Some (maybe most) Dispensationalists believe that the church will be removed before the last 7 years. However, this view contradicts many Bible passages and it should be rejected.
But there is a group among the dispensationalists who believe in a more attractive interpretation: The Pre-Wrath view. To the benefit of your readers, here is a brief summary of what Pre-wrath means:
The last 7 years are divided into two parts.
FIRST 3.5 YEARS
In the first part (3.5 years) a ‘beast’ will become prominent in the middle east. In that time, he will sign a 7 years covenant with Israel, allowing them to build the Temple and to sacrifice.
MIDDLE OF THAT SEVEN
But in the middle point of those 7 years, he will commit an abomination:
He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of that ‘seven’, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.” (Dan 9:27)
The abomination referred to here could be that the beast will pretend to be God himself (thus eliminating the need to sacrifice in the Temple). By doing that, the beast will seduce millions of people:
“He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” (Rev 13:7-8)
SECOND 3.5 YEARS
In the second half of the last seven years, the beast will put a mark on the people to separate those who believe in him from those who perceive that he is false. This will be the beginning of a period of wrath against true Christian (the great tribulation). I.e. a persecution (against those who don’t have the mark of the beast) that will be so intense that many ‘true’ Christians will die.
“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” (Matt 24:22 – NIV)
DAY OF THE LORD
Toward the end of that period of tribulation (near the end of the last seven years of Daniel), God will intervene (day of the Lord). The Day of the Lord is the wrath against those who have the mark of the Beast.
DIFFERENCE WITH THE TRADITIONAL DISPENSATIONAL VIEW
Note the difference:
The tribulation is against those who don’t have the mark of the beast, these are the true Christians.
The Day of the Lord is against those who have the mark of the beast).
SIGNS IN THE SKY
The Day of the Lord will start with signs in the sky
“The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Joel 2:31).
“The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20).
“Immediately after the distress [i.e. tribulation] of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky.” (Matt 24:29-30)
“I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red” (Rev 6:12).
Then God will gather his elects (the pre-wrath rapture: just before the end of the last 7 years of Daniel. It won’t be a secret event. The pre-wrath view stands on the position that the rapture will happen just before God starts pouring out the bowls of his wrath.
“But at that time your people … will be delivered” (Dan 12:1).
“And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt 24:31).
“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:16).
“Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe” (Rev 14:15). [I.E. brings the dead in Yeshua & those alive who don’t wear the mark of the beast.]
Then God will pour his wrath on the inhabitant of the earth (i.e. all those left on earth because they wear the mark of the beast):
“Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, ‘Go, pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.'” (Rev 16:1)
This article discusses the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. This article frequently abbreviates this to the “Fall of Rome.”
PURPOSE: TO PROVE THAT DANIEL IS TRUE PROPHECY
The Book of Daniel claims to been written in the 6th century before Christ as a prediction of future events. However, many theologians do not believe that it is not really a prophecy. They propose that Daniel was written after the fact in the form of prophecy. That would mean that Daniel is a fraud. The purpose of the current article is to prove that Daniel is a true prophecy by showing that it correctly predicts HOW the Western Roman Empire was to fall in the fifth century after Christ.
The vision of Daniel 2 presents the Roman Empire as the iron legs of an image of a man, followed by “feet partly of iron and partly of clay.” The feet “will be a divided kingdom.”
Daniel 7 depicts the Roman Empire as a fourth beast that will be “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.” Eleven horns grow out of it. These are eleven “kingdoms” into which the Roman Empire subdivides; equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.
These prophecies predict:
That the Roman Empire will be very cruel;
That it will be subdivided into many kingdoms
Which will be a continuation of it.
The purpose of the current article is to show that historians confirm these three principles.
FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations; enforced by violence. The emperors and Roman aristocrats very wealthy by looting other nations.
DECLINE AND FALL OF ROME
It is possible to identify major milestones or events in the decline of the Roman Empire, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends.
The first major trend was the migration of Germanic tribes from outside its borders into the Empire throughout the 4th and 5th centuries. The immigrants did not intend to destroy the Roman Empire or to replace it with something new, but to take part in its benefits. They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial authorities also granted such permission. However, severe conditions were set for them which made them second class citizens.
The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces. Furthermore, the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the Roman military machinery. They became generals and even top generals. Since the real power of the Empire always was its army, the top generals in the Roman Army often became emperor. For ‘barbarians’ to become to top generals, therefore, meant that ‘barbarians’ have progressively become the real rulers of the Western Empire, but they were not allowed to become emperor. The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads.
‘CATASTROPHIC’ FIFTH CENTURY EVENTS
‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455. They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476. These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or decline. These events should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then. These ‘catastrophes’ divided the Empire up into separate political entities. The question is, what really happened?
Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was the Gothic faction of the Roman Army that revolted.
Secondly, it was the severe conditions under which the ‘barbarians’ were allowed to reside in the Empire that triggered these ‘catastrophes’.
Thirdly, the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new but to be treated as equal citizens, as part of the Empire.
Fourthly, the Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule. After Odoacer conquered Italy, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire. A few years later, Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy.
The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor. Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, namely that the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since the beginning of the fifth century. Roman power, practices, economy and culture continued after the emperor was deposed. Even the Roman Church, whose bishops were appointed by and accountable to the emperor, was allowed to continue.
CONTINUATION OF WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire:
In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role between the ‘barbarian’ nations and the Empire.
In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, and therefore to strengthen Roman control, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations. This resulting in the Byzantine Papacy; a period of about two centuries during which the Eastern Roman Empire had significant control over the nations in the West through the church.
The Kingdom of the Franks (481–843), which at its greatest expanse covered much of the previous Western Roman Empire, was a continuation of the Roman Empire.
The civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire.
In summary, over a period of centuries, ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire and were absorbed into the Empire. Many of them were recruited into the Imperial Forces until they controlled the military machinery. From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire, but they were still treated as second class citizens. In the fifth century they rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency.
The Western Roman Empire did not fall. The ‘barbarians’ did not replace the Roman Empire with a different political system. They did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories. Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire. What actually happened was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population.
The ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. It was a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall.
PROVES DANIEL AS TRUE PROPHECY
This confirms Daniel prophecies:
The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force. “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.”
As predicted by the “divided kingdom” of Daniel 2, and the eleven horns in Daniel 7, the Roman Empire subdivided into a number of kingdoms. It is amazing that Daniel could predict, one Millenium before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered by another mighty empire.
Like the iron in the legs in Daniel 2 continued in the feet, and like the eleven horns grew out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7, the principles of the Roman Empire continued in the kingdoms that arose from it; particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn.
The concepts will now be discussed in more detail.
PURPOSE – TO VALIDATE DANIEL
IS DANIEL A FRAUD?
The Book of Daniel itself claims that it was written in the 6th century before Christ (e.g. 12:4). It presents itself as a prediction of future events. For example, the book explicitly refers to “the kingdom of Greece” (9:20-21; cf. 11:2), which only became a ‘world empire’ in the fourth century BC (see Alexander the Great).
However, many, perhaps even most, theologians do not believe that God knows the future. Many accept that God knows everything, but argues that the future does not yet exist, and is therefore not knowable. The point is, if true prophecy does not exist, then Daniel is a fraud, for then it was written after the events it pretends to predict.
The article Daniel is not a Fraud presents much evidence from within Daniel (internal evidence) and from outside Daniel that argues against the view that Daniel is a fraud.
Correctly predicts the Fall of Rome
In the fifth century, the vast territory of the Western Roman Empire was divided into several independent ‘nations’, each controlled by a different ‘barbarian’ group, such as the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans and the Sueves, Lombard or Huns.
The purpose of the current article is to provide further evidence of the reliability of the Book of Daniel by showing that it correctly predicts HOW the Roman Empire will fall in the fifth century after Christ. Copies of the book of Daniel are available that have been dated undeniably to the second century BC. If Daniel correctly predicts events in the fifth century AD, then it is a true prophecy, and God does know the future.
DANIEL 2 – DIVIDED KINGDOM
The vision of Daniel 2:30-35 depicts the history of mankind by means of an image of a man, consisting of various metals:
Daniel explained the head of gold as the Babylonian empire (v38). The phrase “another kingdom” in verse 39 indicates that the head of gold does not refer to King Nebuchadnezzar himself, but to his entire empire.
The other parts of the man are identified in the article series on the Prophecies of Daniel as follows:
The “breast and its arms of silver” represent Medo-Persia.
Its “belly and its thighs of bronze” represent Greece.
The “legs of iron” are the Roman Empire.
The “feet partly of iron and partly of clay” is a historical period after the Roman Empire came to an end.
All these kingdoms are destroyed by the Return of Christ (v34, 44-45).
The important point, for the current article, is the difference between what happened after these empires:
The first three empires are replaced by the next empire. For example, “After you there will arise another kingdom” (v39-40).
But the fourth empire becomes divided. The iron of the legs continues into the feet, but the feet are a mixture of iron and clay. “It will be a divided kingdom” (v41). “It will have in it the toughness of iron” (v41). In other words, the nature of the Roman Empire will continue after the demise of that empire. See Daniel 2 for a more detailed discussion.
DANIEL 7 – ELEVEN HORNS
Daniel 7 elaborates on the prophecy of Daniel 2. It presents the same four empires, but now as beasts of prey. We focus on the fourth beast, which is the same as the fourth metal (iron) in Daniel 2. The fourth beast is not identified as any known animal but is described as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong” (v7). “It had large iron teeth” (v7), which is the same metal as the fourth empire in Daniel 2. “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (v7), which describes its cruel nature.
Eleven horns grow out of that fourth beast. These are eleven “kingdoms” (v24) into which the Roman Empire subdivides. (See Daniel’s evil horn.) These eleven horns are equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.
These prophecies contain at least the following predictions with respect to the Roman Empire:
It will be very cruel. It “devoured and crushed and trampled down.”
Second, while the previous ‘world’ empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece) were all replaced by another single large empire, but the Roman Empire will be subdivided into many empires.
Third, since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast.
HISTORIANS CONFIRM THESE PRINCIPLES
Lately, I have been studying the development of the Trinity doctrine, from the very earliest church fathers, through the fourth, fifth and later centuries. In the process, I read up on the Fall of Rome, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that historians confirm the three principles above. The purpose of the current article is to reflect on the Fall of Rome, as explained by historians. The goal is for the reader to understand that the Empire did not really fall but simply was transformed and continued to exist even into the Middle Ages.
For that purpose, much of the information in this article is a summary of Wikipedia’s articles pertaining to that period, particularly the articles about the Events and the Historiography of the Fall of Rome, but also a summary of many other Wikipedia articles. The Events article has an excellent animated map showing the growth and decline of the Roman Empire. The events described by the Wikipedia articles are summarized on this website by the article on the Decline and Fall of Rome.
FALL OF ROME
The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations. These nations were not held together by culture or religion or economy. It was a unity that was enforced by violence.
Rome became prosperous, not through trade or manufacturing, but by looting other nations. The Roman Empire reached its peak in the 2nd century. There-after, when it no longer expanded, and therefore no longer was able to derive wealth from looting other nations, it started to decline. It slowly declined over many centuries.
It is possible to identify major events in its decline, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends.
The Roman Empire conquered the previous Greek (Macedonian) Empire and established an empire that was much larger than the Greek Empire. Still, there always were areas and peoples outside of the Roman Empire which it was not able or interested to conquer.
The first major trend was the migration of Germanic tribes from outside its borders into the Empire. Historians mention the year 376 and the Crossing of the River Rhine in 406 as decisive events, but throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, in what is known as the Migration Period, large numbers of ‘barbarians’ migrated into Roman territories. It was one of the first signs of weakness, for it means that the Empire became unable to repel invading ‘barbarians’.
What did the immigrants want?
Henri Pirenne published the “Pirenne Thesis” in the 1920s. This thesis remains influential to this day. It holds that the Germanic ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire not to destroy it or to replace it with something new, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life.
They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial authorities also granted such permission, on certain severe conditions. As early as 376, Emperor Valens allowed Goths to settle within the borders of the Empire.
Second Class Citizens
‘Barbarians’ were accepted into the Empire, but as second class citizens; as cheap labor or even as slaves. Alaric, for example, through his siege of Rome in 408, liberated 40,000 Gothic slaves in Rome. As another example, it was the foederati that revolted and deposed the last emperor in 476. Foederati were ‘barbarians’ whom the Roman Empire allowed to stay within the Empire in exchange for military assistance.
There always remained friction and even hatred between the original Graeco-Roman inhabitants of the Empire and the increasingly dominant ‘barbarian’ peoples. At times, the Graeco-Romans massacred the ‘barbarians’. For example:
In 400, the citizens of Constantinople massacred 7000 armed Goths and as many of their people and their families as they could catch.
In 408, the western Graeco-Roman population massacred tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military.
RECRUITED INTO THE ARMED FORCES
The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces. For example, the great Roman General Stilicho urged Roman soldiers to allow their personal slaves to fight beside them. And, after he defeated the Gothic invaders, he drafted 12,000 prisoners from the defeated invaders into his service.
One may speculate about the reasons for this dangerous practice, for its armed forces were the basis for the Empire’s power. Perhaps the armed forces were insufficiently funded, and only second class citizens, such as these ‘barbarians’, were willing to work for such low wages. Others historians estimate that the Graeco-Roman population in the Western Empire declined, and became too small for the size of the army required by the Empire. Therefore the Imperial Forces became dependent on the service of Goths.
Goths became Top Generals
A related trend was that the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the military machinery. They became generals and even top generals. For example:
Gainas was a Goth, but was promoted to magister militum (literally, master of the military) in the Eastern Roman Empire. For a few months in 399, he was in control of Constantinople; the Eastern capital.
Stilicho’s mother was Roman but his father was a Vandal cavalry officer. Nevertheless, after Theodosius’ death in 395, Stilicho came to be the commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in the west. Few years he became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire.
Alaric also was a Goth but Theodosius appointed him as leader the army’s 20,000 Gothic troops. After Alaric became a threat to the eastern capital, the emperor appointed him as magister militum (master of the military).
Fifth Century Western Emperors were figureheads.
The real power of the Empire always was its army. As stated, the Empire was a unity of many different nations which was enforced by violence. Consequently, in the Roman system, the top generals often became emperor:
For example, both Constantine the Great and Theodosius, two key emperors in the fourth century, first earned their reputations as top generals.
As another example, in 475, Orestes, the Magister militum (master of the military) in the west, drove the emperor out of Italy and proclaimed his own young son Romulus as emperor.
For ‘barbarians’ to become to top generals, therefore, was a most significant development. It means that ‘barbarians’ have progressively become the real rulers of the Western Empire.
Note that the examples above (Gainas, Stilicho and Alaric) are all from the few years after Theodosius’ death. It is perhaps true to say that the ‘barbarians’ were in control of the Western Empire as from Theodosius’ death.
The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads: The military power came to reside in the hands of ‘barbarians’, but they were not allowed to become emperor.
When Odoacer—a Germanic chieftain—deposed the last emperor in Italy (Romulus Augustus) in 476), he chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet emperor. This confirms that the position of Emperor in the West no more had any value.
MAJOR EVENTS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455. They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476. These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or recline. They should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then.
Under Theodosius, the entire Roman Empire—east and west—was still controlled by a single emperor. He died in 395. Fifteen years later, Rome was sacked. The decisive events of THOSE 15 YEARS WERE A TURNING POINT in the history of the Roman Empire. But the causes of these events have existed for much longer.
A separate article discusses the causes of the Fall of Rome. These must include Theodosius’ decree that his two underage sons would rule the Empire after his death. These boys were not capable of keeping the nations of the vast empire united, which was a very difficult task.
The major events of the fifth century divided the Empire up into separate political entities. The question is, what really happened? Did the ‘barbarians’ replace the Roman system, or did they remain part of the Roman system? Did they seek to control the Empire or did they merely want to have equal rights with the Graeco-Roman population?
Not Foreign Armies
Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was a part of the Roman Army that rebelled. It was, namely, the Goths in the Roman army that rose up.
To become equal citizens
What triggered these decisive events?
It was after the massacre of tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military that the Gothic soldiers defected to Alaric, and they sacked Rome in 410.
It was the foederati, under Odoacer’s leadership, that deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476 because they were no longer willing to suffer the harsh conditions set for them to remain in Italy.
Furthermore, what motivated the Goths? The following are indications that the Goth rose up—not to make an end of the Roman system, but to be treated as equals with the Graeco-Roman population:
In 399, the Ostrogoths in the Eastern Empire demanded to be allowed to settle within the boundaries of the Empire.
The Visigoths laid siege to Rome in the years 408 to 410 to secure rights to settle within Roman territory.
Our second conclusion is therefore that the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new but to be treated as equal citizens with the Graeco-Roman population, as part of the Empire.
The Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule.
It has been traditional to refer to the year 476, when Odoacer—a ‘barbarian’ soldier and statesman—deposed the last western emperor, conquered Italy and proclaimed himself ruler of Italy, as the Fall of Rome. However, the following indicates that this is not an appropriate view of history:
After Odoacer conquered Italy, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire.
Odoacer issued coins with both his image and that of the Eastern Emperor Zeno.
In 484 Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy. Zeno, thereby, turned one troublesome, nominal vassal against another. Theodoric invaded Italy in 489 and by August 490 had captured almost the entire peninsula.
Peter Brown concluded that the Ostrogothic rulers of Italy considered themselves upholders of the Roman tradition.
JB Bury (see Odoacer) wrote that 476 stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the division of the Empire into different parts, but that it is not more important than other similar events, such as:
418, when emperor Honorius settled the Goths in Aquitaine, and
The Goths did not drive the Graeco-Roman people out from their territories. Not did they persecute the previous citizens: The two groups existed fairly peacefully on the areas conquered by the ‘barbarians’.
The Roman Empire did not Fall.
The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor. Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, namely that the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since the beginning of the fifth century. The ‘barbarians’ were no longer scared of the Eastern Roman Empire but still submitted to it. Roman power, practices, economy, culture and religion continued after the emperor was deposed.
CHURCH IN ROME
There are at least two reasons why the ‘barbarians’ should have made an end to the Church in Rome.
Firstly, the Church was part of the State. Separation of Church and State is a modern concept. After Christianity was legalized in 313, the emperors became the real heads of the church and the church became part of the Roman Government. Bishops received their appointment and duties from the emperors and were accountable to the emperors.
Secondly, in those years, Christology was the main controversy in the church. The Church in Rome accepted Nicene Christology but the Goths were Arian Christians. In the fourth century, the emperors persecuted people with opposing Christological views.
In spite of these factors, when the ‘barbarians’ took control of the Western Empire, they allowed the Nicene Church in Rome (the Papacy) to continue unhindered in their areas. One may ask why, but it is at least an indication that the ‘barbarians’ did not intend to destroy or replace the Roman system. Rather, they continued it, and the Church in Rome was part of the system which they continued.
ROMAN EMPIRE MORPHED INTO THE MIDDLE AGES
After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire.
The Roman Church played a cohesive role.
In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role among the ‘barbarian’ nations. The Church was better organized than the ‘barbarian’ nations and the bishops continued to play a political role, even though they now had to depend on the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations for military protection.
In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations. This resulting in the Byzantine Papacy; a period of about two centuries during which the Church in Rome was both protected and controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire). To some extent, Roman control was re-established in this period, namely that the Byzantine Empire ruled the nations in the West through the church.
Validates the crowning of Charlemagne (AD 800), one of the main kings of the Franks, as the first Holy Roman Emperor as a successor of the Roman Emperors.
Morphed into the Middle Ages
The Pirenne thesis also concludes that the Roman world underwent a gradual (though often violent) series of transformations, morphing into the medieval world. In other words, the transformed Roman Empire continued right into the Middle Ages.
The French historian Lucien Musset argued that the civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not fall or decline; it just TRANSFORMED. The same applies to the Germanic populations which invaded it.
Late Antiquity – Period of Transition
Traditionally, historians spoke of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire as the marker of the end of the Ancient Era and the beginning of the European Middle Ages. Since historians have largely turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire fell, accepting instead Pirenne’s thesis of the CONTINUITY of the Roman Empire before and after the Germanic invasion, more recently they have defined a period which they call Late Antiquity. This is the period of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages, with the roots of MEDIEVAL culture contained in Roman culture. They see a gradual process of TRANSFORMATION, with no clear breaks, occurring over centuries.
Brown proposed that Late Antiquity stretches more or less from the 3rd to the 8th centuries.
In summary, what happened, over a period of centuries, is that ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire. They were absorbed into the Empire and its culture and many were recruited into the Imperial Forces until, eventually, they controlled the military machinery, soon after Theodosius’ death in 395. From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire. They were still treated as second class citizens; often without the assurance of permanent residency. But they continued to tolerate figurehead emperors for a number of centuries before they deposed the last emperor in 476. They successfully rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency. This was a gradual (though often violent) process of decline over centuries.
The ‘barbarians’ did not intend to replace the Roman Empire with a different political or legal structures and they did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories. Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire. The nations into which the Roman Empire was divided, continued Roman culture and economy in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond (Historiography).
The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not fall. What really happened was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population.
Observing the cultural and archaeological continuities between the Roman Empire and the post-Roman Germanic kingdoms, Fustel de Coulanges (1875–89) argued that the ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. (Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France)
Daniel describes the fourth beast as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (v7). The Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force.
In Daniel 2, the fourth “iron”-empire goes over into the “divided kingdom” of the feet. In Daniel 7, eleven horns (kings – v24) come out of the fourth empire. “Horns” in Daniel do not represent individual kings, but empires, each consisting of a series of kings (8:20-22). (For a detailed discussion, see the article series on the prophecies of Daniel, including Daniel 2, Daniel 7 and the Evil Horn.) The fourth empire in Daniel, therefore, subdivides into ten + one kingdoms. (The number “ten” should be understood as “many;” not as exactly ten (cf. 1:20). The Roman Empire did divide into many different empires. The exact number varied continually. Since previous empires were conquered by a new empire, it remains amazing that Daniel could predict, centuries before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered by another mighty empire, but that it would subdivide.
Since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast. Historians confirm that the Roman Empire, in reality, did not fall or decline, but continued right into the Middle Ages. This was particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn. In Revelation that horn is the Sea Beast (13:1). It received a deadly wound (13:3), but in the end-time, an image to the beast will be made and come alive (13:14-15). In other words, the culture of the Roman Empire will be revived, and it will again devour and crush and trample down (Dan. 7:7).
Previous empires, such as Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece were conquered by the armies of the next ‘world’ empire, but the mighty Roman Empire declined and fell over a period of hundreds of years. Historians are therefore very interested in the causes of its decline.
The historian Edward Gibbon, in his 1776 book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was the first to do in-depth research on this subject. The purpose of this article is to reflect on the causes of the Fall. Much of this section is a summary of the Wikipedia article, Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. References are omitted from this section but can be found in that and related articles.
This article follows on from the previous article; Decline and Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which summarizes the events of the Fall. The current article provides an understanding of the underlying currents that gave rise to the major events described in the previous article.
UNDERFUNDING OF THE IMPERIAL FORCES
Underfunding of the army may have contributed greatly to the Fall. The rich aristocrats of Rome sought protection within the strong walls of the city of Rome. In theory, they supported the armed forces but did not wish to pay for it.
For example, Stilicho, like all other generals, was desperately short of recruits and supplies. Though devoted to the Roman Empire, he was very active in confiscating assets, for the administrative machine was not producing enough support for the army (Wikipedia).
The rich aristocrats did, however, pass large amounts of money to the Christian Church. Edward Gibbon attributed a significant role to Christianity in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. He remarked that “the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes … who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.”
RELIANCE ON BARBARIAN MERCENARIES
Edward Gibbon placed the blame on the empire itself, for it gradually entrusted the role of defending the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them.
The historian Arther Ferrill, in The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation, has also suggested that the Roman Empire declined largely as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions. They were more loyal to their Germanic commanders than to the Roman government. He added that the chief cause of the agricultural decline was high taxation which drove it out of business. This taxation was spurred by the huge military budget and was thus ‘indirectly’ the result of the barbarian invasions.
MANY CAUSES IN COMBINATION
JB Bury held that a number of crises, that arose simultaneously, was the cause of the fall: Due to the depopulation of the empire, it had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians in the army. It was furthermore necessary to pay them well as a consequence of the decline in military spirit.
PLUNDER ECONOMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Some historians argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception. In their view, the Empire had a plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. It relied on riches from conquered territories, but this source of revenue dried up with the end of Roman territorial expansion in the second century. Meanwhile, the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors and the wealthy aristocrats continued. Therefore, the Empire looted its own people through exorbitant taxation, from which the élite was exempted. This taxation drove small-scale farmers out of business, and into dependency upon the élite.
WEAKENING CENTRAL AUTHORITY
In The Complete Roman Army (2003) Adrian Goldsworthy, a British military historian, identified weakening central authority, resulting in endless civil wars between factions of the Roman Army fighting for control of the Empire, as the main cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. These civil wars weakened the army, making it less able to defend itself against its enemies.
According to Peter Heather, in his The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005), the Fall was caused by a series of sequential events:
First was the emergence of the Sassanid Persian Empire (also known as the Empire of Iranians or Neo-Persian Empire) in the east. They were powerful enough to push the Romans back. Many modern readers tend to think of the “Huns” as the nemesis of the Roman Empire, but it was the Persians who held the attention and concern of the Emperors.
To cope with the Sassanid threat, the Roman Empire stripped the Western Roman Empire of resources, weakening it.
At the same time, Hunnic incursions in Germania forced peoples on the Empire’s borders to migrate elsewhere. Due to the weakened military capacity of the Western Roman Empire, the Germanic peoples were able to force their way into the Empire.
This article will not select from these causes, for the interest of this website is not primary WHY the Empire fell, but HOW it fell, namely that the empire did not really fell, but continued. The goal of these articles is to show that the prophecies of Daniel accurately predicted HOW the Roman Empire will fall.
This article summarizes the key events and circumstances that resulted in the Decline and Fall of the Western Roman Empire; more or less in chronological sequence. This is to support another article, which shows that the prophecies of Daniel correctly predicted HOW the Western Roman Empire was to fall.
Much of this article is a summary of Wikipedia’s articles pertaining to that period.
SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE
The Roman Empire reached its zenith in the 2nd century. There-after it slowly declined.
EMPEROR THEODOSIUS’ DEATH (395)
Theodosius was the last emperor to rule the entire Roman Empire; east and west. He died in 395. Rome was sacked by barbarians in 410. This indicates how weak the empire has become in the 15 years since Theodosius died. Theodosius’ death initiated in a series of major changes, as described below, and was a major turning point in the history of the Roman Empire. Rome was again sacked in 455 and the last Western Emperor was deposed in 476, but the real change occurred prior to 410.
CROSSING OF THE RIVER RHINE (406)
From the fourth century, the Empire was less able to repel invading barbarians. Throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, large numbers of barbarians migrated into Roman territories. In the year 376, an unmanageable number of Goths and other non-Roman peoples migrated into the Empire. But during the 15 years after Theodosius’ death, in 406, the Crossing of the River Rhine by Germanic tribes was a decisive event in the Migration Period.
To become part of the Empire – These barbarians did not enter the Empire to tear it down or to replace it with something new, but to become part of the Empire. They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial authorities also granted such permission, on certain severe conditions. In other words, these “barbarians” were absorbed into the empire.
Second class citizens – These barbarians were accepted into the Empire, but as second class citizens or even as what we could call, migrant laborers or slaves. However, the Goths resisted and sought full and equal citizenship.
BARBARIANS CONTROLLED THE ROMAN ARMY
Recruited – Many barbarians were recruited into the Imperial Forces. The Imperial Forces became dependent on the service of Goths. Historians speculate about why barbarians were allowed into the army. But the Roman Empire required a strong army, for its armed forces were the basis for its power.
Top Generals – Some of the barbarians became generals and even top generals.
EMPERORS WERE FIGUREHEADS
After Theodosius’ death and throughout the 5th century, Western Emperors were mere figureheads. The real rulers in the West were military strongmen. The top generals of the armies often also became the emperor.
COMPETE FOR CONTROL OF THE EMPIRE
There always remained friction and hatred between the original Graeco-Roman inhabitants of the Empire and the increasingly dominant Barbarian peoples as they competed for control of the Empire. At times, the Graeco-Romans massacred the barbarians. However, if we combine the two principles, namely that the top generals were the real rulers and that the barbarians became top generals, then we can see that the barbarians were progressively in control of the empire.
Not foreign armies – It, therefore, was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was the Gothic section of the Roman army that eventually gained the upper hand in the struggle for control of the Empire.
Civil wars – The Empire was not only threatened by barbarian invasions, but also by civil wars between the Romans themselves.
THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE DID NOT FALL.
Based on the analysis above and the more detailed discussion below, the Western Roman Empire did not come to an end in 476 when Odoacer deposed the last emperor. A more appropriate description of what happened is that the barbarian faction of the Roman Empire became strong enough to take over control of the army, and therefore of the Western Empire itself. This is confirmed by the continuation of Roman power and practices after the emperor was deposed.
In summary, what happened, over a period of more than 100 years, is that the barbaric faction in the Roman Empire became stronger and stronger, while the Gracio-Roman control of the Empire became progressively weaker until the barbarians took over control of the Western Roman Empire.
The barbaric faction did not use its military supremacy to replace the political and legal structures of the Roman Empire with a different system, but to become part of it; they continued the culture and practices of the empire.
The sack of Rome in 410 did not cause the fall of the Western Roman Empire; the sack of Rome was an indication of how far the Roman Empire has declined by then.
These concepts will now be discussed in more detail.
BARBARIANSACCEPTED INTO THE EMPIRE
From the fourth century, the Empire’s military capacity was insufficient to repel or exterminate the invading barbarians. Throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, various Germanic tribes from southern Scandinavia and northern Germania migrated into the Empire’s territories in Western Europe and in Northwestern Africa, in what is sometimes called the Migration period.
Personally, I do not like the term “barbarian” because these people were the forbearers of the French, German and other peoples, but the literature often refers to them as such and this term is useful to refer to a diverse group of peoples.
As an early example of this migration, in the year 376, an unmanageable number of Goths and other non-Roman people migrated into the Empire. Emperor Valens allowed Goths to settle within the borders of the Empire. However, the local Roman administrators mistreated them. They revolted, resulting in the first war against the Visigoths which climaxed in the Battle of Adrianople in 378, in which the Visigoths defeated a large Roman army and also killed Emperor Valens himself.
The important point is that imperial authorities admitted potentially hostile groups into the Empire and:
allotted to them lands (typically in devastated provinces),
duties (sometimes, to defend a border) within the imperial system.
Cultural assimilation followed over the next generation or two. In other words, these “barbarians” became part of the empire.
EMPIRE DIVIDED INTO EAST AND WEST
Emperor Theodosius I died in 395. He was the last emperor to unite the western and eastern halves of the Empire under the authority of a single emperor. After his death, the empire progressively subdivided into a number of separate identifiable political entities.
At his death, Theodosius’ two underage sons became the emperors of the two halves of the Empire. Honorius became emperor in the West with General Stilicho as his guardian while Arcadius was placed on the Eastern throne in Constantinople with Rufinus the power behind the throne. However, Rufinus was soon suspected of being was in league with the Goths and was killed. (The Roman Empire did not fire leaders; they killed them.)
These two parts of the empire were administered fairly independently; even in opposition to one another. For example, in 406, General Stilicho demanded the return of the eastern half of Illyricum (which had been transferred to the administrative control of Constantinople by Theodosius), threatening war if the Eastern Roman Empire resisted.
A GOTH RULED IN THE EAST.
Most of this article describes events in the Western Empire, but this subsection briefly mentions the rise and fall of the Goth Gainas in the East, for it highlights some of the principles we wish to emphasize.
Gainas was a Gothic leader who commanded the barbarian contingent of emperor Theodosius’ army in 394. After Theodosius’ death, in the year 399, he was promoted to magister militum (literally, master of the military) in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Gainas was required to suppress the insurrection of the Ostrogoths in Asia Minor but failed. The Ostrogoths continued to devastate Asia Minor. Gainas advised emperor Arcadius to accept the terms set by the Ostrogoths. But then Gainas showed his true colors by openly joining the Ostrogoths with all his forces. In this way, he forced the emperor to sign a treaty whereby the Goths would be allowed to settle in Thrace, entrusted with the defense of that frontier against the barbarians beyond the Danube.
Backed by the Ostrogoths and given his position as top general of the Eastern Roman Empire, Gainas was now very powerful. He proceeded to install his forces in Constantinople (the capital of the Eastern Empire) and to depose all the anti-Goth officials.
However, the Graeco-Roman populace intensely resented both Goths and Arian Christians, and Gainas and his men were both. After a few months, in 400, the citizens of Constantinople revolted against Gainas and massacred 7,000 armed Goths and as many of his people and their families as they could catch. Some Goths built rafts and tried to flee across the strip of sea that separates Asia from Europe (the Hellespont), but their rag-tag ad hoc fleet was destroyed by another Goth in Imperial service; Fravitta By the beginning of 401, Gainas’ head rode a pike through Constantinople.
A HALF-VANDAL REIGNED RULED THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE.
We will now turn our attention to the West.
Stilicho was the son of a Vandal cavalry officer and a Roman mother, but he considered himself to be nothing but Roman. He joined the Roman army and rose through the ranks during the reign of Theodosius I. Theodosius promoted him to general and, seeing in him a man that would be able to lead the empire, appointed Stilicho as guardian of his son Honorius. Thus, after Theodosius’ death in 395, the underage Honorius became Emperor of the Western Empire, with Stilicho as his caretaker. Stilicho came to be the real commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in the west. In 400 Stilicho was accorded the highest honor within the Roman state by being appointed consul. He was now the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. Some regard this as the high point of Germanic advancement in the service of Rome.
VISIGOTHS ROSE TO THREATEN ROME
Alaric first appeared as the leader of a mixed band of Goths and allied peoples who invaded Thrace in 391 but were stopped by the Roman general Stilicho. In 394, Alaric led a Gothic force of 20,000 under the Roman Emperor Theodosius. Despite sacrificing around 10,000 of his men, Alaric received little recognition. Disappointed, he left the Roman army and was elected to be the first king of the Visigoths in 395. The Visigoths then marched toward Constantinople until they were diverted by Roman forces. Nonetheless, the Eastern emperor appointed Alaric magister militum (general in the Roman Army; literally, master of the military).
In 401 and again in 402 Alaric invaded Italy but was defeated, although he did force the Roman Senate to pay a large subsidy to the Visigoths.
MASSIVE IMMIGRATION OF BARBARIANS
In order to protect Italy, the Empire had depleted the Rhine frontier of forces. The Crossing of the River Rhine on 31 December 406 by Germanic tribes (including the Vandals, Burgundians, Alans and the Sueves) was a key event in the Migration Period. This brought unmanageable numbers of Germanic and Alan barbarians into Gaul. For the next few years, these barbarian tribes wandered in search of food and employment, devastating Gaul’s provinces, while Roman forces fought each other in the name of Honorius and Constantine III, who was competing for the imperial throne. The barbarians ravaged Gaul, initiating a wave of destruction and pillaging of Roman cities. Some moved on to the regions of Hispania and Africa. The Empire would never regain control over most of these lands. This was a climactic moment in the decline of the Empire and a serious setback for Stilicho’s reputation.
REVOLT IN BRITAIN CHALLENGED THE EMPEROR
In 406, the provinces of Roman Britain revolted. The garrisons chose as their leader a man named after the famed emperor of the early fourth century, Constantine the Great, who had himself rose to power through a military coup in Britain. Constantine was a common soldier, but one of some ability.
Early in 407, the Roman military in Britain acclaimed Constantine as emperor. Constantine promptly moved to Gaul and took with him all of the mobile troops left in Britain, to confront the various Germanic invaders who had crossed the Rhine the previous winter. Constantine’s forces won several confrontations with the Vandals and quickly secured the line of the Rhine.
With the knowledge that Constantine III was a threat to his position as emperor, the Western emperor, Honorius, ordered Stilicho to expel Constantine. Stilicho’s forces defeated two of Constantine’s generals, but Constantine sent another army and Stilicho’s troops retreated into Italy, Constantine now controlled all of Gaul and garrisoned the Alpine passes into Italy. Stilicho had failed to quash Constantine III’s rebellion.
In the summer of 408, the Roman forces in Italy assembled to attack Constantine. But Constantine struck first. He sent his general Gerontius towards Hispania, where he defeated the last Roman force to try to hold the borders of Hispania.
STILICHO’S DEATH LED TO THE SACK OF ROME.
After many years of victories against a number of enemies, both barbarian and Roman, the series of political and military disasters described above finally allowed Stilicho’s enemies in the court of the emperor to remove him from power, culminating in his execution in 408.
The Western Emperor Honorius furthermore incited the Roman population to massacre tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military. The Gothic soldiers then defected en masse to Alaric, increasing the size of his force to around 30,000 men, and joined his march on Rome to avenge their murdered families.
The first siege of Rome
The Visigothic leader thereupon laid siege to Rome in 408. Alaric attempted to secure a permanent peace treaty and rights to settle within Roman territory. Alaric’s military operations centered on the port of Rome, through which Rome’s grain supply had to pass. His siege caused dreadful famine within the walls. Eventually, the Senate granted him a substantial subsidy and liberated all 40,000 Gothic slaves in Rome. That payment, though large, was less than one of the richest senators could have produced. The super-rich aristocrats made little contribution. Rather, pagan temples were stripped of ornaments to make up the total. In addition, Alaric hoped for promotion to magister militum – commander of the Western Roman Army, but Honorius refused.
Constantine becomes joint consul
Given that the Gothic army under Alaric roamed unchecked in northern Italy, when Constantine’s envoys arrived to negotiate, Honorius accepted Constantine’s demands, and the two were joint consuls for the year 409. After military setbacks, Constantine abdicated in 411 but was captured and executed shortly afterwards.
NOTE: Consuls were mere symbolic representatives of Rome’s republican heritage and held very little power and authority; the Emperor acted as the supreme authority.
The second siege of Rome
In 409 Alaric again tried to negotiate with Honorius. He demanded frontier land and food but Honorius responded with insults. Alaric ravaged Italy outside the fortified cities (which he could not garrison), and the Romans refused open battle (for they had inadequate forces). Late in the year, Alaric expressed his readiness to leave Italy if Honorius would only grant his people a supply of grain. Honorius flatly refused. The Visigoths again surrounded Rome. Alaric lifted his blockade after proclaiming Attalus Western Emperor.
Third siege and sack of Rome
In the summer of 410 Alaric deposed Attalus and besieged Rome for the third time. According to some accounts, allies within the capital opened the gates for him, and for three days his troops sacked the city. The city of Rome was the seat of the richest senatorial noble families. Although the Visigoths plundered Rome, they treated its inhabitants humanely and burned only a few buildings, which is surprising given the massacre of Gothic women and children. In some Christian holy places, Alaric’s men even refrained from wanton wrecking and rape.
The death of Stilicho has been included in this section under the heading of the sack of Rome because many historians argue that the removal of Stilicho was the main catalyst leading to this monumental event. The city destroyed its own protection. It is also interesting to note the similarities between the massacre of the Gothic soldiers and their families in Constantinople and the massacre of Gothic women and children in the West. It shows the level of hate that existed between the Graeco-Roman people and the Gothic invaders.
The sack of Rome did not cause the decline of the Roman Empire. Rather, the decline of the Roman Empire caused the sack of Rom.
The fact that barbarians were able to roam unchecked in the Italian countryside and sack Rome are indications of the decline; not only of the Western Roman Empire but of the Empire as a whole.
The Western Empire never recovered. Rome was sacked a second time in 455; this time by the Vandals. Although the capital in the West, by this time, has moved to Ravenna, Rome remained the West’s largest city and its economic center.
VISIGOTHS SETTLED IN SPAIN.
After they sacked Rome, the Visigoths first settled in southern Gaul. They also extended their authority into Hispania, where they founded the Visigothic Kingdom and maintained a presence from the 5th to the 8th centuries AD. In 507, their rule in Gaul was ended by the Franks under Clovis I, who defeated them in the Battle of Vouillé. After that, the Visigoth kingdom was limited to Hispania. In or around 589, the Visigoths under Reccared I converted from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, gradually adopting the culture of their Hispano-Roman subjects.
LAST EMPEROR IN THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
In AD 476, Odoacer—a Germanic chieftain—deposed the last emperor in Italy (Romulus Augustus). This did not require a major battle, for by then barbarian kingdoms had established their own power in much of the area of the Western Empire, leaving the Emperor with negligible power and no effective control. The circumstances were as follows:
Romulus usurps the throne
The Western Roman Emperor Julius Nepos appointed Orestes as Magister militum in 475. However, before the end of that year, Orestes rebelled, drove Emperor Nepos from Italy and proclaimed his own young son Romulus as the new emperor Augustulus. Nepos reorganized his court in Dalmatia and received affirmation from Zeno—the emperor in Constantinople. Zeno refused to accept Augustulus but branded Romulus and his father as traitors and usurpers.
Odoacer leads the barbarian revolt
About that time the foederati in Italy rebelled. Foederati were barbarians whom the Roman Empire allowed to stay within the Empire in exchange for military assistance. They had grown weary of this arrangement. They petitioned Orestes to grant them lands and to settle them permanently in Italy. Orestes refused.
Odoacer was an officer in what remained of the Roman Army; rising through the ranks. The foederati turned to Odoacer to lead their revolt against Orestes. Odoacer and his troops quickly conquered the whole of Italy, killed Orestes, proclaimed Odoacer king of Italy, captured Ravenna (by then, the capital city of the Western Empire) and compelled the 16-year-old emperor Romulus to abdicate.
No emperor in the West
But Odoacer chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet emperor. He, rather, proclaimed himself the ruler of Italy. He sent the Imperial insignia to Constantinople and requested the Eastern Emperor Zeno to reign over both the eastern and western parts of the Empire. Zeno agreed to this arrangement, setting Nepos’ claims aside and legalizing Odoacer’s position as Imperial viceroy of Italy. In other words, the Eastern Emperor granted Odoacer legal authority to govern Italy in the name of the Empire.
The message was clear: The title Emperor no longer had value. The emperors in the West in the fifth century were, in any case, mostly figureheads, and this arrangement made an end of the puppet emperors in the West.
Zeno was now, at least in name, the sole Emperor of the entire Empire. Odoacer was careful to observe form and made a pretense of acting on Zeno’s authority, even issuing coins with both his image and that of Zeno. He also maintained the Roman institutions, such as the consulship.
Odoacer solidus struck in the name of Emperor Zeno, testifying to the formal submission of Odoacer to Zeno.
Zeno did suggest that Odoacer should receive Nepos back as Emperor in the West, “if he truly wished to act with justice,” but Odoacer never returned any territory or real power to Nepos. Nepos remained in Dalmatia until his death.
Concerned with Odoacer’s success and popularity, Zeno started a campaign against him. In 488, Zeno authorized another troublesome Ostrogoth, Theoderic (later known as “the Great”) to take Italy from Odoacer. After several indecisive campaigns, in 493 Theoderic and Odoacer agreed to rule jointly. They celebrated their agreement with a banquet of reconciliation, at which Theoderic’s men murdered Odoacer’s, and Theoderic personally cut Odoacer in half. The Ostrogoths then founded their own independent Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy under the rule of king Theodoric.
Roman Senate – The largely powerless but still influential Western Roman Senate continued to exist in the city of Rome under the rule of the Ostrogothic kingdom and, later for at least another century, before disappearing in the early 7th century.