Collections: Rome: Decline and Fall? Part I: Words

This week we’re going to start tackling a complex and much debated question: ‘how bad was the fall of Rome (in the West)?’ This was the topic that won the vote among the patrons of the ACOUP Senate. The original questions here were ‘what caused the loss of state capacity during the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West’ and ‘how could science fiction better reflect such a collapse or massive change?’ By way of answer, I want to boil those questions down into something a bit more direct: how bad was the fall of Rome in the West?

At first I thought I would try to answer that in a single post but it rapidly became apparent that giving a sufficient answer was going to require multiple weeks: my plan is for three parts. In part I (this part), I want to focus on culture, literature, language and religion (‘words’). In part II, we’ll then turn to look at states and government (‘institutions’), though this will also entail looking at the institutional part of religion, for reasons that will become clear as we get there. Then finally in part III, we’ll turn to look at economics and demographics (‘things and people’), the concrete realia of people’s lives. In all of these, we will mostly be focused on the western empire (with some gestures at the East), but I’ll note here (and no doubt repeatedly subsequently) that this is because the empire didn’t fall in the East, at least not any time remotely around the fifth century. The continued existence of the Eastern Roman Empire is a free, massive point that the change-and-continuity argument gets to score at the beginning of these debates for free, every time.

As will readily be apparent, that significance of that division of topics will be important because this is one of those questions where what you see depends very much on where you look, with scholars engaging with different topics often coming to wildly divergent conclusions about the impact and experience of the fall of Rome. And there is no way to really discuss that divergence (and my own view of it) without diving into the still active debate and presenting the different scholarly views in a sort of duel. I’ll be providing my own judgements, of course, but I intend here to ‘steelman’ each argument, presenting it in what I view as its strongest form; as will some become evident, I think there is some truth to both of the two major current scholarly streams of thought here.

As always, if you like what you are reading here, please share it; if you really like it, you can support me on Patreon; members at the Patres et Matres Conscripti level get to vote on the topics for post-series like this one! And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on twitter (@BretDevereaux) for updates as to new posts as well as my occasional ancient history, foreign policy or military history musings.

Two Knights an Old Man and a Nitwit

So who are our combatants? To understand this, we have to lay out a bit of the ‘history of the history’ – what is called historiography in technical parlance. Here I am also going to note the rather artificial but importance field distinction here between ancient (Mediterranean) history and medieval European history. As we’ll see, viewing this as the end of the Roman period gives quite a different impression than viewing it as the beginning of a new European Middle Ages. The two fields ‘connect’ in Late Antiquity (the term for this transitional period, broadly the 4th to 8th centuries), but most programs and publications are either ancient or medieval and where scholars hail from can lead to different (not bad, different) perspectives.

With that out of the way, the old view, that of Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) and indeed largely the view of the sources themselves, was that the disintegration of the western half of the Roman polity was an unmitigated catastrophe, a view that held largely unchallenged into the last century; Gibbon’s great work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1789) gives this school it’s name, ‘decline and fall.’ While I am going at points to gesture to Gibbon’s thinking, we’re not going to debate him; he is the ‘old man’ of our title. Gibbon himself largely exists only in historiographical footnotes1 and intellectual histories; he is not at this point seriously defended nor seriously attacked but discussed as the venerable, but now out of date, origin point for all of this bickering.

The real break with that view came with the work of Peter Brown, initially in his The World of Late Antiquity (1971) and more or less canonically in The Rise of Western Christendom (1st ed. 1996; 2nd ed. 2003, 3rd ed. 2013). The normal way to refer to the Peter Brown school of thought is ‘change and continuity’ (in contrast to the traditional ‘decline and fall’), though I rather like James O’Donnell’s description of it as the Reformation in late antique studies.

Among medievalists2 this reformed view, which focuses on continuity of culture and institutions from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages, remains essentially the orthodoxy, to the point that, for instance, the very recent (and quite excellent) The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe (2021) can present this vision as an uncomplicated fact, describing the “so-called Fall of Rome” and noting that “there was never a moment in the next thousand years in which at least one European or Mediterranean ruler didn’t claim political legitimacy through a credible connection to the empire of the Romans” and that “the idea that Rome “fell” on the other hand, relies upon a conception of homogeneity – of historical stasis…things changed. But things always change” (3-4, 12-3).3 As we’ll see, I don’t entirely disagree with those statements, but they are absolute to a degree that suggests there is no real challenge to the position. There have been a few cracks in this orthodoxy among medievalists, particularly the work of Robin Flemming (a revision, not a clear break, to be sure), to which we’ll return, but the cracks have been relatively few.

While some ancient historians also bought into this view, purchase there has always been uneven and seems, to me at least, now to be waning further. Instead, a process of what James O’Donnell describes as a ‘counter-reformation‘ (which he stoutly resists with his own The Ruin of the Roman Empire; O’Donnell is a declared reformer) is well underway, a response to the ‘change and continuity’ narrative which seeks to update and defend the notion that there really was a fall of Rome and that it really was quite bad actually. This is not, I should note, an effort to revive Gibbon per se; it does not typically accept his understanding of the cause of this decline (and often characterizes exactly what is declining differently). Nevertheless, this position too is sometimes termed the ‘decline and fall’ school. My own sense of the field is that while nearly all ancient historians will feel the need to concede at least some validity to the reformed ‘change and continuity’ vision, that the counter-reformation school is the majority view among ancient historians at this point (in a way that is particularly evident in overview treatments like textbooks or the Cambridge Ancient History (second edition)). We’ll meet many of the core works of this revised ‘decline and fall’ school as we go.

As O’Donnell noted in a 2005 review for the BMCR, the reformed4 school tends to be strongest in the study of the imperial east rather than the west (something that will make a lot of sense in a moment), and in religious and cultural history; the counter-reformation school is stronger in the west than the east and in military and political history, though as we’ll see, to that list must at this point now be added archaeology along with demographic and economic history, at which point the weight of fields tends to get more than a little lopsided.

Those are our two knights – the ‘change and continuity’ knight and the ‘decline and fall’ knight (and our old man Gibbon, long out of his dueling days). To this we must add the nitwit: a popular vision, held by functionally no modern scholars, which represents the Middle Ages in their entirety as a retreat from a position of progress during the Roman period which was only regained during the ‘Renaissance’ (generally represented as a distinct period from the Middle Ages) which then proceeded into the upward trajectory of the early modern period. Intellectually, this vision traces back to what Renaissance thinkers thought about themselves and their own disdain for ‘medieval’ scholastic thinking (that is, to be clear, the thinking of their older teachers), a late Medieval version of ‘this ain’t your daddy’s rock and roll!’

But almost every intellectual movement represents itself as a radical break with the past (including, amusingly, many of the scholastics! Let me tell you about Peter Abelard sometime); as historians we do not generally accept such claims uncritically at face value. For a long time, well into the 19th century, the Renaissance’s cultural cachet in Europe (and the cachet of the classical period where it drew its inspiration) shielded that Renaissance claim from critique; that patina now having worn thin, most scholars now reject it, positioning the Renaissance as a continuation (with variations on the theme) of the Middle Ages, a smooth transition rather than a hard break. At the same time, knowledge of developments within the Middle Ages have made the image of one unbroken ‘Dark Age’ untenable and made clear that the ‘upswing’ of the early modern period was already well underway in the later Middle Ages and in turn had its roots stretching even deeper into the period. It is also worth noting here, that the term ‘Dark Age’ has to do with the survival of evidence, not living conditions: the age was not dark because it was grim, it was dark because we cannot see it as clearly.

The popular version of this idea continues, however, to have a lot of sway in the popular conception of the Middle Ages, encouraged by popular culture that mistakes the excesses of the early modern period for ‘medieval’ superstition and exaggerates the poverty of the medieval period (itself essentialized to its worst elements despite being approximately a millennia long), all summed up in this graph:
We are mostly going to just dunk relentlessly on this graph and yet we will not cover even half of the necessary dunking this graph demands. We may begin by noting that in its last century, the Roman Empire was Christian, a point apparently missed here.

While that sort of vision is not seriously debated by scholars, it needs to be addressed here too, in part because I suspect a lot of the energy behind the ‘change and continuity’ position is in fact to counter some of the worst excesses of this thesis, which for simplicity, we’ll just refer to as ‘The Dung Ages‘ argument, but also because assessing how bad the fall of the Roman Empire in the West was demands that we consider how long-lasting any negative ramifications were.

And with that out of the way, let’s lay some foundation work for what we’re talking about. We’ve had one preamble, yes…but what about second preamble?

A Short History of the (Long) Fifth Century

The chaotic nature of the fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire makes a short recounting of its history difficult but a sense of chronology and how this all played out is going to be necessary so I will try to just hit the highlights.

First, its important to understand that the Roman Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries was not the Roman Empire of the first and second centuries (all AD, to be clear). From 235 to 284, Rome had suffered a seemingly endless series of civil wars, waged against the backdrop of worsening security situations on the Rhine/Danube frontier and a peer conflict in the east against the Sassanid Empire. These wars clearly caused trade and economic disruptions as well as security problems and so the Roman Empire that emerges from the crisis under the rule of Diocletian (r. 284-305), while still powerful and rich by ancient standards, was not as powerful or as rich as in the first two centuries and also had substantially more difficult security problems. And the Romans subsequently are never quite able to shake the habit of regular civil wars.

One of Diocletian’s solutions to this problem was to attempt to split the job of running the empire between multiple emperors; Diocletian wanted a four emperor system (the ‘tetrarchy’ or ‘rule of four’) but what stuck among his successors, particular Constantine (r. 306-337) and his family (who ruled till 363), was an east-west administrative divide, with one emperor in the east and one in the west, both in theory cooperating with each other ruling a single coherent empire. While this was supposed to be a purely administrative divide, in practice, as time went on, the two halves increasing had to make due with their own revenues, armies and administration; this proved catastrophic for the western half, which had less of all of these things (if you are wondering why the East didn’t ride to the rescue, the answer is that great power conflict with the Sassanids). In any event, with the death of Theodosius I in 395, the division of the empire became permanent; never again would one man rule both halves.

Via Wikipedia, the Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, c. 300, originally in Constantinople, now part of the facade of St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. It depicts the four emperors of Diocletian’s tetrarchy. This is also a wonderful statue for showing the ways in which the Roman Empire had changed during the Crisis of the Third Century (235 – 284); these emperors are not the kind looking civic figures of earlier imperial portraiture. They wear armor, their hands on their swords and their faces set stern, ready to face whatever enemies may come. They’re also more clearly rulers, wearing obvious crowns – this was another trend Diocletian accelerated, making the trappings of the emperor more obviously and openly regal.
Map of the Roman Empire under the Tetrarchy, showing the dioceses and the four Tetrarchs' zones of influence
Via Wikipedia, a map of the division of the empire under Diocletian.

We’re going to focus here almost entirely on the western half of the empire; we’ll come back to the eastern half next week.

The situation on the Rhine/Danube frontier was complex. The peoples on the other side of the frontier were not strangers to Roman power; indeed they had been trading, interacting and occasionally raiding and fighting over the borders for some time. That was actually part of the Roman security problem: familiarity had begun to erode the Roman qualitative advantage which had allowed smaller professional Roman armies to consistently win fights on the frontier. The Germanic peoples on the other side had begun to adopt large political organizations (kingdoms, not tribes) and gained familiarity with Roman tactics and weapons. At the same time, population movements (particularly by the Huns) further east in Europe and on the Eurasian Steppe began creating pressure to push these ‘barbarians’ into the empire. This was not necessarily a bad thing: the Romans, after conflict and plague in the late second and third centuries, needed troops and they needed farmers and these ‘barbarians’ could supply both. But as we’ve discussed elsewhere, the Romans make a catastrophic mistake here: instead of reviving the Roman tradition of incorporation, they insisted on effectively permanent apartness for the new arrivals, even when they came – as most would – with initial Roman approval.

This problem blows up in 378 in an event – the Battle of Adrianople – which marks the beginning of the ‘decline and fall’ and thus the start of our ‘long fifth century.’ The Goths, a Germanic-language speaking people, pressured by the Huns had sought entry into Roman territory; the emperor in the East, Valens, agreed because he needed soldiers and farmers and the Goths might well be both. Local officials, however, mistreated the arriving Goth refugees leading to clashes and then a revolt; precisely because the Goths hadn’t been incorporated into the Roman military or civil system (they were settled with their own kings as ‘allies’ – foederati – within Roman territory), when they revolted, they revolted as a united people under arms. The army sent to fight them, under Valens, engaged foolishly before reinforcements could arrive from the West and was defeated.

In the aftermath of the defeat, the Goths moved to settle in the Balkans and it would subsequently prove impossible for the Romans to move them out. Part of the reason for that was that the Romans themselves were hardly unified. I don’t want to get too deep in the weeds here except to note that usurpers and assassinations among the Roman elite are common in this period, which generally prevented any kind of unified Roman response. In particular, it leads Roman leaders (both generals and emperors) desperate for troops, often to fight civil wars against each other, to rely heavily on Gothic (and later other ‘barbarian’) war leaders. Those leaders, often the kings of their own peoples, were not generally looking to burn the empire down, but were looking to create a place for themselves in it and so understandably tended to militate for their own independence and recognition.
Via Wikipedia, the Stilicho dyptich (395), depicting Flavius Stilicho (359-408), a Roman general, and his wife Serena and their son Eucherius. Stilicho was himself one of these ‘barbarian’ foederati leaders. Of Vandal origins, he served as a high ranking military officer under Theodosius; Stilicho seems to have always considered himself a Roman and portrayed himself as such, but that itself wasn’t uncommon for men like him who found success within the empire.

Indeed, it was in the context of these sorts of internal squabbles that Rome is first sacked, in 410 by the Visigothic leader Alaric. Alaric was not some wild-eyed barbarian freshly piled over the frontier, but a Roman commander who had joined the Roman army in 392 and probably rose to become king of the Visigoths as well in 395. Alaric had spent much of the decade before 410 alternately feuding with and working under Stilicho, a Romanized Vandal, who had been a key officer under the emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-395) and a major power-player after his death because he controlled Honorius, the young emperor in the West. Honorius’ decision to arrest and execute Stilicho in 408 seems to have precipitated Alaric’s move against Rome. Alaric’s aim was not to destroy Rome, but to get control of Honorius, in particular to get supplies and recognition from him.

That pattern: Roman emperors, generals and foederati kings – all notionally members of the Roman Empire – feuding, was the pattern that would steadily disassemble the Roman Empire in the West. Successful efforts to reassert the direct control of the emperors on foederati territory naturally created resentment among the foederati leaders but also dangerous rivalries in the imperial court; thus Flavius Aetius, a Roman general, after stopping Atilla and assembling a coalition of Visigoths, Franks, Saxons and Burgundians, was assassinated by his own emperor, Valentinian III in 454, who was in turn promptly assassinated by Aetius’ supporters, leading to another crippling succession dispute in which the foederati leaders emerged as crucial power-brokers. Majorian (r. 457-461) looked during his reign like he might be able to reverse this fragmentation, but his efforts at reform offended the senatorial aristocracy in Rome, who then supported the foederati leader Ricimer (half-Seubic, half-Visigoth but also quite Romanized) in killing Majorian and putting the weak Libius Severus (r. 461-465) on the throne. The final act of all of this comes in 476 when another of these ‘barbarian’ leaders, Odoacer, deposed the latest and weakest Roman emperor, the boy Romulus Augustus (generally called Romulus Augustulus – the ‘little’ Augustus) and what was left of the Roman Empire in the west ceased to exist in practice (Odoacer offered to submit to the authority of the Roman Emperor in the East, though one doubts his real sincerity). Augustulus seems to have taken it fairly well – he retired to an estate in Campania originally built by the late Republican Roman general Lucius Licinius Lucullus and lived out his life there in leisure.

Via Wikipedia, a solidus (gold coin) of Odoacer, struck in the name of the Emperor Zeno and in the style of Eastern Roman solidi.

The point I want to draw out in all of this is that it is not the case that the Roman Empire in the west was swept over by some destructive military tide. Instead the process here is one in which the parts of the western Roman Empire steadily fragment apart as central control weakens: the empire isn’t destroy from outside, but comes apart from within. While many of the key actors in that are the ‘barbarian’ foederati generals and kings, many are Romans and indeed (as we’ll see next time) there were Romans on both sides of those fissures. Guy Halsall, in Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (2007) makes this point, that the western Empire is taken apart by actors within the empire, who are largely committed to the empire, acting to enhance their own position within a system the end of which they could not imagine.5

Via Wikipedia, a map of political divisions in 476, though nominally Odoacer’s kingdom in Italy pledged fealty to the Eastern Roman Empire. it is important to note here that these are political divisions rather than ethnic ones – the Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks made up only a minority of the people (and the ruling class) of the lands they now controlled; most of the Roman population (or really, Gallo-Roman, Ibero-Roman, etc) was still living there too.

It is perhaps too much to suggest the Roman Empire merely drifted apart peacefully – there was quite a bit of violence here and actors in the old Roman ‘center’ clearly recognized that something was coming apart and made violent efforts to put it back together (as Halsall notes, “The West did not drift hopelessly towards its inevitable fate.  It went down kicking, gouging and screaming”) – but it tore apart from the inside rather than being violently overrun from the outside by wholly alien forces.

Living Together

This vision of the collapse of Roman political authority in the West may seem a bit strange to readers who grew up on the popular narrative which still imagines the ‘Fall of Rome’ as a great tide of ‘barbarians’ sweeping over the empire destroying everything in their wake. It’s a vision that remains dominant in popular culture (indulged, for instance, in games like Total War: Attila; we’ve already talked about how strategy games in particular tend to embrace this a-historical annihilation-and-replacement model of conquest). But actually culture is one of the areas where the ‘change and continuity’ crowd have their strongest arguments: finding evidence for continuity in late Roman culture into the early Middle Ages is almost trivially easy. The collapse of Roman authority did not mark a clean cultural break from the past, but rather another stage in a process of cultural fusion and assimilation which had been in process for some time.

Via Wikipedia, a Roman bust of a man, c. 60 BC, now in the Glyptothek, Munich. A lot of what we’re discussing in this section is hard to illustrate, so I am instead going to start loading the bases for one of my later points about art.
This bust, from the Late Roman Republic was typical of a style known as ‘verism’ which aimed to represent the features of an individual very true-to-life, including marks of age and defects.
My apologies in advance to the art historians out there – I am going to do my best to discuss the development of artwork from the Romans into the Middle Ages here, with the relatively meagre technical vocabulary and pool of references I know.

The first thing to remember, as we’ve already discussed, is that the population of the Roman Empire itself was hardly uniform. Rather the Roman empire as it violently expanded, had absorbed numerous peoples – Celtiberians, Iberians, Greeks, Gauls, Syrians, Egyptians, and on and on. Centuries of subsequent Roman rule had led to a process of cultural fusion, whereby those people began to think of themselves as Romani – Romans – as they both adopted previously Roman cultural elements and their Roman counterparts adopted provincial culture elements (like trousers!).6

In particular, by the fifth century, the majority of these self-described Romani, including the overwhelming majority of elites, had already adopted a provincial religion: Christianity, which had in turn become the Roman religion and a core marker of Roman identity by the fifth century. Indeed, the word paganus, increasingly used in this period to refer to the remaining non-Christian population, had a root-meaning of something like ‘country bumpkin,’ reflecting the degree to which for Roman elites and indeed many non-elites, the last fading vestiges of the old Greek and Roman religions were seen as out of touch. Of course Christianity itself came from the fringes of the Empire – a strange mystery cult from the troubled frontier province of Judaea in the Levant which had slowly grown until it had become the dominant religion of the empire, receiving official imperial favor and preference.

Via Wikipedia, the Augustus of Prima Porta, dating from the firt century AD, now in the Vatican Museums, Rome. Already we can begin to see a shift away from the veristic style of the Late Republic. The bronze original for this statue was no earlier than around 20 BC (the breastplate depicts an event, the return of the Parthian standards, from that year), meaning that Augustus would have been at least 43 (and possibly older) when this statue was made, yet the artist renders him not as a middle-aged man but as a youthful figure – no wrinkles, he has all of his hair – with an idealized body and figure. This idealizing style becomes progressively more common in imperial artwork (with exceptions; the emperor Vespasian seems to have preferred the older veristic style), with emperors choosing to be depicted as ideal versions of themselves. Their faces are still recognizable, but the artist isn’t trying to make them true to life, but in a sense, truer than life.

The arrival of the ‘barbarians’ didn’t wipe away that fusion culture. With the exception of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who eventually ended up in England, the new-comers almost uniformly learned the language of the Roman west – Latin – such that their descendants living in those lands, in a sense still speak it, in its modern forms: Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, etc. alongside more than a dozen local regional dialects. All are derived from Latin (and not, one might note, from the Germanic languages that the Goths, Vandals, Franks and so on would have been speaking when they crossed the Roman frontier).

They also adopted the Roman religion, Christianity. I suspect sometimes the popular imagination – especially the one that comes with those extraordinarily dumb ‘Christian dark age’ graphs – is that when the ‘barbarians invade’ the Romans were still chilling in their Greco-Roman7 temples, which the ‘barbarians’ burned down. But quite to the contrary – the Romans were the ones shutting down the old pagan temples at the behest of the now Christian Roman emperors, who busied themselves building beautiful and marvelous churches (a point The Bright Ages makes very well in its first chapter).

The ‘barbarians’ didn’t tear down those churches – they built more of them. There was some conflict here – many of the Germanic peoples who moved into the Roman Empire had been converted to Christianity before they did so (again, the Angles and Saxons are the exception here, converting after arrival), but many of them had been converted through a bishop, Ulfilias, from Constantinople who held to a branch of Christian belief called ‘Arianism’ which was regarded as heretical by the Roman authorities. The ‘barbarians’ were thus, at least initially, the wrong sort of Christian and this did cause friction in the fifth century, but by the end of the sixth century nearly all of these new kingdoms created in the wake of the collapse of Roman authority were not only Christian, but had converted to the officially accepted Roman ‘Chalcedonian’ Christianity. We’ll come back later to the idea of the Church as an institution, but for now as a cultural marker, it was adopted by the ‘barbarians’ with aplomb.

Via Wikipedia, our Four Tretrarchs again, c. 305. Here we can see that idealizing trend carried further. The stonework here still shows tremendous skill – notice the tiny details on the sword scabbards, or the folds of the cloaks – but idealism has now given way to stylization. The emperors are no longer identifiable as individuals (we aren’t quite sure which four tetrarchs these are), but rather they represent the idea of emperors, simplified down to their most important attributes: stern faces, crowns, swords and armor, their embrace showing solidarity, ready to meet the enemies of Rome together. The artist is not trying to represent the emperors photographically, but rather trying – and succeeding – at representing the ideal emperors, who fully embody the qualities an emperor should.

Artwork also sees the clear impact of cultural fusion. Often this transition is, I think, misunderstood by students whose knowledge of artwork essentially ‘skips’ Late Antiquity, instead jumping directly from the veristic8 Roman artwork of the late republic and the idealizing artwork of the early empire directly to the heavily stylized artwork of Carolingian period and leads some to conclude that the fall of Rome made the artists ‘bad.’ There are two problems: the decline here isn’t in quality and moreover the change didn’t happen with the fall of the Roman Empire but quite a bit earlier. Hopefully you have been following along with the pictures in this section because they carry a fair bit of my argument here.

Late Roman artwork shows a clear shift into stylization, the representation of objects in a simplified, conventional way. You are likely familiar with many modern, highly developed stylized art forms; the example I use with my students is anime. Anime makes no effort at direct realism – the lines and shading of characters are intentionally simplified, but also bodies are intentionally drawn at the wrong proportions, with oversized faces and eyes and sometimes exaggerated facial expressions. That doesn’t mean it is bad art – all of that stylization is purposeful and requires considerable skill – the large faces, simple lines and big expressions allow animated characters to convey more emotion (at a minimum of animation budget).
Via Wikipedia, the Stilicho dyptich again, dated to 395 and now in Monza, Italy. Here I want you to notice how the trend towards stylization continues here straight from our earlier Roman emperors. Still, the level of skill here is impressive – look at those folds! – but all of the members of the family are now represented as idealized figures, the idea of an elite Roman family more than individuals. They’ve adopted standard, stylized poses as well, from the son Eucherius’ religious gesture to Stilicho’s ready position with his spear. While this art is being commissioned by a ‘barbarian,’ it represents a clear continuation of the trends in Roman art from the earlier fourth century.

Late Roman artwork moves the same way, shifting from efforts to portray individuals as real-to-life as possible (to the point where one can recognize early emperors by their facial features in sculpture, a task I had to be able to perform in some of my art-and-archaeology graduate courses) to efforts to portray an idealized version of a figure. No longer a specific emperor – though some identifying features might remain – but the idea of an emperor. Imperial bearing rendered into a person. That trend towards stylization continues into religious art in the early Middle Ages for the same reason: the figures – Jesus, Mary, saints, and so on – represent ideas as much as they do actual people and so they are drawn in a stylized way to serve as the pure expressions of their idealized nature. Not a person, but holiness, sainthood, charity, and so on.

And it really only takes a casual glance at the artwork I’ve been sprinkling through this section to see how early medieval artwork, even out through the Carolingians (c. 800 AD) owes a lot to late Roman artwork, but also builds on that artwork, particularly by bringing in artistic themes that seem to come from the new arrivals – the decorative twisting patterns and scroll-work which often display the considerable technical skill of an artist (seriously, try drawing some of that free-hand and you suddenly realize that graceful flowing lines in clear symmetrical patterns are actually really hard to render well).
Via Wikipedia, the ivory book cover of the Codex Aureus Laurensius or Lorsch Gospels, produced c. 800 AD. While this work dates from well into the Middle Ages, one can clearly see how it draws and builds on the stylized artwork of the Late Antique period (in this case, quite consciously).

All of the cultural fusion was effectively unavoidable. While we can’t know their population with any certainty, the ‘barbarians’ migrating into the faltering western Empire who would eventually make up the ruling class of the new kingdoms emerging from its collapse seem fairly clearly to have been minorities in the lands they settled into (with the notable exception, again, of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes – as we’re going to see this pattern again and again, Britain has an unusual and rather more traumatic path through this period than much of the rest of Roman Europe). They were, to a significant degree, as Guy Halsall (op. cit.) notes, melting into a sea of Gallo-Romans, or Italo-Romans, or Ibero-Romans.
Via Wikipedia, an 11th century Anglo-Saxon cross reliquary, which mixes scrollwork patterns and animal motifs typical of insular migration period artwork with stylized figures whose designs reach back into late Roman artwork.

Even Bryan Ward-Perkins, one of the most vociferous members of the decline-and-fall camp, in his explosively titled The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005) – this is a book whose arguments we will come back to in some detail – is forced to concede that “even in Britain the incomers[sic] had not dispossessed everyone” of their land, but rather “the invaders entered the empire in groups that were small enough to leave plenty to share with the locals” (66-7). No vast replacement wave this, instead the new and old ended up side by side. Indeed, Odoacer, seizing control of Italy in 476, we are told, redistributed a third of the land; it’s unclear if this meant the land itself or the tax revenue on it, but in either case clearly the majority of the land remained in the hands of the locals which, by this point in the development of the Roman countryside, will have mostly meant in the hands of the local aristocracy.9
Via Wikipedia, a historiated initial C in an illuminated manuscript. Note the intricate scrollwork on the letter.

Instead, as Ralph Mathisen documents in Roman aristocrats in barbarian Gaul: strategies for survival in an age of transition (1993), most of the old Roman aristocracy seems to have adapted to their changing rulers. As we’ll discuss next week, the vibrant local government of the early Roman empire had already substantially atrophied before the ‘barbarians’ had even arrived, so for local notables who were rich but nevertheless lived below the sort of mega-wealth that could make one a player on the imperial stage, little real voice in government was lost when they traded a distant, unaccountable imperial government for a close-by, unaccountable ‘barbarian’ one. Instead, as Mathisen notes, some of the Gallo-Roman elite retreat into their books and estates, while more are co-opted into the administration of these new breakaway kingdoms, who after all need literate administrators beyond what the ‘barbarians’ can provide. Mathisen notes that in other cases, Gallo-Roman aristocrats with ambitions simply transferred those ambitions from the older imperial hierarchy to the newer ecclesiastical one; we’ll talk more about the church as an institution next week. Distinct in the fifth century, by the end of the sixth century in Gaul, the two aristocracies: the barbarian warrior-aristocracy and the Gallo-Roman civic aristocracy had melded into one, intermarried and sharing the same religion, values and culture.

In this sense there really is a very strong argument to be made that the ‘Romans’ and indeed Roman culture never left Rome’s lost western provinces – the collapse of the political order did not bring with it the collapse of the Roman linguistic or cultural sphere, even if it did fragment it.

Via Wikipedia, the Empress Theodora (490-548) from the Basilica San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy, rendered in brilliant mosaic (another panel depicts her husband, Justinian I). Here too, you can see the legacy of late Roman idealized and stylized artwork, this time in the Byzantine tradition.

But surely the barbarians burned all of the libraries, right? Or the church, bent on creating a ‘Christian dark age’ tore up all of the books?


Well, no.

Here I think the problem is the baseline we assess this period against. Most people are generally aware that the Greeks and Romans wrote a lot of things and that we have relatively few of them. Even if we confine ourselves only to very successful, famous Greek and Roman literature, we still only have perhaps a low single-digit percentage of it, possibly only a fraction of a percent of it. In our post-printing-press and now post-internet world, famous works of literature do not simply vanish, generally and it is intuitive to assume that all of these lost works must have been the result of some catastrophe or intentional sabotage.

I am regularly, for instance, asked how I feel about the burning of the Library of Alexandria. The answer is…not very much. The library burned more than once and by the time it did it was no longer the epicenter of learning in the Mediterranean world. Instead, the library slowly declined as it became less unique because other libraries amassed considerable collections. There was no great, tragic moment where countless works were all lost in an instant. That’s not how the chain of transmission breaks. Because a break in the chain of transmission requires no catastrophe – it merely requires neglect.

The literature of the Greeks and Romans (and the rest of the ancient iron age Mediterranean) were largely written on papyrus paper, arranged into scrolls.10 The problem here is that papyrus is quite vulnerable to moisture and decay; in the prevailing conditions in much of Europe papyrus might only last a few decades. Ancient papyri really only survive to the present in areas of hard desert (like Egypt, conveniently), but even in antiquity, books written on papyrus would have been constantly wearing out and needing to be replaced.

Via Wikipedia, a second century papyrus record, in this case a bill of sale for a donkey, P.Fay.92 (MS Gr Sm2223. Houghton Library, Harvard University), originally from the Fayum, Egypt. These sorts of documents almost exclusively survive in very arid areas like Egypt.

Consequently, it didn’t require anyone going out and destroying books to cause a break in the chain of transmission: all that needed to happen was for the copying to stop, even fairly briefly. Fortunately for everyone, Late Antiquity was bringing with it a new writing material, parchment, and a new way of putting it together, the codex or book. The transition from papyrus to parchment begins in the fourth century, but some books are still being produced in papyrus in the 7th century, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean. Whereas papyrus is a paper made of papyrus stalks pressed together, parchment is essentially a form of leather, cleaned, soaked in calcium lye and scraped very thin. The good news is that as a result, parchment lasts – I have read without difficulty from 1200 year old books written on parchment (via microfilm) and paged through 600 year old books with my own hands. Because making it requires animal hide, parchment was extremely expensive (and still is) but its durability is a huge boon to us because it means that works that got copied onto parchment during the early middle ages often survive on that parchment down to the present.

Via Wikipedia, a good example of what a bound, parchment codex looks like, in this case a 1385 copy of a German legal code. You can see the leather binding (not all or even most codices would have had clasps) to protect the pages, which you can see in the reflection. The parchment is thick and durable and quite easy still to read even though this book is more than 600 years old.

But of course that means that the moment of technological transition from short-lived papyrus to long-lasting parchment was always going to be the moment of loss in transition: works that made it to parchment would largely survive to the present, while works that were not copied in that fairly narrow window (occupying Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages) would be permanently lost. And that copying was no simple thing: it was expensive and slow. The materials were expensive, but producing a book also required highly trained scribes (often these were monks) who would hand copy, letter by letter, the text for hundreds of pages. And, for reasons we’ll talk about later in this series, the resources available for this kind of copying would hit an all-time-low during the period from the fifth to the seventh centuries – this was expensive work for poor societies to engage in.

And here it is worth thus stopping to note how exceptional a moment of preservation this period is. The literary tradition of Mediterranean antiquity represents the oldest literary tradition to survive in an unbroken line of transmission to the present (alongside Chinese literature).11 The literary traditions of the Bronze Age (c. 3000-1200 BC and the period directly before antiquity broadly construed) were all lost and had to be rediscovered, with stone and clay tablets recovered archaeologically and written languages reconstructed. The Greeks and Romans certainly made little effort to preserve the literature of those who went before them!12

In that context, what is actually historically remarkable here is not that the people of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages lost some books – books had always been being lost, since writing began – but that they saved some books.13 Never before had a literary tradition been saved in this way. Of course these early copyists didn’t always copy what we might like. Unsurprisingly, Christian monks copying books tended to copy a lot more religious texts (both scriptures but also patristic texts). Moreover, works that were seen as important for teaching good Latin (Cicero, Vergil, etc.) tended to get copied more as well, though this is nothing new; the role of the Iliad and the Odyssey in teaching Greek is probably why their manuscript traditions are so incredibly robust. In any event, far from destroying the literature of classical antiquity, it was the medieval Church itself that was the single institution most engaged in the preservation of it.

At the same time, writers in the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries did not stop writing (or stop reading). Much of the literature of this period was religious in nature, but that is no reason to dismiss it (far more of the literature of the Classical world was religious in nature than you likely think, by the by). St. Augustine of Hippo was writing during the fifth century; indeed his The City of God, one of the foundational works of Christian literature, was written in response to the news of the sack of Rome in 410. Isidore of Seville (560-636) was famous for his Etymologies, an encyclopedia of sorts which would form the foundation for much of medieval learning and which in its summaries preserves for us quite a lot of classical bits and bobs which would have otherwise been lost; he also invented the period, comma and colon. Pope Gregory I (540-604) was also a prolific writer, writing hundreds of letters, a collection of four books of dialogues, a life of St. Benedict, a book on the role of bishops, a commentary on the Book of Job and so on. The Rule of St. Benedict, since we’ve brought the fellow up, written in 516 established the foundation for western monasticism.

And while we’ve mostly left the East off for this post, we should also note that writing hardly stopped there. Near to my heart, the emperor Maurice (r. 582-602) wrote the Strategikon, an important and quite informative manual of war which presents, among other things, a fairly sophisticated vision of combined arms warfare. Roman law also survived in tremendous quantities; the emperor Theodosius II (r. 402-450) commissioned the creation of a streamlined law code compiling all of the disparate Roman laws into the Codex Theodosianus, issued in 439. Interestingly, Alaric II (r. 457-507), king of the Visigoths in much of post-Roman Spain would reissue the code as past of the law for his own kingdom in 506 as part of the Breviary of Alaric. Meanwhile, back at Constantinople, Justinian I (r. 527-565) commissioned an even more massive collection of laws, the Corpus Iuris Civilis, issued from 529 to 534 in four parts; a colossal achievement in legal scholarship, it is almost impossible to overstate how important the Corpus Iuris Civilis is for our knowledge of Roman law.

And it is not hard again to see how these sorts of literary projects represented a continuing legacy of Roman culture too (particularly the Roman culture of the third and fourth century), concerned with Roman law, Roman learning and the Roman religion, Christianity. And so when it comes to culture and literature, it seems that the change-and-continuity knight holds the field – there is quite a lot of evidence for the survival of elements of Roman culture in post-Roman western Europe, from language, to religion, to artwork and literature. Now we haven’t talked about social and economic structures (that’s part III), so one might argue we haven’t quite covered all of ‘culture’ just yet, and it is necessary to note that this continuity was sometimes uneven. Nevertheless, the fall of Rome can hardly be said to have been the end of Roman culture.

Next time, we’ll turn to the institutions of the Roman world: cities, government, administration, and the Church and see how they fared.

  1. The sort of footnote where you show that you have read and understood the history of the debate you are about to comment on. When this sort of footnote ascends to being part of the actual text of a work, it is called a ‘literature review.’
  2. I am going to refer here to ‘ancient historians’ and ‘medievalists’ here because I think there is a noticeable difference in how the two fields on either side of this period tend to think about it. Of course these labels can be reductive to a degree so please understand them as necessary simplifications of the shape of the field
  3. I do not mean here to trash The Bright Ages, which I think on the whole is very good and probably due for a fireside recommendation. That said, I did find myself somewhat frustrated by the first few chapters which embrace the ‘change and continuity’ school as if there was no serious challenge to it – as we’ll see, an absolutist position I do not think can survive the evidence. I was much more frustrated by the deflection to insist that the only way one can imagine there was a ‘fall’ was to be the sort of person convinced that “Germans couldn’t really be Romans, women couldn’t really be rulers, etc.” (13) It is an ad hominem deflection unworthy of the rest of the book. Anyone even passingly acquainted with my writings here on this blog will know that I absolutely think Germans could be Romans and women were rulers. The implication of the deflection does a disservice to the lay reader who may thus be mislead as to the existence of real counter-arguments.
  4. that is, ‘change and continuity’
  5. That position isn’t unchallenged, mind you. P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History (2006) makes the opposing argument that the Germanic peoples were a coherent ethnic grouping that displaced the pre-existing Roman culture. Here I think Halsall has the better of the argument, both in the sense that the various Germanic peoples were hardly a single group but also that they seem more to have fused with the Roman cultural fabric than replaced it, as we’ll see.
  6. Often for the sake of clarity, we’ll refer to the Latin-speaking provincials of this period as Gallo-Romans, Ibero-Romans or Romano-Britons or the like. Nevertheless in our sources these fellows tend to be quite clear that they think of themselves as Romans, whatever other local habits they may have.
  7. The Romanist in me feels the need to note that I am using this term because I have no doubt it is the one I’d hear in this context, but Greek and Roman temples are, in fact, structurally different, just as Greek and Roman religion was, in fact, meaningfully distinct
  8. Real to life.
  9. Now we’ll come back to the economic implications of this later, for now we are merely noting that the existing population was not pushed aside or wiped out
  10. By the by, I think we’ll come back sometime this year and do a series on ‘How Did They Make It: Books’ but in the meantime, there is a solid introduction in the first section of B. Bischoff, Latin Paleography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. D. O. Cróinin and D. Ganz (1990)
  11. Please note before anyone rushes to the comment that I have drawn this particular definition – the literary tradition of Mediterranean antiquity – broad enough to also encompass the Torah.
  12. Though I will say that the Greeks in particular did make more of an effort than most ancient civilizations to write about the myths and cultures that surrounded them. The sort of ethnographic curiosity of Herodotus or Plutarch is quite hard to find in most places.
  13. Of course we are mostly focused here on the Latin tradition which tended to survive in the West, though the same here might well be said for the Greek tradition, mostly preserved in the East, in the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire and also in the Islamic world.

275 thoughts on “Collections: Rome: Decline and Fall? Part I: Words

  1. I think the only thoroughly discredited/superseded intellectual who has had as long a shadow on literature and popular culture as Gibbon is probably Freud.

      1. While Aristotle’s natural philosophy is of course largely wrong, the general philosophy of Aristotelianism is perfectly defensible.

    1. As a psychology graduate I thought of Freud as soon as I read the comment!

      Except he’s more of an uncle no-one likes to talk about in polite conversation…

  2. Just noticed – in the statue group introducing the post why are all four of the co-Emperors clutching their swords on their left hands? Were they all south-paws?

    1. A right-handed swordsman reaches across himself to draw the sword on his left hip. Drawing a sword on your right hip with your right hand is slow and awkward.

      I’m not really clear on what they’re doing with their left hands, to be honest. The way they’re holding their swords is what you do to keep it from flopping around as you move, but they don’t appear to be moving.

      1. This is how you know the common fantasy trope of scabbard on the back is foolish, no way to draw.

        Perhaps it was just regarded as a good way to pose the hands, having them do something.

      2. Depending on what angle the swords would normally hang at, they might get in the way when standing close together, and straightening them up with your free hand would be a sensible thing to do.

        Alternatively it might just be a convenient way for the emperors to rest their arms.

      3. There are several videos from Tods Workshop, were he demonstrates how to carry swords. He and the model he used one time, had their left hand on the sword. I guess it’s just more confortable to hold the sword, with one hand, so it does not swing around.

        1. From experience wearing and carrying a sword professionally, it definitely is more comfortable when walking or even standing to have your left hand on the hilt or the top of the scabbard. Swords flap about like anything otherwise and trip you up. Supposedly St Eloi advised King Dagobert of France to get a wooden sword, because it wouldn’t be as awkward to carry and if he found it to be too long he could shorten it, and also, since he was the king, he really shouldn’t be fighting with a sword anyway.

  3. Two remarks: the “change and continuity” framework was already introduced by JB Bury in his History of the Later Roman Empire. You can find it here:

    The province of Germania Inferior was the exception to “Roman culture never left Rome’s lost western provinces”. It’s no coincidence that the French-Dutch language border is where it is now; it stems from exactly this period. Coincidentally it does make sense to identify Dark Ages for Flanders and The Netherlands. Large parts, especially north of the three big rivers, very likely were largely depopulated.
    Unsurprisingly the area was one of the least important for the Roman Empire.

    1. While I mostly agree with your points, I would like to offer some additional insights.
      First, the Limes in what is now Nederland coincided with the Rhine (although there were some Romanized settlements on the IJssel). In the North, Frisian culture continued in the swampy areas easily accessible by sea, and their seafaring got more advanced. They did not expand towards the higher, drier areas because their agricultural methods were not well suited, and the raised bogs were very badly infested with mosquito’s – malaria was probably endemic.
      Second, there are indications that the Roman authorities deliberately evacuated the major production centres in Germania inferior before their destruction – because the skilled workers were more valuable than the land. This was recently discussed on Dutch television with archeologists showing the fresh ditches, so these results may not have been published yet.

      As to the Fall and Decline school, I think it is important to point out that a lot of the Early Modern historians and archeologists who formulated the idea lived Britain, in the Rhine basin, in Northern France and just north of the Alps. That coincides roughly with Germania Inferior, Britannia, Germania Superior, Belgica and Rhaetia – exactly the places hardest hit in the crisis. So when these historians went digging for Roman remains in their metaphorical backyard, they found large-scale destruction, and when they asked the academics they were in most frequent contact with, they got the same results. I would say that based on the evidence they had available, Fall was the only reasonable position. Of course, we now know that they happened to be working in the atypical area.

      1. As to the Fall and Decline school, I think it is important to point out that a lot of the Early Modern historians and archeologists who formulated the idea lived Britain, in the Rhine basin, in Northern France and just north of the Alps. That coincides roughly with Germania Inferior, Britannia, Germania Superior, Belgica and Rhaetia – exactly the places hardest hit in the crisis. So when these historians went digging for Roman remains in their metaphorical backyard, they found large-scale destruction, and when they asked the academics they were in most frequent contact with, they got the same results. I would say that based on the evidence they had available, Fall was the only reasonable position. Of course, we now know that they happened to be working in the atypical area.

        Dunno about this. I mean, yes, there was more decline and fall in these areas than further south, but it’s not like people in northern Europe were unaware of the situation in Italy and the Mediterranean. English gentlemen had been regularly going to poke around the antiquities of Rome for over a century before Gibbon first set pen to paper.

        I wonder if the real reason isn’t more that the areas in question were more strongly affected by the Reformation and Enlightenment. If you view the medieval Church, and (by extension) the middle ages in general, as a dark age of superstition and backwardness, that’s going to bias you in favour of a very negative interpretation of the fall of the Roman Empire.

        1. Yes, the contemporaries of Gibbons were aware of Italy, and to a lesser degree Spain, but the rest of the Mediterranean would have been very difficult to reach, let alone dig up. And until the advent of the train, the Grand Tour was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity even for wealthy aristocrats – nobody could fly there every year!

          And when in Italy for this one-time Grand Tour, those interested in Ancient Rome were very likely to focus their resources on seeing the artefacts of the Late Republic and Early Empire up to Marcus Aurelius in and around Rome and Naples, where a tourist industry already existed to facilitate them. Most would not be able to afford an extra side trip to Diocletian’s palace in Split, let alone travel to Greece or Istanbul or Egypt even if they wanted to. Yes, Lord Byron did. He also was wealthy compared to the average English tourist, willing to be very reckless with his money and IT KILLED HIM.

          As to Spain, most of the countries I named were in frequent conflict with the Spanish kings during Gibbons time and the centuries before, and Spanish academics were limited in their contacts with Protestant universities in Northern Europe due to the Inquisition. It would be especially difficult to get information about the fifth century from Spain, because that roughly coincided with the Arian heresy in Spain. All forms of heresy were a sensitive subject in Spain.

          So, access to new historical and archeological information from the Mediterrenean was limited compared to the new information Gibbon’s contemporaries could extract from places like Bath, Cologne, Nijmegen (Noviomagus), or Trier.

          As to the negative view of the Middle ages, please note that this period also coincides with the first stirrings of nationalism, especially German nationalism, and these academics were already reevaluating earlier dismissal of the Middle ages and recasting it as the first period of their national glory. Most of them were actively looking for any other Glorious History Of Their Nation. So if there was evidence of their little part of the Roman Empire somehow not declining, they would have jumped on it to showcase their superiority.

          Even if you look to a later period when trains were available, most academics did not have the money for big organized digs in the Mediterenean, but many Northwest European universities did have a budget for local archeology. So again, the large group of archeologists and historians living in the hard hit areas would often find evidence of destruction, because they were digging in Germania, Brittania, Northern Gaul and other parts of the Rhine limes. They would also share this information in an organized way in journals, and thus enter in a confirmation loop.

          I think the work by Bury you quoted shows a willingness to accept other view as soon as opposing evidence became available.

          1. And when in Italy for this one-time Grand Tour, those interested in Ancient Rome were very likely to focus their resources on seeing the artefacts of the Late Republic and Early Empire up to Marcus Aurelius in and around Rome and Naples, where a tourist industry already existed to facilitate them. Most would not be able to afford an extra side trip to Diocletian’s palace in Split, let alone travel to Greece or Istanbul or Egypt even if they wanted to.

            They wouldn’t have had to; Italy alone provides plenty of examples of continuity. Heck, many of the churches in Rome have been continually used as churches from late antiquity to the present day — it’s hard to get much more continuous than that.

            Also, even if they couldn’t excavate Mediterranean sites as much as local sites, it still doesn’t follow that “Based on the evidence they had available, Fall was the only reasonable position”. They could have suspended judgement, on the grounds that their local area seemed atypical, and that other areas (e.g., Italy, Constantinople) saw much less discontinuity. That would also have been reasonable, and, we can say with the benefit of hindsight, more correct.

            As to the negative view of the Middle ages, please note that this period also coincides with the first stirrings of nationalism, especially German nationalism, and these academics were already reevaluating earlier dismissal of the Middle ages and recasting it as the first period of their national glory. Most of them were actively looking for any other Glorious History Of Their Nation. So if there was evidence of their little part of the Roman Empire somehow not declining, they would have jumped on it to showcase their superiority.

            Not necessarily. If they saw their nation as the heirs of the ancient Germans or Anglo-Saxons, then emphasising the discontinuity after the fall of Rome allowed them to emphasise the role of their own ancestors specifically.

    1. Thanks for scratching those itches, yehbill. (I once had a financial adviser that put an apostrophe before EVERY S! EVEN “YOUR’S” and “THANK’S”! AAAAAUUGGHH!!

  4. “Late Roman artwork shows a clear shift into stylization, the representation of objects in a simplified, conventional way. You are likely familiar with many modern, highly developed stylized art forms; the example I use with my students is anime. Anime makes no effort at direct realism – the lines and shading of characters are intentionally simplified, but also bodies are intentionally drawn at the wrong proportions, with oversized faces and eyes and sometimes exaggerated facial expressions. That doesn’t mean it is bad art – all of that stylization is purposeful and requires considerable skill – the large faces, simple lines and big expressions allow animated characters to convey more emotion (at a minimum of animation budget).”

    I’m really not a fan of this parallel drawn with anime in particular and I think its leaning on some very questionable and broad assumptions about it.

    Some anime goes in for heavy stylization, certainly if it can save a buck or two, but a lot of it clearly does not, all you need to do is look at things like Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, or a movie like Katsuhiro Otomo’s ‘Memories’. They put a very high premium on looking realistic in terms of things like character designs, the use of light and the overall designs of the backgrounds, and I would say they are on a far, far higher level of realism than just about any comparable western animation. They clearly have very, very strong understand of principles like perspective and human anatomy:

    In fact overall I would be far more comfortable in saying that if you are looking for heavy stylization with little attempt to accurately recreate reality, you’d have a better time looking at Western animation, a cartoon like Spongebob, or even a Disney movie like the Incredibles or Hercules is very clearly working off of a much more exaggerated and intentionally non-realistic artstyle, and this has been the case going all the way back to the early days of animation when characters were drawn and moved in impossible ways and backgrounds were highly abstracted and stylized, the UPA animation style which was clearly heavily influenced by a lot of Commercial art after world war 2 and its influenced seeped into the entire American animation industry.

    I really don’t know how its become normalized to suggest that Anime is somehow more stylized than the kind of animation you get in the western world, I wonder if its because people automatically suggest as much when there’s a bit of a cultural barrier. But in any event animation from either east or west still maintain extremely strong attachment to a lot of very important principles in art that ultimately have a lot of their roots in realistic representation in particular. I think this is kind of the problem I have when it comes to people talking about how art that you might see in the 8th century wasn’t any technically worse than what might have been produced 1000 years later. The argument that its simply stylized ignores the point that there’s been a tremendous amount of work done in centuries since to hammer down important principles to reach high degrees of realism, I’m particularly thinking about the history of perspective in art and the extended process that was the development of multiple different points of perspective that allow for greater realism on a flat surface. I’d really have to ask if an artist even from Rome’s late republican/early imperial period would have been able to match current art in terms of realistic use of perspective if they were so inclined, which is something that even a cheap anime studio can consistently pull off for its backgrounds.

    I’m not really trying to pass to much of a value judgement of art from centuries ago its just that I would really have to wonder if they had the technical abilities that artists can have in this day and age from the millennia of accumulated knowledge.

    1. Some anime goes in for heavy stylization, certainly if it can save a buck or two, but a lot of it clearly does not, all you need to do is look at things like Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, or a movie like Katsuhiro Otomo’s ‘Memories’. They put a very high premium on looking realistic in terms of things like character designs, the use of light and the overall designs of the backgrounds, and I would say they are on a far, far higher level of realism than just about any comparable western animation

      I’d say those are all pretty stylised, personally, although it suppose it depends on what you’re comparing it with — compared to Western animation, sure, they’re not very stylised. Though I don’t think they’re notably more naturalistic than, e.g., the sculpture of the Tetrarchs, or the Stilicho diptych, or the illuminated C, depicted above.

    2. I think it’s a good point you make – particularly about perspective. I think there’s a continuum of skill and technique on display in every historical art piece- and from my point of view, Roman artists didn’t understand perspective any better than the Medieval artists did. As you said, perspective was a later invention. (Maybe – there is a debate over this. Ancient artists may have had some concept of perspective but it probably wasn’t as finely honed as the Renaissance era practice was.)

      What I’m trying to get at is that there’s plenty of “janky” looking 2d art from the Roman world that could be either “stylized” if a scholar wishes to be generous or “poorly executed” if someone were to go a little harder on the Ancients. Human proportions are hard to get right in 2d.

      I still think the argument that Medieval art displays less technical proficiency is flawed for many of the reasons Bret listed.

      1. For some reason Roman sculpture was more realistic than their 2-D frescoes and mosaics. I think a comparison with later art has to be 3-D to 3-D and 2-D to 2-D.

    3. I take your point here, but I think you’re missing why anime is the go-to example of an unrealistic-but-not-unskilled artistic style: it’s the not-unskilled part. Everybody knows that anime artists are highly talented, using sophisticated artistic effects. By contrast, US animation is dominated by cheap work that uses style to mask the absence of artistry: from the Flintstones to the Simpsons, at best you see some artistic compositions, but actual skill on the part of the animators is minimal.

      Disney is, of course, a completely different discussion, but I’d argue that examples like “Hercules” are outside the central artistic tradition of Disney, which tends to combine simplified but realistic protagonists with more caricatured villains and sidekicks—but again, the artistry is as much in the backgrounds and composition as in character design and animation.

      The bottom line is that IMO American animation doesn’t offer a *tradition* of unrealistic-but-not-unskilled artistic style. Examples of that, to be sure, but not the sort of tradition that anime represents. And Bret’s point is that stylized Roman sculpture is that sort of tradition—not individual artists experimenting with style, not a decline in skill, just a transition across an artistic community.

  5. “as we’re going to see this pattern again and again, Britain has an unusual and rather more traumatic path through this period than much of the rest of Roman Europe”

    Yes absolutely. Britain may even have been the only bit of the Empire where the inhabitants, at the time, would have been able to confidently say when the Empire had fallen. Elsewhere there was, as you describe, a sort of general process of change and maybe a bit of disorder, but in Britain the legions were there, then the next year they weren’t, and then things got a great deal worse for almost everyone.

  6. When I saw your post’s title image I thought “Ah! A broken statue of imperial porphyry, the perfect symbol of the fall of the Roman Empire!” Then I read later in your post that it was actually a relevant statue in terms of who was depicted. Still, if the porphyry thing was on purpose, very clever!

    Ex Urbe has an excellent article on porphyry and how it represented the lost grandeur of the Western Roman Empire for a long stretch of history. The short version, for those curious, is that purple (imperial) porphyry could no longer be sourced after the Empire started falling apart, and was too hard to work without tools and techniques that were forgotten for a very long stretch, so the only imperial porphyry statues you could get for hundreds of years were made in Roman times, and thus a major status symbol.

  7. Maybe someone already wrote it, but there are two big mistakes in this enjoyable article.

    The Tetrarchs don’t wear ‘crowns’ but ‘pilei’, modern day fez hats.

    Stilichus was a Roman, whose paternal grandparents where Vandal: he can not be considerad a barbarian in any way.

  8. Notably the transition from paper records to digital records may eventually prove a similar “dark” period – while digital excels at short term availability, it’s very poorly organized for long-term retention due to complex dependencies on a wide variety of ever-changing standards, formats, encodings and the like.

    A good example of this trend is RAW encoded photos – each format is deeply proprietary and closed source, then interpreted by specific software versions to create printable or viewable derivatives tied to other sets of proprietary and closed standards. Without serious effort to maintain them, within a few generations all of this will be hopelessly lost.

Leave a Reply