After the Fall

[BRENNUS]

I'am kind of new studying ancient Rome and i'am really interested in Rome after it's fall. I have kind of an odd question, In the years after the fall of the western empire and even into the middle ages would the city of rome itself still have looked like the great city it once was but maybe just with less people? I just want someone to shead a little light on what Rome would have been like before the rennaisance both the people and the city itself. Thanx

[CiceroD]

Certainly things would have been going down hill for a long time even before the fall.

But its true that there wasnt necessarily one big quake and it all came tumbling down. While Alaric's sack would have done much damage. The current devastation would have been a slow process of quarrying the ruins for their stone.

[Northern Neil]

Ironically the most damage occurred to the city when the Empire re-conquered it in the mid 6th century. Walls were breached and aqueducts were cut by the East Roman army during the seige. Monuments such as Hadrian's Tomb were fortified and stripped of their marble adornments, which were used as missiles by the defending Goths. Prior to that it was becoming tatty, but still recogniseably the same classical city as of old. The Goths maintained many of the monuments and still staged chariot races in the Circus Maximus, despite considering them a waste of time and money themselves.

 

After the disastrous reconquest by Justinian, the population of the city dropped as there was only one aqueduct remaining in working order, and from thence Rome's population was strung out along the course of that one aqueduct. The Senate ceased to function immediately prior to this, as most of the senators were killed by the Goths for aiding the East Roman re-conquest. From that point on, Rome's 'classical' era ended, and its mediaeval one began. Church records refer to cattle and sheep being driven through the forum in about 600, so by then the rot had truly set in.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Maladict]

Nature played a part as well. There were many earthquakes and floods, especially during the fifth century. Due to the wars and political instability, very little of the damage would have been repaired.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Nature played a part as well. There were many earthquakes and floods, especially during the fifth century. Due to the wars and political instability, very little of the damage would have been repaired.

 

It goes to show just how good the Romans were at building, as we all know there are still many structures and monuments still standing today that have stood the test of time.

 

It really must have been a sad sight to see sheep and cattle been driven through the forum where so many of the great Romans once stood.

[Maladict]

It goes to show just how good the Romans were at building, as we all know there are still many structures and monuments still standing today that have stood the test of time.

 

Well the earthquakes did plenty of damage, and their survival is due to frequent repairs as much as to the original architects. It is interesting to see how the buildings that still mattered to them in the fifth century, such as the Colosseum, the Circus Maximus, the Palatine, the baths and the churches, were rebuilt and it is mainly these buildings that are still standing. The other buildings were left to their fate; most pagan temples, parts of the Forum, some basilicas and porticoes that were no longer needed by the smaller population.

The floods may not have done much in the way of physical damage, but they would have greatly disrupted the daily lives of the citizens, perhaps rendering parts of the city uninhabitable.

 

For anyone interested in this part of the city's history, I would highly recommend visiting the Crypta Balbi (in Rome of course). It's an excellent, modern museum that focuses exclusively on the transition of the city from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages.

[Ludovicus]

Yes, in Rome the Crypta Balbi is an excellent museum for the period we're discussing. It shows how a few everyday places of the classical city were reused from about 500 to 1000 AD. See the link below for some interesting images from the CB website:

 

http://www.inklink.it/inklink/archivio.php...=57〈=en

 

 

I've read some where, Archaeology Magazine?, that parts of the Forum of Trajan survived until the devastating earthquate of the ninth century. Also keep in mind that thousands of abandoned apartment houses (insulae) made of adobe/mud all dissolved thereby raising the ground level substantially. Classical era building were buried, at least to the first floor. In the actual museum there are display models that show you the Forum of 1000 AD populated with rural houses built of spolia (salvaged marble & bricks).

Edited January 27, 2007 by Ludovicus

[Northern Neil]

ludovicus, these images are terrific! I think you should insert them in the gallery, as they show the slow decay and re-use of Roman structures perfectly!

[Ludovicus]

ludovicus, these images are terrific! I think you should insert them in the gallery, as they show the slow decay and re-use of Roman structures perfectly!

 

 

Thank you. There's a scale model, at the museum, of an urban empire era villa reused as it would have appeared later in 1000AD. The entire first floor sunk out of sight and with the second floor now the first! The Crypta Balbi museum is a must-see for anyone visiting Rome who has an interest in the post classical history of the city.

 

Northern Neil, I don't know how to put images in the gallery. Please feel free to do so yourself.

[Nerva]

I think it must have been pretty depressing for the inhabitants of Rome after the fall of the Western Empire to be surrounded by architecture from an advanced civilization but for it to be beyond their means to build anything as grand. Some of the ruins today have a decent amount of material still left on them, but others like the Circus Maximus have barely anything left. I wonder when the quarrying started (of the Circus) and what it looked like in say the 6th century.

[DecimusCaesar]

The last chapter of Edward Gibbon's 'The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire' mentions the decline of the city of Rome, although it mainly mentions the decline in the fifteenth century. It can be read here - Chapter 71

 

By the way Ludovicus, that's an excellent website with some brilliant illustrations and photographs. Thank you for posting it.

[Maladict]

I wonder when the quarrying started (of the Circus) and what it looked like in say the 6th century.

It may not have looked all that different; the last recorded games took place in 550.

[Divi Filius]

I wonder when the quarrying started (of the Circus) and what it looked like in say the 6th century.

 

Dicaying. Numerous primary sources lament at the desolation and decay which overtook the city after its fall(Pope Gregory I is among them). We can assume that this must have started significantly during the later 4th century and especially after the sack of 410. By Gregory's time old structures were crumbling at an alarming pace.

 

By the time Belisarius entered the city the level of decay horrified the east Roman conquerors.

 

But we should also remember that the traditional Roman games in the circus continued until rather late*, so the significance of these structures did not vanish until conciderably deep into the middle ages.

 

 

*We have descriptions of races in Sidonius Apollinaris correspondences.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Kosmo]

I think it must have been pretty depressing for the inhabitants of Rome after the fall of the Western Empire to be surrounded by architecture from an advanced civilization but for it to be beyond their means to build anything as grand.

 

By 650 Constantinopole was practicaly the only city of the former empire that still had kept the former classical greatness. From the Hadrian Wall to Palmyra ruins were everywhere, including inside former great cities like Alexandria and Antioh. It must have been strange to live close to the marble monuments in mud huts, with no or little coinage and with hand made pottery. Of course roman poor lived in mud huts at the hight of the empire. The ruining of still prosperous cities had to do with the uninterest in many monuments as a result of social and cultural change.

In Dacia the material culture by 450 was largely inferior to that existing before roman conquest. And the process afected areas that were never conquered by Rome.

[Nerva]

This might even be a topic for another thread, but I have heard that even Constantinople fell into decay towards the end of the Byzantine era. The Hippodrome stopped getting repaired and fell into disuse and the aqueducts no longer worked. The cisterns still had water in them, but they were not fed by aqueducts (most likely rainwater) and subsistence farming was taking place within the walls of the city. Anybody have any info on that? I don't know why I'm so intrigued by ruins. I should be more interested in the glory of the civilization. I guess for me it's all about putting the pieces together from what it once was to what it is now.