The Fall of Rome 376 -500 Flashcards
410 AD?
The Barbarians/Goths sacked Rome
What was the 3c crisis?
Financial turmoil
Internal political instability and civil wars, power vacuum.
military failures, led to collapse/breaches of frontiers temporarily by enemies.
Barbarians in Europe and the newly assertive Persian in the East empire was a threat.
Emergency measure to resolve crisis?
Emergency measures to resolve the crisis consolidated itself into a new system of rule by strong emperor Constantine. The new system of rule changed its character.
What was the new model
centralization
militarization - of attitudes, more interest in military roles, Roman army doubled.
professionalisation - no longer just aristocrats, civilians and bureaucracy became more professional, make a career out of it.
Military security internally, externally was restored, central control strengthened by multiple emperors, better economy.
Consequence of new model?
Comes at intangible cost, as it changed the culture/ ethos in favour for more centralised/ authoritarian rule and higher burdens and taxes in services on population.
The previous devolved partnership model of c1-c2 is undermined.
Constantines legacy?
Barnes -
“diverted the course of human history”
Christian Empire by 4AD?
No longer multicultural, now there is a state religion.
Constantine was a Christian and promoted across the empire. This showed the extraordinary strength of imperial power.
New Roman?
New capital Constantinople consolidate the split between East and West and accelerated the shift of the centre of gravity from the roman world to the east. This had lasting consequence as this shift is what ensure the east survived when the west collapsed.
theme of fall?
Either:
Decadent and deficient. Roman society overrun by barbarian borders/ hordes. loss of greatness/prestige.
Or built around the idea of late antiquity as distinct period 150-750 - continuous concept popularised by Brown’s book 1971.
Upbeat theory of fall.
stresses cultural and religious themes rather than military/ political failure.
sees change as gradual, driven from within (following the rise of Christ)
barbarians gained power by default, fill power vacuum
transformation/ transition not by destruction, violence or by force.
weak political rulers, decline in Romans arms/military superiority
Not solely barbarians threat, they had always been there they weren’t a new threat and at the start they were militarily inferior and unstable groups with no collective identity/ intent. No unity so not a invasion.
Transformation - accommodation, continuity, community etc.
Barbarians no longer viewed as feral, naked but as warriors.
Barbarians and the west empire?
They penetrated deep into the empire, they were never expelled. The western land was lost and the roman frontier collapsed.
Not as straight forward, lost of civil wars/ usurp. There was long standing rivalries within the barbarian groups too.
The transition?
The empire offered land to barbarian groups in exchange for military support but this in turn ensured they began to loose grip of their resource bases. The barbarians started to exploit the imperial weaknesses.
After that there was a permanent barbarian presence and so, guaranteed local security. this meant that bonds between local elites and the empire dissolved.
The Barbarians wanted to maintain the Roman system . The barbarian general in control dispose of the last puppet empire and rule on its behalf. The west split into multiple kingdoms, ruled by barbarians with the backing of local Roman elites.
successor states based on mix of barbarian military power and roman administration. Still Christian and empire leaves longstanding cultural legacy.
What did Goffart think?
Emperors saw costly frontier as a waste of resources, chose to ‘accommodate’ barbarians, cheaper.
Heathers?
Blame the barbarians, migrant invaders.
Ward-Perkins?
Stressed violent barbarian agency. Challenges idea of transition argue political and military changes linked to the end of the empire.
