Download Critique of “How Rome Fell” by Adrian Goldsworthy By Larry M Welenc

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 5th 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 4th 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.”