Dr. David Gwynn

The fall of the Roman Empire in the West shaped subsequent medieval history. It destroyed the last great unity of the Mediterranean world, replaced it in the West with a mosaic that shaped medieval Europe and medieval Christendom. A change that great simply cannot happen fast. It's long, it is indeed complex.

The fall of the Roman Empire in the West shaped subsequent medieval history. It destroyed the last great unity of the Mediterranean world, replaced it in the West with a mosaic that shaped medieval Europe and medieval Christendom. A change that great simply cannot happen fast. It's long, it is indeed complex.

The fall of the Roman Empire in the West shaped subsequent medieval history. It destroyed the last great unity of the Mediterranean world, replaced it in the West with a mosaic that shaped medieval Europe and medieval Christendom. A change that great simply cannot happen fast. It's long, it is indeed complex.

A lot of Roman elements survived, even while the imperial superstructure collapsed, and we see those elements all around us. So we've got to take a long view. Yes, there are great individual episodes. The Gothic sack of Rome in 410. The fall of Romulus Augustulus, the titular last Western emperor, in 476. But there is no one moment. It's a process.

A lot of Roman elements survived, even while the imperial superstructure collapsed, and we see those elements all around us. So we've got to take a long view. Yes, there are great individual episodes. The Gothic sack of Rome in 410. The fall of Romulus Augustulus, the titular last Western emperor, in 476. But there is no one moment. It's a process.

A lot of Roman elements survived, even while the imperial superstructure collapsed, and we see those elements all around us. So we've got to take a long view. Yes, there are great individual episodes. The Gothic sack of Rome in 410. The fall of Romulus Augustulus, the titular last Western emperor, in 476. But there is no one moment. It's a process.

And this is a topic where definition genuinely matters. Edward Gibbon famously called his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire as a whole didn't fall in the 5th century in any case, because the Eastern Empire will survive for another 1,000 years. Is it decline?

And this is a topic where definition genuinely matters. Edward Gibbon famously called his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire as a whole didn't fall in the 5th century in any case, because the Eastern Empire will survive for another 1,000 years. Is it decline?

And this is a topic where definition genuinely matters. Edward Gibbon famously called his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire as a whole didn't fall in the 5th century in any case, because the Eastern Empire will survive for another 1,000 years. Is it decline?

That is a value judgment depending on whether you believe that the old Roman Empire was the greatest civilization, or whether you prefer the energy, dynamism, and occasional brutality of the early Germanic kingdoms. And if we're going to pinpoint a fall, 476 is the classic date. After that date, there is no Western Roman Emperor, not until Charlemagne will attempt to reclaim the title.

That is a value judgment depending on whether you believe that the old Roman Empire was the greatest civilization, or whether you prefer the energy, dynamism, and occasional brutality of the early Germanic kingdoms. And if we're going to pinpoint a fall, 476 is the classic date. After that date, there is no Western Roman Emperor, not until Charlemagne will attempt to reclaim the title.

That is a value judgment depending on whether you believe that the old Roman Empire was the greatest civilization, or whether you prefer the energy, dynamism, and occasional brutality of the early Germanic kingdoms. And if we're going to pinpoint a fall, 476 is the classic date. After that date, there is no Western Roman Emperor, not until Charlemagne will attempt to reclaim the title.

But a lot of those Roman elements that continue do blur the lines. All the Gothic kings who emerged in Italy, southern France, Spain, continued Roman elements. So did the Franks. The great anomaly, to a significant extent, being Britain, where there is a much more clear cutoff, partly because the Anglo-Saxons were much less interested.

But a lot of those Roman elements that continue do blur the lines. All the Gothic kings who emerged in Italy, southern France, Spain, continued Roman elements. So did the Franks. The great anomaly, to a significant extent, being Britain, where there is a much more clear cutoff, partly because the Anglo-Saxons were much less interested.

But a lot of those Roman elements that continue do blur the lines. All the Gothic kings who emerged in Italy, southern France, Spain, continued Roman elements. So did the Franks. The great anomaly, to a significant extent, being Britain, where there is a much more clear cutoff, partly because the Anglo-Saxons were much less interested.

It's always difficult. Every major written source from any of the post-Roman kingdoms was written by someone of Roman ancestry and distinct Roman Christian bias. Isidore of Seville in Spain, Cassiodorus in Ostrogothic Italy, Gregory of Tours in Francia. So our evidence is skewing us towards continuation. There was clearly also significant change. There's an awareness that these are new rulers.

It's always difficult. Every major written source from any of the post-Roman kingdoms was written by someone of Roman ancestry and distinct Roman Christian bias. Isidore of Seville in Spain, Cassiodorus in Ostrogothic Italy, Gregory of Tours in Francia. So our evidence is skewing us towards continuation. There was clearly also significant change. There's an awareness that these are new rulers.

It's always difficult. Every major written source from any of the post-Roman kingdoms was written by someone of Roman ancestry and distinct Roman Christian bias. Isidore of Seville in Spain, Cassiodorus in Ostrogothic Italy, Gregory of Tours in Francia. So our evidence is skewing us towards continuation. There was clearly also significant change. There's an awareness that these are new rulers.

But there's also a genuine attempt in a lot of those writers to bring these new peoples into an overall Roman story, to show where they fit in, to make their rulers a continuation, not emperors. They're usually very clear on that. It is not a Roman empire anymore, but it is now a series of kingdoms with Roman elements.

But there's also a genuine attempt in a lot of those writers to bring these new peoples into an overall Roman story, to show where they fit in, to make their rulers a continuation, not emperors. They're usually very clear on that. It is not a Roman empire anymore, but it is now a series of kingdoms with Roman elements.