Did Rome really Fall? Having an interest in history doesn't make one an all knowing sage on the topic and I was startled to learn the other day that there is a school of thought that claims that Rome did not fall, but was actually "transformed" by the Germanic invasions - or perhaps the more PC term would be Migrations. I am new to the argument and was unaware that Rome did anything but topple, until I read The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins. Interestingly, this is a book that backs up my own prior view, but in so doing, takes on the "new wisdom."
The following is a review of Ward-Perkins' book that I wrote for class. Comments welcome.
Bryon Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Everyone loves a good tragedy and there are few subjects more tragic that the fall from majesty. Such is the mystique of Ancient Rome, whose decline has filled countless minds and as many written volumes with visions of marbled colonnades, the ground shaking tramp of drilled soldiery, and thundering oratories voiced in a language fit for the gods. Here enters a new addition to the list of those volumes. With the tantalizing title, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, author Bryan Ward-Perkins offers a dialogue on the causes of the crumbling of one of the world’s greatest empires, written and presented in straightforward prose that accomplish a multifold purpose: to educate the casual reader, to engage the history student, and to challenge the opposing party. For The Fall of Rome is not merely a book of history, it is an interpretation, an explicitly stated counter to the recent academic opinion that, in the face of Germanic migrations, Rome merely changed faces with little accompanying unrest or discomfort. In a witty and evenly-paced rebuttal Ward-Perkins deftly lays out a series of arguments that seek to prove that Rome did indeed fall, and that it fell hard, mixing records from the ancients with evidence gleaned from the latest archeology to form a compelling argument for barbarian invasion. The result is not a narrative, but a piece-by-piece dismemberment of the “accommodation” theory of the transformation of Rome.
An archeologist by training, Ward-Perkins was born in Rome to an archeologist father and grew up around the science, often helping with the movement and disposal of pottering shards. Pursuing Italian archeology as an adult, he now teaches as Trinity College in Oxford and has lent his skills as an editor to The Cambridge Ancient History. Ward-Perkins’ interest is in the transition of Rome, so his is a worthy voice to join the conversation about whether or not Rome did fall.
The Fall of Rome presents a reactionary argument against the new wisdom of the Germanic invasions. According to Ward-Perkins, the argument of the new school, prominent in recent decades, is that Rome gently transitioned from a state of Empire into a state of Germanic kingdoms, characterized by a “vibrant religious and cultural debate”(4). The new school has looked for a much more positive picture of the period, eliminating uncomfortable words like “decay,” “decline” and “crisis” – which, Ward-Perkins points out, carry the connotation of blame – and replacing them with the congratulatory “transition,” “change,” and “transformation.” Taking the argument a step further, one of the scholars of the new wisdom, Walter Goffart, has challenged the very idea of “invasions.” He argued that, rather that keep them out, the Romans decided to allow the barbarians within the imperial borders, granting them land and a share in the taxes. More than that, Goffart claimed that the “accommodation” followed a Roman plan of action, since the Romans used their own administrations and institutions to engage and govern the Germans, though he admits with good-natured humor that the fall of Rome was “an imaginative experiment that got a little out of hand”(9). Ward-Perkins sets about correcting the gross inaccuracy in a sweeping examination of the evidence that is a very readable 187 pages long.
The book kicks off with a pair of clear two-page-spread maps that illustrate the author’s claim as well as any written thesis. The first is a familiar depiction of the Empire at its height in 400 AD, its dashed borders reaching from Hadrian’s Wall in northern Britain to the upper cataracts of the Egyptian Nile, and from the foothills of the Caucasus mountains at the far end of the Black Sea to the deserts of Africa just south of the Pillars of Hercules. All of the provinces are neatly labeled while another dashed line divides the Empire as per the orders of Diocletian. The second map is stark in its contrast; the borders of the eastern empire remain intact, but the entire west has been deleted, all that remain are scattered labels declaring the presence of sundry Germanic tribes that came to call the regions home. It is chillingly dated 500 AD. Without even a sentence past the preface, the author draws in the curious reader with the near pressing need to know why. Ward-Perkins is more than happy to explain.
As would any reasonable historian, Ward-Perkins devotes several chapters to historical accounts of the fall of Rome. Respectable contemporary resources are consulted, such as Ammianus, Cassiodorus, Procopius, and Salvian, as well as letters, laws, and chronicles. Modern scholarship also figures heavily, such as books (Ancient Literacy by W.V. Harris), articles (Atlante delle forme ceramiche), and compilations (including Ward-Perkins’ own, Cambridge Ancient History, xiv.). Here it is shown that, despite his opponents’ best intents, the historical accounts alone prove that the transition from Rome to Medieval Europe was somewhat more uncomfortable than mutual accommodation. In his analysis Ward-Perkins does a fine job of trying to see both sides, allowing for Roman arrogance and for the barbarians’ simple desire for a better life. Most – if perhaps not all – of the barbarians are presented as more interested in claiming a place in, or the whole of, the Roman Empire for themselves. Unfortunately, through their actions the barbarians brought about the decline and fall of the empire, thus crushing the very society they wished to make their own.
In the second half of his work, Ward-Perkins devotes his energies to examining the archeological record of the late Roman era. Not surprisingly, his strongest argument – and perhaps his lengthiest treatment of any one subject – comes in the form of his near and dear Roman potsherds. These are apparently of such abundance as to be considered boring by archeologists. Familiar with the medium since childhood, he explains how the level of sophistication and distribution of potsherds across the known world shows the complexity of the society enjoyed by the Romans. Similarly, the data related to coin circulation, tiled roofs throughout most Italian demographics, and appreciable literacy all suggest that the economy and sophistication of society was booming to a near modern degree in Late Antiquity Rome. By contrast, the nearly stone-aged potsherds of post-Rome Europe, the disappearance of tiled roofs, and the declining coin, to say nothing of royal illiteracy, all point to a decline in sophisticated society, leaving the once “modern” land a depleted, even fractured, stone-aged mess, not at all the sort of mutually beneficial future envisioned by Goffart and his ilk.
Where Ward-Perkins runs into trouble is in exploring his speculative evidence. The first case is his use of “metallic pollution” to estimate that there was a great deal of smelting in the Roman world. The measurements are made possible by the snowfall of the sub-arctic collecting materials from the air and then depositing said materials in the ice as the new layer of snow freezes over. Such evidence is certainly worth investigation, but it remains unclear as to whether interpretations of the evidence and the data gleaned from any computer models related to the research are reliable. Where the potsherds could be identified through labels, stamps, and circumstantial evidence, such as their surroundings when discovered, the layering of ice leaves no craftsman’s device. Similarly does the argument for population decline suddenly lose force when the bones from a “Roman” cow suggest that it was more nourished and therefore fatter than both its predecessors and descendants. What evidence is there that the cow discovered was not an especially robust breed, or the best amongst its fellows, or that it was even Roman for that matter? The reader may be enjoined to rely upon archeological expertise on this issue, but the claim suffers from the same uncertainties that might be applied to the polluted ice flows.
If The Fall of Rome enjoys the measure of success as the works of Goffart and his party, then the history of barbarian invasions may be back on its feet. Ward-Perkins has a commanding and satirical voice that lends credibility to his assertions, both when he challenges the opposition and when he allows for positives arisen from their work. But if Ward-Perkins has made one great error – his cyclopean cattle and icecaps aside – it is in failing to point out the crucial sub-text of his own argument: just as the brutality of various American Indians has sometimes been mollified to fit into a politically correct mold, so too has Goffart exonerated the Germanic invaders of all guilt. The claim that the Romans experimented in accommodation, with unexpected and ironic results, removes blame for the destruction of a civilization from the barbarians and places it firmly in the Romans’ hands. Whether he knows it or not, Ward-Perkins has penned a winning argument against the political correction of the fall of Rome.
