Why Rome Fell

13 Assassination or Accommodation?

The dissolution of the Roman Empire in the West remains one of the most highly controversial issues in history. Most empires have fallen either as the result of conquest by a rival power or under pressure from indigenous subject populations. Neither of these models fits the West Roman case. Rome did meet with a certain amount of resistance from local populations while it was building its empire. Britain and Gaul immediately spring to mind. And pockets of resistance occasionally flared up during the Roman occupation, notably in Judea. But, for the most part, Roman rule came to be not only well tolerated but also welcomed, and there was no prouder boast than Civis Romanus sum (I am a Roman citizen) as famously declared by Paul of Tarsus.

Did the Western Empire Come to an End?

Most writers on the period would agree that there came a time when the Roman Empire in the West ceased to exist and was replaced by a patchwork of “barbarian” kingdoms. There is considerable disagreement, however, on the significance and degree of disruption occasioned by this change and also, whether the disruption, if any, was a cause or effect of the dissolution of the Western Empire. Opinions range all the way from André Piganiol’s oft-quoted verdict of “assassination” to some modern writers’ picture of the takeover of the Western Empire by “barbarians” as “accommodation,” or even as settlements that took place “in a natural, organic, and generally eirenic manner.” ...