When did Rome fall?
Many historians consider the fall of the Western Roman Empire to have been when the emperor Romulus Augustulus abdicated, but not all historians agree.
The "Fall of Rome" usually refers to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D. But historians don't agree about the exact date, nor about its causes. And some historians argue that the Roman Empire lasted until it fell in the East, centuries later.
At its height around A.D. 100, the Roman Empire stretched from modern Britain, France and much of Germany in the northwest to Egypt, Israel and Jordan in the southeast, and from what are now Morocco and Spain to Romania, Armenia and Iraq. Later emperors divided it into more manageable pieces, resulting in the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. But by the end of the fifth century A.D., the Western Roman Empire, from Britain to Italy, had collapsed and been replaced by a patchwork of "barbarian" kingdoms.
"Part fell to invaders, and part disintegrated," Bryan Ward-Perkins, a historian at the University of Oxford and author of "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" (Oxford University Press, 2006),said in an email. "What difference this made to people on the ground is disputed."
SACK OF ROME, A.D. 410
Some historians regard Aug. 24, 410, as the decisive date of the fall of Rome. On this date, an army of Visigoths sacked the city of Rome — the first time since it had been overrun by Gauls during the early Roman Republic, almost 800 years earlier. The Visigoths (Western Goths) had fled the Huns' invasions of Eastern Europe in the fourth century. But in 378, after defeating a Roman army at the Battle of Adrianople (now Edirne, Turkey), the Visigoths were given lands on the empire's northern border to control and guard themselves from invaders. However, a few decades later, they again began marauding the empire; in 408, they invaded Italy, and in 410, they besieged and sacked Rome.
By this time, the Roman Empire was centered in Constantinople in the east, and even Western Roman emperors lived in Milan (then called Mediolanum) or Ravenna in northern Italy. But Rome was the "eternal city" and the sacred heart of the empire, and many of the empire’s inhabitants saw this as the end. "The cultural shock was resounding … but the practical impact seems limited," William Bowden, a professor of Roman archaeology at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, said.
As city sackings go, it doesn't sound too bad: Many famous monuments and buildings were untouched, and because the Visigoths were Christians, they allowed people to take refuge in churches. The Visigoths withdrew from Italy a few years later.
ABDICATION OF ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS, A.D. 476
Some historians regard the formal end of the Western Roman Empire as taking place decades later, on Sept. 4, 476, when Odoacer, the first barbarian king of Italy, forced the young emperor Romulus Augustulus to abdicate. Odoacer had been a Roman general of Germanic descent who professed loyalty to the Eastern Roman emperor, and he took Romulus captive at Ravenna after defeating the 16-year-old's father in battle. Odoacer didn't kill Romulus, however; because of his youth, he was instead given a pension and sent to live with relatives. (Odoacer ruled from Ravenna until 493, when he was killed by an invading Ostrogoth — Eastern Goth — army under their leader, Theodoric the Great, who established a powerful new kingdom in Italy.)
"It's kind of an important moment," Peter Heather, a historian at King's College London and author of "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" (Oxford University Press, 2007) said. "Odoacer sent the imperial vestments of the West back to Constantinople, along with delegation from the Senate of Rome, and the delegation says, 'There's no longer any need for an emperor in the West.'"
By this time, many regions of the Western empire were already effectively independent kingdoms, but "if you're looking for a symbolic moment, it's a pretty good one," Heather said.
EMPIRE IN THE EAST
By the fifth century A.D., however, the focus of the empire had shifted east to Constantinople, now Istanbul. Once the Greek city of Byzantium, the city was rebuilt in A.D. 330 by the emperor Constantine the Great, who transferred the imperial capital to his "New Rome."
"My own view is that the eastern half of the Roman Empire is still the Roman Empire," Heather said. "It's not unchanging, but there is a sort of continuity of change, not any great rupture."
Although Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Heather sees its decline in the Arab invasions from 632 until 661, when they captured Egypt, the Levant, and parts of Anatolia from the Eastern Roman Empire. "The Arabs take about three-quarters of the empire's revenue and about three-quarters of its territory," he said. "It's a totally different kind of entity after the Arab conquest. … it reduces the empire from a global power to a regional power."
By Tom Metcalfe.
41 notes
·
View notes
rewatching an episode of season one of merlin right now, i have a lot of thoughts (arthur legit looks so young it’s messing with my mind realizing how much the characters grow over the seasons and oh my lordy merlin used to be so pure, so trusting, so naive *ugh*) but one thing that just popped into my head: how small Camelot looks.
this is probably due to budget reasons, but the fact that random people can show up and demand an audience with uther or appear mysteriously and meet with a prince, it just makes me wonder what that must have been like for merlin both during his time in camelot and after
we’re talking a kingdom’s whose golden age was in an era of petty states and kings, a few centuries after the fall of the roman empire. merlin fics sometimes bring up how popular merlin is among the people of camelot. it highlights the unspoken notion that camelot and its nobles and royals aree within degrees of separation.
the world, after arthur’s death, must have gotten so frightfully big for merlin. i just think, what if merlin had served arthur or another such king in a later era when the size of the kingdom was so much larger? remove the feudalistic background, if that is what they were going for in the series, and who is merlin? its for that reason that i love the joke that merlin would lowkey be a monarchist because yeah, merlin lived an early era of kings where royals could be in such close proximity and held to the standards of their people.
156 notes
·
View notes
I paid $10 to make you look at some screenshots of the Mediterranean Sea.
Enjoy!
The Mediterranean Sea sits between Southern Europe and North Africa
The Mediterranean Sea was the centre of the Roman Empire.
People in these red areas could travel to any other part, given time and reason.
Consequentially, is quite realistic for there to be some African people in ancient Europe. To say otherwise would be an ideological stance.
Due to the Romans’ “boat” technology, this ability to travel extended even to the weird island in the northwest, which has a tendency to photo-bomb unrelated pictures.
Map makers can try to crop out Libya and Egypt all they want, but they’re still there. This is a simple fact of geography.
Lights around the sea! Look at all the people. See the bright lights along all sides of the coast. The largest and brightest is still Alexandria, in Egypt.
I hope you have enjoyed learning about the Mediterranean Sea.
2K notes
·
View notes