The Roman Empire is considered one of the most fascinating states to have ever existed in history. Rome is renowned for its exceptional cultural, military, economic, infrastructural, and overall advancement. The Roman Empire led the course of human history for centuries, bridging the transition from the ancient to the modern era, and laid the foundations of contemporary Western civilization. However, in the 5th century, it collapsed and disappeared forever from the political map. We spoke with historian Sebastian Todor about the peak and tragic fall of the Western Roman Empire. Todor is the author of the YouTube channel Maiorianus. He was born in Romania, formerly Roman Dacia, in 1981, and has had an interest in Roman history since childhood. Over time, he decided to dedicate himself to researching the late Western Roman Empire.
– How did you become interested in the history of the Roman Empire?
I was born in Romania, the former Roman province of Dacia, and already as a child, my grandfather told me stories about the Dacians and the wars against the Romans under Trajan. This already created a mild interest in Roman history, but my interest really started taking off after I saw the movie Gladiator in cinema in the year 2000. I was quite fascinated that the Roman Empire was still so strong in 180 AD, a time I knew very little about, because in school we only learned about Caesar and Augustus, and nothing that happened afterwards. So I wanted to know more, and started reading books on the topic, but the more I read, the more fascinated I became, and the more questions I had. Why did the Roman Empire fall? How could they be so powerful and then just disintegrate so quickly? What happened to the city of Rome afterwards? How can we imagine this “Fall”? These questions drove me to continue reading books on the topic and to think about it ever since.
– Do you consider the Roman Empire the greatest country that ever existed in history?
You might be surprised to hear that, no, I don’t consider it to be the greatest country in history. I am not sure though, which country I would classify as the greatest country in history, if ever such a thing even existed in the first place. In my opinion the Romans could have been the greatest Empire in history, but they unfortunately had some flaws and shortcomings that are hard for me to overlook. Their propensity for continuous civil wars. Their inability to solve the succession problem, which is one of the reasons why they fell. The gladiatorial games, which were really an insanely brutal form of entertainment. The persecutions against Christians, and later ironically, the persecution of Pagans.
And lastly, their inability to industrialize. They were quite close I think, but their failure to spark the industrial revolution and the other shortcomings prevented them to become the greatest Empire ever in history. However, I should add that I don’t consider any other country or Empire to be the greatest country or Empire in history, because we are still so very flawed. Maybe in the future, we will be able to achieve such an ideal state, but in that state, human suffering must me absolutely minimized, while the most percentage of people possible should achieve happiness. I hope that this will be possible one day.
– In your opinion, when did the Roman Empire reach its peak? Was it during the early 2nd century under Emperor Trajan?
I would say yes, during the around 2 centuries of the Pax Romana, so from the reign of the emperor Augustus, until the reign of Marcus Aurelius I would say that this was the peak of the Roman Empire. Before that, it was culturally and technologically already very advanced, but this was before it became an Empire. And we can see that, unfortunately, already with the onset of the Antonine Plague in the mid 160s, the industrial output would never again reach the peak. Many mines were abandoned such as the famous Las Medullas mines in Spain, and the total Roman population from that time onwards, would never fully recover.
Afterwards, repeated plagues, germanic invasions and countless civil wars, which of course were all intertwined, hindered the Roman Empire to fully recover and again reach the technological peak of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I think this is also visible in the craftsmanship of statues which never again would fully reach the incredible level of detail and precision of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In that time, we also had the most impressive works of art in general, and some impressive innovations.
This shows especially with the huge industrial water mill complex at Barbegal near Arelate, modern day Arles, which was in operation from the early 100s AD to the late 200s AD. This was basically an industrial scale water mill for the production of flour. Never again would the Romans build anything remotely as impressive, which in my opinion is quite telling. In fact, it would take more than 1000 years until such a level of technology was achieved again. It is also very telling that this level of innovation was achieved around the year 100 AD, which would confirm our suspicion, that indeed, the peak of Rome was around the reign of Trajan, but more broadly speaking, I would say that 27 BC – 165 AD is the peak of Rome. The Antonine plague unfortunately ended that golden age of Rome.
The best Roman war commanders
Why did you choose the name “Maiorianus” as your YouTube channel’s name?
When I tried to understand why the Roman Empire fell, it became quite clear to me, that at no point in time was that Fall of Rome inevitable. In fact, I would say that the Roman Empire would have had pretty good chances to survive until modern times, although in a probably very different form from what we would recognize. Some people often forget that the Roman Empire actually already almost fell 200 years before the end of the Western Roman Empire, namely in the crisis of the 3rd century.
But the Romans, through a combination of very capable emperors, such as Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelian, Probus, etc. were able to stabilize again and continue for more than 1000 years until the Fall of Constantinople. In the West unfortunately though, they ran out of luck in the 400s. Basically, it sometimes really came down to exactly that: Luck, or the lack thereof. In hindsight, we often unfairly say: “this or that had to happen”, when in fact we just apply unfair hindsight, and assume that things had to happen a certain way.
But I quickly learned, that the same way that the Roman Empire was saved in the crisis of the 3rd century through sheer luck, by the right combination of Emperors, the same way, it ran out of luck in the 400s AD. There was the wrong combination of Emperors, such as Honorius and Valentinian III, who both in their very long reigns, did nothing noteworthy to stabilize the Western Roman Empire.
However, there were some impressive exceptions, and I would say that the most impressive one, was the emperor Majorian. This emperor really could have been a second Aurelian, had things gone a bit differently. He came quite close to restoring the Western Roman Empire from 457 – 461. Unfortunately though, his effort to reconquer Africa for the Western Roman Empire failed, and soon after, he was treacherously betrayed by his general Ricimer. I found it unfair, that not many people recognized this achievement, in fact, very few people even knew about Majorian.
Everybody though knew about Caesar and Augustus, but nobody knew about the heroes of the Western Roman Empire, who almost managed to save Rome from the brink of destruction. Heroic figures such as Stilicho, Constantius III, Aetius, Majorian or to a certain degree also Anthemius. Therefore I chose the name Maiorianus for the channel, derived from Majorian’s name: Iulius Valerius Maiorianus. I dedicated the channel to his memory to hopefully be able to show that:
1. The Fall of Rome was not inevitable, it happened because they ran out of luck
2. There were many late Roman heroes who deserve to be remembered as strongly as Caesar or Augustus
Timeline of the Roman Empire
– What were the most significant factors that led to the decline of the Western Roman Empire?
I my opinion, it was mostly bad luck, which sounds quite simplistic. Of course in reality, it was a combination of several different factors, which all acted at the same time:
1. The lack of an ordered succession system, so often when there was a new emperor, there would be civil wars
2. Very long borders that were incredible difficult to defend against many germanic tribes, that made a sport out of storming the defenses and looting Roman lands
3. The splitting of the Empire and the constant civil wars of West vs East
4. The very long reign of the two ineffective emperors Honorius and Valentinian III
5. The increasing reliance on germanic foederati, federate soldiers, instead of high quality Roman troops.
But, the problem is: This doesn’t explain why the East survived, and why the West fell. Because all the points that I listed here, were also largely true for the East. So why then did the West fall, while the East survived? It again comes down to bad luck.
The East was luckier in the sense, that they had the richer provinces, which on top, were formidably hard to reach. Protected from the north by the Caucasus mountains, to the left the black sea, to the right the Caspian sea. In the West, Anatolia which in itself was very mountainous, and then the fortress of Constantinople. Then the huge mediterranean, where the germanics had huge troubles crossing, because they mostly were really bad at seafaring. Many people forget that in the late 300s, the West was actually stronger than the East. After the battle of Adrianople in 378 AD, or better, the disaster of Adrianople, the West actually helped the East more often than the other way round.
What then really broke the neck of the West, were the big civil wars of Magnus Maximus and Eugenius against Theodosius. It was a classic West vs East full on civil war. Both times the West lost, which also was a close call. This basically destroyed a huge portion of the Western legions. In 394 AD, at the battle of the Frigidus, a large portion of the Western armies was destroyed. As a consequence, the supreme general of the West, Flavius Stilicho, had to withdraw a lot of troops from the Rhine border, for the defense of Italy against the Germanic incursions.
Germanic incursions, which would not have been possible, if the East had won at Adrianople. And so Stilicho was able to defend Italy against multiple germanic incursions, but the price they paid was heavy: In 406 AD, huge numbers of germanic tribes were able to break through the Rhine border defenses, and this was a direct consequence of the withdrawal of troops from the Rhine border, which again was a direct consequence of the West losing against the East in the civil wars of the 380s and 390s AD. The West was never again able to get those germanics out of their Empire. So it really came down to military reasons why they fell, in combination with bad luck.
If the West had won the civil wars of the 380s-390s AD, history would have gone down entirely differently. In that alternate timeline, I think the West would have had a lot more troops and thus would have been able to repel the invasions of 406 AD.
Thus, the Western Empire would not have fallen, or if, then much much later. So we see, it really came down to bad luck and therefore a series of military disasters. Combine that with the more favorable geography of the East, and the West having the worse provinces, and we now understand why the West fell.
Top reasons for the the fall of the Roman Empire
– Do you think the Western Roman Empire could have survived if the Eastern Roman Empire had made greater efforts to save it from the barbarian invasions?
I think yes. After all, it was as I described earlier, the civil wars of Western vs Eastern Roman Empire, that broke the neck of the West. Of course, had the West then had very capable emperors, even then, there might still have been chances to save it. But the West had Honorius and Valentinian III for around 60 years combined, two emperors that did almost nothing to save the Western Empire. And the East realized far too late, the severity of the situation. The first real efforts to save the West happened in the 430s, when the East sent their general Aspar with an army to fight against the Vandals. Help came again in 441, but they had to withdraw when the Huns attacked, then help came another time in 452, and of course the huge help that came in 468 with the giant fleet of 1000 ships that the East sent to Cape Bon against the Vandals. The last time that the East sent help was in 474 under Leo I, when he sent Julius Nepos with an army to reclaim Italy.
We thus see, that help came too late, and really strong help only started coming in the 450s, at a time when the West had already lost Africa. Had the East sent immediate, decisive help, as soon as the Vandals had crossed into Africa in 429, I think that the Vandals would have been defeated, Africa would never have fallen, and if Africa would not have fallen, then the West would have survived.
Africa was by far the most important province for the West, apart from Italy of course, because it not only sent grain shipments, and so was the breadbasket of the Western Empire, but it was also the richest province, creating huge tax revenue. Without Africa, the West did not have enough money any more to recruit new troops, and then the downward spiral really began after the Fall of Africa to the Vandals from 429-439. More decisive and earlier help from the East would therefore have helped immensely.
– Why do you oppose the use of the term “Byzantine Empire” for the Eastern Roman Empire? After all, by the 7th century, Greek had become the official language, the Eastern Church had significantly diverged from the Western Church, and the culture, architecture, and both the administrative and military structures were very different from those of the fallen Western Roman Empire.
I fully understand the rationale and reasoning behind why historians would use a different term for the later Eastern Romans, as opposed to the earlier Romans. It makes sense to underline the cultural differences from the 7th century onwards, and the language difference. The problem is though, that the term “Byzantine” was a derogatory term created shortly after the Fall of Constantinople, in order to de-legitimize the Eastern Romans as being the true successors of the Romans. Also, the term itself makes little sense, because the city of Byzantium had ceased to exist in 330AD, when it became Constantinopolis. So a more accurate term would actually be: Constantinopolitans or Constantinopolitan Empire. But I guess that doesn’t sound as cool as Byzantine Empire.
The Eastern Romans, even though culturally very estranged from the earlier Romans, still always continued to see themselves as Romans. So who are we to tell them, that it is not so? There is a certain arrogance which I think is in that word, us calling a certain people something, which they would have absolutely hated, and I am quite sure, that they would have been appalled by us calling them Byzantines. So basically, therefore, I oppose that term, because I want to respect the Eastern Romans, by not calling them something that they themselves would have very much hated.
Another reason is, that the cultural estrangement in itself is in my opinion also a weak argument. For, was the Western Roman Empire in 461 AD not also very different from the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus? They also had very little in common any more, but officially, we would still call that empire the Western “Roman” Empire, and not the Empire of Ravenna, or the Ravennati. Even though they also dressed differently, had a different religion, and used different military strategies, their armies looked vastly different as well, and the buildings they built, too. Yet, we still call them Romans, and not the “Ravennati”. Why don’t we do the same with the Romans from the East?
The last days of the Roman Empire
– Which country today is the true successor of the Roman Empire—Italy, Romania, or perhaps the United States?
This I would say, strongly depends on what type of succession this would refer to. Geographically and linguistically of course, Italy would be the direct successor state, because Rome still exists and it still is the capital of Italy. And Italian is of all major spoken Romance languages the most similar to Latin. However, Rome meant an Empire, a vast collection of different peoples, living together under the same set of values. Rome also meant power, military and technological superiority. In 117 AD, there was no other power on the planet, that could match Rome’s power.
So Italy in my opinion, with all due respect to my good Italian friends, would not qualify, if we would see the successor of Rome from that perspective. Romania is fascinating as well, because it is the only country on earth, which has the name of Rome in its name. It literally means “land of the Romans”. Trajan is still a prename in that country, after all that time. The language is also very similar to Latin, almost as similar as Italian or Spanish. But here too, the argument of military superiority and world power, does not hold.
So I would say that the United States of America, are the modern day successor of Rome, even though this is almost a meme at this point, a very overused trope. Yes, the american language is of course very different from the one of the Romans, as is the culture. But we can undoubtedly call them an Empire, which currently still is, militarily speaking, the most powerful force on the planet. Their capital city Washington DC, was actually built by the founding fathers, on Greek and Roman ideals, there are many buildings there, which look surprisingly “Roman”. Their law code is based on the law Codex of Theodosius and Justinian, and in my opinion, we could call them an Empire.
So you see, it depends on what kind of succession we are talking about: culture, language, geography, military power or technology? But overall, I see the most similarities between the USA and Rome, in terms of economic, technological and military power, law code, and them being a multicultural state of different ethnicities, all united by a common set of values, similar to the Roman Empire.
Interview conducted by Matija Šerić.
