Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I don't think we're on the same page, calgacus. The authors I listed pretty openly regard Rome as having ended in the 5th century, although as we all agree the East survived until 1453.
Peter Heather, The English Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 435. (Feb., 1995), pp. 4-41:
"While the western Empire did not die quickly or easily, a direct line of historical cause and effect nonetheless runs from the barbarian invasions of the late fourth and early fifth centuries to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus."
The clear implication is that something dramatic happened, not a simple, peaceful transformation into Germanic rule in the west, as the Late Antique view often tends to take. Heather openly argues for the barbarian invasions as the primal cause of the collapse of the west, and therefore, as the "assassins of Rome," so to speak. It is true that Roman administrators continued to manage the former territories of the Empire under their new Gothic overlords; it is equally true that some of the new barbarians (Theodoric particularly comes to mind) tried to style themselves and their reign as a continuation of the Roman state. That in no way implies that Rome somehow prevailed ultimately, however, or that it did not truly fall.
Ward-Perkins does a good job of addressing the subtleties of the barbarian invasions and their aftermath in his book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. It wasn't simply a matter of a power shift to Constantinople; there were real changes in the lifestyle of the average citizen. He points to things such as the disappearance of fine pottery, molded coins, and even fattened cattle as archaelogical proof that it was not "business as usual." When you say that any idea of the fall of Rome would've been a surprise to 5th or 6th century citizens, you are completely wrong. It was all too evident for the western provinces that a major shift had occurred. For an aristocrat in the East, it would've been entirely different, however.
Titus001 said something to this effect in another thread: He asked why Justinian might undertake a major war in the west if he didn't regard himself as a Roman. To that I might also add, why would Justinian try to retake the west if he himself did not see it as having "fallen" to the barbarians?
The real issue here is not one of whether Rome fell, but of when. I say that Rome fell over a period of about a century, culminating symbolically in the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the invasion of Odovacer. You say it lasted until 1453. The problem is that the Eastern Empire underwent dramatic changes during and after the 6th century: classical learning morphed into a new kind of Christian education; Plato's Academy, in operation for 900 years, was shut down in 509; Justinian's corpus iuris civilis totally reorganized the law of the Empire under a new kind of Christian worldview; Justinian's Reconquest ravaged Italy and sapped the Eastern Empire, which had a huge effect upon subsequent generations, and especially so once the Islamic conquerors started to emerge in the 600's. All this had the effect of changing irrevocably the identity of the Eastern Romans, their culture, and their outlook on life, to such an extent that while they continued to call themselves Romans, in many ways they no longer were. They were Byzantines.
Peter Heather, The English Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 435. (Feb., 1995), pp. 4-41:
"While the western Empire did not die quickly or easily, a direct line of historical cause and effect nonetheless runs from the barbarian invasions of the late fourth and early fifth centuries to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus."
The clear implication is that something dramatic happened, not a simple, peaceful transformation into Germanic rule in the west, as the Late Antique view often tends to take. Heather openly argues for the barbarian invasions as the primal cause of the collapse of the west, and therefore, as the "assassins of Rome," so to speak. It is true that Roman administrators continued to manage the former territories of the Empire under their new Gothic overlords; it is equally true that some of the new barbarians (Theodoric particularly comes to mind) tried to style themselves and their reign as a continuation of the Roman state. That in no way implies that Rome somehow prevailed ultimately, however, or that it did not truly fall.
Ward-Perkins does a good job of addressing the subtleties of the barbarian invasions and their aftermath in his book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. It wasn't simply a matter of a power shift to Constantinople; there were real changes in the lifestyle of the average citizen. He points to things such as the disappearance of fine pottery, molded coins, and even fattened cattle as archaelogical proof that it was not "business as usual." When you say that any idea of the fall of Rome would've been a surprise to 5th or 6th century citizens, you are completely wrong. It was all too evident for the western provinces that a major shift had occurred. For an aristocrat in the East, it would've been entirely different, however.
Titus001 said something to this effect in another thread: He asked why Justinian might undertake a major war in the west if he didn't regard himself as a Roman. To that I might also add, why would Justinian try to retake the west if he himself did not see it as having "fallen" to the barbarians?
The real issue here is not one of whether Rome fell, but of when. I say that Rome fell over a period of about a century, culminating symbolically in the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the invasion of Odovacer. You say it lasted until 1453. The problem is that the Eastern Empire underwent dramatic changes during and after the 6th century: classical learning morphed into a new kind of Christian education; Plato's Academy, in operation for 900 years, was shut down in 509; Justinian's corpus iuris civilis totally reorganized the law of the Empire under a new kind of Christian worldview; Justinian's Reconquest ravaged Italy and sapped the Eastern Empire, which had a huge effect upon subsequent generations, and especially so once the Islamic conquerors started to emerge in the 600's. All this had the effect of changing irrevocably the identity of the Eastern Romans, their culture, and their outlook on life, to such an extent that while they continued to call themselves Romans, in many ways they no longer were. They were Byzantines.