The capital city of Rome at the Fall

[Mrld]

What was the capital city of the Roman Empire at the fall? I's confused because of this. A book called the Last Legion said it was Rome and a book called the Sword of Attila said it was Ravenna. Does anyone know?

[Northern Neil]

What was the capital city of the Roman Empire at the fall? I's confused because of this. A book called the Last Legion said it was Rome and a book called the Sword of Attila said it was Ravenna. Does anyone know?

The seat of the Imperial government was at Ravenna, but I believe that Rome was still regarded as the capital. A bit like Den Haag in Holland is the seat of government, but Amsterdam is still the capital.

 

In the East, it was Constantinople.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Primus Pilus]

What was the capital city of the Roman Empire at the fall? I's confused because of this. A book called the Last Legion said it was Rome and a book called the Sword of Attila said it was Ravenna. Does anyone know?

 

Ravenna was made the administrative center of the western empire during the reign of Honorius (circa AD 400 or so) after the previous capital Mediolanum (Milan) had been besieged by Vandals. Mediolanum was made the administrative capital by Diocletion about a century earlier. Ravenna was supposedly more readily defensible than Rome or Mediolanum.

 

The departure from Rome as the capital was both strategic and probably political in nature. Mediolanum was closer to the frontier where the forces of the recently split empire could be more readily controlled. While the imperial government moved, the Senate remained in Rome where it was increasingly made less important. With Diocletian's move and political reforms, he also removed any remaining vestiges of Republicanism. However, as the power of the church continued to grow, Rome maintained its position as the the capital of western christianity. Rome was still Rome though regardless of the emperors presence. For all intensive purposes it was still the most important city of the western empire. The emperors just found a multitude of advantageous reasons to be personally away from it.

[Maladict]

The Romans themselves probably never regarded any city other than Rome as their capital, with the exception of Constantinople. The importance of Ravenna stems mainly from the sixth century reconquest, which is the period during which the famous monuments were built. Its fabled defensive qualities are still debated, as Ravenna seldom withstood a prolonged siege. Somehow it has become conventional wisdom that Ravenna was the capital from the moment Honorius transferred his court there from Milan in 402.

However, there are indications that Honorius wanted to move back to Rome prior to 410, and various fifth century emperors spent considerable parts of their reign in Rome, most notably Valentinian III. The Roman Senate, too, seems to have been much more active during the fifth century than it had been before, and wielding more power as well.

So, to answer your question, it depends on your definition of capital. If a capital is wherever the emperor and his court happen to be, Ravenna would be it in 476. If you take a broader view, Rome was still the capital of the western empire, with Ravenna an important seat of imperial residence.

[Divi Filius]

Its fabled defensive qualities are still debated, as Ravenna seldom withstood a prolonged siege.

 

I heard that the city was favored due to the marshes nearby, which made sieging the city quite difficult. Kulikowsky seems to take this stand when he has the Goths go for Rome.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

After Belisarius took Ravenna back from the Ostrogoth's in 540AD, the Emperor Justinian declared Ravenna the seat of Byzantine government in Italy. The Byzantines had a governor known as a Exarch who governed Italy until they were eventually overthrown by the Lombard's in 751AD.

[Maladict]

Its fabled defensive qualities are still debated, as Ravenna seldom withstood a prolonged siege.

 

I heard that the city was favored due to the marshes nearby, which made sieging the city quite difficult. Kulikowsky seems to take this stand when he has the Goths go for Rome.

 

There are no extant accounts (that I know of) that give Ravenna credit for the supposed exceptional defensive qualities of the city. They are largely modern attributions.

 

It may have been those very marshes that made the city fall to invaders over and over again. The high water table and salination left the city bereft of natural sources of fresh water, food production and timber. When the only road leading to the city was blocked, all supplies had to be brought in by sea transport. Additionally, the court (and any armies present) would be trapped, leaving the besieger free to ravage the rest of the peninsula.

"[belisarius was] alarmed both for Rome and the whole Roman cause, since it was impossible to lend assistance from Ravenna in any case.... Indeed he repented having ever come to Ravenna at all...since by shutting himself up in that place he had given the enemy a free hand to determine the course of the war as they had wished." - Procop., BG VI 13.13-18

 

The Goths packed up and left for Rome because Alaric thought holding Rome hostage would be more effectual. Ioannes was defeated at Ravenna in 425; Avitus' patricius Remistus was killed at Classe in 456; Nepos took the city by force in 474 and was in turn evicted by Orestes; Orestes' brother Paulus was defeated at Ravenna by Odoacer, who was starved into submission by Theodoric in 493. Belisarius succesfully besieged the city in 540 and abandoned it when besieged in 545. The Lombards, finally, ravaged the city repeatedly in the seventh century, after which it would sink into oblivion.

 

 

Most of this information comes from Andrew Gillett's 'Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors', Papers of the British School at Rome, vol.LXIX (2001), pp. 131-167.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Maladict

[DecimusCaesar]

Ravenna was noted for its beauty at the time, and city was a great spot in terms of weather. But as Maladict points out, one of the worst elements concerning Ravenna was its lack of water, which often left many citizens feeling parched and ill, even when their city wasn't under siege.

 

Still many of the buildings preserved at Ravenna are some of the finest examples we have of late Roman and early Byzantine art.