idea of
empire quickly became meaningless. The centre no longer controlled anything anyone wanted. In consequence, the late 460s and 470s saw one group
after another coming to the realization that the western empire was no longer
a prize worth fighting for. It must have been an extraordinary moment as the
realization dawned on the leaders of individual interest groups, and upon
members of local Roman landowning élites, that, after hundreds of years of
existence, the Roman state in western Europe was now an anachronism.
and ibid., page 27
A subordinate commander, Odoacer, organized a putsch, murdered Orestes, and deposed Romulus, derisively titled Augustulus, on or around 4 September 476. He then sent
an embassy to Constantinople which did no more than state the obvious. There was no longer any need for an emperor in the west.
Also, from Christopher Wickam The Inheritance of Rome (a book on Early Medieval Europe that I heartily recommend to those interested in that neglected period)
Italy is actually the region of the western empire which lived through least change in the 470s, for Odovacer ruled much as Ricimer had, at the head of a regular army. Italy did not experience an invasion and conquest until 489–93, with the arrival of Theoderic the Amal and his Ostrogoths, and Theoderic (489–526) ruled in as Roman a way as possible, too.
In addition to what I wrote, the "fall of the Western Empire" is a bit of a misnomer. It was not, at the time, perceived as a change in political order: all the lands formerly in the Roman Empire were still under the nominal authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. The West versus East division was, at least on paper, only an administrative one, and the two Emperors had theoretically been coequal heads of state, with the same authority on every component piece. The situation on the ground was very much different, but Odoacer mantained the polite fiction of being the "viceroy" of the Emperor in Italy and even recognized and minted coins in the name of Julius Nepos, the nominal new Western emperor. The loss of authority of the Roman Empire over what were formerly its Western lands was a slow and gradual process, and while 476 is a convenient date (the last year in which a sitting emperor resided in the Italian peninsula), it's quite arbitrary.
Other dates that could be reasonably advanced for the loss of imperial control of Italy are 572, when most of Italy was conquered by the Lombards, a power that did not recognize even the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor, or 751 with the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or even 1130, when the Empire lost its last Italian possessions in Southern Italy[1]. The date of 476 is convenient to write on school exams, but its significance shouldn't be overstated.
[1] Personal note: If I were asked to chose one date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, gun to the head, I'd lean towards 751 because the fall of the Exarchate had all kind of consequences (most importantly the Pope deciding to throw his support behind the Frankish Carolingians), while 476 was not even the last time that the whole of Italy was under direct Imperial control (that'd be 572).
New contributor
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
add a comment |
By 476 the city of Rome had not been the center of the Empire for a long while. Diocletian, picking up the pieces after the crisis of the third century, made a point of snubbing Rome compared to the "actual" imperial capitals, which he considered more important. Moreover the sackings Rome experienced in the fifth century certainly depleted its riches and resources. From the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, page 378:
Despite considerable imperial and Ostrogothic attempts to
sustain it, Rome gradually shrank through the fifth and sixth century to a tiny
proportion of its former size; not only was there no longer the government
money to sustain it, but it also inevitably lost out from the shrinking overseas
holdings of its senatorial aristocracy.
Doubtless the Roman Senate still sitting in Rome (now no more than an anachronistic relic) was the theater of some speeches, but the historians of the time deemed them of so little consequence that they don't even mention them. But even beyond Rome, in the imperial capital of Ravenna, and all the other lands nominally under the suzerainty of the west Roman empire, the news would have been of little consequence. This passage of the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 14 page 25) is illuminating:
Since the empire’s financial base was simultaneously decreasing, the idea of
empire quickly became meaningless. The centre no longer controlled anything anyone wanted. In consequence, the late 460s and 470s saw one group
after another coming to the realization that the western empire was no longer
a prize worth fighting for. It must have been an extraordinary moment as the
realization dawned on the leaders of individual interest groups, and upon
members of local Roman landowning élites, that, after hundreds of years of
existence, the Roman state in western Europe was now an anachronism.
and ibid., page 27
A subordinate commander, Odoacer, organized a putsch, murdered Orestes, and deposed Romulus, derisively titled Augustulus, on or around 4 September 476. He then sent
an embassy to Constantinople which did no more than state the obvious. There was no longer any need for an emperor in the west.
Also, from Christopher Wickam The Inheritance of Rome (a book on Early Medieval Europe that I heartily recommend to those interested in that neglected period)
Italy is actually the region of the western empire which lived through least change in the 470s, for Odovacer ruled much as Ricimer had, at the head of a regular army. Italy did not experience an invasion and conquest until 489–93, with the arrival of Theoderic the Amal and his Ostrogoths, and Theoderic (489–526) ruled in as Roman a way as possible, too.
In addition to what I wrote, the "fall of the Western Empire" is a bit of a misnomer. It was not, at the time, perceived as a change in political order: all the lands formerly in the Roman Empire were still under the nominal authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. The West versus East division was, at least on paper, only an administrative one, and the two Emperors had theoretically been coequal heads of state, with the same authority on every component piece. The situation on the ground was very much different, but Odoacer mantained the polite fiction of being the "viceroy" of the Emperor in Italy and even recognized and minted coins in the name of Julius Nepos, the nominal new Western emperor. The loss of authority of the Roman Empire over what were formerly its Western lands was a slow and gradual process, and while 476 is a convenient date (the last year in which a sitting emperor resided in the Italian peninsula), it's quite arbitrary.
Other dates that could be reasonably advanced for the loss of imperial control of Italy are 572, when most of Italy was conquered by the Lombards, a power that did not recognize even the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor, or 751 with the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or even 1130, when the Empire lost its last Italian possessions in Southern Italy[1]. The date of 476 is convenient to write on school exams, but its significance shouldn't be overstated.
[1] Personal note: If I were asked to chose one date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, gun to the head, I'd lean towards 751 because the fall of the Exarchate had all kind of consequences (most importantly the Pope deciding to throw his support behind the Frankish Carolingians), while 476 was not even the last time that the whole of Italy was under direct Imperial control (that'd be 572).
New contributor
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
add a comment |
By 476 the city of Rome had not been the center of the Empire for a long while. Diocletian, picking up the pieces after the crisis of the third century, made a point of snubbing Rome compared to the "actual" imperial capitals, which he considered more important. Moreover the sackings Rome experienced in the fifth century certainly depleted its riches and resources. From the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, page 378:
Despite considerable imperial and Ostrogothic attempts to
sustain it, Rome gradually shrank through the fifth and sixth century to a tiny
proportion of its former size; not only was there no longer the government
money to sustain it, but it also inevitably lost out from the shrinking overseas
holdings of its senatorial aristocracy.
Doubtless the Roman Senate still sitting in Rome (now no more than an anachronistic relic) was the theater of some speeches, but the historians of the time deemed them of so little consequence that they don't even mention them. But even beyond Rome, in the imperial capital of Ravenna, and all the other lands nominally under the suzerainty of the west Roman empire, the news would have been of little consequence. This passage of the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 14 page 25) is illuminating:
Since the empire’s financial base was simultaneously decreasing, the idea of
empire quickly became meaningless. The centre no longer controlled anything anyone wanted. In consequence, the late 460s and 470s saw one group
after another coming to the realization that the western empire was no longer
a prize worth fighting for. It must have been an extraordinary moment as the
realization dawned on the leaders of individual interest groups, and upon
members of local Roman landowning élites, that, after hundreds of years of
existence, the Roman state in western Europe was now an anachronism.
and ibid., page 27
A subordinate commander, Odoacer, organized a putsch, murdered Orestes, and deposed Romulus, derisively titled Augustulus, on or around 4 September 476. He then sent
an embassy to Constantinople which did no more than state the obvious. There was no longer any need for an emperor in the west.
Also, from Christopher Wickam The Inheritance of Rome (a book on Early Medieval Europe that I heartily recommend to those interested in that neglected period)
Italy is actually the region of the western empire which lived through least change in the 470s, for Odovacer ruled much as Ricimer had, at the head of a regular army. Italy did not experience an invasion and conquest until 489–93, with the arrival of Theoderic the Amal and his Ostrogoths, and Theoderic (489–526) ruled in as Roman a way as possible, too.
In addition to what I wrote, the "fall of the Western Empire" is a bit of a misnomer. It was not, at the time, perceived as a change in political order: all the lands formerly in the Roman Empire were still under the nominal authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. The West versus East division was, at least on paper, only an administrative one, and the two Emperors had theoretically been coequal heads of state, with the same authority on every component piece. The situation on the ground was very much different, but Odoacer mantained the polite fiction of being the "viceroy" of the Emperor in Italy and even recognized and minted coins in the name of Julius Nepos, the nominal new Western emperor. The loss of authority of the Roman Empire over what were formerly its Western lands was a slow and gradual process, and while 476 is a convenient date (the last year in which a sitting emperor resided in the Italian peninsula), it's quite arbitrary.
Other dates that could be reasonably advanced for the loss of imperial control of Italy are 572, when most of Italy was conquered by the Lombards, a power that did not recognize even the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor, or 751 with the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or even 1130, when the Empire lost its last Italian possessions in Southern Italy[1]. The date of 476 is convenient to write on school exams, but its significance shouldn't be overstated.
[1] Personal note: If I were asked to chose one date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, gun to the head, I'd lean towards 751 because the fall of the Exarchate had all kind of consequences (most importantly the Pope deciding to throw his support behind the Frankish Carolingians), while 476 was not even the last time that the whole of Italy was under direct Imperial control (that'd be 572).
New contributor
By 476 the city of Rome had not been the center of the Empire for a long while. Diocletian, picking up the pieces after the crisis of the third century, made a point of snubbing Rome compared to the "actual" imperial capitals, which he considered more important. Moreover the sackings Rome experienced in the fifth century certainly depleted its riches and resources. From the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, page 378:
Despite considerable imperial and Ostrogothic attempts to
sustain it, Rome gradually shrank through the fifth and sixth century to a tiny
proportion of its former size; not only was there no longer the government
money to sustain it, but it also inevitably lost out from the shrinking overseas
holdings of its senatorial aristocracy.
Doubtless the Roman Senate still sitting in Rome (now no more than an anachronistic relic) was the theater of some speeches, but the historians of the time deemed them of so little consequence that they don't even mention them. But even beyond Rome, in the imperial capital of Ravenna, and all the other lands nominally under the suzerainty of the west Roman empire, the news would have been of little consequence. This passage of the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 14 page 25) is illuminating:
Since the empire’s financial base was simultaneously decreasing, the idea of
empire quickly became meaningless. The centre no longer controlled anything anyone wanted. In consequence, the late 460s and 470s saw one group
after another coming to the realization that the western empire was no longer
a prize worth fighting for. It must have been an extraordinary moment as the
realization dawned on the leaders of individual interest groups, and upon
members of local Roman landowning élites, that, after hundreds of years of
existence, the Roman state in western Europe was now an anachronism.
and ibid., page 27
A subordinate commander, Odoacer, organized a putsch, murdered Orestes, and deposed Romulus, derisively titled Augustulus, on or around 4 September 476. He then sent
an embassy to Constantinople which did no more than state the obvious. There was no longer any need for an emperor in the west.
Also, from Christopher Wickam The Inheritance of Rome (a book on Early Medieval Europe that I heartily recommend to those interested in that neglected period)
Italy is actually the region of the western empire which lived through least change in the 470s, for Odovacer ruled much as Ricimer had, at the head of a regular army. Italy did not experience an invasion and conquest until 489–93, with the arrival of Theoderic the Amal and his Ostrogoths, and Theoderic (489–526) ruled in as Roman a way as possible, too.
In addition to what I wrote, the "fall of the Western Empire" is a bit of a misnomer. It was not, at the time, perceived as a change in political order: all the lands formerly in the Roman Empire were still under the nominal authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. The West versus East division was, at least on paper, only an administrative one, and the two Emperors had theoretically been coequal heads of state, with the same authority on every component piece. The situation on the ground was very much different, but Odoacer mantained the polite fiction of being the "viceroy" of the Emperor in Italy and even recognized and minted coins in the name of Julius Nepos, the nominal new Western emperor. The loss of authority of the Roman Empire over what were formerly its Western lands was a slow and gradual process, and while 476 is a convenient date (the last year in which a sitting emperor resided in the Italian peninsula), it's quite arbitrary.
Other dates that could be reasonably advanced for the loss of imperial control of Italy are 572, when most of Italy was conquered by the Lombards, a power that did not recognize even the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor, or 751 with the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna, or even 1130, when the Empire lost its last Italian possessions in Southern Italy[1]. The date of 476 is convenient to write on school exams, but its significance shouldn't be overstated.
[1] Personal note: If I were asked to chose one date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, gun to the head, I'd lean towards 751 because the fall of the Exarchate had all kind of consequences (most importantly the Pope deciding to throw his support behind the Frankish Carolingians), while 476 was not even the last time that the whole of Italy was under direct Imperial control (that'd be 572).
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Denis NardinDenis Nardin
616148
616148
New contributor
New contributor
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
add a comment |
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
This is a great answer. For anyone interested in this period, I recommend the "Fall of Rome" and "Tides of History" podcasts, which talk a lot about the late Roman Empire and the 500s.
– Kevin Peter
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
So basically by the time the western Empire fell, Rome was already like Detroit for a long time.
– vsz
2 days ago
2
2
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
@vsz - Rome's decline took longer than most empires exist, period.
– Richard
2 days ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
It might also be worth mentioning that by 476, Gaul, Hispania, and North Africa had already passed beyond control of the Western Empire, meaning Italy was pretty much all that was left, hence Odoacer claiming the title of King of Italy.
– chepner
15 hours ago
add a comment |
It is hard to describe what really happened: we only know what is written in the documents of that time which reached us, and they are not very abundant. There is a very nice book
(fiction) by Pascal Quignard, On Wooden Tablets: Apronenia Avitia (translated from the French, original title: Les Tablettes de buis d’Apronenia Avitia, Gallimard, 1984).
In it the author describes the life of a person at that time, and it seems to reflect very well our present knowledge on what really happened.
To state it shortly: nothing happened. People probably hardly noticed the event that we call "the fall of Rome". The reason is that the fall of Rome was a gradual process which lasted for more than a generation. Nothing that dramatically affected the life of most people happened in this particular year 476. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 made apparently more impression.
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
add a comment |
It is hard to describe what really happened: we only know what is written in the documents of that time which reached us, and they are not very abundant. There is a very nice book
(fiction) by Pascal Quignard, On Wooden Tablets: Apronenia Avitia (translated from the French, original title: Les Tablettes de buis d’Apronenia Avitia, Gallimard, 1984).
In it the author describes the life of a person at that time, and it seems to reflect very well our present knowledge on what really happened.
To state it shortly: nothing happened. People probably hardly noticed the event that we call "the fall of Rome". The reason is that the fall of Rome was a gradual process which lasted for more than a generation. Nothing that dramatically affected the life of most people happened in this particular year 476. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 made apparently more impression.
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
add a comment |
It is hard to describe what really happened: we only know what is written in the documents of that time which reached us, and they are not very abundant. There is a very nice book
(fiction) by Pascal Quignard, On Wooden Tablets: Apronenia Avitia (translated from the French, original title: Les Tablettes de buis d’Apronenia Avitia, Gallimard, 1984).
In it the author describes the life of a person at that time, and it seems to reflect very well our present knowledge on what really happened.
To state it shortly: nothing happened. People probably hardly noticed the event that we call "the fall of Rome". The reason is that the fall of Rome was a gradual process which lasted for more than a generation. Nothing that dramatically affected the life of most people happened in this particular year 476. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 made apparently more impression.
It is hard to describe what really happened: we only know what is written in the documents of that time which reached us, and they are not very abundant. There is a very nice book
(fiction) by Pascal Quignard, On Wooden Tablets: Apronenia Avitia (translated from the French, original title: Les Tablettes de buis d’Apronenia Avitia, Gallimard, 1984).
In it the author describes the life of a person at that time, and it seems to reflect very well our present knowledge on what really happened.
To state it shortly: nothing happened. People probably hardly noticed the event that we call "the fall of Rome". The reason is that the fall of Rome was a gradual process which lasted for more than a generation. Nothing that dramatically affected the life of most people happened in this particular year 476. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 made apparently more impression.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
AlexAlex
27.2k151102
27.2k151102
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
add a comment |
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
I think I will take a look at "On Wooden Tablets". Thanks a lot!
– F.Rauls
2 days ago
add a comment |
Also, unlike other empires that fell, Rome splintered into other kingdoms, hence the largely latin-influenced cultures, which exists today (except for the Ostrgoths and Visigoths - they didn't accept the new policy and were persecuted), so a "fall" would not be the most accurate term.
Also, the Roman Empire transformed into a political power after Constantine gave up his seat of power to what became the Roman Catholic system (countries still pay some kind of homage to this system, regardless of their mainstream religion - very fascinating). So it appears the Roman empire got even bigger than it was, as opposed to it falling.
A transformation is a better suited description.
New contributor
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
add a comment |
Also, unlike other empires that fell, Rome splintered into other kingdoms, hence the largely latin-influenced cultures, which exists today (except for the Ostrgoths and Visigoths - they didn't accept the new policy and were persecuted), so a "fall" would not be the most accurate term.
Also, the Roman Empire transformed into a political power after Constantine gave up his seat of power to what became the Roman Catholic system (countries still pay some kind of homage to this system, regardless of their mainstream religion - very fascinating). So it appears the Roman empire got even bigger than it was, as opposed to it falling.
A transformation is a better suited description.
New contributor
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
add a comment |
Also, unlike other empires that fell, Rome splintered into other kingdoms, hence the largely latin-influenced cultures, which exists today (except for the Ostrgoths and Visigoths - they didn't accept the new policy and were persecuted), so a "fall" would not be the most accurate term.
Also, the Roman Empire transformed into a political power after Constantine gave up his seat of power to what became the Roman Catholic system (countries still pay some kind of homage to this system, regardless of their mainstream religion - very fascinating). So it appears the Roman empire got even bigger than it was, as opposed to it falling.
A transformation is a better suited description.
New contributor
Also, unlike other empires that fell, Rome splintered into other kingdoms, hence the largely latin-influenced cultures, which exists today (except for the Ostrgoths and Visigoths - they didn't accept the new policy and were persecuted), so a "fall" would not be the most accurate term.
Also, the Roman Empire transformed into a political power after Constantine gave up his seat of power to what became the Roman Catholic system (countries still pay some kind of homage to this system, regardless of their mainstream religion - very fascinating). So it appears the Roman empire got even bigger than it was, as opposed to it falling.
A transformation is a better suited description.
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Steve Bird
13.2k35867
13.2k35867
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Lionboy1Lionboy1
271
271
New contributor
New contributor
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
add a comment |
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
5
5
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Actually, the formation of the papal state is way more complicated than that. Arguably, the pope started to actually gain power only after the Lombard invasion, when he became the de facto head of the Duchy of Rome. The Catholic Church as we understand it began with Charlemagne, when the Carolingians decided it could be an effective way of culturally unify their possessions.
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
Do you mean that to read "Also, the Roman Empire transformed from a political into a spiritual power" (after all the Catholic Church and their pontifexes extended the reach of the 'power of Rome' quite a bit further than the caesars who held the office of that name before) @DenisNardin I am a bit puzzled how you came to read "Papal state" into this. Can you make that criticism clearer?
– LangLangC
2 days ago
1
1
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
@LangLangC It seems to me that this answer is saying that the Roman imperial system turned into the Roman Catholic church. If this is indeed what the answerer is saying, let's just say that I disagree strenuously with this gross oversimplification (it is true that in many places the bishop filled the power vacuum left by the civil government, but this is more "replacement" than "transformation")
– Denis Nardin
yesterday
add a comment |
F.Rauls is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
F.Rauls is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
F.Rauls is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
F.Rauls is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51848%2fwhat-happened-in-rome-when-the-western-empire-fell%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
Have you read the Wikipedia page on the fall of Rome?
– Steve Bird
2 days ago
2
It's called the fall of or its decline. It was not felled in a single blow on some arbitrary date. What happened in Rome for several hundred years while it was falling.... ?
– Mazura
2 days ago