Critique of How Rome Fell by Adrian Goldsworthy By Larry M Welenc There is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power Gandhi (at least in the movie) The odious name of the conquerors was softened by the mild and friendly appellation of guests of the Romans and the barbarians of Gaul more especially the Goths, repeatedly declared that they were bound to the people by ties of hospitality to the Emperor, by the duty of allegiance and military service, The title of Honorius and his successors, their law and their civil magistrates were still respected in the province of Gaul, of which they resigned the possession to the barbarian allies; and their kings who exercised supreme and independent authority over their native subjects, ambitiously solicited the more honorable rank of Master General of he Imperial armies. Such was the involuntary reverence which the Roman name still impressed on the minds and warriors who had borne away in triumph, the spoils of his capital. Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) And such was never the power and prestige of the British name or the American for that matter, which clearly differentiated that empire from the Roman, the sun having set on the empire on which the sun never set. The author in line with the title of his book offers, disputes and dismisses a transformation as the cause the disappearance of the Western Roman in the year 476 AD. Yet as with any prior works on the subjects can only conjecture probable dates and causes for the so called fall. Historians have and never had a problem in assigning a date whether absolute or in a certain limited time frame to the fall of any other any other empire in antiquity. We date the fall of the Persian an empire with the victory of Alexander at, likewise we date the fall of Alexander s empire with his death, and the fall of the empires resulting by the division of his empire by his Generals by their defeat at the hand Romans. We date the fall of the Parthian empire which arose form the ashes of the Old Persian Empire with a change in dynasty and resurgence of the new Persian empire at least by name. Similarly we date the fall of that regenerated empire with their defeat by the Arabs in the year 652 and the fall of the Eastern Roman empire with their defeat by the Turks and the fall of Constantinople. Yet we cannot assign date or refer to a single battle and defeat, if not universally agreed upon at least supported by a majority of historian to fall of the Roman empire other than the date of the abdication of tee last Roman emperor in 476, a paper emperor at best. The author is correct in asserting the insignificance of the abdication of the last Roman emperor in the year 476 AD date to the
daily lives of the people. Certainly this should lend credence to the suggestion that some sort of transformation occurred or some outside entity existed to at least mask the fall if a fall in the fifth century had indeed we agree that a fall had actually occurred. I believe the answer lies in part to the Roman practice of accepting Foederati in the Western empire, not exactly by choice combined with the continued existence of the Eastern Roman empire; as long as the Eastern Roman Empire existed, the Roman empire, however much it may have diminished in size and power, existed independent of where its seat lie As the author states Gibbon, himself perplexed by the reason for the fall came to the conclusion that we should not be astounded at the fall of the Roman empire but why it existed so long. I disagree. Gibbon in accounting for the Western empire s longevity in part to the fact that the empire had existed for so long, the Romans could not imagine anything to take its place. I believe that a closer examination of Gibbon own work should show that neither could Germanic invaders imagine anything else to take its place. The Germanic tribe came at first to plunder, it has been suggested by certain authors in search of better forms of intoxication (I believe that Gibbon may have planted the seed to this theory ) and later as so amply demonstrated in the case of Alaric to find their place in the empire which they had no intention of destroying but could only hold in awe. The reluctant and useful recognition of the Germanic invaders Foederati in the empire which was initially veiled Roman admission that they simply did have the power to turn the invaders them back eventually provided a source of manpower to replenish the depleted forces of the Roman empire as well a cooperation between the armies Romans and the barbarian Chieftains, nominally under Roman command. It was only a matter of time until they were to assert to their claims into the Roman military and political structure itself, something which the half Vandal Stilicho succeeded in achieving and the Goth Alaric aspired to achieve After the year 476, the year 410 the dated of sacking of Rome by Alaric to assert his claims of promotion to Master General of the Roman is often cited as the date of the Fall of the Roman empire with little justification. Alaric who as Gibbon stated spoke Latin and attended Church service with Roman officials, had no intention bringing an end the Roman empire; quite the contrary he was trying to secure his position in the empire. The sack of Rome in 410 had more overtones of a Civil war rather than an invasion. The Goths were already inside the empire and their presence recognized by the Roman as Foederati however ridiculous that title may have been,. Whatever claims Alaric might have to the tile of Master General of the West, doing away with the Roman empire to obtain it was not part of the agenda. Despite the assertions by some Historians that the empire was on sound footing in the fifth century, an empire it the empire at the time of Majorian as Gibbon points out was limited to the Kingdom of Italy, it is my opinion that the rapid decline of empire on the fifth century combined with the increasing dependence on the Foederati or any German tribe that made an uninvited appearance, as allies and auxiliaries,is the reason why a
date cannot be assigned to the fall. As Gibbon states, Majorian, (whom he refers to as the last Roman without using those exact words having erroneously used them in reference to Aetius and Count Boniface, especially Aetius) was reduced to the disgraceful expedient of substituting barbarian auxiliaries in place of his unwarlike subjects. In the end one of those Foederati, Ricimer, accepted the substitution of Majorian by a candidate of the Senate but it was clear who the real power actually was. There was very little left to fall of the Roman empire in the West and what was left had to deal with outside threats from other barbarians, to be met by combined Roman and Gothic Forces, nominally under Roman command but in actuality acting as equals. As Gibbon stated the stern Ricimer, who trampled n the ruins of Italy, had exercised power, without assuming the title, of a king and the patient Romans were insensibly prepared to acknowledge the royalty of Odoacer and his barbarian successors..odoacer actions as Gibbon describes hardly ended the Roman institutions. after an interval of seven years, Odoacer restored the consulship of the West. For himself he modestly or proudly, declined and honor which was still accepted by the emperors of the east ; but the curule chair was successively filed by eleven of the most illustrious senators. The author himself states that the event (476) did not seem to be of massive importance to contemporaries, and probably passed unnoticed by most of the emperor s subject. Would this have a been possible if the empire had actually fallen- unaffected yes but unnoticed? The author points out correctly that the specific ranks, title appear to continue under Germanic Kingdoms hardly suffice to support a transformation. More relevant is the question as whether all possible alternate scenarios in 476 had changed anything- i.e. Odoacer takes the title of Emperor with recognition from Leo or without, or has Romulus Augustulus killed, or keeps Romulus Augustus as Emperor with himself as his Regent. The author state that the Fall of the Roman Empire was a major event but that no date can be assigned which seems to be contradictory. Gibbon himself stated that if all the barbarians had simply disappeared in the 5 th century the Roman Empire would have fallen anyway, (if we are to use this term fall figuratively as without the barbarians there could hardly have been a fall). Whatever the fate of the Western Roman Empire was or might have been as long as the Eastern Empire was in tact, the Roman Empire still existed. So long as there was a least one province in the west and one pretender to the throne who sought recognitions, there was a spark that could be ignited. Though it might consist as Gibbon stated only of the Kingdom of Italy at the moment this could and did change at the whim of an Eastern Roman emperor when Mediterranean again became a Roman Sea under the emperor Justinian. And even after the Western empire disappeared from the map, western European History form Charlemagne to Charles V can be viewed at least in part as and attempt to revive it in some form, the final and failed attempt being the Holy Roman Empire. The author is correct in his description of Gibbon as a narrative historian, and points out that Gibbon like others sees the roots of the deep in the early history of the empire
which produced a slow decline over several centuries. Yet Gibbon himself famous statement if a man were called to fix a period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous he would without hesitation name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. Gibbon asserts that the division of the empire did more to preserve the east than it contributed to the fall of the west The statement itself implies that the did at least contribute to some degree to the fall if as fall can be considered the correct term. Of more consequence than any schism in my opinion was that Rome in the 4 th Century Rome no longer the spiritual capital to be held and defended at all costs was no longer indispensible as a spiritual capital. A Roman empire without Rome was no longer unthinkable as it once was, its pagan past made it to many a spiritual burden. Twice in his work Gibbon does lay the blame for the decline in persons and events after the death of Commodus. He also correctly asserts that the that if the system of Augustus was so flawed it was only with remarkable luck that for two centuries from threat of internal conflict Gibbon blames Septemus Severus for the demise of the Senate and the rise and abuse of power by the Praetorians. Posterity, who experienced the fatal effects of his maxims and example justly consider him the principal author of the decline of the Roman Empire. Yet the Praetorian Guards who had been making Emperors since the time of the assassination of Caligula and the elevation of Claudius to the throne had just several years before the accession f Severus assassinated the emperor Pertinax putting the empire up for sale to Didius Julianus. Gibbon has cited whom he believes to be the principal author in the decline and Fall, In my opinion the two principal actors were Gallia Placidia, sister of the Western Roman Emperor Honorius whom Augustus would certainly having handed over his epithet, in this comedy have I not played my part well and her daughter Justa Grata Honaria, daughter of Galla Placidia along with the Patrician Aetius and Count Boniface, the two men whom Gibbon cited as the last Romans. Some allowances can be made for Placidia for as Gibbon stated out of weakness and fear, delivered herself,, her son Valentinian and the Western empire in the hand of an insolent subject, some can be made for Boniface who forced into his situation of allying himself with the Vandal though Stilicho faced with a similar situation chose to meet his fate instead, none can me made for Aetius or Honaria. Whatever the fault of any ambitious General or Senator might have been in the early days of the empire, inviting a foreign power into the empire to pursue their own pretentions to power was not in the cards. In the Fifth Century it seems to be matter of fact. With the accession of what Gibbons terms the strange adventures Galla Placidia such actions became matter of fact. The daughter of the Great Theodosius had been captive and
queen of the Goths, she had lost and affectionate ( Alaric s successor Atalauf) husband, was dragged in chains by his insulting assassin, she tasted the pleasure of revenge and was exchanged in the treaty of Peace for 6000 thousand measures of wheat. Forced into a marriage by her family without her consent accused of incestuous love with her dead brother Honorius, retreated to exile with her children to the confines of Constantinople and playing a pivotal role the intrigues of Aetius and to a lesser extent County Boniface and by doing so setting the stage with her daughter Honiara for Aeitus to save Rome from a situation which he helped to a large measure created by secretly persuading Placidia to recall Boniface from Africa and persuading Boniface to disobey the imperial summons paramount to a sentence of death and to Placidia as a sign of revolt resulting in Boniface to propose an alliance with Gonderic, king of the Vandals with and offer of a permanent settlement. Boniface was eventually killed regretting his actions, Africa conquered by the Vandals in the next with years with Aeitus fleeing to the camp of the Huns for his safety eventually being pardoned by Placidia and attaining the rank of Patrician for his intrigues. Fear and safety for herself and he son aside, it is difficult to believe that none of her advisors confidants favorites were cognoscenti of Aetius s intrigues and gave and that she was not warned of what the man who took up her cause was the victim of the designs of Aetius. No excuse can be made for Placidia. Honorius unhappy with the celibacy imposed on her for her promiscuity solicited the assistance of Attila with the delivery of her ring giving Attila the pretext of invading Italy to claim her as his lawful spouse along with his share of the Imperial Patrimony. As Gibbon state, In pursuit of love, or rather revenge, the daughter of Placidia sacrificed every duty and prejudice and offered herself into the hands of a barbarian of whose language she was ignorant, whose figure was scarcely human and whose religion and manners she abhorred. It can be argued that Attila would have invaded Italy eventually, nevertheless he used the pretext of claiming her as a lawful spouse which he rightly or wrongly interpreted as her intentions. And the invasion considering the debacle in Africa with Boniface could not come at a worse time Aetius may have been powerful and skillful enough to defeat Attila but not decisively and only the untimely death of Attila prevented a second invasion. As to the immediate cause if the fall which I believe should correctly be termed disappearance, of the Western Roman empire, Gibbon asserted, The loss of armies, the destructions of cities, and the dishonor of the Roman name, ineffectually solicited the successors of Gratian to restore the helmet and cuirasses of the infantry. The enervated soldiers abandoned, their own and the public defense, and their pusillanimous indolence may be considered the immediate cause of the downfall of the empire How far a cry from the aftermath at Cannae as recounted by Livy. How far that disaster surpassed previous ones is shown by one simple fact. Up to that day the loyalty of our allies had remained unshaken, now it began to waver, for no other reason, we may be certain, than that they despaired of the maintenance of our empire. The tribes who revolted to the Carthaginians were the Atellani, the Calatini, the Hirpini, a
section of the Apulians, all the Samnite cantons with the exception of the Pentri, all the Bruttii and the Lucanians. In addition to these, the Uzentini and almost the whole of the coast of Magna Graecia, the people of Tarentum Crotona and Locri, as well as all Cisalpine Gaul. Yet, in spite of all their disasters and the revolt of their allies, no one anywhere in Rome mentioned the word "Peace," either before the consul's return or after his arrival when all the memories of their losses were renewed. Such a lofty spirit did the citizens exhibit in those days that though the consul was coming back from a terrible defeat for which they knew he was mainly responsible, he was met by a vast concourse drawn from every class of society, and thanks were formally voted to him because he "had not despaired of the republic." Had he been commander-in-chief of the Carthaginians there was no torture to which he would not have been subjected.