Why Rome Fell

14 Conclusion

The full title of this book is: Why Rome Fell: Decline and Fall, or Drift and Change? The Wester Empire certainly ceased to exist at some point in the fifth century and was succeeded by a shifting mosaic of “barbarian” kingdoms. Though accompanied by some cataclysmic changes at the time, how significant was this transition in the long run? A bird’s-eye view of the past two thousand years reveals two pre-eminent landmarks in Roman history: the reign of Augustus, and the reign of Constantine, with continuity after that—even after the transition to “barbarian” kingdoms in the west, and, in the East down to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453.

Constantine: Three Changes

There are three main changes attributable to Constantine: administrative, religious, and the founding of a new eastern capital. On the administrative front, the conventional view is that Constantine essentially perpetuated Diocletian’s “Dominate,” in itself a culmination of the trend toward autocracy. There is some truth in this, especially in the East. But in the West Constantine sharply reversed Diocletian’s policy in an important respect. While Diocletian effectively excluded senators from provincial governorships, Constantine and his successors brought them back in, appointing them not only as governors but also as vicars and even as praetorian prefects in the West. The beneficiaries of this policy were not just viri clarissimi, men of senatorial rank, but included men of senatorial ...