Skip to main content

This is a book review about O'Donnell's recent volume on the 6th-century Roman Empire -- it deals of course with the issue of "why did Rome fall?"  O'Donnell's writing is amusing and makes interesting comparisons between the Emperor Justinian and George W. Bush, in that they both set the stage for the future ruin of their respective empires.  Yeah, I know some of this is Unitary Moonbat's traditional turf -- shall we explore it anyway?

There are a number of prominently-listed causes for the fall of the Roman Empire, and the truth is always in dispute on this matter because the theories are all only as strong as the limited historical and archaeological evidence which supports them.  The fall-of-Empire debates, moreover, are quite fun in this day and age because polemic writers like to compare imperial corruption in this day and age to that of the Roman Empire.

What is usually meant by the "fall of the Roman Empire" is the loss of about 60% of its territory over the 5th century (after Christ), including Italy itself.  After that, there was of course an "Eastern Roman Empire" which lasted two more centuries, until about the 640s, at which point the "Eastern Roman Empire" loses Egypt, Palestine, and Syria to the Muslims and becomes a merely regional entity.  After that the historians give up on the concept of the "Roman Empire" and refer to the "Byzantine Empire."  I suppose this is so because they don't want to lose the association of the Roman Empire with something vast, and the Roman Empire after, say, 698 (when Carthage was lost) was relatively quite small, about the size of Greece and Turkey combined.

At any rate, I suppose that of all of the depicted "causes" of the loss of the Roman Empire in the west, my favorite is that depicted in Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell.  The reorganization of the Roman Empire under Diocletian (284-305 CE) had increased the bureaucracy forty-fold, and so the Empire was in the hands of competing bureaucratic factions which gave the Emperor so much business that the Empire as a whole was typically divided up among two or more different Emperors, which caused its own set of problems.  Thus competent emperors in the late period (e.g. Valentinian I) had to play off factions against each other, whereas incompetent emperors merely had their throats slit.  

There is also, of course, the position of Peter Heather, who argues that the barbarians had become strong enough by the 5th century to dismantle the Empire in the west -- but you have to ignore an awful lot of tomfoolery among the Romans themselves to arrive at this position.  The main example, of course, is in those momentous years of the idiot emperor Honorius, who was ruled largely by his court and by the magister militum (head of the Army) Flavius Stilicho, who stripped the border guard in order to deal with an invasion of Italy by the Visigoths in 402 CE.  As a consequence of this, a huge army composed of various Germanic tribes crossed the then-frozen Rhine River in the last day of 406 CE, and thereafter much of Gaul, Spain, and Africa passed out of the domain of the Roman Empire.

Moreover, there is the enticing theory of Ramsay McMullen, who argued that the disparity in wealth between rich and poor in the later Roman Empire in the west was so great that at some point nobody could be found to care about the Empire itself.  The poor didn't care; they were no longer stakeholders in the Empire, and the rich, that dozen or so families who owned most of the wealth, didn't care because it was just easier to bribe the officials to avoid payment of taxes.  So the revenue-strapped state hired lots of barbarians to join the armies, and (according to this theory) at some point the barbarians in the Roman Army switched sides.  However, I would wager that one major point at which the barbarians stopped being barbarians was in 408, when the court of the (idiot) emperor Honorius had the magister militum Stilicho decapitated, and then launched a vendetta against Stilicho's army, much of which then joined the Visigoth army of King Alaric.  Another event, no doubt, at which the later Roman Empire in the west collapsed, was the murder of the magister militum Aetius, whose main claim to fame in this day and age was to have been depicted in a TV miniseries about Attila the Hun.  Aetius was the fellow who (in 451 CE) organized the barbarian armies (which had by that time settled within the borders of the Roman Empire en masse) to defend what was left of the Empire in the west against Atilla.  But in the end, like Stilicho, he was killed by his emperor, in this case Valentinian III.  So you see, history is guided by trends, but shaped by events, which are caused by living, breathing people capable of free will.

Perhaps a solid screw-up event for the Roman Empire occurred earlier on, in the disastrous Battle of Adrianople (now Edirne, in Turkey), in the year 378 CE.  The most vivid depiction of this catastrophe remains to this day in the manuscript of Ammianus Marcellinus, of which a good portion remains lost to this day.  The emperor Valens, less competent brother of Valentinian I, sent an army out on a broiling hot (and super-humid) day in August to confront a band of Visigoths who had been invited into the Roman Empire some time earlier by the Romans.  Valens could have waited for Gratian, then ruling in the west, to send an army to work out a deal with the Visigoths.  But nooo, Valens had to be The Man, and so an army of hot, dehydrated Romans, with him at the head, met the Visigoths.  While the two sides were in negotiations, war broke out between the troops themselves, the Romans were slaughtered, and Valens' body disappeared thereafter.

After that disastrous battle, there was a permanent barbarian presence inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire which never left.  The Romans themselves did not have the manpower to eradicate it -- at any rate, the barbarian kingdom within the borders was seen by the emperor Theodosius (who succeeded Valens in the east) as a source of troops which he could use to fight off usurpers to the imperial throne.  Look!  Manpower!  Never mind that they're not our people.  If you want to read a wonderfully-written account of that story of decline and fall, I can heartily recommend Friell and Williams' Theodosius: The Empire At Bay.

All of which exists as a preface for the volume discussed in this diary.  The plot of The Ruin of the Roman Empire is pretty straightforward: we are treated to an expansive prologue, much like what I've suggested above, in the first part of the book.  The second part of the book deals with Justinian, and the third part deals with the drab history after Justinian's death.

The main question to be asked of O'Donnell, then, is this: when did he think of the Roman Empire as having "fallen"?  O'Donnell, like many authors, leaves this as an open question, though from the beginning he suggests a gradual disintegration from the disintegration in the west to the disintegration in the east:

The century or so from 476 to 604 CE reflects human plans and wishes with their successes and failures, showing how rulers who could not understand their world as existing on a continuum much older than themselves squandered countless opportunities.  (p. 43)

An interesting thing about O'Donnell is that, for him, the "sub-roman" barbarian kingdoms which came after the disintegration of the Empire proper in the west still count as "Roman."  All of that warfare?  Feh!  It didn't really wipe out the whole civilization.  (Well, the Germanic peoples did dismantle the unified Empire, parting it out for various kingdoms and sacking Rome a couple of times to boot -- but that's another story.)  In particular the Ostrogoths, barbarian conquerers of Italy, wanted for the most part to be good Romans, and to back this up they hired a good Roman bureaucracy to govern the Ostrogothic Kingdom in the era of King Theoderic.  

Contours of the Ostrogothic Kingdom: from Wikimedia Commons

So, even though the Empire as an Empire existed only in the east after 476, Roman civilization in Italy was said to continue through at least Theoderic, who died in 526 CE.  In this regard, O'Donnell extols the Roman-ness of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, suggesting that (from what we know) Theoderic was like the Emperor Hadrian (i.e. in the old Roman tradition of statesmanship) in his meting out of justice, and his kingdom maintained all of the important civilized Roman traditions: religious tolerance, higher learning, the circus.  In literature this was the age of Boethius, author of the Consolatio Philosophiae.  A picture of a festival in this era is granted us from a letter written by Cassiodorus:

On the climactic night of the festival, we are told, when the priest or bishop began his prayers, the water in the baptismal spring sensed what was about to happen and rose exultantly to meet the prayers from above.  A course of man-made steps led down into the spring, with the water regularly covering five of them, but the two higher steps remained dry, except when the prayers began and the water welled up spontaneously -- miraculously -- to facilitate the baptism.

And in the evening, songs were sung in the tents and shelters, songs we shall never hear, for the real life of ancient times always escapes us.  This corner of the ancient world had changed little with the coming of Christianity or with the coming of Theoderic and saw little reason to change.  People took prosperity and social order for granted.  The only cloud on this sunny scene was the king's concern at reports that such a throng with goods and money might attract marauders. (174)

Oh, sure, there's ugliness in Cassiodorus's treatment of slavery, as the abovementioned festival featured a slave trade -- but this was thought normal in that era of history.  The implication of O'Donnell's narrative here is clear: Roman civilization wasn't lost when the emperors in Italy were replaced by kings, and it didn't die of its own accord.  It was extinguished, for the most part by the war waged by the Emperor Justinian against the Ostrogoths.

Cassiodorus later in life in his monastery, from Wikimedia Commons

O'Donnell of course tells the story of how after Theoderic's death the emperor Justinian, in the east, was to challenge the succession of the Ostrogothic throne (in Italy) by invading Italy, and waging a long and destructive war which reduced Italy to rubble.  Justinian was also to exploit succession problems in the Vandal kingdom in Africa to invade there, too.  Justinian's invasions were part of a partially-successful (and unnecessarily drawn-out) program to reconquer the western 60% of the Roman Empire for himself.

(Justinian, from the mosaic at San Vitale in Ravenna: photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Justinian, then, earned the villain role for O'Donnell, and is regarded in The Ruin of the Roman Empire as the proximate cause of the destruction of Roman civilization.  Justinian stood accused of a building program and a war-fighting program which exhausted the realm's resources while winning for the realm a lot of basically unproductive territory (which was to be invaded thereafter by a new group of barbarians: the Lombards or Longobardii, who settled in Italy three years after Justinian's death.  Moreover, Justinian is said to have bankrupted the Empire with profligate spending.

Justinian is also not looked upon kindly here for his attempts to impose religious uniformity upon the Roman Empire.  O'Donnell argues that his intolerance toward the Monophysites of Alexandria played a contributing role in the eventual loss of Egypt to the Muslims in the century afterward.  And of course Justinian's closing of the Academy in Athens (its patrons were suspected of paganism) was not good for intellectual life in the Empire.

Justinian as a religious monarch resembles Stalin, and as a political monarch he favors Milosevic: outwardly in control, using ideological purity as a weapon to ensure control, and in the process inadvertently fueling the sympathies and ambitions of all those who simply did not agree.  (224)

Hamlet would have made a terrible king.  Justinian, intellectually arrogant, priggish, not as well educated as he thought he was, and alternating between indecisiveness and rashness, shows us how Hamlet would have turned out.  (p. 224)

O'Donnell takes his argument to the next level in the middle of the second part of his book: "So where did Justinian go wrong?  What should have been done?" (p. 243)  O'Donnell suggests that Justinian might have avoided all of those wars and concentrated upon the fortification of the Balkans, while at the same time not striving so hard for an authoritarian religious "unification" of the Empire.  It's hard to imagine someone of Justinian's character carrying out O'Donnell's prescription.

Any historian writing in this era needs historical chroniclers to depend upon, and for mid 6th-century (CE) historiography one has a number of sources, but above all Procopius.  There is btw some Procopius online, though I gather the folks running that site didn't want to spend a lot of time translating the uneventful text "On Buildings."  The "Wars" is of course a history of Justinian's term as Emperor, and the "Secret History" was a document hidden away from the Emperor's eyes which displays all of Procopius's intense and secret hatred of Justinian.  O'Donnell seems to side with Procopius's "Secret History" here, although Procopius's attack on the Empress Theodora defies belief for him.

The person after whom I'm named, Cassiodorus, makes an appearance here.  Cassiodorus is of course the anti-hero of his time, pursuing a distinguished political career and at the end of his life squirreling away a bit of learning at his monastery in Squillace for the dark ages to come.

The third portion of this book, after the narrative of Italy's death, tells the story of the growth of Christianity and of monasteries in the 6th century, and recounts the history of the eastern Empire up to the Muslim conquest of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, and thus the division of the Roman world into Muslim and Christian portions which continues to this day.  Justin II and Tiberius II are regarded as irrelevances, and O'Donnell doesn't think that Maurice or Phocas or Heraclius had much of a chance to save the larger Empire, much as he might admire them, pretty much because they had to inherit an Empire that was irreparably ruined by their predecessors.  Heraclius, of course, lost much of his Empire to the Muslims, and died in 641 CE a broken man.

There is a coda to O'Donnell's long tale, about Pope Gregory (540-604 CE), but it for some reason seem difficult for me to connect to the rest of O'Donnell's more immediately engaging tale.  "In the end, Gregory the Great was wrong to anticipate the end of the world.  It had already arrived" (p. 384), we are told, but this somehow diminishes, rather than enhancing, Gregory's importance.  O'Donnell sometimes loses me: but mostly he's entertaining.

At any rate, having chosen a well-recounted history to recount, O'Donnell thickens the historical pot with elaborate descriptions of what life was like back then.  When deciphering ancient documents, O'Donnell takes you to the documents themselves, telling you what they say and questioning their straightforward nature so as to give you a "whole picture" as far as it can be assembled more than fourteen hundred years after the fact.  Moreover, O'Donnell is very much accessible as a writer -- one need not be familiar with advanced historical analysis in order to enjoy this volume.


The period of O'Donnell's book is usually given as the end of "Antiquity" and the beginning of the "Age of Faith," or at least this is how it's recounted in the historiography you saw some time ago in Will and Ariel Durant's fat volumes.  Civilization in western Europe socked itself into monasteries and waited for the long run, as the heritage of Classical philosophy fell to the Muslims to develop.  Thus something qualitatively different emerges in history at that time.

Sometimes, analyses of the end of the Roman Empire attempt to explain its bad end by virtue of the fact that the Empire wasn't versatile, that it couldn't adapt to changing circumstances.  Aldo Schiavone (The End of the Past) suggests that Roman civilization was incapable of further innovation beyond that which it had already implemented.  Schiavone's thesis is really interesting to me, because he starts by asking why there was a Dark Ages -- why couldn't the Roman Empire devise some form of technical progress that would allow it to grow directly into the civilization we currently enjoy, without the thousand-year period which actually separated our civilization from theirs?  His answer was that Roman civilization did not have the sort of dynamism that one could see even in mercantile society in the later Middle Ages, because it was based upon an agrarian, aristocratic social order which did not grant freedom to its labor force.  

At any rate, our civilization's problems are significantly different from theirs.  If ancient Rome was too inflexible, too incapable of conceiving technical progress, the civilization of the capitalist world-system post-1500 seems to have fallen under the spell of the commodity-form, and thus too incapable of viewing the natural world which supports it as being anything more than an ensemble of commodities.  Rome was too slow; we are too fast.  Instead of being static, our society is cancerous in its relationship to the natural world (and, by extension, to its living labor force).  Our weakness is in being unable to break out of the commodity form to some sort of reckoning with the natural world which will permit of authentic sustainability.  We are screwed unless we can become one with nature, and thus our problems of decline and (possibly) fall are fundamentally different from Rome's.

As for when-exactly the Roman Empire fell, I'm in favor of either a very late or a very early date.  If we are to imagine the Roman Empire as a big, secure empire, then it ended in 406 when masses of barbarians rushed across the frozen Rhine, later to establish themselves as Frankish, Sueve, and Vandal Kingdoms.  If we are to consider the death of any Roman Empire at all as the final date, then I would argue for 1204, when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople.  Unitary Moonbat has a diary about that too.

Originally posted to Cassiodorus on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 06:33 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There is some place in this book -- (21+ / 0-)

    where O'Donnell compares Justinian to Bush...

    "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- Gandalf, in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"...

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 06:05:42 AM PST

  •  Excellent book review post! (6+ / 0-)

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 06:47:16 AM PST

  •  The song which comes to mind (3+ / 0-)

    when reading of these Roman Emperors:

    "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- Gandalf, in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"...

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 06:51:51 AM PST

  •  Goldsworthy is the man (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, Cassiodorus

    I'm reading that book right now. I really like how he puts the lie to all the "OMG America's decline is JUST LIKE ROME'S!" hysteria.

  •  You are really inspiring me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, Cassiodorus

    to go back and to do more than a cursory read of Erich Gruen's The Last Generation of the Roman Republic among other other things.

    (Personally, I think there is so much contemporary emphasis on the Roman Empire both in historical studies and in popular culture and I think that, as a democratic republic, perhaps we should take a closer look at the Republic).

  •  Jeebus! I had a tough time with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, Cassiodorus

    Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and now this?

    Seriously, good post, and sorry to hear about your namesake languishing in Squillace, which is btw, not a bad place to hang around.

    Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. Albert Camus

    by Patric Juillet on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 07:20:05 AM PST

  •  So was this particular tidbit that you note, the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    model for all those popes and anti-popes and multi-popes in the early middle ages?:

    "Thus competent emperors in the late period (e.g. Valentinian I) had to play off factions against each other, whereas incompetent emperors merely had their throats slit."

    Loved this diary--- thanks!!!  

  •  Incredibly cool! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Thanks so much for this detailed account and review. I am bookmarking. Wish this could make the rec list. Maybe that's what DK4 will help bring attention to.

    Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

    by coral on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 07:45:40 AM PST

  •  Hmm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, Cassiodorus

    I haven't read the book, but the demonization of Justinian seems a bit excessive.  Obviously he over-extended (Spain and Italy) and overspent (though a public building campaign is often seen as a good thing) but the conquests of Africa and Sicily were both fairly quick and painless for the Empire.  I notice you didn't mention (though maybe the book did) the Black Plague, and what a devestating effect that had on the Empire during Justinian's time.  Obviously he should have reined in his ambitions after that, but the Plague itself wasn't his fault.  Finally, I'm confused how the empire could have been ruined by Justinian but still survived 800 years after that.  Not bad for a dead empire.  

    "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

    by weasel on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 08:22:44 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the review! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, Cassiodorus
  •  How does he deal with Justinian's plague? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Starting in 541/542 AD, Constantinople and the Empire were hit with bubonic plague on a scale comparable to the better known outbreak in 1347 in Western Europe (the Black Death).  Estimates of death rates are of course very difficult, but at least 40%, and maybe a lot more, of the population died.  The plague recurred frequently until about 750 AD.

    We'll never know, but there's a good chance that if the plague hadn't struck, Justinian's enterprise to reconquer the Western Empire, headed by two great generals, Belisarius and then Narses, would have succeeded.  If so, history's view of Justinian would be very different.

    •  The plague in the book... (0+ / 0-)

      O'Donnell won't speculate on "what would have happened" had there been no plague, though.  I suppose that, since O'Donnell argues that the plague eventually spread "to Ireland in 544 and Wales in 547" (p. 287), the possibility of its not happening is not even considered.

      "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- Gandalf, in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"...

      by Cassiodorus on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 08:55:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Personally (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I styart the real collapse as the constant Civil Wars and Invasions known as the Crises on the 3rd Century, starting in 198 and running through to Diocletian in 294.

    Diocletian's empire was VASTLY changed from the dynamic Empire of the 1st and 2nd Centuries

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:07:48 AM PST

  •  also natural disasters... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    along the way too that perhaps are overlooked by some and which deserve more study. Some extreme winters happened ... possibly due to volcano eruptions in the far east (Kamchatka area?) that led to food production problems... and there were plagues also mixed in... So, disruptions in food supply that the social divides and inept administrations only made worse. There are always reforms eventually in most societies that put a society back on a more successful track... BUT if a more corrupt and dysfunctional time coincides with famine and disease... AND invasions the system cannot stay as it was and new trends and power balances evolves... almost inevitable disintegration happens... and or change to a new equilibrium. Too many bad things coinciding.  

    Interesting book. Hope I get to read it someday.

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 09:15:59 AM PST

  •  There were two Roman Empires ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... from the establishment of the Empire. The old "Republican Empire" both conquered the western complex of North Africa, Hispania and Cis-Alpine Gaul and started the re-unification of the Mediterranean portion of the Alexandrian Empire, divided between Alexandrian successor states. The Julian conquests established the basic outer limits of the West, and with the conquest of Alexandrian Egypt ensured the consolidation of the Mediterranean Alexandrian successor states under Roman rule.

    In the sense of an Empire administered by Romans, however, the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy is the final end of the Original Roman Empire, with the question at issue in the Justinian reconquest whether it remain united under the rule of the Alexandrian Empire in Roman clothing in the East or fall to invaders from the north.

    Interestingly, it has recently been suggested that the dominant cold water Labrador Current which pushes the Gulf Stream off to the east, eventually to moderate Northern European winters may be switching off ~ after roughly 1800 years as the dominant current in the North Atlantic. Switching off will mean the Gulf Stream pooling in the Western Atlantic, warming New England and chilling Old England and continental neighbors.

    Of course, William Rosen traces the end of Late Antiquity to a climate shock that brought bubonic plague to the Mediterranean and technological change that increased the agricultural productivity of Northern versus Southern Europe, resulting in basic demographics of more potential invaders and fewer potential defenders in the West ... however, a switch in the Gulf Stream from Western North Atlantic to Eastern North Atlantic would be a direct climate shock resulting in more rapid population growth in Northern Europe ~ and indeed, it may be the more rapid population growth that led as well as followed the technological progress in Northern European farming.

    End 2010 with Lesbian Creative Works from ALC Publishing on your Holiday list.

    by BruceMcF on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:48:31 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site