Strains on the Roman Empire after Constantine | Early European History And Religion

Home | Category: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AFTER CONSTANTINE

Julian paganism

In the A.D. 5th century, Rome was sacked twice: first by the Goths in 410 and then the Vandals in 455. The final blow came in 476, when the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, was forced to abdicate and the Germanic general Odoacer took control of the city. Italy eventually became a Germanic Ostrogoth kingdom. But the decline of the Roman Empire had begun much earlier and the collapse of the empire in the west was more the result of a series of gradual adjustments rather than a catastrophic event or violent change. The historian Adrian Goldsworthy wrote that the barbarian invaders that ultimately brought Rome down “struck at a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay."

According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art: In the A.D. 4th century, as political power shifted from Rome “to Constantinople, the church gradually replaced the declining civil authority at Rome. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes, who lived along the northern borders of the empire and who had long been recruited to serve as mercenaries in the Roman army, began to emerge as powerful political and military forces in their own right. [Source: Christopher Lightfoot, Metropolitan Museum of Art, October 2000, metmuseum.org \^/]

In the 370s, the Huns, horsemen from the Eurasian steppe, invaded areas along the Danube River, driving many of the Germanic tribes—including the Visigoths—into the Roman provinces. What began as a controlled resettlement of barbarians within the empire's borders ended as an invasion. The emperor Valens was killed by the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378 A.D., and the succeeding emperor, Theodosius I (r. 379–95 A.D.), conducted campaigns against them, but failed to evict them from the empire. In 391 A.D., Theodosius ordered the closing of all temples and banned all forms of pagan cult. \^/

After his death in 395 A.D., the empire was divided between his sons, Honorius (Western Roman emperor) and Arcadius (Eastern Roman emperor). The West, separated from the East, could not long survive the incessant barbarian invasions. The Visigoth Alaric sacked Rome in 410 A.D. and, in 476 A.D., the German Odovacer advanced on the city and deposed Romulus Augustulus (r. 475–76 A.D.), commonly known as the last Roman emperor of the West. Odovacer became, in effect, king of Rome until 493 A.D., when Theodoric the Great established the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. The eastern Roman provinces survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D., developing into the Byzantine empire, which itself survived until the Ottoman capture of Constantinople in 1453.” \^/

Websites on Ancient Rome: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Rome sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Late Antiquity sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; BBC Ancient Rome bbc.co.uk/history; Perseus Project - Tufts University; perseus.tufts.edu ; Lacus Curtius penelope.uchicago.edu; The Internet Classics Archive classics.mit.edu ; Bryn Mawr Classical Review bmcr.brynmawr.edu; Cambridge Classics External Gateway to Humanities Resources web.archive.org; Ancient Rome resources for students from the Courtenay Middle School Library web.archive.org ; History of ancient Rome OpenCourseWare from the University of Notre Dame web.archive.org ; United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV) History unrv.com

Pressures on the Roman Empire

Divisions with the Roman Empire and its vast size made it difficult to communicate efficiently and to maintain stabilization. Taxation and economic issues plagued Rome, which made it even more difficult to fund wartime efforts against invading armies. [Source: Hanna Seariac, Deseret News, April 22, 2023]

There were revolts here and there at various times in the Roman Empire. J. A. S. Evans wrote in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: There was also low-level resistance: brigands and robber bands, who fed on the discontent of the under classes, often made travel overland unsafe. Yet the revolts of Rome's subjects were relatively few. In general, we may agree with Edward Gibbon's appraisal in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ch. 2): "But the firm edifice of Roman power was raised and preserved by the wisdom of the ages. The obedient provinces of Trajan and the Antonines were united by laws and adorned by arts. They might occasionally suffer from the partial abuse of delegated authority, but the general principle of government was wise, simple, and beneficent." Gibbon goes on (ch. 3) to make a judgment which is much quoted: "If a man were called to fix the 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."[Source: J. A. S. Evans, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com]

The army was stretched thin. During the third century the empire faced invasions from barbarian tribes, economic decline, and growing social unrest — indeed, it was near anarchy. There were pressure from Germanic tribes and the Persians, plus economic difficulties, contributed to the breakdown of government. Armies in the provinces broke away from Rome. The idea that the empire was simply too large to be administered by a single ruler persisted. Consequently, in 395, following the death of Theodosius I (347–395), the empire was divided into two parts — the Western (Latin) Empire based in Rome and the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire based in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey) — to provide for better control. Over the next century the two empires developed distinct identities, though they remained ostensibly united.

Edward Gibbon and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Edward Gibbon

On June 7, 1787, at the age of 50, Edward Gibbon wrote the last line of the final chapter of the sixth and last volume, of “ The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire from his house at Lausanne, Switzerland. He started the work in 1772. It took him 24 years to complete.

In the third volume of “ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Gibbon’s concluded "the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principal of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of the conquest; and, as soon as time or accident removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric-yielded to the pressure of its on weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long."

In the end he said "after a diligent inquiry" there are "four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate in a period of more than a thousand years...I. The injuries of time and nature. II. The hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. III. The use and abuse of materials. And, IV. The domestic quarrels of the Romans."

Gibbon was independently wealthy, and had neither a wife nor children, which explains how he had the time and money to complete his monumental task. What made the work so revolutionary, other than its length, was the fact it focused on the tragic and humorous human aspects of history.

Decline and Disintegration of the Roman Empire in the A.D. 3nd Century

Some pinpoint the beginning of Rome's decline to death of the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180 when the Roman Empire was at its height. By the end of the third century A.D., the Roman Empire was being threatened by internal struggles, economic problem, external enemies and moral decay. Maintaining the huge empire had become increasing expensive as tax evasion and corruption were depriving the Roman treasury of money it needed. Faced with multiple problems and slow communications the emperors could do very little to help.

From A.D. 235 to the fall of the Western Empire in 476, there were few decades that were free of major civil conflicts. Between 235 and 285 over 60 men claimed imperial power — more than one per years. Historian Diana Preston wrote in the Washington Post, “For successive emperors the priority became simple survival, with no time to consider their real responsibilities, Though the following century saw a period of greater stability, the price was such a centralization of power that one imperial orator said bureaucrats had grown “more numerous that flies on sheep in springtime."

Wars of the Tetrarchy

Pat Southern wrote for the BBC: “Contemporaries who lived through the third century upheavals looked back on the previous age as one of peace and prosperity, but in reality it could be said that Rome had lurched from crisis to crisis ever since its foundation in 753 B.C. There had always been famines and plagues, military disasters, civil wars, attempts to seize supreme power, rebellions within the provinces, raids and invasions from beyond the frontier, and migrating tribes pressing on the edges of the Roman world. [Source: Pat Southern, BBC, February 17, 2011 |::|]

“The Romans had dealt with all of these in the past and survived. The trouble was that in the third century many problems surfaced at the same time, some of them on a grander scale than ever before, and they proved more difficult to eradicate. Two of the most serious threats to the empire in the third century were the developments taking place among the tribes of the northern frontiers beyond the Rhine and Danube, and the growth of a formidable centralising power in the east.”

During this period the provinces began conducted business and trade between themselves, bypassing Rome and its middlemen. Roman citizens seemed to more interested in attending gladiator battles and participating in other forms of recreation than in soldiering, working or building.

Pressures from Germany

Andrew Curry wrote in National Geographic: “While Rome looked the other way, barbarian tribes grew bigger and more aggressive and coordinated. When troops were pulled from across the empire to beat back the Persians, weak points in Germany and Romania came under attack almost immediately. Michael Meyer, an archaeologist at Berlin’s Free University.” “The tragic point of their strategy is that the Romans concentrated military force at the frontier. When the Germans attacked the frontier and got in behind the Roman troops, the whole Roman territory was open.” Think of the empire as a cell, and barbarian armies as viruses: Once the empire’s thin outer membrane was breached, invaders had free rein to pillage the interior. [Source: Andrew Curry, National Geographic, September 2012]

“The inscription on a five-foot-tall altar uncovered in Augsburg by German workers in 1992 is a sort of epitaph for Hadrian’s grand idea, noting that on April 24 and 25, A.D. 260, Roman soldiers clashed with barbarians from beyond the German frontier. The Romans prevailed—barely.

“Their commander set up an altar to Victory. Reading between the lines reveals a different picture: The barbarians had been raiding deep into Italy for months and were heading home with thousands of Roman captives. “It shows the border is already collapsing,” says the German Archaeological Institute’s Hüssen.

“The empire would never be safe inside its shell again. Pressures on the frontiers finally became too great. Cities across the empire began building their own walls; the emperors scrambled to fight off regular invasions. The costs and chaos were crippling. Within two centuries an empire that once dominated an expanse larger than today’s European Union was gone.”

Greatness of Rome in the Days of Ruin

William Stearns Davis wrote: “Rutilius Numantius, a native of Gaul, but about 413 CE. the City Prefect of Rome, wrote this poem in praise of the city that he had seen plundered by Alaric. He was a pagan, one of the circle of literary men who fixed their eyes on the glorious past, and had no pleasure in Christianity. His tribute to the greatness of Rome is clear evidence that even the awful calamities of Honorius' reign did not shatter men's faith in the abiding majesty and empire of the Eternal City.

On “The Greatness of Rome in the Days of Ruin, Rutilius Numantius wrote in “On His Return, I.xi.47 (A.D. 413):
“Give ear to me, Queen of the world which you rule,
O Rome, whose place is amongst the stars!
Give ear to me, mother of men, and mother of gods!
Through your temples we draw near to the very heaven.
You do we sing, yea and while the Fates give us life,
You we will sing. [Source: William Stearns Davis, ed., “Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources,” 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 318-319] “For who can live and forget you?
Before your image my soul is abased---
Graceless and sacrilegious,
It were better for me to forget the sun,
For your beneficent influence shines
Even as his light
To the limits of the habitable world.
Yea the sun himself, in his vast course,
Seems only to turn in your behalf.
He rises upon your domains;
And on your domains, it is again that he sets.

Labarum of Constantine

“As far as from one pole to the other spreads the vital
power of nature, so far your virtue has penetrated over the earth.
For all the scattered nations you created one common country.
Those that struggle against you are constrained to bend to your yoke;
For you proffer to the conquered the partnership in your just laws;
You have made one city what was aforetime the wide world!

“O! Queen, the remotest regions of the universe join in
a hymn to your glory!
Our heads are raised freely under your peaceful yoke. "
For you to reign, is less than to have so deserved to reign;
The grandeur of your deeds surpasses even your mighty destinies.”

After Constantine's Death

After Constantine's death the empire splintered once again. Byzantium, renamed as Constantinople, became capital of the eastern empire which endured and grew into the Christian Byzantine civilization with endured another 1,000 years while the western empire weakened and declined.

The first event of grave importance after the reign of Constantine was the attempt of the Emperor Julian (A.D. 360-363) to restore the old pagan religion, for which attempt he has been called “the Apostate.” Julian was in many respects a man of ability and energy. He repelled the Alemanni who had crossed the Rhine, and made a vigorous campaign against the Persians. But he was by conviction a pagan, and in the struggle between Christianity and paganism he took the part of the ancient faith. He tried to undo the work of Constantine by bringing back paganism to its old position. The religious changes which he was able to effect in his brief reign were reversed by his successor Jovian (A.D. 363-364), and Christianity afterward remained undisturbed as the religion of the empire. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901)]

After the death of Jovian the empire was divided between Valentinian and his younger brother Valens, the former ruling in the West, and the latter in the East. Valentinian died (A.D. 375), leaving his sons in control of the West, while Valens continued to rule in the East (till 378).

Dr Jon Coulston of the University of St. Andrews wrote for the BBC: “During the fourth century, Germany across the Rhine and Upper Danube became a prime source of army recruitment, notably to the elite units of the emperor's comitatus. However, huge losses sustained in the late fourth century, notably at the Battle of Hadrianopolis (378 AD), forced the eastern government of the emperor Theodosius (ruled 379 - 395 AD) and his successors to rely increasingly on barbarian warbands brought wholesale and still under the command of their native leaders into the Roman army. This is reflected archaeologically across the northern provinces by the occurrence of cemeteries containing a barbarian rite of burial with military equipment, the latter being manufactured and supplied by the Roman state. In the fifth century, some of the Germanic war leaders became so dominant that emperors bestowed the highest titles on them and left military command almost entirely in their hands. [Source: Dr Jon Coulston, BBC, February 17, 2011 |::|]

Jovian

Last Days of Paganism in the Roman Empire

J. A. S. Evans wrote in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: The pagans, known as the Hellenes in the Greek-speaking east and the pagani in the west, found themselves under increasing pressure. Constantius II outlawed pagan sacrifices (341), which his father may have done before him, and in 356 he ordered all temples closed and sacrifices to cease. In 359 he visited Rome for the first and last time, and while there removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate House. Julian the Apostate attempted a revival. He tried to give paganism a priestly hierarchy analogous to that of the Christian Church and to inject some theology taken from Neoplatonism, but his brand of paganism lacked popular appeal. Presumably he restored the Altar of Victory to the Roman Senate House for the emperor Gratian removed it again. [Source: J. A. S. Evans, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com]

With Theodosius I paganism became an outlawed religion. Sacrifices and divination were forbidden again on pain of death (381), and Christians who converted to paganism were denied the right to make legal wills (383). A law of 392 again banned all sacrifices or even visiting a pagan temple. Yet paganism persisted into the reign of Justinian (527–565), and a few pockets survived even his vigorous effort to wipe it out.

On the popular level, monks spearheaded the battle, and famous ascetics such as St. Symeon the Elder, who lived for 40 years ( A.D. 419–459) on top of a pillar northeast of Antioch, were charismatic figures who attracted pilgrims by the thousands. The pagan gods lacked this popular appeal, once sacrifice was banned, and such festivals as remained were emasculated. Yet in rural areas there were still hallowed caves and sacred trees and springs that inspired religious awe. On the intellectual level as well, a modest revival took place: at the end of the fourth century the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens was re-founded as a kind of pagan monastery practicing theurgy, but at the same time continuing the intellectual heritage of Plato. It produced one brilliant philosopher, proclus (412–485), who wrote commentaries on Plato's dialogues as well as treatises, notably Platonic Theology and Elements of Theology. Emperor Justinian finally closed the school in 529; at least we hear no more of it, although it has been argued that it continued to exist a little longer.

After Theodosius: A Divided Empire Once Again

The death of Theodosius in A.D. 395 marks an important epoch, not only in the history of the later Roman Empire but in the history of European civilization. From this time the two parts of the empire—the East and the West—became more and more separated from each other, until they became at last two distinct worlds, having different destinies. The eastern part, the history of which does not belong to our present study, maintained itself for about a thousand years with its capital at Constantinople, until it was finally conquered by the Turks (A.D. 1453). The western part was soon overrun and conquered by the German invaders, who brought with them new blood and new ideas, and furnished the elements of a new civilization. We have now to see how the Western Empire was obliged finally to succumb to these barbarians, who had been for so many years pressing upon the frontiers, and who had already obtained some foothold in the provinces. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

The great invasions which began during the reign of Honorius (A.D. 395-423) continued during the reign of Valentinian III. (A.D. 425-455). As Valentinian was only six years of age when he was proclaimed emperor, the government was carried on by his mother, Placidia, who was the sister of Honorius and daughter of Theodosius the Great. Placidia was in fact for many years during these eventful times the real ruler of Rome. Her armies were commanded by Aëtius and Boniface, who have been called the “last of the Romans.”

Slow Collapse of Rome: an Immigration Crisis?

Dr Peter Heather wrote for the BBC: “A two-stage process occurred between the battle of Hadrianople in 378 AD, when the emperor Valens and two-thirds of his army (upwards of 10,000 men) fell in a single afternoon at the hands of an army of Gothic migrants, to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus nearly a century later. “This process created the successor kingdoms. Stage one consisted of immigration onto Roman soil, followed by a second stage of aggressive expansion of the territory under the migrants' control. All of it was carried forward at the point of the sword. [Source: Dr Peter Heather, BBC, February 17, 2011 |::|]

“The central Roman state collapsed because the migrants forcibly stripped it of the tax base which it had used to fund its armies, not because of long-term 'organic' transformations. In this violent process of collapse, some local Roman societies immediately went under. In Britain and north eastern Gaul particularly, Roman landowners lost their estates and Roman culture disappeared with them. |::|

“In southern Gaul, Spain, and Italy, Roman landowners survived by coming to terms with the migrants. But to suppose that this was a voluntary process - as some of the revisionary work done since the 1960s has supposed - is to miss the point that these landowners faced the starkest of choices. As the central Roman state ceased to exert power in their localities, they either had to do such deals, or lose the lands that were the basis of their entire wealth. And even where Roman landowners survived, the effects of Rome's fall were nonetheless revolutionary. |::|

Burden of Taxation on the Provinces and Barbarians

James Harvey Robinson wrote: “It was inevitable that thoughtful observers should be struck with the contrast between the habits and government of the Romans and the customs of the various barbarian peoples. Tacitus, the first to describe the manners and institutions of the Germans with care, is frequently tempted to compare them with those of the Empire, often to the obvious disadvantage of the latter. Salvian, a Christian priest, writing about 440, undertook in his book Of God's Government to show that the misfortunes of the time were only the divinely inflicted punishments which the people of the Empire had brought upon themselves by their wickedness and corruption. He contends that the Romans, who had once been virtuous and heroic, had lapsed into a degradation which rendered them, in spite of their civilization and advantages, far inferior to the untutored but sturdy barbarian.

Salvian wrote in “The Government of God” (c. A.D. 440): “In what respects can our customs be preferred to those of the Goths and Vandals, or even compared with them? And first, to speak of affection and mutual charity (which, our Lord teaches, is the chief virtue, saying, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another "), almost all barbarians, at least those who are of one race and kin, love each other, while the Romans persecute each other. For what citizen does not envy his fellow citizen ? What citizen shows to his neighbor full charity? [Source: Salvian (A.D. c.400- after 470), “The Burden of Taxation” (c. A.D. 44), James Harvey Robinson, ed., “Readings in European History: Vol. I:” (Boston:: Ginn and co., 1904), 28-30]

[The Romans oppress each other with exactions] nay, not each other : it would be quite tolerable, if each suffered what he inflicted. It is worse than that ; for the many are oppressed by the few, who regard public exactions as their own peculiar right, who carry on private traffic under tile guise of collecting the taxes. And this is done not only by nobles, but by men of lowest rank; not by judges only, but by judges' subordinates. For where is the city - even the town or village - which has not as many tyrants as it has curials ? . . . What place is there, therefore, as I have said, where the substance of widows and orphans, nay even of the saints, is not devoured by the chief citizens? . . .

“None but the great is secure from the devastations of these plundering brigands, except those who are themselves robbers. [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 iniquity 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. They doubtless seek Roman humanity among the barbarians, because they cannot bear barbarian inhumanity among the Romans. And although they differ from the people to Whom they flee in manner and in language; although they are unlike as regards the fetid odor of the barbarians' bodies and garments, yet they would rather endure a foreign civilization among the barbarians than cruel injustice among the Romans.

“So they migrate to the Goths, or to the Bagaudes, or to some other tribe of the barbarians who are ruling everywhere, and do not regret their exile. For they would rather live free under an appearance of slavery than live as captives tinder an appearance of liberty. The name of Roman citi'en, once so highly esteemed and so dearly bought, is now a thing that men repudiate and flee from. . . .

“It is urged that if we Romans are wicked and corrupt, that the barbarians commit the same sins, and are not so miserable as we. There is, however, this difference, that the barbarians commit the same crimes as we, yet we more grievously. . . . All the barbarians, as we have already said, are pagans or heretics. The Saxon race is cruel, the Franks are faithless, the Gepidae are inhuman, the Huns are unchaste, - in short, there is vice in the life of all the barbarian peoples. But are their offenses as serious as ours? Is the unchastity of the Hun so criminal as ours? Is the faithlessness of the Frank so blameworthy as ours? Is the intemperance of the Alemanni so base as the intemperance of the Christians? Does the greed of the Alani so merit condemnation as the greed of the Christians? If Hun or the Gepid cheat, what is there to wonder at, since he does not know that cheating is a crime? If a Frank perjures himself, does he do anything strange, he who regards perjury as a way of speaking, not as a crime?”

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Rome sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Late Antiquity sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) ; “The Private Life of the Romans” by Harold Whetstone Johnston, Revised by Mary Johnston, Scott, Foresman and Company (1903, 1932); BBC Ancient Rome bbc.co.uk/history/ ; Project Gutenberg gutenberg.org ; Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Live Science, Discover magazine, Archaeology magazine, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP, The New Yorker, Wikipedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia.com and various other books, websites and publications.

Last updated October 2024