Rome after Odoacer

[ModernMarvel]

My question is this.

 

We all know about Odoacer deposing the boy, Romulus in 476.

 

but what then? What happened in Rome from the 6th century through say, the 9th?

 

How did the Pope survive? How did The church survive the Ostrogoths, Goths, Eastern Imperial invasion, etc.

Were the barbarians converted, therefore their destructive hands stayed? Did the Ostrogoth kingdom give Rome and the church clemency?

 

yeah, lots o questions....thanks for the help!!

Edited February 2, 2008 by ModernMarvel

[spittle]

I have the same questions as above but a specific desire to hear suggestions for books that explain events.

[sonic]

How did the Pope survive? How did The church survive the Ostrogoths, Goths, Eastern Imperial invasion, etc.

Were the barbarians converted, therefore their destructive hands stayed? Did the Ostrogoth kingdom give Rome and the church clemency?

 

The Goths and most of the other 'Germans' were Christians, although they were 'Arians' rather than 'Catholic/Orthodox' - the difference being in what manner Jesus was 'divine' etc. (Sorry no time to go into more detail! Wikipedia under 'Arianism' is a good start.)

 

Theoderic, the 'Gothic' ruler of Italy, appears to have believed in a policy of moderation and cohabitation towards the Catholic Church. Shortly after his reign, the East reconquered Italy and both East and West shared the same religion - the final split between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East wouldn't happen until 1054 (I think!!).

 

In fact, the only 'Germans' (ie. Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc) who didn't tolerate Catholicism were the Vandals, and their actions against the Catholic Africans was one of the pretexts for war that Justinian used for his attack under Belisarius.

 

The Popes survived mainly because they did not oppose Gothic rule, since they had no reason to. And don't forget that it was only later that the Pope laid claim to the universal hegemony over the Church, so he was simply a very important 'Bishop' based in Italy.

 

As for books, 'Theodoric in Italy' by John Moorhead or 'Barbarians and Romans' by Randers-Pehrson are good starts. They both also have bibliographies.

[ModernMarvel]

How did the Pope survive? How did The church survive the Ostrogoths, Goths, Eastern Imperial invasion, etc.

Were the barbarians converted, therefore their destructive hands stayed? Did the Ostrogoth kingdom give Rome and the church clemency?

 

The Goths and most of the other 'Germans' were Christians, although they were 'Arians' rather than 'Catholic/Orthodox' - the difference being in what manner Jesus was 'divine' etc. (Sorry no time to go into more detail! Wikipedia under 'Arianism' is a good start.)

 

Theoderic, the 'Gothic' ruler of Italy, appears to have believed in a policy of moderation and cohabitation towards the Catholic Church. Shortly after his reign, the East reconquered Italy and both East and West shared the same religion - the final split between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East wouldn't happen until 1054 (I think!!).

 

In fact, the only 'Germans' (ie. Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc) who didn't tolerate Catholicism were the Vandals, and their actions against the Catholic Africans was one of the pretexts for war that Justinian used for his attack under Belisarius.

 

The Popes survived mainly because they did not oppose Gothic rule, since they had no reason to. And don't forget that it was only later that the Pope laid claim to the universal hegemony over the Church, so he was simply a very important 'Bishop' based in Italy.

 

As for books, 'Theodoric in Italy' by John Moorhead or 'Barbarians and Romans' by Randers-Pehrson are good starts. They both also have bibliographies.

Aewsome. Thanks so much!!!! I'd like to read about the Pope getting hedgemony over the church...anything there?

[Northern Neil]

The city itself survived much in its classical form under Odoacer, and even the succeeding Ostrogoths maintained the public buildings, funding chariot races and animal fights in the Circus and arena for the populace, whilst complaining it was a waste of money.

 

The city started to change after the reconquest by Justinian, which wrecked much of it. Imperial forces cut aqueducts during the siege - thus reducing habitable areas, and the ostrogoths turned monuments such as the Mausoleum of Hadrian into fortresses, using its marble adornments as missiles. Units of the Roman Army pillaged outlying areas, destroying infrastructure and ruining the livelihoods of people they had come to liberate. The Goths abolished the senate and killed its members for sympathising with the Romans, and the war itself ravaged so much of the Italian peninsula that henceforth Rome became unviable as a large city, and by degrees the population left for the countryside. By the end of the war, in 560, the Senate had been abolished, food supplies had become erratic and the remaining population was strung out along the course of the two remaining aqueducts.

 

It is at this time that historians mark the end of Rome's ancient history. Rome was once more part of the Empire, but it was as an outpost, not as a capital. By 590 churchmen are commenting that the forum is disused, and cattle are being driven through it. Habitable areas are now isolated huddles around surviving fountains, surrounded by areas of rotting buildings and vegetation. It is sad to note that the Roman reconquest did much to reduce Rome to this. It is easy to speculate that if this had not happened, less of the city would have been wrecked, and Italy would have withstood the Lombard invasions which were about to come.

 

The sources for this information are many and varied; 'The World of Late Antiquity': Peter Brown, 'The Fall of Rome':Ward Perkins, 'The Fall of the Roman Empire': Peter Heather, 'The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History': Colin McEvedy(Who quotes other sources), And also a book I once had called 'Rome in the Dark Ages' which I regrettably threw away, and I have forgotten the author. These books also mention primary sources. Hope this helps!

Edited February 6, 2008 by Northern Neil

[CiceroD]

The city started to change after the reconquest by Justinian, which wrecked much of it. Imperial forces cut aqueducts during the siege - thus reducing habitable areas, and the ostrogoths turned monuments such as the Mausoleum of Hadrian into fortresses, using its marble adornments as missiles. Units of the Roman Army pillaged outlying areas, destroying infrastructure and ruining the livelihoods of people they had come to liberate. The Goths abolished the senate and killed its members for sympathising with the Romans, and the war itself ravaged so much of the Italian peninsula that henceforth Rome became unviable as a large city, and by degrees the population left for the countryside. By the end of the war, in 560, the Senate had been abolished, food supplies had become erratic and the remaining population was strung out along the course of the two remaining aqueducts.

 

But didn't the decay begin much earlier?

From what I recall from Gibbon, didn't Majorian have to legislate against people using public buildings as quarries?

or am I mistaken?

[sonic]

The city started to change after the reconquest by Justinian, which wrecked much of it. Imperial forces cut aqueducts during the siege - thus reducing habitable areas, and the ostrogoths turned monuments such as the Mausoleum of Hadrian into fortresses, using its marble adornments as missiles. Units of the Roman Army pillaged outlying areas, destroying infrastructure and ruining the livelihoods of people they had come to liberate.

 

Actually, although the mess was made during Belisarius' reconquest, it was actually the Ostrogoths under Witigis who cut the aqueducts during their siege of Rome. Under Belisarius and his generals, it was the 'Byzantines' who used the statues on the Mausoleum of Hadrian as missiles to foil the Gothic assault on the city.

 

Units of both armies pillaged the surrounding areas during the multiple sieges. After recapturing the city, Totila even considered demolishing large parts of the city to make it unsafe for the Byzantines to re-garrison - although a letter from Belisarius persuaded him not to.

 

All of this is taken from Procopius' account of the 1st siege. I don't know which of your sources claimed that the Goths defended the city and the Byzantines cut the aqueducts, but they sure messed up!!

[Northern Neil]

I don't know which of your sources claimed that the Goths defended the city and the Byzantines cut the aqueducts, but they sure messed up!!

No, it was me who messed up - my sources say what you just said. I do have an excuse - I wrote that on my lunch hour at work and didnt have my books handy. One of the problems of writing things from memory; well spotted Sonic. But yes, although I transposed the gothic/Roman (Byzantine) damage to the city, the facts are that aqueducts were cut by one side, and monuments fortified and stripped of adornments by the other. In any event, the point being that it was a disaster for the city. I always refer to Imperial forces prior to 610 as 'Romans', in accordance with current convention. The people of Rome at this time seemed to regard them thus also, given that the Senate made the ultimate sacrifice as a result of supporting them.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Northern Neil

[DecimusCaesar]

You can get a very readable and excellently written account of the last years of the Western Roman Empire (and afterwards) with Adrian Murdoch's The Last Roman.

 

Theoderic was a great ruler who did his best to encourage the arts and culture. Sadly though the civilisation he built in imitation of Roman heritage was paper thin, and much of it disappeared after his death. Some people who lived at the time of Theodoric described his age as a flowering of Italy, not seen since the age of Augustus or Trajan. As one chronicler stated:

 

 

Theoderic was a man of great distinction and of goodwill towards all men. He ruled for thirty three years. In his times, for thirty years, Italy enjoyed such good fortune that his successors also inherited peace.

 

Cassiodorus also calls him a moderniser and a forward thinker. The Pope Gelasius says that Italy had suffered destruction, war, pestilence and famine until Theoderic conquered the country. The Byzantine wars helped put a stop to most of the achievements of Theoderic, and the later invasions of the Lombards in AD 568 helped sweep most of Roman civilisation away. The Lombards carved out dukedoms for themselves in northern Italy - eventually becoming such a nuisance that the Pope called on Charlemagne to come drive them out in AD 770. The Lombards then surrendered to Charlemagne at the siege of Pavia. By AD 800, Charlemagne had himself crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope at Rome, in the hope of resurrecting the Western Roman Empire. By then, most of the old Roman culture of Italy had disappeared.

[sonic]

I don't know which of your sources claimed that the Goths defended the city and the Byzantines cut the aqueducts, but they sure messed up!!

No, it was me who messed up - my sources say what you just said. I do have an excuse - I wrote that on my lunch hour at work and didnt have my books handy. One of the problems of writing things from memory; well spotted Sonic. But yes, although I transposed the gothic/Roman (Byzantine) damage to the city, the facts are that aqueducts were cut by one side, and monuments fortified and stripped of adornments by the other. In any event, the point being that it was a disaster for the city. I always refer to Imperial forces prior to 610 as 'Romans', in accordance with current convention. The people of Rome at this time seemed to regard them thus also, given that the Senate made the ultimate sacrifice as a result of supporting them.

 

I only called them Byzantines in order to avoid confusion between the troops sent from the Eastern Empire and 'Romans' living in Rome!

[Northern Neil]

Yes - there isnt really a satisfactory thing to call 'Imperials' at this stage, is there? Some people call them 'East Romans' to mark the difference between Classical ones and Byzantines - this is a bit of a mouthful though. Perhaps in this context of the wars of Justinian/Belisarius, use of the word 'Byzantine' is more useful.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Horatius]

But didn't the decay begin much earlier?

There was also around 536 a little known but catastrophic and very important climate event. Some historians claim it even ushered in the Dark Ages causing the Plague of Justinian and the migrations of many peoples such as the Mongols. Here is a short sketchy overview here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_changes_of_535-536 . It's very interesting whatever it was Comet,Meteor or Krakatoa . In fact I am reading Keys book right now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keys_%28author%29 http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophe-Investig...n/dp/0345408764 not widely accepted, but it certainly played a part to some degree. Personally I think Keys may be right especially if you consider the psychological effects such a drastic change in climate might have on civilizations. Nice discussion here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90232

Edited February 11, 2008 by Horatius

[sonic]

Yes - there isnt really a satisfactory thing to call 'Imperials' at this stage, is there? Some people call them 'East Romans' to mark the difference between Classical ones and Byzantines - this is a bit of a mouthful though. Perhaps in this context of the wars of Justinian/Belisarius, use of the word 'Byzantine' is more useful.

 

Yes! That's why, half way through writing my book on Belisarius, (due out later this year: don't fprget to buy it!! - I need the money!! ) I changed from using 'Roman' to 'Byzantine'. During the siege of Rome, Roman citizens joined the army of Belisarius and at that point I gave up and renamed the 'Easterners' Byzantines to avoid confusion. At no point is this a judgement on whether/when the Eastern Empire changed into a different cultural identity.

[Northern Neil]

here was also around 536 a little known but catastrophic and very important climate event. Some historians claim it even ushered in the Dark Ages causing the Plague of Justinian and the migrations of many peoples such as the Mongols. Here is a short sketchy overview here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_changes_of_535-536 . It's very interesting whatever it was Comet,Meteor or Krakatoa . In fact I am reading Keys book right now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keys_%28author%29 http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophe-Investig...n/dp/0345408764

I once bought this book at an airport, and read it cover to cover in a day. I think Key's idea is very strong; even if it only half right, it still explains a lot! Sonic, I do hope your book is a bit clearer than that or Robert Graves; his was good, but all the to - ing and fro - ing throughout the Italian peninsula got me VERY confused. When your book is out, I will buy it - but I want a signed copy!

[sonic]

Sonic, I do hope your book is a bit clearer than that or Robert Graves; his was good, but all the to - ing and fro - ing throughout the Italian peninsula got me VERY confused. When your book is out, I will buy it - but I want a signed copy!

 

I hope the book's clearer as well! I've drawn loads of maps so that everyone can follow the strategies of Belisarius and Witigis/Totila, so hopefully it will be a lot easier to understand. I've also found the real 'Narnia' - at least, at the time of the Wars it was called Narnia, now it's just Narni in Central Italy.

 

As for signing it - that's all very well, but with all this typing I've forgotten how to use a pen!!

Edited February 11, 2008 by sonic