Talk:Fall of the Western Roman Empire

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristopherNoell21 (article contribs).

Deletion of this redirect

I think that this article should be deleted, as I would like to move the page Final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire to one with this title. DCI2026 02:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Now as a full article instead of a redirect

I have made a bold edit; the new version has been incubated in userspace for some time and now seems ready for the light of day. Thanks in particular to User:Bazuz whose wise words are at User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archives/2012/May 2012 and User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archives/2012/June 2012. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Spartacus and Tacfarinas

Hi!

I have been busy doing many other things and so had little time to spare on the article, unfortunately . For now I have a small thought: I have read in a book that Spartacus and Tacfarinas both had tried to negotiate at some point some sort of settlement that would have resembled the foederati settlements - but with no success. Do you think it's worthwhile to include this in the section about receptio? Bazuz (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. The article is structured around several themes; the process of power loss is the main one of course but I have also included a few comparisons with Roman power at its peak. If other editors agree with this approach, Spartacus and Tacfarinas could, possibly, fit in to mention of what Theodosius was supposed to have done to the invaders across the Danube. But a closer comparison, both in time and situation, might be with Claudius Gothicus and his decisive response to Goths. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

economic data

I found in the book by Ward-Perkins (p. 16) the following information:

In 413 it was decreed that the provinces of central and southern Italy were to be excused 4/5 of their tax for 5 years, in order to overcome the ravages of the Goths. However, in 418 several provinces were found unable to pay even the reduced rate and were granted extensions.

I think that these indicates some of the effects of Alarich's campaigns on the Empire. But where exactly to put it in? Also, the section title includes "starvation in Italia" but it is not fleshed put in the text. Bazuz (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's alluded to under the Settlement of 418: "The Italian areas which had been compelled to support the Goths had most of their taxes remitted for years.[143]". But it's an important point and may well benefit from expansion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have Heather's book here, but it looks like the remittance reference is a bit misplaced. The remittances apparently were intended to compensate for the losses after Alaric's campaigns, and 418 was, presumably, the date of a 5-year review - so the connection to the Settlement of 418 might be not real. If you concur with this reasoning (and can check again what Heather says about it), I'll move it into the Alaric section. Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it until next weekend, but I'll check Heather and Ward-Perkins then. The present comment seems accurate but possibly vague and over-compressed; new wording appreciated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Settlement of 418

Hi,

(Perhaps under the impression of Ward-Perkins's book which I just re-read) I am thinking of expanding a bit the section on the above, stressing how it might have represented a missed opportunity to recover the fortunes of the Empire. It'd be more of an emphasis addition since the basic data is already there in the article. what do you think? Is such a move justifiable? Btw, I now think the tax remission fact might be well worth mentioning in both contexts - as an example of the devastation and of the opportunity for recovery. Bazuz (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've thought of making explicit various points from which a recovery could possibly have been made. I'd decided against, mainly because none of my sources actually makes a complete list explicit and it might easily be construed as original research. Under 418 we do mention Rutilius Gallicus and his reasons for optimism. Would you perhaps think it worth making the point more obvious in the last sentence of the lede? At present this reads "The collapse, and the repeated attempts to reverse it, are major subjects of historiography and they inform much modern discourse on state failure." We could put in something like "the repeated attempts to reverse it, which could potentially have succeeded at several points". That at least we can source.

The tax remissions might indeed be worth mentioning twice. When did they finally end, do you know? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I surely don't know, all I have is W-P's reference. But I tried to google this and found an interesting pointer: http://books.google.ie/books?id=I0NJmAfgrjMC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=roman+tax+remission+413&source=bl&ots=ZomwPX6GLA&sig=cgoWbQmOx-YfGXIvx2ydPcA8NdM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8WUIOsBs6JhQfPoYHoAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=roman%20tax%20remission%20413&f=false. It's footnote 401. Do you have the LRE? I can try to borrow a copy from the library.

Anyway, I think the datum is sufficiently interesting as it is.

W-P makes a case that 418 might have been a recovery year. I'll look up the page reference later.

Cheers! Bazuz (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

religious strife

Hi!

Consider the following passage:

"Religious strife was rare after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136 (after which the devastated Judaea ceased to be a major centre for Jewish unrest). Christianity was the faith of a small minority, generally tolerated though occasionally punished, and neither Christians nor Jews were in a position to transform mutually intolerant theological diversity into serious civil unrest."

I wonder if the second part of the second sentence is necessary. The Christians were still a humble minority and while there was considerable animosity between some of the various sects, I presume it wasn't ever likely to spill over into a serious disturbance of the Empire's peace. As for the Jews, the earlier Roman-Jewish wars did not occur because of intra-Jewish religious conflicts (though some scholars contend that economic and social divisions within Judaea were the cause). So all told I'd suggest to trim that sentence. Do you agree? Bazuz (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the major Jewish wars were Jews versus pagans, though the vicious internal Jewish divisions did weaken their resistance to the Romans. The early Christians simply weren't in a position to cause serious trouble. Trim by all means. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bazuz (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

I don't know if having a completely thematically distinct article at Decline of the Roman Empire is really sustainable. In my view, this article could be better titled as "history of the late Western Roman Empire" since we already have, at that other article, a quite extensive discussion on causes of the fall. Slac speak up! 11:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we reflect the academic approaches to the subject quite well. In the other article we have an account of the various overarching theories (many distinctly simplistic and separated from any historical reality), and in this one, an account of the events that made up the Fall (a much-used term), with mention of the various theories as relevant. I see this as quite sustainable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm intepreting what you are saying correctly. There is no "explanation" of the fall that is entirely separate from a "theory" about the fall. It almost seems to me as though we are saying "here is a bunch of things that fusty old historians said over in this article, and here is the *real deal* about what we know actually happened and why it happened in this separate article." I don't believe the two discussions are fundamentally independent of each other; we have to respect NPOV which means writing an article about the fall that says "Gibbons said a lack of martial vigour did it" alongside "modern historians say currency debasement did it" or whatever and presenting them both. That aside, if we are going to say "this article is about over-arching themes" and "this article is about detail" then there are two concerns. That aside, a division between one article that focuses on "theory" and one article that focuses on historical events/chronology isn't reflected by having one article titled "Decline" and another titled "Fall" is it? Most laypeople would understand that both articles encompassed the same historical event/process. Slac speak up! 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't every theory, no matter how crackpot, have some evidence to support it? So theory "A" has "an account of the events that made up the Fall" and interpreted to support that theory; meanwhile theory "B" has "an account of the events that made up the Fall" and interpreted to support that theory. It's even possible that both "A" and "B" use the same account of the events to arrive at their differing conclusions. So it's highly artificial to suppose that the two things - theories and accounts of events - can be neatly corralled into their respective areas. Better by far to list the events and mention how each event is supported or attacked or ignored by the competing theories. In short, merge these articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, indeed the two discussions aren't independent of each other, although not all of these theories are limited to the relevant time and not all are well-supported by primary evidence. Forcing them in to any kind of chronological narrative would be a violent process. So, how would you feel about a section here about over-arching theories that don't fit into a chronological narrative? We could have one I suppose. I originally decided not to because the article is already at the extreme of length. Personally I would prefer to maintain the present divide, but to expand the Decline article to include all of the notable ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that a merger, although violent, is the least worst option. Would support an expanded "over-arching theories" section in the merged entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, a first cut might be taking the present Decline article and inserting it en bloc at the end of this page? Worth a try I suppose. We'd need to discuss it on the talk page of the Decline article first, especially if we follow through the obvious implication of turning the Decline article into a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

First cut only. Will require work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts with this! And apologies for my very poorly edited comment above. . . Slac speak up! 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibbon, and the rich of the Late Empire

I have reinstated a classic comment from Gibbon, not a speculation but a serious albeit imperfectly-quantifiable point of mainstream historiography, and a counter-argument. I have reinstated also a comment on what seems to have been of paramount importance to the government - it is a matter of opinion, but this is the referenced opinion of a historian and is also well within the mainstream of modern scholarly thought. I have not reinstated the comparison with the Second Triumvirate; it may be relevant but you're right, we probably don't need it here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

But putting in things like Gibbon's "useless masses" comment isn't really encyclopedic in my opinion. A better approach would be to state the argument in a more guns vs. butter economic format. Stating things about the overarching motivations of rulers needs more of an explanation accompanying them then just citing a historian's opinion as a fact. Do you have that source? Roy Brumback (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuns versus guns? Possible, difficult for lack of figures; there were certainly a lot of monks, nuns, churches, etc but we don't have exact figures and certainly no exact idea of how many nonproductive mouths they accounted for. Giving a classic and still major argument in the words of its originator, with a modern word of caution, strikes me as just about the most encyclopedic possible thing to do. We have to do the same sort of thing for practically all the major arguments; we just don't have the relevant figures.

Overarching motivations - well, we are supposed to be using appropriate secondary sources, and a book by a current historian seems perfect. But in any case, the previous sentence is less opinionated, more factual, and makes more or less the same point, and at this diff I have again removed the sentence you took out. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Barbarians?

Why use a pejorative to describe the invading forces? Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's used by pretty much all the surviving sources, and in the context of Helleno-Roman historiography, simply refers to anyone who wasn't a part of Greek or Roman culture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are quite lopsided (they're Roman, exclusively) and no matter *how* you twist it, in the 4th century it's well and truly a pejorative. The fact that 18th century sources refer to "savages" in Africa and elsewhere is no reason to copy that either. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Both the primary sources and the modern secondary sources use the word barbarian, in this time period and context, as a matter of routine. I have just turned my eyes to one of my book-shelves, and I see three examples of the word used in the titles of scholarly books; looking at the index of the Cambridge Ancient History vol XII, 193-337, there are multiple pages references for the term. Yes, there was a pejorative sense to it, stronger in current colloquial use, but it also has clear semantic content. I suppose we could find some circumlocution, a neologism such as "ethnic groups outside Helleno-Roman culture" would do, but I can't see why we would want to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Try calling them by their names if at all possible? The word "barbarians" does not distinguish between Goths, Vandals, Huns, Saxons, Franks, etc. The current text makes no distinction and jumbles them all together under a, frankly, offensive word which is used with disturbing consistency. Working out who played what role and naming names may remedy said lopsidedness. And i'm willing to do the work and very much open for suggestions and/or collaboration. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother myself, but feel free. We do of course use individual tribal names where appropriate already. The word remains useful either when several different groups are being described, or when non-Romans are described as a collective. Who exactly is being offended by it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Me, for one. Kleuske (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are offended by the description of people who lived 1700 years before our time and lacked systems of writing, which is a hallmark of the western conception of civilization, as barbarians? Why does being offended over a word used to describe people who died millennia ago give you any authority? Are you a historian? Have you studied ancient history? Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any offence. Your comments do raise an interesting question about our use of words with both a) semantically-meaningful and b) pejorative content. I don't find any relevant policies or guidelines on this particular point. I've just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine where I argued that the word "pseudoscience" was being used in a purely pejorative way, in conflict with its useful meaning, and should be removed as not helping the article. Here I feel that the word "barbarian" is or at least can be used, in accordance with the sources, to mean "people not part of Graeco-Roman culture". Additionally I feel that in this specific sense in the period covered by this article, the word is useful and no longer relevant to any current ethnic group; classic Graeco-Roman culture no longer exists as an ethnic identity. Anyway, I agree, there may be instances in this article where "barbarian" could be replaced by specific ethnonyms. In any case I look forward to your suggestions and to collaborating with you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly, I have to vote with Kleuske on this one. (Maybe its my German backround:-) Whenever I read how the "barbarian hordes swept through..." wherever they were sweeping, it makes me roll my eyes. As if the Romans weren't "barbaric", and their "hordes" didn't sweep through the lands they gathered into their empire. The word could be changed by: specifying individual groups; or perhaps by the general area? Or better yet, is there no scholar who addresses this already and proposes an alternative? I'm a sociologist, but I'll try to look. Peacedance (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have managed to change one instance to the name of a specific group. I will welcome any suitable alternative. I've yet to find one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Richard Keatinge on this one. Literary cleansing is a close cousin of ethnic cleansing; I disapprove of both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure that using neutral language (or better yet, endonyms) to describe groups of people, rather than the pejorative term coined for them by their enemies, is a "close cousin" of wiping out entire groups of people? I am very curious about this analogy. Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really worth mentioning that the word Barbarian comes from the Greek word Βάρβαρος which came about because it seemed to them many foreigners sounded like they were saying "Bar bar bar, interestingly enough one may find this reminiscent of the Syriac/Aramaic definitive article, nevertheless, if you view it like this it's more of a descriptive adjective. What's more, while it is applause worthy to try and switch names to tribal, it also brings up the interesting concept that, the Romans named these people, and generally weren't too concerned about accuracy or anything like that, kind of like Barbaros revisited, they gave names to groups of people, and these names have stuck, but as previously mentioned since almost no written record survives of the, forgive me for lack of a better term, barbarians, it's quite hard to say with any real confidence what they actually called themselves. As an aside, interesting theory that Rome hastened her downfall by giving names to certain peoples and thus instilling a greater sense of unity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:29, 04 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of the motivations of people who want to PC-Sanitize history. When people read that the barbarians helped bring down the Roman Empire, they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world. Is it? Isn't it? is irrelevant and not our job to answer. History is history, and should be recorded accurately, and not "tweaked" to make it politically convenient today. Finalreminder

It's not "PC sanitizing history" to acknowledge that "barbarians" is a pejorative term. It was pejorative even in the Romans' time: the Greeks themselves wrote that the word was devised because all of the non-Greek languages sounded like gibberish to them; the root word means "to stammer" or to babble confusingly. The Romans explicitly used it for people they considered uncivilized. This information is not hidden - it can be easily found on this very wiki. Using the term "barbarians" here is like using the term "savages" to refer to Native Americans in an article about American colonial history. If we'd like to leave it this way, that's fine, but it's silly to pretend that the term is merely descriptive when it was intended to be derogatory by the very people who devised the term. It's not really that hard to find suitable replacements: For example, the first sentence with the word included ("Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture") could easily be rewritten "Increasing pressure from invading tribes outside Roman culture..." or "Increasing pressure from invading peoples..." There are several places where it can simply be omitted, such as the second usage ("Further barbarian groups crossed..." could just be "Further groups crossed...") and the third "In 476, the Germanic barbarian king..." could just be "In 476, the Germanic king...") Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world" That would be entirely misleading. The Migration Period is characterized by armed invasions of Roman areas, warfare between competing tribes, and several "barbarians" gaining the status of Foederati. No such thing is occurring in recent times. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The destruction of North Africa in 365 AD

I've been looking around and have really noticed how the tsunami which destroyed North Africa isn't really mentioned at all here. I know that when talking about the latter years of the Western Roman Empire pretty much everyone focuses on Europe, that's where most of the Western empire was, after all, but prior to 365 there was a vibrant and highly populated urban and agricultural culture that was the granary of the empire.After 365, it was gone. Might we figure out a way to give this a mention? The Collapse of North Africa, which is surprisingly well documented, should be mentioned.....Ericl (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see references for the details, especially the results for the Western empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ericl, you seem to enjoy exaggerating the sources you provide about this subject. Your "untold millions" is a particularly troubling addition. Even if there was a devastating tsunami along the whole African coast in the mid-4th century, there would be an economic recovery. The Vandals didn't leave Baetica to go to (as you would argue) a desolate north Africa. Africa remained prosperous throughout 5th and 6th centuries. The province was even able to forestall an Arab invasion for half a century. Of course there should be a mention of the earthquake. However, if the sources say "many thousands died in and around Alexandria", don't take that as permission to write "untold millions died along the whole coast of north Africa" After doing some research of my own, it appears that there may have been multiple seismic events in the Mediterranean in the 4th century. Unless scholarly work exists supporting exactly what you write, don't write it.--Tataryn (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Even if there was a devastating tsunami along the whole African coast in the mid-4th century..." and there you go. Denial of a major event. Please tell me why you are skeptical that the tsunami actually happened. Where is the evidence to that effect. Why is the archeology wrong?Ericl (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't deny there was an earthquake/tsunami. The important thing you need to take away from all this is you can only make additions based on scholarly work. National Geographic slideshows don't count. An undergrad thesis doesn't count. Click-bait websites don't count. Find a scholarly work supporting your additions, and THEN add to wikipedia. Not the other way around. You initially wrote a completely uncited paragraph describing the death of "untold millions" in Africa and only scraped up sub-par sources once you encountered opposition. That is not the proper mindset of an editor here on wikipedia.--Tataryn (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That a catastrophe occurred near the center of the earthquake along the Greek coast and islands is a documented fact. How far this wave was still destructive is not - "destroyed North Africa"? I think not. There might have been some damage along the coasts closest to Crete. An a very strong RS would be needed for the article.50.111.3.227 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fall of the Western Roman Empire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing this for GA. -- llywrch (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not posting my GA review sooner, but I needed to take the time to write it concisely & less profusely. This is an important, & complex, topic & deserves more than a scatter of notes & comments.

To repeat myself, this is a complex topic. The topic of the Fall of the Roman Empire has attracted a large bibliography, & it would take years to master even a sizable chunk of it. Getting this article to B class -- which I believe it currently is -- took a lot of hard work; getting it to GA class would take a lot more hard work. (IMHO, getting it to FA class would require a graduate-level effort; anyone doing that would be justified in thinking she/he deserves a Master's or Doctorate in Classical studies.)

In terms of the GA criteria, it is stable, well-written & organized, & I believe not biased to any one viewpoint. The footnotes need to be standardized: some are bare URLS, in one case the URL links to the entire footnote, some need to be put into proper bibliographical format, & two citations of MacMullen's Corruption and the fall of Rome need page numbers. (Yes, I know that's not necessary for GA, but having read that book, page numbers are badly needed to verify any assertion based on it.) There are a few spots where assertions need citations, but I'm not marking these until after you decide what should be the next step.

The primary problem with this article is that I don't know what your intent was: was it to tell the story the Fall of Rome alone -- without any explanation -- or to provide an explanation why it fell? If the first, then it makes sense to include events before the 4th century, & show how the Roman Empire weathered & evolved from the Crisis of that century, but then parts of this article should be cut & the reader pointed to the article Historiography of the fall of the Roman Empire. If it is the latter, far too often you mention critical events but fail to explain why they led to the fall of the WRE. For example, in the section "Height of power, crises, and recoveries > The Crisis of the Third Century" you write: "Under Gallienus the Senatorial aristocracy ceased to provide senior military commanders" -- What is the point of this development? From my own reading & research, this has a number of implications: the army lost connection with the wider society, the land-owning aristocracy grew indolent & interested in only its own short-term gains, & so on. But these are opinions of experts who need to be identified & their reasoning explained.

(There are more of these, but I'll wait to see what your response is before pointing them out.)

What I think would help here is if you were to explain near the beginning what this article is intended to cover. In its present form, I'd say it's about the fall of the institution of the WRE -- the government & its politicians -- not the society or economy of the WRE. (At least for me, the title "Fall of the Western Roman Empire" evokes an apocalyptic event, leading to mass dislocation, chronic famine, & social collapse, as well as governmental failure. Covering all of that in one article would be too onerous of a burden for any Wikipedian, & a pain to maintain against the usual kooks, vandals, & clueless amateurs looking to add information badly remembered from school or watching tv.) What you've covered is perfectly fine. But explaining the limits of this article would help both the reader, & anyone working on this article to keeping it focused & organized.

I am going to state that, even limiting this article to an account of the institution, there are a couple of omissions when it comes to the fifth century. That's not surprising: the information is fragmented in a lot of specialized or out-of-print sources, making it difficult for people to get ahold of. If we talk about the fall of the institution, then the matter of the Emperor & the evolution of his office is paramount. Diocletian's major innovation with his Tetrarchy was to introduce the idea of collegiate emperors. Until his reign, the concept of a Roman Emperor was that there was only one. After Diocletian, & to the end of the Byzantine Empire (the logical evolution of the Roman Empire) there are often more than one emperor in power; the one actually in control was considered the senior emperor, who could promote or demote the other emperors. Thus at the start of the fifth century, Honorius & Arcadius were colleagues, & when one died, the other became sole ruler of the entire empire -- which is what happened when Honorius died without an heir: Arcadius's successor, Theodosius II became sole ruler, & thru him a lawful successor for Honorius was appointed. However, when Theodosius II died in 450, the emperor of the WRE -- the rights of Valentinian III were ignored in the East. (This is discussed by Stewart Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta (Chicago: University Press, 1968), pp. 293ff.) That was the point where there is no doubt two empires existed in fact.

As is well known, after Valentinian III the office of emperor in the WRE fluctuated from a figurehead to a position with real power & back. Some of these emperors were recognized in the East; some were not. So it proceeded to the day that Odoacer deposed Augustulus Remulus. Now, some write that at the moment Augustulus was deposed, the WRE came to an end. Actually, it came to an end slightly after that. Odoacer could have appointed his own puppet emperor, even after a lengthy interregnum: there was one of a few years after Libius Severus, & another of several months after Olybrius. Instead, the WRE ended when Odoacer sent the Imperial insignia to Constantinople, accompanied with a message he had the Senate write that "they had no need of a separate empire but that a single common emperor would be sufficient for both territories". (Malachus, fr. 10; trans. by C.D. Gordon, The Age of Attila: Fifth Century Byzantium and the Barbarians (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1966), p. 127) This is an important point, because over the following centuries, even before Justinian's campaign to recover the WRE, the emperors at Constantinople exerted a limited hegemony over the territories that had been the WRE. The local kings eagerly received titles from Constantinople (I can cull examples from Bede & Gregory of Tours); they were also the protectors of the Pope, & thru him could influence events to a degree; & occasionally (yes, very occasionally!) the emperors at Constantinople directly intervened. This was based on the theory that the Roman Emperor was a universal emperor, above all kings in rank, which the Byzantines clung to even in the dismal age of the Palaiologians -- although it was challenged by the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor on Christmas Day, 800. (George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, translated by Joan Hussey (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957), pp. 162-165)

I hope you read what I just wrote not as an attempt to rewrite the article in my own image, but as one example of how complex this topic is -- even if limited to covering only the institution. Even if you ignore those paragraphs -- which you have full right to -- as the article stands you fail to discuss the issue of a lack of manpower. Following the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Adrianople, the WRE was unable to rebuild its military machine. This alone likely led to the failed state of the fifth century, & can be discussed without digressions into culture, religion, economics, or how much pwoer the Roman Emperor had. This rebuilding had been something it had done after many earlier disasters. I know experts have investigated why this was; that needs including.

Let me know where you want to go from here with this article. If you need help with research, I'd be happy to assist you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch, many thanks for your careful consideration. You have expressed the thoughts in the back of my mind when I was writing the article, and I look forward to your help in improving it. I wrote the article on a framework, which I left implicit, and I wonder if it would help to make that explicit. Perhaps a rewrite of the lede would be the first step. I'll have a go in my sandbox. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

After an exchange of messages, I've learned the submitter won't have time to promptly work on this article, so I am failing it, without prejudice. I look forward to working with Richard in the future on this & other articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"They celebrated their agreement with a banquet of reconciliation, at which Theodoric's men murdered Odoacer's, and Theodoric personally cut Odoacer in half."

Peoples, what sentence is this??? :D Even if it is true, it's too dense, completely wrong style. It basically seemms to be a joke. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.132 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good faith edit reverted

I made a small edition to the introduction which I believe clarifies, corrects and expands the subject of the article. Unfortunately this has been reverted without any explanation. My proposed edit reads:

"The Fall of the Western Roman Empire, usually known as the Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of Rome, refers to the process and period of decline of the Western Roman Empire, starting around the 5th century AD, in which it failed to enforce its rule, slowly loosing control over its vast territory around the Western Mediterranean, which was ultimately divided into numerous successor polities."

I believe this is an improvement over the current wording for the following reasons: 1) the subject is commonly known as the "Fall of the Roman Empire", thus "usually known", not merely "also known". 2) This is not just a "period" but a historical "process" (the events, circumstances and forces which led to the decline of the empire), thus the inclusion of the word in the sentence. 3) I have added the adverb "slowly" before "loosing control over the territory" as the process was clearly a gradual one. 4) I have added the time (5th century AD) and the geographical space (around the Western Mediterranean) in which this took place, both of which add basic information to the introduction. If this is not accepted, the least the reverting editor could do is explain why. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fortis est Veritas, and apologies, I don't doubt your good faith. My eye was caught by the change from CE to AD, and I may have reverted per WP:ERA but in haste. At this diff, we had

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire (also called Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of Rome) was the period of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into numerous successor polities.

replaced by

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire, usually known as the Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of Rome, refers to the process and period of decline of the Western Roman Empire, starting around the 5th century AD, in which it failed to enforce its rule, slowly loosing control over its vast territory around the Western Mediterranean, which was ultimately divided into numerous successor polities.

"Usually known" is disputable and discussions have disputed it. The "also" wording is acceptable to everyone, including those who feel that the Byzantine period is best described as simply the later or eastern Roman Empire. I'd prefer to keep it.

"Process" - OK, but I can't see that it adds much, and in ledes one strives for brevity.

"starting around the 5th century AD" again is highly disputable and in any case covered more defensibly later in the lede, and of course at length in the body.

"slowly loosing control over its vast territory around the Western Mediterranean" I think you meant "losing", a trivial point. If anyone doesn't know that the Western Roman empire was pretty vast they have only to look at any of the maps, and the Empire also lost control over Noricum, northern Gaul, Britannia, and so on, not really around any part of the Western Mediterranean.

Anyway, I think it's better as it is. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't much care about the rest, but "process" is obviously better than "period." The Fifth Century CE was a period. The fall of the Roman Empire was a process, because it's describing something that happened, not simply the period of time in which it happened. john k (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire (also called Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of Rome) was the process by which the Western Roman Empire failed to enforce its rule and its vast territory was divided into numerous successor polities. john k (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

An interesting thought, though periodization is the way that history is conventionally divided up. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? That's just total gobbledygook. The point isn't that a historical period isn't a thing. The Late Roman Empire is a period. The Fall of the Roman Empire is not a historical period. It's a historical process or a historical event, depending on how you want to define it. john k (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (including the spelling correction). See below my response to the individial points.

• First, I agree with john k that the fall of the empire is primarily an event, or process which took place over a period of time, not simply a "period".
• It is usually known as the "Fall of the Roman Empire" or "Fall of Rome" as can be seen in an ovelwheming number of references starting with Edward Gibbon who first coined it in his 1776 book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Most books and articles use that term. See this book: [1], this one [2], this one [3], and this one [4]. See also these articles: [5], [6], [7] and this [8]. There is even a movie called "The Fall of the Roman Empire" [9]]. These expressions are much more frequent than "The Fall of the Western Roman Empire".
• The lede should say the what, the where, the when and if possible, the how. "Starting around the 5th century AD" tells you the when and is fairly accurate as the article itself explains. And "the Western Mediterranean" is in fact the territory which the "fall" is referring to.
• I can accept not including "slowly losing control" over the territory, though I think the expression helps visualize the process.

Thanks again, Fortis est Veritas (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The "process" is indeed a good word, but "period" is how it's usually described... OK, maybe try it and see what others think?

Our present title is accurate and unambiguous, unlike the others. It avoids the Western bias of Gibbon and so many of his followers. To be fair to Gibbon, whom I admire immensely, he only had physical access to the Western half. I suggest that a wide consensus would be wise before we change the title.

Timing is controversial, and the second paragraph of the lede already presents the matter in an academically- defensible way. "Starting around the 5th century" begs almost all of the relevant academic questions and I can't see it as defensible.

The relevant territory includes a great deal more than the area around the Western Mediterranean. Really, a lot more. A map of the area lost between, say, 376 and 476 wouldn't hurt though. I'm not good with such things, and I'm none too sure of the actual edge of Roman control at either date - quite possibly, nobody was very sure at the time either. Do you fancy doing such a map?

"slowly losing control" - implied by all the dates mentioned, and might possibly imply a steady progression rather than the actual jerky process. I don't like it and I'd leave it out for brevity even if I mildly liked it, but if there's a consensus to include it, fine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the basis for your claim that it is usually described as a period? You can't just make assertions like that without any citation. john k (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

History is normally divided into periods, and a quick Google search will confirm that. But indeed, the process of the fall has been and can reasonably be described as such. I've just made the change. We'll find out what others think. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That history is described as falling into periods doesn't mean that any historical subject is also a historical period, or is normally described that way, which is what you said before. I'm glad you've made the change, though. john k (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm quite late to this, but it's really worth mentioning two things, in regard to the "Fall of the Roman Empire." While Gibbon did coin the phrase, or at least popularize it, it's really worth looking in to the scope of his books. I don't know what the abridged version is like, but the unabridged version goes straight through the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and in to the papacy, the Eastern Roman Empire, and finally goes in to the Ottomans. It's been a long time since I read it, but I believe the West is finished off in book III, out of VI. The other thing worth mentioning is that it's really hard to place a fixed date for the end of the empire as a whole. Who the last Roman Emperor was is fiercely debated. Some say Romulus Augustus, others Justinian, others Arcadius and Honorius, and still others Heraclius; I even have a copy of Ammianus Marcellinus next to me, and the editor says Theodosius II was the last. From a strength standpoint too, the Roman Empire under Maurice was as strong as it had been for centuries, it had what would have been lasting peace in the East, the barbarians north of the Danube were mostly subdued, there were problems with the Langobards, but it was stable, and the raiding largely stopped... until phokas that is. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

The matter of who the last Roman emperor was is debated, because there is an unbroken line of emperors until the 15th century. Most ideas about the "last one" pick one of them and determine that his successor somehow ruled a different state. The line between them tends to be artificial.

As for Gibbon's book on the topic:

• Chapter I, Volume I covers the extent of the Roman Empire during the reign of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty.
• Chapter II covers the internal prosperity of the Empire during the reign of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.
• Chapter III covers the constitution and political system of the Empire during the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.
• Chapter IV covers the personality flaws of Marcus Aurelius, the reign of Commodus, the assassination of Commodus, the rise of Pertinax to the throne, Pertinax's reign, and the assassination of Pertinax.
• Chapter V covers the Praetorian Guard selling the throne to Didius Julianus, the reign of Julianus, the revolts of Clodius Albinus, Pescennius Niger, and Septimius Severus, the civil war, the deposition and assassination of Julianus, the rise of Severus to the throne, Severus' victory over Niger and Albinus, the deaths of the rival emperors, and the start of the reign of Severus. Gibbon accuses Severus of being "the principal author of the decline of the Roman empire".
• Chapter VI covers the marriage of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, the births of their sons Caracalla and Geta, the rivalry of the two sons and their proclamation as co-emperors by their father, the Roman invasion of Caledonia, the illness and death of Severus, the assassination of Geta, the reign of Caracalla as sole emperor, the assassination of Caracalla, the rise of Macrinus to the throne, the proclamation of Diadumenian as co-emperor, the reign of Macrinus, the revolt of Elagabalus, the civil war and the consequent assassinations of Macrinus and Diadumenian, the rise of Elagabalus to the throne and his reign, the assassination of Elagabalus, the rise to the throne of Severus Alexander and his reign.
• Chapter VII covers the assassination of Severus Alexander during a military revolt, the rise to the throne of Maximinus Thrax and his reign, the revolt of Gordian I and the proclamation of Gordian II as co-emperor, the death of Gordian II in battle, the suicide of Gordian I, the revolt of Pupienus and Balbinus, the proclamation of Gordian III as their Caesar, the subsequent civil war, the assassination of Maximinus, unrest and conflict under the reign of Pupienus and Balbinus, the assassinations of Pupienus and Balbinus, the proclamation of Gordian III as sole emperor and his reign, the campaign of Gordian III in the Roman–Persian Wars, the assassination of Gordian III, the rise to the throne of Philip the Arab and the start of his reign.
• Chapter VIII covers the enemies of the Roman Empire, primarily the Sasanian Empire and its situation.
• Chapter IX also covers enemies of the Empire, primarily covering the situation in Germania and the Germanic peoples.
• Chapter X covers a civil war between Philip the Arab and Decius, the death of Philip, the victory and reign of Decius, the conflict between Decius and the Goths, Decius' death in battle, the rise of Hostilian to the throne, the proclamation of Trebonianus Gallus as co-emperor, the suspicious death of Hostilian, a civil war between Gallus and Aemilianus, the assassinations of Gallus and Volusianus, a civil war between Aemilianus and Valerian, the assassination of Aemilianus, the reign of Valerian and proclamation of Gallienus as co-emperor, the wars and invasions the Empire faced under the two emperors, the defeat of Valerian in battle and his life in captivity, the reign of Gallienus as sole emperor, and the constant revolts of usurpers against Gallienus.
• Chapter XI covers the assassination of Gallienus, the rise of Claudius Gothicus to the throne, Claudius' victory over the Goths, Claudius' death due to a pestilence, the rise of Quintillus to the throne and his suicide, the rise of Aurelian to the throne, Aurelian's campaigns and victories, his reunification of the Empire, and the assassination of Aurelian.
• Chapter XII covers events following the assassination of Aurelian and a dispute over who had the right to choose his successor, the rise of Tacitus to the throne, the reign and political reforms of Tacitus, the political strengthening of the Roman Senate, Tacitus' war against the Alans and his death, the rise of Florianus to the throne, a civil war between Florianus and Marcus Aurelius Probus, the assassination of Florianus, the reign of Probus and his military campaigns, the failed revolts of various usurpers (Julius Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus), a failed revolt of the gladiators in the city of Rome, public works under the command of Probus and use of the army as a labor force, the assassination of Probus, the rise of Carus to the throne, a new decline in the power of the Roman Senate, the proclamation of Carinus and Numerian as Caesars, the campaign of Carus in the Roman–Persian Wars, the death of Carus during a storm, the proclamation of Carinus and Numerian as co-emperors, Numerian's retreat from the war, the reign of Carinus, the death of Numerian and the secrecy surrounding it, the revolt of Diocletian, a civil war between Carinus and Diocletian, and the assassination of Carinus. Leaving Diocletian the sole emperor.
• Chapter XIII covers the reign of Diocletian, who Gibbon praises "as the founder of a new empire", the proclamation of Maximian as first Caesar and then co-emperor, the creation of the Tetrarchy, the proclamation of Galerius and Constantius Chlorus as Caesars, the insurrection and suppression of the Bagaudae, the revolt of Carausius and his reign, the assassination of Carausius and his replacement with Allectus, Allectus' death in combat and suppression of his revolt, the revolt of Sabinus Julianus, the revolt of Achilleus, the suppression of revolts in North Africa, a mass destruction of books of alchemy by orders of Diocletian, a new phase in the Roman–Persian Wars, the decision of the emperors to move their seats of power away from the city of Rome, the new seats of power in Milan and Nicomedia, measures to further reduce the power of the Roman Senate and the Praetorian Guard (and their exclusion from the new imperial courts), the creation of the Jovians and Herculians as the new imperial guard, the new imperial title of Dominus and changes in the power of the imperial office, a gradual dissolution in the political union of the Empire, which would lead to the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire, the rise of expenses needed to maintain the royal courts and the new administrative system, the decision of Diocletian to voluntary abdicate the throne after a reign of 20 years, the abdication of the throne by Maximian, and the life of Diocletian in retirement and his reported suicide. Gibbon also attributes a decline in the arts and sciences of the Roman Empire to the disinterest of Diocletian and his co-rulers in providing patronage.

I agree that the line is somewhat artificial, but it certainly wasn't unbroken. I mean 1204-1261 is a pretty big break. Then you have the Crisis of the Third Century that is another pretty big break. Along with other events like the year of four emperors. Anyhow, not quite sure what you're getting at by breaking listing the summary of Book I of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

I am trying to summarize what Gibbon actually covers, and what arguments he uses. Anyway, I have taken a break from the Project. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Recycling of Buildings

Recycling former buildings was a common practice up until... modern times. In the antiquity this practice was quite common, look at the Arch of Constantine. The phrase concerning Julian's reign stating, "some Christians even being compelled to make restitution for pagan property stolen or destroyed," is highly suspect. 1. I know the source, because I've read this before; it's Gibbon, who is a delightful read, has great theories, has done his homework, and also has a very clear argument to move forward, biasing him in this perspective. 2. Classical paganism was well on its way out it was being replaced by three comparatively new religions (I'm cognizant of others mainly minor), the worship of Isis, Sol Invictus, and Christianity. Christians, and members of the cults of Isis, and Sol Invictus didn't magically spring up out of the ground, they were former pagans. Gibbon wants to portray Julian in an entirely different light, some of which I agree with, but this quote that is used gives the entire sense that Christians were persecuting classical pagans. Now did this happen? Yeah, but what also happened is people who used to pray at the temple of Demeter for instance, now prayed at Churches, and as the temples fell in to disuse they were used for other temples of Sol Invictus, Isis, or Churches, which this completely misses. You may say I deal mostly with the temples, but that's because the source follows Gibbon, and paraphrases his argument poorly. If it's decided that this should be kept I think a different source is needed, but honestly I feel the best thing is to just delete this sentence. Julian may well have been a decent emperor, and there are other more historically accurate ways of conveying this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for discussing your point. Under Christian emperors, temples (and synagogues) etc were routinely destroyed or plundered with impunity by Christians - there's more information from the East, but Martin of Tours would be the classic example in the West. It's not normally labelled persecution, but of course falls within any obvious definition, and it was a major mechanism of the conversion. Under Julian, i.e. very briefly, the impunity no longer applied. We do need a reference though, and possibly a clearer description of the main point. I'll have a look this evening. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

At this edit I have tried to make the main points more clearly, with a modern reference. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to clean up the paragraph a bit, it goes from taxation in Gaul, to religious strife, back to taxation in Gaul, which is a considerable amount of territory to cover. I'll start once I've finished my second cup of coffee; I'm pretty useless until that point. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

I look forward to your ideas. I've removed the second mention of taxation, as possible OR and also difficult to find a good place for. A pity, since power loss is the main theme of this article, but perhaps the indisputable fact as presented by Ammianus will be sufficient. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's quite strange, the fall of the west when you think of it. All roads lead to Rome, I know. But if the year were 392, and I knew one half would fall, I'd say it'd be the east because you have the Steppe Tribes coming from... well the Steppe of course, attacking through the Balkans, and the Sassanian Empire, which waned and waxed of course, but was still exerting a ton of pressure on that massive eastern border in the Near East. The Western Empire had the German Borders, which relatively speaking, are so much smaller, and were occupied by less technologically advanced cultures. Then if you look at that as areas easily susceptible to raiding, the East really pales in comparison, for the west Italy was relatively safe, as was Hispania, the islands, and the very rich African provinces.

It's also interesting to view the fall of the West through the lens of the perseverance of the East, because while they certainly weren't both equal, it gives a perspective lens to view how policies worked in the long run, and short; a big one despised by Gibbons, but clearly probably the Easts biggest asset was their ability to buy off enemies, and thus choose battles more on their own terms. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

I find history interesting in general, the Romans in particular, and the fall quite fascinating. Yes, while the West lost its major source of taxation and food when the Vandals took the diocese of Africa, the East hung on to Egypt and the Levant and could therefore still raise money. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Made some edits, mainly moving stuff around, added a bit about the Sassanid campaign. Also that Jovian was elected by the army, which I figure is important because the roll of the army in politics definitely aided the decline. I hope you don't mind, I switched the names from the Latin to the Anglicized spelling, so Julianus->Julian Jovianus->Jovian, the reason being is that at least with the publications I'm familiar with they tend toward the nixing of the -us (Of course not in all cases by Caesar's wars would be hilarious with Juli, instead of Caesar). Also deleted this sentence: "The gods had protected Rome for centuries, but their role was transferred to the Christian god with surprising ease." It's kind of strange, and also seems highly rhetorical. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

Jovianus elected? Mmm, acclaimed in desperation and confusion would be more like it. And the role of the army had been central since the days of Sulla! I'd be inclined to remove the comment about "election".

Taking off -us endings - OK, a matter of taste I suppose. I'd keep them myself, but I shan't argue.

Maybe the sentence you removed - it's close to what the source says - isn't the best to illustrate the issues about religious change. I'll try to think of a better one. The fact is, the protests about abandoning the sacred rituals of more than a millennium are barely recorded, a few polite comments from one senator. I think that's worth remarking on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Put the -us's back. With the election comment, I realize in hindsight in doesn't come off as intended. I was thinking more along the line as to how in some ways the Roman army became the state. I mean the capital moves from Rome to Milan then Ravenna, effectively alienating the Roman people, many of the emperors are no longer Roman, Rome itself goes from the imperial city, to a taxed city like any other (Constantine), and during all this the army which was one of the few institutions that didn't decay significantly during the Crisis of the Third Century really became the right to rule, which became a primary reason for the constant civil wars. Jovian getting proclaimed by the army emperor is not surprising because of the history, but in a stable monarchy like England, if Prince Charles was proclaimed king by the army and dethroned the Queen this would be simply beyond comprehension.

It is amazing isn't it? I mean the strongest argument against Agathias (530pC-582/594) not being a classical pagan is that just really wasn't around any more. It's also interesting if you look at it compared with the rise of the Caliphate. It's roughly 1300 years since the Caliphate took Egypt, but ~10% of Egypt's population is still Christian, and going strong vs. in Agathias' case 200 years since Constantine's Edict in 313, which merely made Christianity tolerated. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

Thanks.

Several things were different between the two religious cases. One was that pagans (occasional, generally-unenthusiastic persecutions notwithstanding) were usually far more tolerant than any monotheists and often didn't really mind turning up to church. One recalls Philip the Arab's interest in Christianity, Severus Alexander's image of Jesus in his personal pantheon, and Augustine's parishioners, under threat from the Vandals, crying "if only we worshipped the gods still". Fanatical converts these weren't. And, by the time of Theodosius, non-orthodox Christians and pagan cults were subject to far more effective discouragement and violence than had ever been applied to Christians. Another is the way that the Church became what's been described as a "full-service religion" with interesting local saints' cults and rituals, many quietly absorbed from the local pagan equivalents. This made it very easy to go along with a "Christian" crowd, with what we'd regard as conversion happening over a couple of generations rather than instantly. That has happened to a much lesser extent, and much more slowly, in Islam, which has a much simpler holy book and simpler theology in general, and in theory a protected place for Christians and Jews. (Pagans generally had to convert or die of course.) Anyway, that's peripheral to power loss, the theme of this article. But I do think it's interesting. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to compare the nature of persecutions though, they were particularly bad during the end of Marcus Aurelius' reign, there is of course the famous letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, and then the infamous persecutions of the short reigned Emperor Decius. But the problem that continually pops up is the lack of Primary Sources, especially for this time period. I mean, information about Trajan, one of Rome's most beloved emperors is incredibly scant, and so information on the day to day lives of the people is even harder. One of the best sources remaining is the Historia Augusta which is a notoriously treacherous work (and technically speaking, not a primary source), which is also now considered by some to have been a comedy; which in a way is kind of hilarious. The other problem of course is the climate, I have some incredible letters (not the originals of course) from Ptolemaic Egypt concerning day to day life (a particularly brilliant one is written in Greek, complaining to the local magistrate that the author is discriminated upon for not being able to speak Greek; meaning that for the letter he had to find someone who could write Greek) but these survive because of the climate. The sources pick back up again in the early Byzantine empire, Procopius, Agathias, Theophylact, Zosimus, John Malalas etc. which is why I prefer that time period and area. Anyhow at this point I'm rambling and procrastinating because the book I'm reading is incredibly dull; The Bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius; 380 pages with a couple of historical digressions and repeating essentially the same point over and over again. It's also worth mentioning the roll of the Church in the empire, it fulfilled a lot of the duties that a modern day Government does, such as hospitals, which is why Julian tried to stop this by introducing more state run services. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am late in this discussion, but I think its scope goes a bit further than the subject of the article.

• "Classical paganism" in the Roman Empires,as you call it, was never really a unified religion and not static in nature. It included various cults and deities inherited from the many cultures of the Greco-Roman world. Traditional cults may have in time become irrelevant to Roman culture. Cults of Cybele, Isis, Mithras, and Sol Invictus were mostly Eastern in origin and grew in popularity over the centuries. Some of the "pagan" practices of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries may well have been foreign to what a typical Roman of the 1st century BC and 1st century AD would believe.
• Persecution by Christian emperors played a large role in the conversion of Romans to various versions of Christianity. But the decline of paganism was a gradual process. The articles on Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire and anti-paganism policies in the early Byzantine Empire point to various anti-pagan laws, policies, and campaigns dating from the 320s to the 470s. Yet some pagans remained in influential posts. For example Messius Phoebus Severus played a role in an attempt at pagan revival in the 470s and the revolutionary Pamprepius represented the pagan community in the 480s. The Platonic Academy, the center of "pagan" Neoplatonism, did not close until the persecutions of Justinian I in the 530s. Byzantine officials Anatolius and Acindynus were executed as pagans during religious persecutions of the 570s and 580s. Crypto-paganism in the Byzantine Empire, the secret survival of paganism, seems to have played a role until the end of the 6th century.
• The Roman and Byzantine armies played a role in the rise and fall of emperors and entire dynasties throughout the history of the Empire. The first Emperor to rise to the throne through a military coup was likely Claudius in 41. He was the favored candidate of the Praetorian Guard who managed to elevate him to the throne despite the objections of the Roman Senate. Many emperors both before and after Jovian were elevated to power because of the Army. What would be the difference in mentioning only him?
• The problem with the primary sources for Antiquity is that many of them did not survive the Middle Ages, some of them survived in incomplete form, and others were probably altered by copyists. For example the history of Ammianus Marcellinus reportedly covered the entire history of the Empire from 96 to 378, but only a small section covering the years 353 to 378 survives. The surviving version of Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus seems to include two references to Jesus, but the suspiciously Christian language used suggests that the original text was expanded and/or altered by Christian copyists and editors. This is not unique to historical works, however. Euripides reportedly wrote 92 or 95 theatrical works in a relatively lengthy career, but only 19 have survived. These 19 include Rhesus, a work whose authorship has long been disputed. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Romans omnes nos

Anno millesimo sexcentesimo sumus obnoxii Western cultu totius Romani dixere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Late Roman Empire" redirect (and page?) needed

"Late Roman Empire" wrongly redirects to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That is a specific article about HISTORIOGRAPHY, and about the FALL, which is arguably only the last phase of the LRE. The LRE has NO DEFINITION on Wikipedia, let alone a page of its own. Anyone willing to fix this? And to affix the automatic redirect to either this article here, or much rather to History of the Roman Empire? This at least until a LRE page is created. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable omissions

This article seems almost entirely concerned with symptoms rather than the root causes of the decline. I'm surprised to see no mention here of the following important factors:

• Hyperinflation via decreasing the silver content of the Denarius repeatedly.
• Exponential increase in dependency on the grain dole.
• Exponential increase in taxes (going well past the peak on the laffer curve).
• Combining 2&3 produces dysgenic fertility.
• Dysgenic immigration (pulled by the dole)

71.177.96.139 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources that identify an academic consensus, backed up with historical statistics, that these phenomena are useful analyses of important reasons for the decline. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

GIF

The Roman empire GIF is grossly incorrect for Portugal.--Pedro (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Han Dynasty and Great Unity

Presumably due to edits the link to Great Unity is now meaningless. I don't have the knowledge to re-create it. I amended the article in order to bring this to a knowledgeable editor's attention and my amendment was bot-deleted. Which may be 'how the system works' but is pretty unhelpful when a major/medium hiccup is found. 86.150.22.93 (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC) JK

I've re-written the sentence. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fall of the Western Roman Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316232650/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

-Expansion on Legacy- The section of the page on questioning whether or not the Roman Empire truly dissolved to the degree we believe it did deserves more space. This seems like an area that is worth exploring more especially in the context of the relevance the culture of Rome still has today, as its influence is seen in many places in contemporary society. Pkilkenny1998 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Better at Legacy of the Roman Empire I'd suggest. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Morris Footnote

Footnote #8 notes a work by Morris, but the name appears nowhere else on the page. BooksXYZ (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

sfn template not working in this article

Everywhere there is an template:sfn it produces a broken link. Anyone know how to fix that? I tried but nothing seems to work. Dream Focus 06:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cultural decay

It is an enigma to me why purporters of a "transition" instead of a "fall" of Rome center so much on economy or religious questions - instead of looking at the obvious: the demise of architecture, of the general standard of life, of literature and arts, of culture in general. All of which seems extremely difficult to ignore giving the archeological and literary facts. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any article on the loss of books in "late antiquity" in the english Wiki (there is one in the german version "Bücherverluste in der Spätantike"). Could this be an offspring of political correctness? Later in this discussion somebody takes offense at the word "barbarians" for the germanic peoples attacking Rome. Is the (relatively) new fashion of portraying the fall of Roman culture as merely a "transition" an attempt at depicting these peoples in a more sympathetic way? Or of assigning equal value to all cultures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:34DD:57A0:BCC6:823B:5EE4:2360 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The theme of this article is the loss of power, and I'm not aware of any serious argument - nor do I see one in the Deutsch wiki [10] - that the loss of literature led to any loss of power. I'd guess that the loss of elite classical culture is seen, at least in the English-language literature, as a result rather than a major cause of the loss of political control (and a result of Christian disinterest in copying pagan literature). So, no, I don't think that our concentration on political, economic, religious, military arguments has anything to do with excessive political correctness. It is simply that these aspects are seen as the causes of the Fall. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"the demise of architecture, of the general standard of life, of literature and arts"

But we don't have any such demise. Romanesque architecture is in development from the 6th to the 11th century. The Basilica of San Vitale (547) build by the Ostrogoths and maintained by the Byzantine Empire served as a template for later buildings.

In literature, the 6th century includes the works of many writers. Among them Joannes Maxentius, Theodorus Lector, Barsanuphius of Palestine, Agapetus, Paul the Silentiary, Eutychius of Constantinople, Evagrius Scholasticus, Eulogius of Alexandria, Simeon Stylites the Younger, Procopius, Pope Gregory I, Gregory of Tours, Jordanes, Boethius, and Agathias. The writers include historians, poets, theologians, and mythographers.

6th-century art includes beautiful works such as the Antioch chalice, the Archangel ivory, the Barberini ivory, and the Worcester Hunt Mosaic. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Much of what you state did not take place until a somewhat lengthy interregnum between the fall of the West Roman Empire and a gradual rise in the civilization of the following barbarian states. Also, it is noted that upkeep of buildings, bridges, roads, aqueducts had been going on for some time. Grass and weeds were growing in the Forum Romanum when Augustulus died.50.111.3.227 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the loss of culture idea is a load of bullocks. I've heard it a lot. I studied Latin and Greek in the University, and there is a very specific time period that gets pointed too when it comes to literature which is essentially from Terence to Ovid, Plutarch if you include Greek and after that you'd swear that Latin ceased to be spoken, and the effeminate Greeks gave in to their vices. Which kind of follows this Nietzchean/Sallustian idea of the Noble Blond Beast/Noble Stoic Roman gradually corrupted by eastern decadence. But the fact of the matter is that there are brilliant pieces of art from extending far from the so called Golden Age, one of the most influential works of Classical Latin was written after the Fall which of course is the Consolation of Philosophy, which is also one of the oldest extent works in Old English (a translation of course). This also puts undue emphasis on Latin, the empire spoke many languages. Syriac literature for instance flourished in the late West-Roman Empire with writers such as Ephrem the Syrian. Also from the east Procopius who carried on the Greek History, leading all the way through to the Alexiad by Anna Komnene. Continuing on this a young Italian from Florence named Dante, carried on the torch from Petrarch, and wrote beautiful Eclogues in Classical Latin as well as his magnum opus the Divine Comedy in Florentine. So this idea of a cultural decay is nonsense. Things changed, without a doubt, but that's certainly not to say that great art was destroyed never again to be repeated. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Simpson

By Stephen Simpson

The business cycle is the pattern of expansion, contraction and recovery in the economy. Generally speaking, the business cycle is measured and tracked in terms of GDP and unemployment – GDP rises and unemployment shrinks during expansion phases, while reversing in periods of recession. Wherever one starts in the cycle, the economy is observed to go through four periods – expansion, peak, contraction and trough.

Recession is typically used to mean a downturn in economic activity, but most economists use a specific definition of "two consecutive quarters of declining real GDP" for recession. By comparison, there is no formal definition of depression. While recessions have averaged around 10 months in length since the 1950s, the recovery/expansion phases have a much wider range of lengths, though around three years is relatively common.

The movement of the economy through business cycles also highlights certain economic relationships. While growth will rise and fall with cycles, there is a long-term trend line for growth; when economic growth is above the trend line, unemployment usually falls. One expression of this relationship is Okun's Law, an equation that holds that every 1% of GDP above trend equates to 0.5% less unemployment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levonterghazayryan (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Political correctness

Here again we see Wikipedia's suffocating political correctness using the terms CE and BCE instead of AD and BC, despite the fact that, at the time of the subject of this article, the Christian religion was officially fully recognised throughout the Empire. This political correctness always goes under the guise of 'respecting others' views' but actually, when one considers that CE and BCE are dated from the same event as AD and BC and can also stand for 'Christian Era' and 'Before the Christian Era', it is laughable logic and does nothing to respect the views of those who hold to established tradition. Established tradition should always trump politically correct fashion. No wonder this article has been locked.

Wikipedia does of course keep asking us for money. I will never donate not even one penny until this political correctness is abandoned and Wikipedia stands up for its western traditions, part of which is giving and sharing knowledge with the world. Who can imagine a site like Wikipedia originating in a country such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Please make the corrections to AD/BC on this page. Note this also happened at locations that were very important to the early church. Changing the dates from BC/AD is very offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:21F0:9466:6C0A:DCD4 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

New comments and sections go at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Anyway this is not a vote, anonymous IP. And the article was changed from Common Era to Anno Domini (not the other way around), and so was changed back per MOS:ERA. El_C 02:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The other advantage of using AD in this page is that it's much easier to understand. The other system makes no sense. This is a community of editors we should all have a say in helping to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:E402:A800:21F0:9466:6C0A:DCD4 (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The above points (excepting El_C's input) are horrendous nonsense. Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view based on verifiable and recent academic work - not "long established tradition", which has no necessary basis in truth. Being "very offensive" is not necessarily relevant to the wiki. As El_C said, this article should simply continue to use whatever dating convention it already uses as per the Manual of Style / Retaining Existing Styles guidelines. "Western tradition" is a nebulous concept: your use of it above is impossible to interpret coherently except as meaningless babbling rhetoric, and in any case, upholding "western tradition" is not necessarily the objective of Wikipedia if that conflicts with the presentation of topics as informed by recent evidence from a neutral point of view. The CE/BCE system "making no sense" is a non-argument. We should indeed all have a say, but that does not mean quackery will be accepted as wisdom. Please read and understand the Manual of Style before you suggest pointless petty edits in a manner that is most tempting for the production of ad hominem arguments against your collective zealotry, racism, imbecility, ignorance, and intolerance. Thank goodness this article is locked if it attracts such bizarrely medieval controversy. - M 194.42.67.220 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"the production of ad hominem arguments against your collective zealotry, racism, imbecility, ignorance, and intolerance" While I agree with much of what you are saying, tone down the language. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is also part of policy. Dimadick (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A fix for the ERA problems on this page.

In accordance with MOS:ERA "In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity" I have a fix for the ERA issues on this page. The dates that the events involving the fall of the Western Roman took place long enough after the year 0 that using the year only with no abbreviations is the best option to avoid offending either side of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgold81 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

Relevant dates include 117,

the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 marked the descent

Nickgold81 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. @Nickgold81: I've removed various header material, such as the hatnotes and maps from your comment, as all you've apparently done is copied the lead of the article here. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request about what exactly you want to add/remove/change/etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

"Relevant dates include 117 CE" change era to "Relevant dates include 117"

"emperor Commodus in 180 CE marked the descent" change era to "emperor Commodus in 180 marked the descent"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Republic_Empire_map.gif Change era to -510 to 530

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ancient_Rome_271_AD.svg Change era to 271

Reference my above suggestion for a solution to the ERA issues on this page; In accordance with MOS:ERA "In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity" I have a fix for the ERA issues on this page. The dates that the events involving the fall of the Western Roman took place long enough after the year 0 that using the year only with no abbreviations is the best option to avoid offending either side of the issue.

List of underlying proximal causes in the lede

A couple of editors have added "climate change" to the list of proximal causes of the Fall. Indeed, reliable sources do mention an enormous list of other factors, including climate change. I'm sure nobody would like to put in a complete list, even of the ideas with credible modern support. So, in the present lede we have a list, not of every idea that's been suggested, but of categories of strength that had allowed the Empire to subsist. The sentence has been reverted to:

"The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians mention factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the Emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration."

The main point about climate change, as one example, is that any effects it may have had on the Fall can be well described as working through the elements of strength that we do list. It might, for example, have had effects on the health and numbers of the population, and the effectiveness and numbers of the army. And, outside any effects on those strengths, it wouldn't have had much effect on the loss of political power that is the subject of this article. Similarly, pretty much everything else on Demandt's list, or any other, can conveniently be described as working through these elements of strength. This makes for a much tighter and more readable lede, while remaining conceptually comprehensive. Feel free of course to suggest alternative approaches, but please talk them through on this page first. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• We wouldn't want Wikipedia to be accused of Climate change denialism, and the consensus among scholars is that climate change played a major part in the fall, one might even say that it was the ultimate cause. The desertification of the northern coastal areas of Africa on one side, and the increasingly Ragnarök-like conditions in the north forcing tribes southwards are no small things. The other item I have seen mentioned is the Great Wall of China forcing tribes westward, could be in the list too. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a strong academic consensus for climate change as a major factor in the Fall, but I'm not disagreeing with the possibility. I repeat my point: we absolutely cannot write a readable article by including a list of all of even the reasonable possibilities in the lede. And, as you point out, the mechanisms you mention would have led to the Fall by impacting on the proximate factors that we do list. May I suggest that you prepare a short text on climate change, with a view to putting it in the body of the article? Possibly in or near the section presently entitled "Height of power, crises, and recoveries". Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You refer to Tony McMichael's admirable work. He was an eminent epidemiologist. But he is not a historian, nor has he convinced the historical community of his specific thesis about the Fall. Furthermore, to repeat, his ideas about underlying climate change would have their effect on the Fall via the proximate factors that we mention. The lede is an unsuitable place either for a indefinite list of underlying causes, or for an underlying cause that is still not quite in the academic mainstream. Please do draft something for the body of the text - you might also use The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, & the End of an Empire, by Kyle Harper, who is a historian - but this really isn't suitable for the lede. I have removed it - please find consensus before reinserting. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll add to the comment by @Abductive:. The population movement from the Nordic countries south had a large affect on the Roman Empire considering the repeated sacks/ pillaging in its later years. That destruction was caused by those Vikings who had left their homeland. Had the worsening winters not pushed them south, the destruction to Rome would likely not have happened. All I have to point anyone else toward is p786 in The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire edition I've been reading, (...probably not helpful until I add the publication information) it's a point to reference climate change. I'm remembering population numbers in there, too, but I am not at all sure as I type this (I'm sure I'll find the reference(s) in a few days). Liberty5651 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

...I'm busy for a while but will hope to draft a comment based on Kyle Harper's work when I can, then present it here. I will try to give a key fact or two, then some idea of what proximate factors could have been affected, with some estimate of the degree of certainty of the relationship. If anyone wants to pre-empt me, of course feel free. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources that say climate change was the cause of the Fall. Many are better than the top-of-Gooogle ref I added to the article. If anyone has a problem with the bare mention of climate change in the article lead, we could add a whole paragraph to the lead about it, and move the list of dependent economic reasons lower down into the article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This subject has a colossal literature, much of it claiming to have identified the cause of the Fall. We should limit ourselves to recent, mainstream, presentations by highly-respected academics. Even they will get only a couple of sentences for a lifetime's work. And a limited, but comprehensive list of proximate factors is probably the only practical way to present the issues in the lede. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so climate change will remain in the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The text I referenced the other day, p. 786, is in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume 3 by Edward Gibbon from The Modern Library edition Published by Random House Inc which does not seem to declare any publication date. More usefully the following quote is the seventh sentence (thankfully because I wouldn't be counting many more then a dozen sentences. lines, maybe, sentences, no) in chapter LXIX and that sentences' footnote.

"The name of Rome must yet command our involuntary respect: the climate (whatsoever may be its influence) was no longer the same:¹" ... "¹The abbé Dubos, who, with less genius than his successor Montesquieu, has asserted and magnified the influence of climate, objects to himself the degeneracy of the Romans and Batavians. To the first of these examples he replies, 1. That the change is less real than apparent, and that the modern Romans prudently conceal in themselves the virtues of their ancestors. 2. That the air, the soil, and the climate of Rome have suffered a great and visible alteration (Réflexions sur la Poësie et sur la Peinture , part ii. sect. 16)."

Beyond just that, Chapter LXXI (p. 863) describes "The injuries of time and nature." as one from four principal causes to the ruin of Rome. This cause is specific to Rome, the city. The description is half about the fires that destroyed parts from the city and half about inconsistent flooding that destroyed parts from the city after the first Punic war (c. 250BC), and in the reign of Augustus (c. 0 AD). Ironically: "A remedy was at length produced by the evil [flooding] itself: the accumulation of rubbish and the earth that has been washed down from the hills is supposed to have elevated the plain of Rome fourteen or fifteen feet, perhaps, above the ancient level; and the modern city is less accessible to the attacks of the river²°." ... "²°Yet in modern times times the Tiber has sometimes damaged the city, and in the years 1530, 1557, 1598, the Annals of Muratori record three mischievous and memorable inundations (tom. xiv. p. 268, 429; tom. xv. p. 99, etc)"

I was wrong in my previous (gossip) comments. The effects from climate change noted in this book that I have referenced weren't the Viking attacks, but were damage to the city by the river. The population charts I mentioned, I now think, were something I saw on Wikipedia.

Gibbon and others such as Montesquieu are generally best to be shied away from, Gibbon had a point to make, and while he's interesting he's not generally not the best source to use. Better to use more modern scholarship. I don't see anything wrong with including the work of non-historians, the plague, for instance, mentioned by Procopius that decimated the east was confirmed by scientists measuring methane levels in arctic ice samples (less people less cows, less cows less farting, less farting less methane). Anyhow, be that as it may, the source ought still be reputable. I've certainly heard the theory before of a miniature ice age in the middle ages. Whether it deserves a position in the lead I know not. Ultimately there were a slew of factors that lead to the fall of the western roman empire, not one specifically. Also hitherto climate's impact on the city of Rome is specifically mentioned, however Rome ceased to be the capital of the Roman Empire in the West, it was moved from Rome to Mediolanum and from Milan to Ravenna, the military was increasingly dominated by recruitment from frontier provinces, so that sounds pretty sketchy to me. If I had to sum it up, I'd place emphasis on the crisis of the third century, and the increasing dominance of the military in politics, as well as the gradual destruction of other societal ties particularly in the west. However going by that we could start this article with Sulla, which of course would be absurd. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: I am not an academic, so I've missed many opinions on history writers. What point was Gibbon trying to make? Liberty5651 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• "I've certainly heard the theory before of a miniature ice age in the middle ages." The Roman Warm Period supposedly ended c. 400 CE.

• "However going by that we could start this article with Sulla" A bit further back. To the Marian reforms (107 BC), which created a standing army and a social class of professional soldiers. The Roman Republic previously relied on short-term conscripts. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Land worn out by agriculture

I don't see here what seems an obvious, though possibly, minor cause: In most cases, with the possible exception of China, agriculture causes deterioration of the lands suitability for agriculture. I have only seen old and preliminary data for the case of the Mediterranean so I can't add anything to the article at this time, but I think erosion is a well studied subject and that this idea is supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern opinion on Christianity's role

In the section on Gibbon's reasons given for the fall, there was the following sentence: "He began an ongoing controversy by attributing a significant role to Christianity in the Western Roman Empire's fall, which is no longer accepted by some modern Roman historians". I changed this to read "most modern Roman historians". It's a small edit, but might cause controversy so I felt like I should explain the reasoning.

In my opinion, saying "some" gives far too much weight to Gibbon's opinions compared to the modern consensus. This is especially true when the previous sentence mentions that Christianity played a "significant role" in the fall, which I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious historian agree with nowadays. There might still be some who agree with Gibbon, but this should more accurately reflect modern opinions on the topic. Swaggernagger (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

User:Richard Keatinge my rewritten introduction was substantially more accurate, specific, and concise than the original. Why'd you revert it? Much of the material I revised and you reverted to is simply wrong. Neither 117 nor 284 is relevant for the fall of the Western Empire; 406, 408, 429, 439, 461, and 469 are. Irreversible major territorial loss did not begin in 376, it began in 408 (withdrawal of Constantine III's forces from Britain). The introduction as it exists is basically useless. There is no point in maintaining it, much less reverting to it and away from my changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire&diff=941961305&oldid=941957199

Eharding (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Eharding, and thanks for your contributions. I have used some of them and kept others. For example, some dates (117, 284) were arguable and, on reflection, definitely not required, and they are out. But we didn't need other deeply-disputable points and I have removed, for example, a statement that the Battle of Soissons was the battle that divided up the Empire. We didn't need (in the lede) an expansion of "barbarian kingdoms" to give an incomplete list of the ethnic affiliations of the various kings or other leaders. We didn't need to specify "outside Italy"; the Empire lost control there too, in the end. We don't need to suggest that Alaric and his people were the only Goths plaguing the Empire; Gainas and his people, to name only one group, were a conspicuous nuisance, and we shouldn't try to put all these details in the lede. The revival under Constantius II was real, but those under Aetius and Majorian could also be thought of as significant, so we shouldn't imply that Constantius led the only one. We are told that Radagaisus's horde were indeed all subjugated or killed, but most of them probably joined Alaric later and we don't need spurious accuracy. We don't need to imply that the Domain of Soissons, the Romano-British authorities of the late 400s, or the Spanish cities of the time, were under effective control as part of any empire. And so on. Again, thanks for your contributions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I reject the idea I was "overlinking". The Empire in 395 was not "still plagued by Goths"; that implies the Gothic war of 376-82 continued into 395, which is clearly not the case.

a statement that the Battle of Soissons was the battle that divided up the Empire.

Not what I said at all. I said it was divided among barbarian kingdoms "by" this time, not "at" this time.

We didn't need to specify "outside Italy"; the Empire lost control there too, in the end.

To my knowledge, neither the Ostrogoths nor Odoacer's kingdom ever declared independence from the Empire.

We don't need to suggest that Alaric and his people were the only Goths plaguing the Empire

I didn't suggest that. I correctly (far more so than current version) said the Empire was plagued by "a" Gothic uprising. Alaric's was undoubtedly the most important for the subject.

those under Aetius and Majorian

Those were not revivals. The Empire experienced decline under both Aetius and Majorian.

but most of them probably joined Alaric later

They perpetually ceased to exist as actors with an independent leadership -something one can only say (of the Germanic tribes) for the Siling Vandals. The current version implies the Empire's anti-barbarian offensives were an unmitigated string of failures, while the defeat of Radagaisus's Goths was an obvious imperial victory that deserves some consideration, even if implicit.

were under effective control as part of any empire

Something I never said. I implied all these were successor barbarian kingdoms.

I fully defend the accuracy and appropriateness of all my contributions and request all my contributions be fully reinstated.

Eharding (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Distinguish from Sack of Rome (410)

At this edit I again removed a distinction warning to {{Distinguish|Sack of Rome (410)|text=the [[Sack of Rome (410)|Sack of Rome in 410 CE]]}}. It's already covered by the redirect warning at the top of the page {{Redirect|Fall of Rome|other uses|Fall of Rome (disambiguation)}}. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: You have to go through two different disambiguation pages to get to the fifth century Sack. No clues are given on the way and then you have to pick from a whole list of different Sacks of Rome with again no clue as to which one might be connected to or confused with the Fall of the W Empire per se. I maintain the direct redirect is better. GPinkerton (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't. Let's see if you can develop a consensus for your point of view. If you can, I'll happily acquiesce. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:I see that the page had a redirect hatnote to "Sack of Rome" from August 2014 to February 2019, at which time it was changed to "Fall of Rome" by an anonymous IP address. When was consensus reached for that change? Tacit consensus for the "Sack of Rome" link is evident in all the edits made between those dates, including all the many made by yourself. Why not just allow it to be restored to its long-accepted state, which is useful to the general reader? Where were the arguments for excluding "Sack of Rome" expressed and found unanimous? GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Fall of Rome and/or Sack of Rome have been in hatnotes for most the article's life so far. Currently we have Fall of Rome, a slightly better choice because it starts with the word Fall, whose first entry is to Sack of Rome in case that's what anyone is looking for. The Sack of Rome hatnote was inserted at [11]. But not the specific Sack of Rome (410), though it is wikilinked at the appropriate point in the article. Adding it as a hatnote seems to me to add clutter and make the article, on balance, a tiny bit less good. But as I say, if you can build a consensus here to add that, feel free. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: I understand that you have contributed a lot of edits to this page but that does not mean you get to decide what is a tiny bit less good. I would say the link at the top should be restored, until someone besides you raises concerns. I for one think that your decision to remove it makes the article quite a lot more than a tiny bit worse. So we should restore it, i think, until someone else besides you objects. GPinkerton (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So what exact change are you advocating? A further hatnote to Sack of Rome, or one specifically to Sack of Rome (410)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As I had it, more or less: I agree it looks a little strange over three lines but yes I think this article should unambiguously say "this is not the same as the Goths sacking Rome that one time" and that the article on the Goths' sack should only be one click away, since they're so closely tied in the popular imagination and actual chronology. As it stands you have to go through a labyrinth of Falls of Rome then Sacks of Rome, then know already what date of sacking you're supposed to be looking for to be able to choose the 410 AD one ... I think most people are unlikely to confuse the Fall of the West with the sack by the Gauls or the one by the Normans or whoever. Just the two fifth century phenomena should be separated from the get-go. GPinkerton (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. On balance, I still don't think we need three hatnotes; if we do, I'd prefer to have one to the disambiguation page Sack of Rome and another to Fall of Rome. I feel that the one we particularly don't need is the one to Sack of Rome (410) - it's part of the story in this article and wikilinked from here. You may wish to ask for a third opinion, and as I say I'd bow to consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: So, I agree that three notes isn't ideal, so perhaps there's another way of arranging the notes so that the 410 event is linked directly and at the same time distinguished. Linking to a disambiguation of various sacks of Rome spanning several millennia is not helpful; only the fifth century "fall of Rome to the Goths" is likely to be mistaken for the fifth century "fall of the Roman empire"; moreover, they are popularly thought to be the same thing, and I don't think one should have embark on reading the whole political history of the fifth century to be told that they are not; it should be made clear straight away. GPinkerton (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a third opinion. Do you want to put in a request or shall I? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, please. GPinkerton (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any physical evidence of a Germanic rule over Rome?

Is there any real physical evidence that a germanic tribe actually took control of rome and ruled over the land of that area for a period of time? Are all the primary historical sources just written text or is there even written text? How much of the primary historical sources are forgeries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.249.19 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to try a good modern introduction, such as Peter Heather. The fall of the Roman Empire. A new history. Pan Books, 2006. ISBN 978-0-330-49136-5. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Germ Theory

'Height of power...' section, third paragraph, first sentence - assertion contradicted by this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#Greece_and_Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.21.147 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fall of empire

Hi Richard! How are you? I noted the change you made to the original author's definition of fall as process, instead defining it simply as a hard political end, but there is no source listed for that, and none that I know of that defines it that simply, or that says that it was not a process, since it took a long time and involved multiple factors. So I was wondering about it. Hope you are well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Here I am trying to initiate a process of distinguishing "fall", the loss of political control and the subject of this article, from "decline", a vague and contested concept that could be said to account for most of the wrangles on this subject over the last fifteen centuries. Better suggestions welcomed! Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I get that, I just hadn't noticed sources differentiating between them like that. Fall and decline seem to be used in combination and interchangeably. For example, from the article: "There has been a "move away from the Fall of Rome to a creative and vibrant Late Antiquity" that survived for a longer period than previously envisioned. Though he omits discussion of the political realities, Bowersock concludes that by the end of the twentieth century, "no responsible historian of the ancient or medieval world would want to address or acknowledge the Fall of Rome as either fact or paradigm". However, in the last ten years, this new norm has been sharply criticized by some scholars who are returning to a Gibbonian type of a broad concept of decline or to the more limited geographical scope of specific areas of decline." I am okay with leaving it your way or the original way, but there should probably be a source for it either way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

:-)

I was picking up your useful differentiation of the two. And, perhaps implicitly, rejecting their confusion, present since Gibbon at least (well, arguably since Tacitus or even the First Punic War, but not a point we need to discuss here) and exploited by Bowersock to suggest that the concept of Fall is not even useful. Contra Bowersock, the concept of Fall is still generally used by current authors, to mean the loss of political control, and this is the subject of this article. The idea of Decline, nebulous from the start but loosely referring to the major factors accounting for the collapse, has recently been conflated with the (rather modest amount of) archaeologically-obvious cultural change. For this, the Late Antiquity concept is a much better descriptor of the current state of knowledge - but it isn't the point of this article. It is part of the background to our knowledge of the period.

Additionally the idea of Decline has been conflated with Gibbon's moderate and to an extent still-valid comments about the number of unproductive religious people, comments that have so vigorously stimulated a long series of apologists to set up straw-man versions of the argument in order to reject them. We need to be clear on that point as well. (But notably, and contra Gibbon, the strong current of pacifism in early Christianity doesn't seem to have translated into any obvious lack of will to be violent to people who threatened the established order.)

Anyway, the Fall is indisputably a useful concept, it is the subject of this article, and in this article we can and should analyze reasons for it, but it's important to structure the article in a conceptually-clear way. Differentiating the fact of lost political control from the underlying reasons for it, and both from the more vague and ill-thought-through speculations outlined in Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, is absolutely essential if we are to produce a good article, let alone a Good Article. I feel that there is more work to be done here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Well, I find your arguments sound and reasonable, and you have won me over. Your version stays. I did differentiate some because I agree that the Fall is a useful concept - and still discussed. I did present Bowersock sandwiched in as a minority view I think - I hope that's clear. So now I have to say the article is well-structured - I thought - what are your objections to its structure? Late antiquity is discussed almost exclusively in what qualifies as background sections - isn't it? Did I miss seeing it elsewhere? It's impossible to discuss fall without decline to some degree as it was not abrupt it was gradual - right? Now I am questioning everything... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - this the strong current of pacifism in early Christianity doesn't seem to have translated into any obvious lack of will to be violent to people who threatened the established order.) is problematic. I think you've read me saying there was not as much actual violence as previously thought, and that it is now established as archaeological fact. There was mostly violent rhetoric and that's it. Don't make me turn into the Hulk... :-) (See my user page for the reference) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the Hulk! No, sorry, just saying that Gibbon was probably wrong to write "The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister." Christians were at least as irritable and vicious as anyone else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Ha ha! Of course! Hence - the Hulk... :-) Well, Gibbon probably was wrong simply because he had no way to access all the info we now have. He did an amazing job with what he had to work with, but much of the Christian literature and the laws are biased, condescending, violent - intended to terrorize - and are "somewhat" (completely?) dishonest and misleading. I mean jeez-Louise! How could he think otherwise - especially considering his own personal values and the age in which he wrote? I would think it too if that's all I had to go by! Facts must be recognized as facts - until some others come along.:-) Now I think being anti-war is good, and that democracy is good, but then I am a modern American and as much a product of my time as he was. Maybe Gibbon would agree if he were alive now. He was actually as fair minded as can be expected and willing to admit error - as the best historians are. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In these edits I have clarified the modern view on the effects of Christianity on the Fall, finished the section on Causes with the summary of Harper's ideas, and I hope organized the disjointed remarks on Late Antiquity into a valid whole. I have removed both Bowersock's factually-incorrect denial that anyone would now seriously use the concept of Fall, and the discussion of it. Bowersock is eminent in the field and I'm not, but in this article it's well worth omitting a transient and unsuccessful contention that the Fall isn't a useful concept. Possibly it would be of interest as a minor note in Late Antiquity. Even Bowersock doesn't actually state that the political collapse didn't happen. I also re-inserted the elements of Gibbon where he disagrees with the modern consensus, and give references for the modern consensus. Finally, the issue of Christian-pagan relations isn't generally considered particularly relevant to the political Fall, and I have removed it. As usual I look forward to your concepts and considerations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite

@Richard Keatinge: WOW! I love most of what you have done and really, really object to some of it. I love the lead, but if you are going to include snide comments like this one attacked and caricatured mainly by Christian apologists, for neutrality's sake you will have to also include discussion of the many works that have been written by historians (who have nothing to do with Christianity) that discuss all the many evidences of his bias. Here is an example: According to historian Patricia Craddock, Gibbon's History is a masterpiece that fails only where his biases effect his method allowing the "desertion of the role of historian for that of prosecuting attorney". Or another one that says, "Gibbon never let facts get in the way of a good swipe at Christianity". I never use that one because it's too snide for the encyclopedia imo. That might be a standard you should consider. Is this kind of thing important enough to you that you are willing to engage in that discussion about Gibbon, here, in this article? That sounds more like soap-boxing than encyclopedia writing to me. This reference seems to directly contradict your claim at any rate: The religious persuasion of a historian plays an insignificant role in what is now largely secularized research: an emphasis on cultural history considers religion as a cultural factor. Scholars are searching for the construction of “identities” and “ethnicities.”

Your comment is neither valid nor neutral and is somewhat off topic, but actually that whole paragraph on Gibbon is bad. You took out the references to the multiple hypotheses of other historians and left only three short sentences on Gibbon and Christianity - as if those are the only views that matter - while adding His ideas on the "useless multitudes of both sexes" are still taken as valid when in fact this is highly contested. You might have one source that still claims support for this view, but that is the minority view Richard. It does not deserve the pride of place you have given it. I have quotes from Peter Brown and others that discuss those multitudes and their contributions, but I have now deleted them because the whole thing is off topic. Unless you are going to fully discuss all of Gibbon's theories, and modern evaluations of them, this paragraph needs removing in its entirety, and the original, with the quote on the many different theories (that are actually "about the Fall" itself) should be restored. There was no just cause to remove what was well sourced, neutral and representative material, so by all that is WP, it should be restored.

OK, sorry, which different theories? And the quotations from Peter Brown would be useful, here at the least. Meanwhile I have removed the comment about Christian apologists, despite the multiple examples. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Below. One discussion is plenty. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Do modern authors use the concept of Fall? Bowersock again.

The Fall of the Roman empire is one of the most contested concepts in historiography. I have multiple references for: historical research that is characterized by a wide variety of methods and a paradigm shift...[that] has for the most part superseded the previous discourse..." Is paradigm shift in here somewhere? What you have here looks like a synthesis of two or three concepts you have lumped together on your own. Richard, you write too much personal opinion. These changes are a very mixed bag because of that.

I have no objections to any of the other changes, but the two paragraphs under reasons with Gibbon and Demandt do not accurately represent current scholarship. Bowersock's comments are not counterfactual - if you have a source that says so, please bring it here - but are instead held by the majority of scholars at this time. I didn't even say that, and it could have been said with RS support, but I agree with the minority view that Fall is a valid interpretation. I think it will return. But I included Bowersock out of necessity for accurately representing what the secondary sources say right now, and you should replace him for that same reason. Those two paragraphs should be restored. If you won't, I will, but please do it yourself Richard and demonstrate your good faith and concern for accuracy in the encyclopedia. I want to think well of you.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bowersock says something to the effect that the concept of Fall is no longer used by respectable historians. He is demonstrably wrong - glance at Harper and Heather, for example, who mokusatsu that particular idea and discuss the facts of the Fall at length. In an article on the Fall we need to be clear what we mean, and we mean the loss of political control. The concept of Late Antiquity is indeed a newer paradigm for the archaeology (in particular) of the period, and we make this point appropriately for an article covering the Fall, which took place during Late Antiquity. But, pace Bowersock, the paradigm of Late Antiquity does not in any way diminish the usefulness of the paradigm of Fall. We just need to be clear about the various concepts. Briefly, while we join to mokusatsu one rather odd idea, lacking face validity. So that we can present an account of the actual fall, which is the purpose of this article. What changes would you propose to our present text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I don't agree with your very circular reasoning on excluding Bowersock, but I'll accept your bid and leave him out, and raise you an offer on Gibbon:

• Gibbon gave what is considered the classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline, especially as caused by Christianity's pacifism as crippling the empire's military ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the soldiers themselves, while he saw their charitable practices, democratization and monasticism, (could add your "masses" here if necessary) as crippling to the economy, (which is later discussed in "313–376: Abuse of power, frontier warfare, and rise of Christianity" - and not by me - concluding "the move to Christianity probably had no significant effects on public finances."; of course, all of these have been disproven, but if we are going to include Gibbon let's be careful to give a full overview and not cherry pick) which he saw as leading to a catastrophic fourth century decline and fall. His views were the hegemony in the field for over 200 years and are still referenced. However, archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the last thirty years of archaeology have put that traditional view in doubt.[11][14]:41 (I won't even suggest discussing why, we can just leave it at that.)

• As a result, and also because of the Eastern (and thoroughly Christian) empire’s continuation for almost a thousand years longer, most modern Roman historians do not believe that Christianity per se had a significant role in the Empire's fall.[15][16]:34–35 This has generated multiple theories in response with Alexander Demandt enumerating 210 different theories on why Rome fell.[20] "Numerous explanations for the supposed fall of the Imperium Romanum and the ancient world have been given... The most prominent of the critical internal and external events that have been suggested are the rise of Christianity, the division between rich and poor, the spread of the Germanic peoples, exhausted sources of subsistence - through deterioration of the climate, soil erosion, and depopulation - as well as lead poisoning and hypothermia, racial interbreeding and biological degeneration: all of these possibilities have been considered by various authors".[5]

• Then move on to Harper's germs.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude come on be reasonable. Your latest addition is more of the same. On what basis can you justify excluding a discussion of Antiquity yet adding more of Gibbon on decline? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I was responding to your call above for a fuller account of what Gibbon actually said, as opposed to the immense volume of attacks on what the attacker thought he implied. I would like to return to the version without Gibbon's comment on pusillanimity, leaving only the comments that are a) his and b) supportable from good modern authorities. I'll come back to that.

Rethinking the scope of this article, I suppose that the Historiography section doesn't have to include anything more than a pointer to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and one to Late Antiquity would also be a fairly obvious idea. This article is about a specific subject, the (political) Fall and its immediate and underlying causes (Gibbon and many later authors labelled these as Decline). But if we are to have such a section, I'd suggest (see e.g. Craddock for his ongoing relevance) that it really has to mention Gibbon. In what terms, we will debate, but I do think it's fair to say that, apart from his comment on the preaching of pusillanimity etc, most of what he says is defensible (if incomplete) in the light of modern understanding and are worth quoting briefly, and his comments on Christianity are usefully put in verbatim because of the colossal volume of attacks on what others thought he implied.

That doesn't apply to most of the odder ideas listed by Demandt, but I do think that referring to his list is useful. I note that it is a list, it isn't conceptually sorted by proximate and underlying cause, it doesn't offer much in the way of analysis of credibility (some of the ideas are very obvious unscientific rubbish), and it includes ideas that are not only rubbish but also offensive to modern sensibilities. Given that, I'd prefer not to quote any of the theories he lists, and move straight on to:

A good modern summary of underlying causes, and here Kyle Harper has just produced an excellent one.

On then to the concept of Late Antiquity. There are two elements to it, the usefulness of the concept of this as a cultural/archaeological "period", which is undisputed and slightly useful as a background to the Fall, and then a spectrum of ideas on its significance, starting with the arguable but not very illuminating feeling that it is in some senses more important than the concept of political Fall and moving onto the extremes of Bowersock - I don't have the text in front of me but I paraphrase his testable prediction that no serious modern historian would now use the concept of Fall. This is obvious nonsense - recent historians do use the concept and the fact of political collapse is undeniable - to the extent that trying to analyze his thought processes really doesn't strike me as worthwhile. Certainly not in this article. We have a pointer to Late Antiquity, and more than one mention, but I can't see that we need much more. Suggestions welcome of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Gibbon redux

You suggest as a text:

Gibbon gave what is considered the classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline, especially as caused by Christianity's pacifism as crippling the empire's military ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the soldiers themselves, while he saw their charitable practices, democratization and monasticism, (could add your "masses" here if necessary) as crippling to the economy, (which is later discussed in "313–376: Abuse of power, frontier warfare, and rise of Christianity" - and not by me - concluding "the move to Christianity probably had no significant effects on public finances."; of course, all of these have been disproven, but if we are going to include Gibbon let's be careful to give a full overview and not cherry pick) which he saw as leading to a catastrophic fourth century decline and fall. His views were the hegemony in the field for over 200 years and are still referenced. However, archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the last thirty years of archaeology have put that traditional view in doubt.[11][14]:41 (I won't even suggest discussing why, we can just leave it at that.)

I'd really prefer to quote Gibbon's summary paragraph, leaving out the bit about the pusillanimity which indeed hasn't stood the test of modern academic consensus, and which I've just removed again. The rest of it is at least defensible, including "the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes" - AHM Jones and Harper are excellent authorities on the subject, not in any way contradicted by the comment (which I inserted) sourced to Heather (and omits the private concentrations of wealth that generally supported the useless mouths)- and it still strikes me as the best possible start to a very brief account of modern historiography. If we start talking about garbled ideas of what Gibbon said - such as "charitable practices, democratization and monasticism... as crippling to the economy" then we are simply confusing the reader. Let's stick to his actual words, insofar as they're still defensible. (Arguably, in this section, we could include the no-longer defensible comments and point out that they're no longer supported, but I suggest that's best left for another article.)

I have just ordered a copy of Lavan and Mulryan. Meanwhile I notice their blurb: "The papers reveal great regional diversity in the development of late antique paganism, and suggest that the time has come to abandon a single compelling narrative of 'the end of the temples' based on legal sources and literary accounts. Although temple destructions are attested, in some regions the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic, with more co-existence with Christianity than one might have expected." Assuming that's 100% correct, I notice that it does not contradict in any way any credible narrative of the Fall. Political collapse just doesn't leave many archaeological signs and even if a "single compelling narrative of 'the end of the temples'" were true it wouldn't significantly affect the subject of political collapse. Again, conceptual clarity is important. Decline and Fall mean political collapse and its causes, and apart from the religious views of a few people like Zosimus and possibly Gibbon's discredited idea, the end of paganism and of temple usage just isn't the same thing. I cannot see any reason to refer to Lavan and Mulryan here. (In the decline of Greco-Roman polytheism, on the other hand, they're bang on the money.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Again, responding once to both categories of the above. I accept your rewrite as it stands now in the article. I agree with your suggestion on the links.

I disagree that keeping Gibbon's view of decline - which embraces the period of empire as a whole - and not mentioning any other modern discussion of it is bad encyclopedic reporting - whatever it is termed. And I did additional research to argue these points, downloading Peter Brown's discussion of Gibbon's masses: [12] and even going to the trouble to obtain a download of Arnaldo Marcone's "A Long Late Antiquity? Considerations on a Controversial Periodization", which you should also get and read as we will then be on the same page I think - only to come back to find a reasonably acceptable offering already present.

I love working with you. We may be very different and butt heads all the time, but you are great to work with because I can tell, in spite of what your personal views might or might not be, you endeavor to be reasonable and fair and accurate. You genuinely care about doing a good job here and we always meet on that common ground. I love that. I agree completely with your newly stated standard of quoting - whenever there is controversy - where paraphrasing so often leads to interpretation based on personal views. I get in trouble with GA and Fac reviewers repeatedly for too much quoting, but here is a perfect example of why it's best. So I agree, and then I agree again, and then I agree some more. What I disagree about isn't significant enough to continue to haggle over.

I'm glad you got Lavan's book, it is quite fascinating and now we will be up to date together on that as well. I also highly recommend (Bayliss, Richard (2004). Provincial Cilicia and the Archaeology of Temple Conversion. Oxford: Archaeopress. ISBN 1-84171-634-0) which is just as earth shaking. They are both worth reading from beginning to end.

Thank you Richard. You totally rock. You have improved the article, and in the end, that is the same primary goal for us both. This is me, over and out now - just remember - I'll be watching... :-) With respect, Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You say the nicest things. I shall feel your presence on one shoulder, Pazuzu as usual on the other. Thanks right back at you for your diligent help towards a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha! You may have mine and Pazuzu's roles reversed! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

[13] I see Pazuzu at work... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Removing Rebenich in Rousseau

At this edit I removed a paragraph:

According to Philip Rousseau's Companion to Late Antiquity, "There has been an ongoing and steadily increasing reshuffling of diverse historiographical models concerning the end of Antiquity since 1949". Taking into account those dimensions linked to the disappearance of a political western Roman empire, the decline of specific regions, and adding views that recognize the creative aspects of the religious, artistic, and cultural dimensions of the period, has redefined Antiquity's periodization, its geographical area, its central themes, its time frame, and even its overall value as a field of study. As a result, "the perception of Late Antiquity has significantly changed: the period is no longer seen as an era of decline and crisis but as an epoch of metamorphosis in the Mediterranean region".

It strikes me as a verbose comment that means rather little and doesn't contribute to an article on the Fall; to the extent that it does mean anything useful, that semantic content is repeated in the following paragraphs which I have left. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you have "alternate paradigms" as the section title, and mention "Late Antiquity" in the last sentence, but now have no explanation of what any of that might actually mean. That's a whole paragraph on Pirenne, who was not a major paradigm changer, with no mention of the modern changes that basically invented Late Antiquity as a period unto itself in the twentieth century. As it is now, it makes it look like there is no change, it's just a continuation from Pirenne, and that isn't true. I'm afraid Pazuzu is leading you astray again. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a rethink, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And now you've replaced a relevant and meaningful sentence that actually listed what the section supposedly discussed with this: His other ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for less hostile, but voluminous later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. a sentence crammed full of words that convey virtually no relevant meaning on the topic at all. Is this an apology for Gibbon? Well, it wasn't but it is now. I and Pazuzu are disgusted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't have that. I thought it was a rather neat way of outlining the brief account of the development of historiography that we need here. Evidently listening to the wrong demon. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Monkey business

At these edits I have re-written in particular the introductory sections on the time-span of the Fall, the paradigm of the Fall, the reasons for the Fall, and thus the vexatious business of what Gibbon actually said about Christianity ("the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire"). I can't see any good way of discussing the history of reasons for the Fall without mentioning Gibbon's formulation, but I hope that the revised version is at least, generally agreeable. I have also cut down some of the description of Julian's religious reforms, as not demonstrably relevant to the issue of power loss, the subject of this article. As always I await comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Pazuzu and I are terrifically impressed with these changes, it all reads more clearly, the changes are pertinent and on topic, and even the inclusion of Gibbon fits well. I personally disagree with the removal of the information on Julian because I think what happened with him clearly indicates how much the empire had changed and how much power had been lost by the emperors quite directly, but Pazuzu says I shouldn't pout over niggling little issues. I will even let the inclusion of the monks as a drain on manpower pass without comment. Oh wait. I commented. Still, letting it go. It's good. It's all good. Pazuzu says well done, you made me happy, and you should always endeavor to make me happy.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Rome 476 was Justinian propaganda

Turns out the main source for claiming Rome fell in 476 was a work of propaganda written by a friend of Justinian to justify the invasion and conquest. People in Rome at the time didn't think it fell and attached no special importance to 476. Our article contains nothing of the post-476 history discussed in this article:

• Edward J. Watts (October 6, 2021). "Rome Didn't Fall When You Think It Did. Here's Why That Fabricated History Still Matters Today". Time. Retrieved October 6, 2021 – via Yahoo! News.

-- GreenC 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Sounds like a fringe theory to me, are there other authors supporting this view? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change in "Underlying causes"

I would like to make a change to this paragraph: Edward Gibbon gave a classic, but now outdated and incomplete, formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline, as crippling the empire's ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline. He also felt that "the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire..." This, with his incredulity of miracles and his cautious estimation of the actual number of Christian martyrs, was immediately attacked and continues to arouse opposition. His ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. Alexander Demandtenumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell. and more ideas have been produced since.

IMO, it doesn't really explain Gibbon's views. It doesn't give Gibbon enough credit. It focuses too much on "Christian" objection - as if religionists are the only ones who disagree with Gibbon - and religion the only cause of disagreement. This is both inappropriate and incorrect in view of current scholarship - and a bit "weasle-ly" - and in fact, this paragraph never actually says what current scholarship on Gibbon is. A more thorough discussion of Gibbon's views was removed and replaced with this weasel worded paragraph some time back, and this has been left to stand in its place.

Perhaps a compromise could improve the situation. I have placed the initial Christian response in a note, as it seems less significant than current scholarship. I have left out detail on his various views on monarchy and the value of war. I have focused on views of the fall, period.

In 1776, historian Edward Gibbon published his landmark work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It quickly became the standard view of the fall of empire, and remained so for over 200 years. Glen Bowersock describes Gibbon's "celebrated opinion, expressed at an early stage of his work" as stating that barbarism and Christianity were the primary causes of the end of the empire. Gibbon also gave great weight to internal decline from wealth and decadence, the empire's declining ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline. According to Gibbon, the end took place with the removal of the man he referred to as "the helpless Augustulus" in 476.

Challenges began in the twentieth century with Arnaldo Momigliano who argued that Roman Empire did not end in 476. The emperor after Augustulus was German, but rulers from other parts of the Roman empire outside Italy were not new. As Bowersock states, "Hadrian had come from Spain, Severus from Africa, Elagabalus from Syria and Maximinus from the Balkans". The Ostrogoths considered themselves in line with Augustulus as a part of Roman Empire, the Eastern Empire went from "strength to strength", and no one of the time wrote of the empire as "fallen".

Gibbon's long history is an eloquent acknowledgment that Rome did not fall in the fifth or sixth centuries. It changed and multiplied itself. Its centers of power and administration moved. It may have been a chameleon, but it was certainly no phoenix, because there were no ashes. A clear and decisive end, such as that which the Turks inflicted on the Byzantine Empire, or the Bolsheviks on the Empire of the Czars, or the Allies on the Third Reich, never came to the Empire of Rome. Gibbon understood this, and that is why a work entitled The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to an end in 1453, with the capture of Constantinople".

Gibbon's ideas are no longer accepted in totality, but they have been foundational to later discourse and the modern synthesis with archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, genetic science, and the many other new sources of history beyond the documentary sources that was all that was available to Gibbon. Alexander Demandt has enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell and more ideas have been produced since.

This is just one possibility, but whatever is decided, please, let's do improve what is currently there.

I like your text, but I'm not sure that it belongs in the section on Underlying causes. On your first paragraph above, the present text mentions Gibbon only as providing a foundational discourse, and in slight detail in so far as his ideas are still stimulating modern publication and annoyance. I suggest that's appropriate here - much as I love his prose, his ideas are indeed outdated and incomplete. I feel that we should leave out of this section those of his ideas that are still approximately current, and take our summary from a modern synthesis - we currently use Kyle Harper's work and that feels right to me. We do already link to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which interested readers may follow if they wish. On your second section, I really like your text and the quotation from Bowersock 1996, but I wonder if most of it can more appropriately be worked into the section presently entitled From 476: Last Emperor, rump states? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Richard, it's good to hear from you. I expected a response from you here and am glad of it. I agree that the present text mentions Gibbon as foundational. I also agree it is perfectly legitimate to do so, and to include Gibbon as the first to list causes of the fall. That's history, and whether his "causes" are currently accepted or not is not really an important point. I would simply list them, and leave it, given my way. Then I would go on and list others.

My complaint is that the current paragraph does not actually list Gibbon's five major causes. It does, however, discuss one 200 year old reaction, implying that religious reaction was the only critique Gibbon received. It mentions no other critiques, and there have been many. Why is this one there? Causes of the fall need to be discussed, but religious reaction to Gibbon's book isn't really part of that. How is it pertinent? Religious reaction was not foundational to Gibbon's claims, nor to acceptance of his views, and it forms no part of current scholarship on either him or his views. The paragraph is vague and non-specific and doesn't even discuss that lone reaction from a scholarly perspective. It comes across like a personal feeling. It's not encyclopedic. Surely you can see this is just not a good paragraph.

I suggest that contemporary scholarship about him is not based in annoyance. I suggest it's based in the expanded sources unavailable to him. Let's use that at any rate, and discuss different views of different causes - or let's not - but what is there now is half way in and half way out. It is not consistent with the quality of the rest of this article. It needs removing, or replacing with something, and if that is not my compromise, that's fine, but then it needs something more to the point. Let's discuss Gibbon's causes, or let's not, but this paragraph is neither one or the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, at this edit I have inserted a slightly-tweaked version of your second paragraph. I'll await comments before I do anything else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Aarrggh! I wish you hadn't. I have worked up another option for you that actually discusses Gibbon's causes. It needs some polishing, but I will bring it - here - for everyone to comment on before doing anything with it. Would you consider reverting yourself until we can all come to some kind of consensus agreement? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your wish is my command... Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha! If only!! I appreciate the sentiment and the action. What I have now written in place of this is too long to post here I'm afraid. I am just inserting it, and if you or anyone else hates it, or any part of it, I have no objection to reverting any of it accordingly. We can edit by selective removal as you see fit. Thank you for your cooperation Richard. It's a pleasure to work with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge So look it over. I've been moving stuff around like crazy trying to get all causes in one place for readers to find easily. I am going to work on the red references next. What the heck happened here?! It was not this way when I left it a year ago! This was a beautiful tightly focused erudite little article! We must return it to its previous quality Richard. It's too important to leave a mess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I have curled up in a corner and tried hard to find a place where your recent changes would improve this encyclopedia. With all respect to you, Edward Gibbon, and whatever demon has been advising you of late, I feel strongly that they would be more suitable elsewhere, perhaps in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as a section on modern uses of Gibbon's ideas. This article should not be structured by outdated ideas, they should be mentioned only in passing, even if they are historiographically foundational. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear! I seem to regularly do that to you no matter what I write! What demon? Why your friend Pazuzu of course! Don't get discouraged with me dearheart, I am quite willing to accommodate you, but I do think Gibbon has a place historically and should be included. No one else has ever had as much influence, and his continues to be felt. Please note I refrained from any contemporary evaluation because it is off topic, but including him and his causes is right on target for this article and should be somewhere. Wait. Have we switched sides?!? I am arguing in favor of Gibbon and you want to exclude him! The world is rotating backwards!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned briefly here yes, included in detail elsewhere... in this article, he, and the details and afterlife of his ideas, are pretty much useless blather; they detract from focus and erudition. I do hope you will revert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I am going to have to start calling you Captain Picard if you keep making decisions assuming your own authority is sufficient to "make it so". You need to offer some kind of explanation for why this article would have a section on causes and then not actually discuss them, and why that would be a good thing, because I am not seeing it. When I was writing Biblical criticism, I included an entire section on its history, and I noted that some historical ideas look pretty whacked now. I felt no need to evaluate them or exclude them on that basis and did not do so. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to write and cite. We just present the information; evaluation is usually OR. If you can't come up with another reason beyond your personal evaluation of Gibbon's views as blather for excluding him, I would say that's not a valid reason Richard. I am willing to work with you, but not on the basis of OR.

The reasons for including Gibbon here in this particular article are multiple. First, Gibbon is historical. Second, his ideas remain foundational. Third what was in the article seriously needed replacing. Yes Gibbon's ideas are dated, and we don't agree with a lot of it anymore - for reasons that have nothing to do with religious bias, please note - which the first version implied was the sole basis for rejecting his views. So it needed replacing with something that actually reflects its title accurately and neutrally. It now has that. I don't get how that's not a good thing.

Fourth, it seems fair to say that one cannot make a "brief mention" of Gibbon's ideas without actually listing or explaining what his ideas were, and deem that encyclopedic. I seem to recall you saying that my referring to something in Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire and failing to explain it sufficiently, in a similar manner as here, was "a good way to mislead and confuse our readers". Do I misremember? I accepted your standard there - leave it out or explain it, but don't mention and leave readers hanging - and I made that change. Now this is my standard as well. What has changed so that the standard you applied to me does not apply here?

Last, any actual discussion of causes must include Gibbon, and that's my Captain Picard opinion. Gibbon was the first, it stood for 200 years, people still refer to him, people have built on his foundation, giant edifices of reasoning about what happened in Late Antiquity, all because of Gibbon. Our obsession with the Fall began in the 18th century with Gibbon. Not mentioning him would be worse than an article on the American Revolution without George Washington. I don't see how anyone can see it otherwise, least of all you, a fan. I'm confused Richard. What is going on?

I vote that we let our readers have the facts and sort out for themselves what is "blather" and what isn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a disagreement. The use you have made of Gibbon and Gibboniana is analogous to inserting an extended discussion of reviews of Bernard Bailyn's work in the article American Revolution. It is, simply, the wrong article. Your text could, and I hope will, be useful in Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But here, it has very little to offer (there are some felicitous bits which I hope to excise and rescue). Not only are Gibbon's specific ideas dated, so are his social paradigms and assumptions, and it's absolutely inappropriate to discuss him at length here. Again, please rethink. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we are, but why are we having this disagreement Richard? It is a fact that "Gibbon's ideas are dated, and so are his social paradigms and assumptions", but that does not - ever - exclude any scholar from his place in history. You know that. I know that you know that. So where is this coming from? On what basis is this the wrong article? Simply saying it doesn't explain what you mean by that. This article is on the Fall, and it has a section on causes, and Gibbon was the first to speculate on both of those things. That is irrefutable fact.

Your analogy - dearheart - if your article on the American Revolution had a section on causes, or mentioned ideology, then failing to include a summary of Bailyn's theories would in fact be wrong. And that is in spite of the fact that he has not had the kind of impact that Gibbon has, does not have the weight of a Gibbon, nor has his theory ever formed the hegemony of an entire field of study for 200 years. Gibbon is still being read, he is still studied, his theories - and his causes - are still used - 200 years later! Who else can claim that? He has both historical and contemporary pertinence to the topic of the section he is now in. The sources used are not reviews, they are exegesis. There is a difference.

I will attempt to cut it down as much as possible, but without a better reason than "he is outdated", I won't agree to cut him out entirely. Post a request for a third opinion, or an RFC, or whatever you feel led to do. If you can't explain to me why it is "absolutely inappropriate" to discuss him - and this is not a lengthy discussion of Gibbon - then perhaps you can explain it to someone else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Richard Keatinge look above here under Gibbon Redux, we had this same disagreement a year ago, and you were the one to resolve it by adding something on Gibbon back then. Someone else must and come along since then replacing your good edits with the garbage that was there in its place. I have shortened everything I wrote on Gibbon, removed it entirely in one place, and I do not like your last edit and don't accept your made-up reason - but I will let it stand. I will even go so far as to say that if you want to rewrite something - that accurately reflects Gibbon - and replace what I wrote with your own words, I won't even object to that. But he needs to be there. Put him back where he belongs, include the modern view somewhere, and I will trust you to do an honest and fair job. You're a good editor. Don't let Pazuzu stir up emotions that just get in the way of good sense. I will leave you to it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Fall of roman empire

Please give 150 words note on this topic 2407:D000:F:B785:798E:39A7:8232:7106 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Account or exegesis of Gibbon

At this edit, having reread the above and got advice from literate friends, I have removed the exegesis of Gibbon - how Gruman analyzes what Gibbon wrote -and replaced it with a straightforward account of what Gibbon actually wrote. An exegete re-analyzing Gibbon is not desirable here, though I have moved their work to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, where it may be considered useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

History

Indi 102.249.4.74 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

“Creeds were developed, but Christianity has never agreed upon an official version of its Bible or its doctrine; instead it has had many different manuscript traditions.”

This does not accurately reflect the cited source, and takes away from the larger topic at hand. Bias is present, and this passage should be removed. 2600:1700:AFE0:4C50:D9B1:7:9AE8:197 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 13:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)