The fall of the Western Roman Empire

By Count Mummolus

The fall of the Western Roman Empire has been one of the major topics of discussion among historians for decades. Ever since Gibbon’s monumental history there have been numerous scholars publishing works of similar nature, if not always similar size. Theories ranging from lead poisoning to moral decay and vice have abounded, but flying in the face of each possibility is the fact that the Eastern Empire lasted more than 900 years longer than its Western counterpart. Any valid theory as to the fall of the West must take into consideration the survival of the East, and this excludes many, not least those biased against Christianity. While the East suffered many of the same barbarian attacks as the West, it would appear that the economy of the West suffered significantly more damage due to the length of the frontier being threatened. In the East the imperial economy was focused on the Levant and Egypt, while the Western economy was decimated by barbarian attacks and especially by the Vandal conquest of North Africa.

In order to understand the havoc within the Empire, it is necessary to examine the barbarian crossings of the Rhine and Danube, especially the Vandal conquest of North Africa and the aftermath leading to the final collapse of Roman power in the western Mediterranean. Vital to this task is an emphasis on the complete lack of unity between so-called ‘Germanic’ peoples – the numerous tribes were as likely to fight one another as they were to fight the Romans, and there was certainly no sense of ‘common cause’ or ‘kindred’ between them . It must similarly be noted that in every case, events are examined from a civilized perspective. Contemporary sources, even those able to claim barbarian descent, were invariably writing in Latin or Greek and their works survive because they were reproduced in the same. There are no histories of the barbarian peoples written by the barbarian peoples in their own tongues, and civilized commentators give us our only information. While the barbarian invasions were of crucial importance to the downfall of the Western Empire, the Empire had faced similar before and survived. Usurpers and powerful generals pursuing their own interests also had a role to play, and it was the unique combination of these factors in the 6th century which resulted in the collapse of Roman power in the West.

Of the many barbarian groups to cross the Roman frontiers, none had so great an impact as the Vandals. Believed to have their origins somewhere in modern Poland, the Vandals crossed the Rhine in late 405/406 in two distinct tribal groups, the Silings and Hasdings. With them traveled the Alans and Suevi . The reason for this attack is mysterious in some ways – the mixed force of barbarians has been presented as either fleeing the Huns or as part of the remnants of an earlier force which was repelled, but for the purposes of this essay their origin is largely irrelevant. The only organized resistance to the barbarians in Gaul came from the armies of Constantine III, a British usurper who gained support in Gaul by opposing the barbarians where the Roman government failed to do so. Over the following years the Vandals and groups which crossed with them plundered much of Gaul, until in 409 they crossed into Spain and rapidly settled into tribal kingdoms of varying sizes. Over the course of four years the Roman Empire had lost Spain and seen the pillaging of Gaul, nearly half of its Western territory either lost to or damaged by barbarians . In addition, the weakness of Imperial forces in Gaul allowed the usurper Constantine III to gain a significant foothold and following, presenting a major problem from within the Empire at exactly the time when it was suffering from external pressure. The years immediately following were hectic for the Empire. 410 saw the sack of Rome by Alaric’s Goths, an event which while catastrophic to chroniclers of the time had little long-term effect. The rise of the new magister militum Flavius Constantius saw a significant recovery in Roman military power, and it was not long before his forces marched against Constantine III in Gaul. Constantine III, in the meantime, had been facing a revolt by one of his own supporters, Gerontius, and when Constantius’ armies marched north they defeated Gerontius and then the forces of Constantine III. An additional usurper sprung up in northern Gaul with the support of Alaric’s Goths, now under the command of his brother-in-law Athaulf, but Constantius convinced them to change sides and the new usurper, Jovinus, was forced to surrender. The Goths were the next enemy subdued by Constantius, and the result was that with Roman blessing the new Gothic king Wallia proceeded into Spain to deal with the barbarian kingdoms there. The Goths were settled in lands in Northeastern Spain and used as a counter to the power of the Vandals in the South of the peninsula, and a few short years after Constantius was appointed magister militum the Western Empire was back in fighting form, but with a moderately reduced tax base.

The barbarians in Spain – officially settled and otherwise – represented the loss of the Spanish tax base, while Gaul had been plundered for several consecutive years and was unlikely to function at full capacity. The Western Empire retained its economic foundation in Africa, however, allowing shipments of food to the city of Rome to continue, and the reliable income from this important province made the continued recovery of the west a possibility. Constantius was eventually made Augustus by Honorius, but died shortly into his reign in 421. Honorius himself died in 423, and what followed was a power struggle eventually resulting in a battle between Boniface, commander of North Africa, and Aetius, commander in Gaul. Boniface won the battle but perished, leaving Aetius unchallenged by virtue of survival in 433. Joint Romano-Gothic campaigns against the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans had continued prior to 422, but as power struggles erupted in Italy the Vandals were left alone, and when Geiseric came to power among the Vandals in 428, he proceeded to move the Vandals into Africa . Rather than having an enemy and a questionable ally counterbalancing each other, the Romans now had to deal with a strong Gothic state and a second Vandal invasion, this time into the vulnerable heart of the Western economy.

Civil wars were nothing new to the Empire – since the days of Augustus the army had been making and breaking Emperors. For the first time since the Republic, however, events at the imperial court and interaction between the two halves of the Empire was placed before dealing with the external threat, and as a result the Empire was made weaker than ever before. The usurper Constantine III gained support precisely because he was determined to deal with the barbarians in Gaul, while in Rome court intrigues and politics resulted in what, to the average Roman citizen, could only appear as inactivity. This is a sharp contrast to other instances of simultaneous internal and external threats – when Julian the Apostate was declared Augustus by his troops in Gaul the emperor Constantius II finished his Persian campaign before returning west to attempt to deal with this ‘usurper’ . Similarly even during the so-called ‘Third Century Crisis’ campaigns against the barbarians on the frontier continued. In the fifth century, however, for the first extended period of time, politics and intrigue took center stage despite the threat from tribes like the Vandals. When the intrigue came to an end and a clear winner was in power, as in the case of Flavius Constantius, the usurpers became the first priority, rather than the security of the state. The first actions of Flavius Constantius were to attack Gerontius, Constantine III and Jovinus in Gaul rather than to deal with the external threats to the Empire in Spain. Economic and military recovery from such civil wars was made possible by the continued function of the economy. As long as the state had an income, the state could rebuild, and it is this which changed when the Vandals took North Africa. Since the earliest days of the Republic North Africa had been an economic powerhouse in the western Mediterranean, with the city of Carthage forming first its own Empire and then, once conquered by Rome, the breadbasket of the west . Along with Egypt, North Africa accounted for huge portions of the Empire’s grain production, olive oil, and wine, along with an abundance of less important luxury goods such as exotic animals and ivory. The imperial tax on grain filled the imperial coffers while the state-sponsored creation of a merchant’s guild encouraged the booming economy of the region . Carthage itself became the third largest city in the Mediterranean by the fourth century – only Rome and Constantinople were larger.

The Vandal conquest of Africa was a slow process. It was a year after their crossing into Africa that the Vandals and their associates arrived in Numidia. The Roman opposition was weak and ineffective – the focus for the last two decades had been on Italy and the north, and Africa had a minimal garrison. When Aetius became dominant in Rome in 433, he immediately requested and received aid from Constantinople in dealing with the North African problem. The eastern general Aspar was sent with a substantial force to Carthage, and by 435 Aspar had been successful enough to force the Vandals to come to terms. Parts of Africa were ceded to their control, but Rome maintained control over the most economically important areas. Aetius, meanwhile, deployed his own forces against the Visigoths in Gaul and northeastern Spain, who since the withdrawal of the Vandals from Spain had been periodically rebelling against Roman rule. Using the Huns as mercenaries Aetius oversaw the subjugation of the Visigoths and destruction of the Burgundian kingdom, the survivors of which were settled in Roman territory . By 439 the situation in Gaul was back in hand, but in Africa Geiseric had attacked Carthage itself. The economic implications of Geiseric’s success were clear. Laws were immediately passed to secure Rome’s grain supply from eastern traders, but increased Vandal piracy in 440 resulted in further economic laws being passed. The hostility of the Huns resulted in the abortion of a joint East-West attack on Africa, and as of 442 the Vandals were recognized as the legitimate authority in the former imperial breadbasket.

The economic fallout from the loss of only portions of Africa had already necessitated the passing of laws, and the loss of Africa in its entirety was a financial crisis the likes of which the Empire had never seen. Almost from the moment Geiseric first walked the streets of Carthage the Roman government was raising taxes, collecting debts, penalizing greedy tax collectors, and making allowances for refugee landowners from the African provinces . The financial crisis was further aggravated by Vandal pirates all along the coast of Sicily, who even went so far as to besiege Roman ports. Naturally the economic crisis had an impact on the army as well, and it is this which more than anything weakened the western Empire. The eastern Empire certainly recognized the difficulty in which this placed the west, but the rise of Attila the Hun and subsequent problems left the east temporarily unable to assist the west, and thus both halves of the Empire were forced to reluctantly accept the African situation.

The eastern Empire faced challenges similar to those of the west, but often not of the same severity. While the west was facing barbarians in ever-increasing numbers, the east was relatively free of trouble on its European border after the Gothic problems in the late fourth century . The east was also conspicuously free of usurpations, with the most significant threat being from the western half of the Empire. Compared to the west, the East was in a strong position. The Balkan provinces, while strategically vital, were economically insignificant in comparison to the booming Middle East , and much of the eastern frontier was desert. There were only a few avenues of invasion into the East, and as long as diplomatic relations with Persia were maintained, these were largely secure. When the Huns crossed the Danube and pillaged the Balkans in the 440’s, the Eastern economy remained largely intact, and the walls of Constantinople proved too much of a challenge for even the Huns. It was the strong eastern economy which allowed the massive payments made to the Huns, and one result was the Huns’ subsequent turn west. As of 451, Gaul was once again being plundered by barbarian invaders. Aetius met Attila’s army with a hastily assembled force of Romans and allies, notably the Visigoths, inflicting upon the Huns a costly stalemate. The Huns turned to Italy, and after a series of sieges withdrew in the face of Aetius’ armies and eastern reinforcements sent by the new emperor Marcian.

While the Huns were being dealt with, the western Empire’s hopes had dimmed even further. The repeated plundering of Gaul, the loss of Africa, and the expansion of barbarian interests in Spain left the Empire poor and vulnerable, and several attempts to curb barbarian ambitions in Spain had met with failure. Even with the Visigoths officially Roman allies once again, the Empire was short on manpower, and the by 452 the west was largely lost to Rome, but stability was to some extent returned. The stability was not to last. Within two years Aetius was dead, a victim of palace intrigue, and less than six months later he was joined in the grave by the western emperor, Valentinian III. The new Emperor, Petronius Maximus, was not to last long. A renewed Vandal assault, this time on Rome itself, resulted in Petronius’ death, and his magister militum Avitus declared himself Emperor and began negotiations with Constantinople . Avitus traded Spain in exchange for the support of the Visigoths, but in 456 Avitus was defeated by two Roman generals, Ricimer and Majorian. The Vandals had in the meantime captured Sicily, Corsica, and the Balearics, taking full advantage once again of the west Roman preoccupation with internal politics at the expense of the Empire as a whole.

The end of the western Empire was not sudden, and by the inhabitants of the Empire perhaps not even noticed. Ricimer became the magister militum to the new Emperor Majorian, and upon Majorian’s assassination placed Libius Severus on the throne. Severus proved unacceptable to Constantinople, and the next appointee was Anthemius, who by all accounts was an excellent candidate. Militarily experienced, distantly related to the house of Constantine, and favored by Constantinople, Anthemius came with a promise of military support from Constantinople in what was to prove the final effort to rescue the west. The combined resources of East and West came together in a massive expedition against North Africa in 468, an expedition which failed spectacularly when the Vandals trapped and crippled the Roman fleet with fireships, hulks set alight and propelled towards the Romans . The failure of this armada marked the failure of the Roman Empire as a whole, and doomed the west to collapse.

The Roman Empire survived for another 977 years with its capital at Constantinople, but the western half finally collapsed in 476. The collapse came about because of economic difficulties, caused in part by barbarian invasions which were exacerbated by internal conflict which, in a strange turn of events, took precedence in the mind of the participants over the protection of the Empire. It was the ‘perfect storm’ – the Empire had dealt with corruption, usurpation, civil war, barbarian invasions, and economic crises before, but facing all of these at once at last proved too much for it.

Bibliography

  • Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 2005)
  • Goffart, Walter, “Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians”, The American Historical Review 86 (1981)
  • Kulikowski, Michael, “Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain”, Britannia 31 (2000)
  • Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire. Trans. Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin, 2004.
  • Mitchell, Stephen. A History of the Later Roman Empire (Malden, 2007)
  • Bar, Doron, “Population, Settlement, and Economy in Late Roman and Byzantine Palestine”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 67 (2004)