Lecture 6
The Fall of Rome In
Modern Imagination
& And how the moral narrative as
explanation seems to triumph
Contents:
1. Viewing the Fall (or Continuity) of the Roman
Empire Through the Ages
2. The ‘Moral Decline Narrative’ in Western Culture
3. The Fall of Rome in Cinema
Introduction
In the PowerPoint Martijn Icks shows some examples of how the idea of the Fall
of the Western Roman Empire still lives on in our culture and society today.
Today we will focus on the questions:
- Why did the Fall of Rome become so iconic?
- How did this notion develop?
- What role does the Fall of Rome play in our modern Western culture?
HC6
, Viewing the Fall (or
Continuity) of the Roman
Empire Through the Ages
(Christian) Views on Decline of Rome
During Ancient Empire (RECAP)
Two Different Christian Contemporary Responses on the Decline (and specifically on
the Sack of Rome of 410 by Alaric and the Visigoths) are:
OROSIUS: downplayed the sack of Rome in 410. He said: “It can’t be blamed on the
Christians. Just a minor hiccup in Roman History. Not even close to those other
horrible times earlier like the time Nero! Nothing to see here move along people. As
far as sacks go, this was just a gentile sack. Also, the romans deserved it anyway.
Why does Orosius say this? It’s his response to contemporary pagans
saying: “All this horrible stuff is happening because the Christians! All because
the Romans forsook the old Gods. Sack and decline is fault of Christianity!”
Another idea that Orosius discussed is the idea that the Roman Empire was an instrument
of God. God had wanted the Roman Empire. Why would God want this? Because when the
Roman Empire started with he first Emperor Augustus in 27 BC, the Pax Romana was established
–2 centuries of peace and stability in a very large area– which, according to Orosius, made it
possible for the Apostles to relatively peacefully and widely spread Christianity.
ST. AUGUSTUS: said the proper Christian does not care about earthly human
kingdoms/empires (like Rome), but should only care with the heavenly kingdom of
God and saving one’s soul from damnation. The fall of Rome does not matter.
HC6
, Is there a Continuation of Roman Empire?
Historical and Christian Arguments:
‘Translatio-imperii’ is the idea that the Roman Empire didn’t fall, but it continued.
Did the Roman Empire Continue? You can argue it did, in 2 ways:
Continuation, Historic argument:
• In 800 CE Charlemagne called himself ‘Roman Emperor’ of a territory, which
covered much of western and central Europe. This title lapsed in 924, but was
revived when in 962 Otto I was crowned ‘Roman Emperor’ by Pope John XII,
starting a continuous existence of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ for over eight
centuries (until 1806).
• Napoleon (1769 – 1821) viewed his reign as the continuation of the
Roman Empire.
• Even the Tsars in Russia called themselves the successors of the Roman
Emperors.
Continuation, Christian Argument:
There is a Christian idea (that came from interpreting the book of Daniel in a specific
way) that there are 4 Empires before the Apocalypse, and that the Roman Empire
was the last of the 4 empires. The only logical explanation for the fact that the
apocalypse has not happened yet, is that the Roman Empire still has not ended.
(This is a Christian argument of continuity in the Roman imperial past).
Renaissance Views on Roman Empire
“Renaissance” was the rebirth of classical culture. If you say something is “reborn”, that
means that this thing had been gone for a while. The concept of Renaissance insinuates
the Roman Empire, or at least its culture (and civilisation) had ended for some time.
The period before the Renaissance is called ‘the Middle Ages’, which is the time in
between the Roman Empire and the rebirth of classical culture of the Renaissance.
The term “dark ages” suggests a form of loss of civilization.
During the Renaissance and in the centuries after, people only looked at Roman Empire in
terms of admiration, only thinking about its heyday, idealizing it (putting classical culture on
a pedestal & trying to revive it). They don’t think about Rome in a critical or negative way, &
don’t look at the 4th-6th centuries, AND don’t discuss its fall. This changes in ca.1700…
HC6
, Enlightenment Views on Roman Empire
Typical of the Age of Enlightenment is that people start to think about things more
critically and try to explain thing in a rational way.
During the enlightenment we see that there is more room for a critical attitude, –
people are reflecting more critically on the Roman Empire. People thought about
‘what was good about it? What wasn’t so good about it? Why did it fall?’
We see this in people such as Montesquieu and Gibbon.
People are also wondering: They were so great, yet they disappeared. Why? And could
the same thing happen to us?” Gibbon and Montesquieu started thinking about these
question AND drew parallels with own society, using the (Fall of) Rome as a Mirror.
Martijn Icks tells us that nowadays he most often hears the moral narrative explaining the fall of
Rome (they failed because they were morally lacking in some way). He tells us that when he’s at a
party, and says tells that he’s a late antiquity scholar, and one of the most common replies is:
“Ah, the fall of Rome! They were decadent weren’t they? They had evil emperors didn’t they?“
Gibbon told this moral story in the 18th century: “Rome failed because of Loss of
Civic Virtue (succumbed to decadence and tyrants), civic virtue was also got
undermined by Christianity.
Gibbon is not just writing about stuff that happened millennia ago, but he uses
Rome as a mirror to his own time. He uses it as a cautionary tale: not give way to
tyrants, to keep yourself involved in the politics; and also to not become decadent
and uncommitted. Gibbons tells it as a moral story.
….…but question: how old is the moral narrative (of things use to be better, but
now it is declining/fallen because we are morally lacking) actually? Let’s look at
representation of this moral narrative in Western Culture through the ages.
HC6
The Fall of Rome In
Modern Imagination
& And how the moral narrative as
explanation seems to triumph
Contents:
1. Viewing the Fall (or Continuity) of the Roman
Empire Through the Ages
2. The ‘Moral Decline Narrative’ in Western Culture
3. The Fall of Rome in Cinema
Introduction
In the PowerPoint Martijn Icks shows some examples of how the idea of the Fall
of the Western Roman Empire still lives on in our culture and society today.
Today we will focus on the questions:
- Why did the Fall of Rome become so iconic?
- How did this notion develop?
- What role does the Fall of Rome play in our modern Western culture?
HC6
, Viewing the Fall (or
Continuity) of the Roman
Empire Through the Ages
(Christian) Views on Decline of Rome
During Ancient Empire (RECAP)
Two Different Christian Contemporary Responses on the Decline (and specifically on
the Sack of Rome of 410 by Alaric and the Visigoths) are:
OROSIUS: downplayed the sack of Rome in 410. He said: “It can’t be blamed on the
Christians. Just a minor hiccup in Roman History. Not even close to those other
horrible times earlier like the time Nero! Nothing to see here move along people. As
far as sacks go, this was just a gentile sack. Also, the romans deserved it anyway.
Why does Orosius say this? It’s his response to contemporary pagans
saying: “All this horrible stuff is happening because the Christians! All because
the Romans forsook the old Gods. Sack and decline is fault of Christianity!”
Another idea that Orosius discussed is the idea that the Roman Empire was an instrument
of God. God had wanted the Roman Empire. Why would God want this? Because when the
Roman Empire started with he first Emperor Augustus in 27 BC, the Pax Romana was established
–2 centuries of peace and stability in a very large area– which, according to Orosius, made it
possible for the Apostles to relatively peacefully and widely spread Christianity.
ST. AUGUSTUS: said the proper Christian does not care about earthly human
kingdoms/empires (like Rome), but should only care with the heavenly kingdom of
God and saving one’s soul from damnation. The fall of Rome does not matter.
HC6
, Is there a Continuation of Roman Empire?
Historical and Christian Arguments:
‘Translatio-imperii’ is the idea that the Roman Empire didn’t fall, but it continued.
Did the Roman Empire Continue? You can argue it did, in 2 ways:
Continuation, Historic argument:
• In 800 CE Charlemagne called himself ‘Roman Emperor’ of a territory, which
covered much of western and central Europe. This title lapsed in 924, but was
revived when in 962 Otto I was crowned ‘Roman Emperor’ by Pope John XII,
starting a continuous existence of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ for over eight
centuries (until 1806).
• Napoleon (1769 – 1821) viewed his reign as the continuation of the
Roman Empire.
• Even the Tsars in Russia called themselves the successors of the Roman
Emperors.
Continuation, Christian Argument:
There is a Christian idea (that came from interpreting the book of Daniel in a specific
way) that there are 4 Empires before the Apocalypse, and that the Roman Empire
was the last of the 4 empires. The only logical explanation for the fact that the
apocalypse has not happened yet, is that the Roman Empire still has not ended.
(This is a Christian argument of continuity in the Roman imperial past).
Renaissance Views on Roman Empire
“Renaissance” was the rebirth of classical culture. If you say something is “reborn”, that
means that this thing had been gone for a while. The concept of Renaissance insinuates
the Roman Empire, or at least its culture (and civilisation) had ended for some time.
The period before the Renaissance is called ‘the Middle Ages’, which is the time in
between the Roman Empire and the rebirth of classical culture of the Renaissance.
The term “dark ages” suggests a form of loss of civilization.
During the Renaissance and in the centuries after, people only looked at Roman Empire in
terms of admiration, only thinking about its heyday, idealizing it (putting classical culture on
a pedestal & trying to revive it). They don’t think about Rome in a critical or negative way, &
don’t look at the 4th-6th centuries, AND don’t discuss its fall. This changes in ca.1700…
HC6
, Enlightenment Views on Roman Empire
Typical of the Age of Enlightenment is that people start to think about things more
critically and try to explain thing in a rational way.
During the enlightenment we see that there is more room for a critical attitude, –
people are reflecting more critically on the Roman Empire. People thought about
‘what was good about it? What wasn’t so good about it? Why did it fall?’
We see this in people such as Montesquieu and Gibbon.
People are also wondering: They were so great, yet they disappeared. Why? And could
the same thing happen to us?” Gibbon and Montesquieu started thinking about these
question AND drew parallels with own society, using the (Fall of) Rome as a Mirror.
Martijn Icks tells us that nowadays he most often hears the moral narrative explaining the fall of
Rome (they failed because they were morally lacking in some way). He tells us that when he’s at a
party, and says tells that he’s a late antiquity scholar, and one of the most common replies is:
“Ah, the fall of Rome! They were decadent weren’t they? They had evil emperors didn’t they?“
Gibbon told this moral story in the 18th century: “Rome failed because of Loss of
Civic Virtue (succumbed to decadence and tyrants), civic virtue was also got
undermined by Christianity.
Gibbon is not just writing about stuff that happened millennia ago, but he uses
Rome as a mirror to his own time. He uses it as a cautionary tale: not give way to
tyrants, to keep yourself involved in the politics; and also to not become decadent
and uncommitted. Gibbons tells it as a moral story.
….…but question: how old is the moral narrative (of things use to be better, but
now it is declining/fallen because we are morally lacking) actually? Let’s look at
representation of this moral narrative in Western Culture through the ages.
HC6
