To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

Fundamental to the debate surrounding whether the Western Roman Empire fell or not is the fluctuating
condition of Rome during the period 376-476 as well as the specific events in 476 known commonly as
the significant date in which the Western Roman Empire fell. Did Rome deteriorate to the point of
indefinite collapse by 476? Or did the Empire merely transition into an altered version of its original
self?
This debate has been resurfaced in mid to early contemporary literature/historiographies and has divided
historians ever since. Most historians however, believe Rome did in fact deteriorate due to a declining
economy, army, civic virtue, and foreign invasions among other reasons, but the forced abdication of
Romulus Augustus in 476 to a Barbarian Emperor was not enough to convince a number of historians
of their definite fall. In fact many historians even deliberately ignore the 5th century collapse of Roman
power in the West, events that were seen as heralding ‘dark ages’. Rather historians viewing this period
of ‘Late Antiquity’ see it as a period of continuous cultural growth, rather than crisis and rupture.
Furthermore, central to the debate during this period is the migration of the Germanic tribes into the
Western Roman Empire. Many historians argue that the tribes wanted to peacefully co-exist with the
revered Empire, which would suggest the prominent view against the idea of a fall which is of a
diplomatic integration of societies. However, a number of historians contend that recent scholarship
which originate and reflect these ideas make the whole process far too genteel, and perhaps conceal the
more violent and discordant reality.
A key feature to this debate is the splitting of the Empire in 376, there are those who regarded the
Eastern Empire as still the Roman Empire when the Western side was said to fall. However, most
historians are unequivocally undivided in the view that the Eastern Empire evolved into the Byzantine
Empire, and that the true Holy Roman Empire was the Western one.
The views of Bryan Ward-Perkins in his book The Fall of Rome and The End of a Civilisation and those
of Richard Mansfield-Haywood in his book The Myth of Rome’s Fall reflect differing opinions amongst
historians.
The interpretations of Mansfield-Haywood contend that there wasn’t a significant fall to be noted, but
merely a transition from one leader to another. Contrary to these of Gibbon, Spengler and Tonybee, the
author states “If it is true that there is some kind of causation which inevitably brings about the fall of
cultures or civilizations the history of the Roman Empire cannot be used to prove it”.1
While Haywood notes that historians who regard 476 as the year of the fall of the Western Roman
Empire has something of a point, and how it may be said that “the former Roman type of government
in the West had disappeared”. However, he goes on to say that the Ostrogothic control of Italy was far
from being a calamity, in fact it was really a “continuation of the governmental and social system under
which Italy had lived for a hundred years”.1
Additionally, Haywood reasons that Theodoric (who overcame the Germanic ruler Odoacer) regarded
himself as ruling Italy in the name of the emperor of Constantinople and was “very solicitous to preserve
all the forms of the Roman government”. This suggests there was barely any change felt by the Romans
themselves, particularly since they lived separate from the Ostrogoths for many decades after 476, as
well as the structure and leadership of the Empire. In the book, Haywood reasons that the Empire wasn’t
replaced by conquering barbarians, but that the Romans and Germans transformed and merged
cultures.1
The historian critically analyses the period preceding 476, and concluding that through a culmination
of many reasons such as poor/difficult management of the Empire, military defeats and failures, as well
as economic and social problems, there was in fact a decline in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless,

1
Richard Mansfield-Haywood- The Myth of Rome’s Fall (1959)
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

Haywood argues, Rome was the same in all but its name, as the theme of usurping the current Emperor
of the time had become common place by 476. Thus contending the very notion there was a fall at all,
as implied by the title, The Myth of Rome’s Fall.
Conversely, Ward-Perkins argues, when reflecting the foundations of his point of view that Rome did
in fact fall, he says the evidence strongly indicates that through political and military difficulties, the
Western Roman Empire unmistakeably fell. Such military difficulty Ward-Perkins mentions in the
invasion of Gaul in 407-409, where the Roman military failed to defend their land; “some lay as food
for dogs; for many a burning roof…the whole of Gaul was smoked on a single funeral pyre”. With the
addition of a decline on the global scale in standards of living two to three centuries following the fall
in 476, Ward-Perkins debates that it was through a number of factors for which Rome definitely fell;
he points out that while Germanic aggressors did not mean to damage the sophisticated economy, they
wanted a share of it, but nonetheless were a key contributing factor to the fall and takeover of the
Western Roman Empire. 2
The author presents the convincing view that the immigration of these Barbarians in 376 during the
crossing of the Danube, was the beginning of the decline and subsequent fall, evident in the Gothic war
starting in the same year following civil unrest between the Goths and Roman soldiers. Ward-Perkins
points out how the entrance of these Germanic peoples was the origin of major events signifying decline
and fall such as the foreign invasion (Crossing of the Rhine) in 406, as well as the Sack of Rome in 410
and 455, as well as many military defeats. He contends that when the Germanic foederati under the
command of the general Odoacer renounced Western Roman authority and declares Odoacer their king
in 476 as a final blow to the Empire which signified its fall. Ward-Perkins competes with the idea of
there being ‘no fall at all’ directly, when hey says “it (The Western Empire) had diminished by such a
considerable amount over time, the concept of an empire was by then, practically lost”. 2
It should be taken into account that these pieces of work were written at different points in time; a well-
educated individual, Haywood attended Dartmouth, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins for his Ph.D. the work
of Mansfield Haywood was published in 1959, considered a new period of contemporary work
challenging old views and new perspectives. Perhaps Haywood wanted to make his mark on history
and challenge old perceptions of if Rome actually fell. Noting that Haywood in a sense, only conveys
a convincing argument against the notion that the Western Roman Empire fell with no apparent use of
primary sources to support his argument.
Additionally, he would have lived through the time of decolonisation across the globe, and there was a
recurring theme of evolution of countries into a free and improved state. It was during the period of
early contemporary work the interpretation of that the Germanic peoples settled in Rome through a
process of accommodation, rather than an invasion. Therefore it could be suggested that this
international and contextually popular policy of change rather than fall, had influence in Haywood’s
opinion in The Myth of Rome’s Fall. The following 40 years after his first publication of Roman Africa,
he published innumerable articles, notes, and reviews, as well as major works. It was in 1958 he made
public his dissatisfaction with Gibbon’s premise of decline and fall with the publication of The Myth of
Rome’s Fall. Hence it could be considered that the publication of this work could be seen as an attempt
to gain popularity and significance to his career and works.
However, as a teacher of classics and ancient historian, devoted especially to the history of Rome it is
evident that Haywood is experienced in the specific field of the Roman Empire and not to be passed on
as a historian who is searching for perhaps fame and significance or influenced by popular policies and
beliefs at the time. Therefore, it can be appropriately concluded that The Myth of Rome’s Fall could be
considered a fairly reliable source.

2
Bryan Ward-Perkins- The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization (2005)
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

Conversely, Ward-Perkins published his work more recently in 2005, taking a more neutral stance in
his structure to the argument of whether Rome did or did not fall, which in fact is the first section in the
historiography. As a historian who published his work during a more technologically advanced time,
Ward-Perkins had significantly more access to information such as primary sources, of which he utilises
fully throughout his work. The book in fact could be considered so modern, Ward-Perkins himself
currently works at Trinity College in Oxford University. Similar to Mansfield-Haywood, Ward-Perkins
also has a strong education base to perhaps increase the validation of his argument. Additionally, as
someone who witnessed the collapse of the USSR, it could be deduced that this major event had some
(if minimal) influence on Ward-Perkins’ work just over a decade after.
An interview was conducted with him and when asked what motivated Ward-Perkins to cover the
subjects, he highlights how he was born in Rome with his father was a classical archaeologist, and how
he vividly noticed in his experience that the structural complexity and skills used to create buildings
had “blindingly obvious” differences in the transition from the 4th to the 5th century. Where the “great
Roman buildings” were abandoned and torn down, to be replaced by “very simple wooden houses”.
Almost as if, in Ward-Perkins’ view, something very dramatic happened at the end of the Roman world,
something which can reasonably be called the “end of a civilization”.3
Other historians have contributed to this debate, most notably in favour of Rome falling is Edward
Gibbon. In his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon significantly
contended that due to a loss of civic virtue, focusing on a barbarian takeover and Christianity as
evidence that Rome did in fact collapse. He argued that “the decline of Rome was the natural and
inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of
destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the
artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight”.4 Dissimilar to other
historians, Gibbon clearly claims the fall of Rome was unavoidable, and concluded that “in discussing
Barbarism and Christianity I have actually been discussing the Fall of Rome”4. Conversely, a major
historian arguing that Rome did not fall is Peter Brown in his book The Making of Late Antiquity.
Historians of a field by the name of ‘Late Antiquity’, a name forged by Brown himself, having focused
on the idea that the Roman Empire never actually fell. Instead this group of historians see a
transformation occurring over centuries. Brown argues in his book that “factors we would regard as
natural in a ‘crisis’-malaise caused by urbanization, public disasters, the intrusion of alien religious
ideas, and a consequent heightening of religious hopes and fears-may not have bulked as large in the
minds of the men of the late fourth and fifth centuries as we suppose… The towns of the Mediterranean
were small towns. For all their isolation from the way of life of the villagers, they were fragile
excrescences in a spreading countryside”.5 However, J. B. Bury, in his book the History of the Later
Roman Empire, maintains the view of a decline and fall of the Empire, stating that “the gradual collapse
of the Roman power… was the consequence of a series of contingent events”6. Bury believed that
through a number of elements/crises which arose simultaneously e.g. economic decline, Germanic
expansion, depopulation of Italy among other things, it was evident that the Western Empire did in fact
breakdown.
In seeking to reach a conclusion about the state and identity of the Roman Empire, particularly in 476
there are some key points of reference to state. One such factor is the severity of deterioration to which
the Roman Empire experienced; it is the opinion of all the analysed historians that during the period of
376-476, Rome went through some form of decline. Therefore, to find a result to this factor, there must
be an analysis of whether the Empire had sufficiently upheld the majority of its principles and state

3
Donald A. Yerxa- An Interview with Bryan Ward-Perkins on the Fall of Rome
4
Edward Gibbon- The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
5
Peter Brown- The Making of Late Antiquity
6
John Bagnell Bury- The History of the Later Roman Empire
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

from what was unquestionably the congruent Empire in comparison to the start of the period and the
end, or if it had waned to the point of a state doomed to collapse. The second term of reference to be
considered is the identity of the population of Rome by 476; be it if the invasion/migration of the
Germanic tribes into Rome during the period affected the Western Empire’s distinctiveness, or perhaps
how the Empire was viewed at the time. The third is to assess the extent of military decline of the
Empire experienced throughout this period.
Offering minor contextual reference to this period; for centuries prior to the period mentioned in the
question, the Roman Empire was generally considered a feared force which only sought to defeat its
enemies in battle, it also had quite a civilised state for its time, evidence of arguably quite modern
systems/conceptions, and reflected by most, a stable authority.
Ward-Perkins supports the view that Rome was quite secure prior and at the start of the period
mentioned in the question; “the empire could maintain its presence in an area even after the surrounding
countryside has been completely overrun”.2 This can be seen in 378, despite a terrible defeat in the field,
Roman forces were still able to hold the nearest town, and most importantly of all, were able to protect
the imperial city, Constantinople.7 He also takes the stance that there was a dramatic decline of the
empire in the 5th century, referring to them as “spiralling problems”.2 Concluding, that there was a large
extent of deterioration of the Western Empire by 476, noting the numerous invasions, drop in economy
after the sack of Rome in 410 and integrating a point made by Edward Gibbon of a loss of civic virtue
among the Romans.
It is noted by a number of historians, such as some of the aforementioned, that the identity of Rome by
476 compared to 376 was significantly different. Mansfield-Haywood and Brown both point out how it
may be conceived that this period was one of transition and change rather than collapse and destruction.
Which is to an extent quite convincing; as pointed out by Haywood, a decline in the Empire was evident
through the sackings of Rome, crossing of the Rhine by the Germanic tribes among other examples,
however, he contends this does not show inevitable collapse, but perhaps inevitable change. Thus while
the identity of the Western power was different in ways such as the ethnicity of the new leader, makeup
of the Empire itself and even the state of its army and economy, this didn’t necessarily mean collapse.

The harshness of deterioration could be expresses in some primary writings;

Source 1 [Nay, the state has fallen upon such evil days that a man cannot be safe unless he is wicked].
Even those in a position to protest against the [unfairness] which they see about them dare not speak
lest they make matters worse than before. So the poor are despoiled, the widows sigh, the orphans are
oppressed, until many of them, born of families not obscure, and liberally educated, flee to our enemies
that they may no longer suffer the oppression of public persecution...And although they differ from the
people to whom they flee in manner and in language; although they are unlike as regards the fetid
odour of the barbarians' bodies and garments, yet they would rather endure a foreign civilization
among the barbarians than cruel injustice among the Romans.8
Passage by Salvian from ‘De Gubernatione Dei’ (On the Government of God) c. 440 A.D.
The timing of this document is significant, not five years before the second sacking of Rome which was
one of many major events illustrating the significant change and decline the Empire experienced.
Source 1 presents several arguments that are of value to a historian studying views on the character of
the Empire and perhaps the extent of decline in civic virtue and morality. Salvian was writing towards
the latter end of the period and was a Christian writer in Gaul. It was during this time which the

7
Marcellinus Ammianus- Res Gestae XXXI
8
Salvian- De Gubernatione De (440 A.D.)
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

Germanic tribes and Romans were integrating around Gaul, he suggests that Romans themselves would
actually favour being accommodated with the “Barbarians”8 rather than part of the Empire. It is known
that during the 5th century, Germanic peoples migrated into Great Britain and Western Europe (likely
because of Rome’s lost strength), however, this source hyperbolically describes how the integration of
the two societies highlighted the opinion of resentment and disgust with the “wicked” and oppressive
Empire, held by many Romans themselves. Therefore, showing how residents of the Western power
felt about the identity of not only Rome itself, but also its authority.
In seeking to reach a conclusion about the severity of decline of the Empire, we can observe that while
a contrast is not made from the start of the period to when the source was written, it can be interpreted
objectively that Salvian was showing how demoralising and immoral Rome was. The tone conveyed is
critical/harsh and almost Biblical in this source. He creates quite a fateful, iniquitous and degenerate
atmosphere surrounding the Empire, containing images of poverty, injustice, corruption, and expresses
a real decline to a sub-standard state of the Ancient Roman Empire at the time. Rome around the time
440 AD was just after the East and West split as well as number of important critical losses for the
Empire e.g. the sack of North Africa. In the book the source was taken from (De Gubernatione Dei (On
God’s Government), Salvian was actually trying to show the misfortunes of the time were only the
divinely inflicted punishments which the people of the Empire had brought upon themselves by their
evilness and corruption. Therefore, suggesting that not only was the Empire objectively deficient and
immoral, but it had been in a similar state for a while in order to receive God’s divine punishment.
Consequently, it could be considered that this source is quite valuable in revealing the extensive level
to which Rome had (at this point) figuratively fell.
To conclude, the source is very valuable as it shows a Christian point of view on the deterioration of
the Roman Empire, in addition to the changing makeup and identity of the Empire.
The extract itself is quite convincing, it mentions how Romans would “flee to our enemies” because
they favoured the barbaric tribes over their own kin, this is partially true; it was not widely documented
that native Romans quite literally fled to the Germanic peoples but it did still occur in small numbers.
That being said, during the mass migration of many tribes into Roman regions of Gaul stating during
the late 4th century, many ‘Barbarians’ did settle with Roman villages throughout the period in question.
Suggesting that the native Romans didn’t necessarily strongly detest their presence, which not only
shows the belief by many Romans that the Empire is not what it was, but also the makeup of Rome was
changing showing the devolution into a lesser form of the Empire. Furthermore, the extract is also
convincing in its fairly hyperbolic points about corruption and wickedness, since for a number of
centuries both before and during this period, there was an excessive number of Emperors who killed
their predecessor to attain the position. This implies that they ruled selfishly for their own views, which
is found true in a plethora of Emperors and shows how the theme of unfairness and repression correlates
to Roman life. However, the source is convincing to an extent, since the language in the extract does
exaggerate beyond the truth it could be considered not completely convincing, at least in the
presentation of the Roman Empire it shows.
This source is mostly convincing in that it correlates to events which took place such as the mass
migration of many Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire, but also the Roman’s relaxed reaction to
this because by this point in the Empire’s history it had seen some serious decline.
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

Source 2 “The brightest light of the whole world is extinguished; indeed the head has been cut from
the Roman Empire. To put it more truthfully, the whole world has died with one City. Who would have
believed that Rome, which was built up from victories over the whole world, would fall; so that it would
be both the mother and the tomb to all peoples…the city which had taken the whole world was itself
taken”
St Jerome, Letter CXXVII in 410 AD written in the aftermath of Alaric (the Goth’s) first sack on
Rome
The letter itself is not specifically written to anyone or group of people which is very suggestive of St
Jerome’s intentions: giving an honest description from his view point. The tone of this source is similar
to cataclysmic destruction “the tomb to all peoples”, perhaps a loss of hope is conveyed but it is clear
St Jerome places the sacking of Rome among the semantic field of an Armageddon. St Jerome was a
Christian scholar; while a well-educated man, it is possible that like Salvian there is some resentment
against the Roman Empire with their persecution of Christianity, however the persecution ended in 313
AD when it was legalised to the view that Rome was seen as a generally stable and safe Empire is also
credible. Furthermore, St Jerome was writing this source in Bethlehem when the first sack of Rome
occurred, a considerable geographical distance away from where the event occurred.
The source however is quite valuable, as it significantly highlights an important landmark in the decline
of the Roman Empire which was the invasion and sacking of Rome in 410. The source subsequently
highlights the significant decline in the Empire supporting the view that it was to a large extent that the
Roman Empire fell. It also refers to how “the head has been cut from the Roman Empire”, many
historians and Romans alike believed that the sack of Rome did signify and symbolise the literal fall of
the Western Roman Empire. Therefore, the source is valuable because it shows what an incredibly
significant event this was in revealing the extent to which Rome collapsed. The source can also be used
in comparison to the arguably much more important event in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was
disposed and the Ostragoth Odovacer became King of Italy, which would suggest that the extent to
which the Western Roman Empire actually fell is quite significant.
The source therefore can only be considered partially valuable; it does highlight an example of the
Empire’s military decline and deterioration of Rome, in addition to an invite into a comparative look at
the more significant event in 476. However, the source’s hyperbolic language does perhaps
mischaracterise actual events.
The consideration of mischaracterisation can be included when examining how convincing the source
actually is. It should be noted that Rome did not succumb to the Germanic forces in 410, but managed
to survive a further sacking in 455, and the rule of the imperial court remained more or less intact for a
while, despite what Jerome’s account implies. However, while the Roman Empire did not end in an
abrupt crash, it would be rash to assume that this extract is not convincing. The Western Roman Empire
was a shadow of its former self-Barbarian forces had taken control of most of its provinces and Western
Emperors were militarily and economically weak, therefore, if we consider a synoptic overview of the
Roman Empire it could be considered that the sack of Rome would be comparable to the end of the
world/civilisation.
To what extent did Rome fall between the years 376 and 476?

http://adorans.or
g/?article=the-fall-of-rome-through-the-eyes-of-its-people-a-comparison-of-sources-and-
interpretations