It is important to keep those tensions between cohesion and fragmentation in view if we are not to arrive at a simplistic account of the events that constitute the traditional grand narrative of Late Antiquity, in which the Roman Empire is dismembered by foreign invaders. Some efforts to comprehend that process have tended to emphasize the homogeneity of the Roman Empire in cultural, economic, and political terms (Heather 2005: 15-45; Ward-Perkins 2005: 87-168); there is a risk here, however, in making its disintegration seem excessively cataclysmic. It is clear that the strains placed on the Late Roman Empire could engender (or exacerbate) local and regional rivalries, particularly by encouraging competition for political authority and resources. That was particularly the case, for example, in the west in the middle of the fifth century, when, after the murder of Valentinian III in ad 455, there came a swift succession of short-lived emperors (Harries 1994). Although the prize in those conflicts was the imperial throne, the motives were indicative of rival regional interests. By that stage, Gaul had long suffered invasions, and its defense had been a priority during the long period when western affairs had been dominated by the magister militum Aetius (ad 433-54) (O’Flynn 1983). At the same time, Italy was also falling prey to attacks, not only from the north but also from the south by the Vandals in Africa. It is possible to discern a vigorous debate over how best to defend the empire, with candidates for the throne - the Gauls Avitus and Majorian, and the Italians Libius Severus and Olybrius - representing the interests of different regional elites (Humphries 2000: 526-8).
Such regional concerns can be discerned also among the peoples living along the empire’s frontiers, particularly in the east, where we can often observe local interests in great detail, thanks to a vigorous source tradition in Armenian and Syriac (see ‘‘Bibliographical note’’ below, s. v. al-Tabari, Chronicle ofZuqnin; Faustus of Byzantium; Pseudo-Joshua; and Sebeos). Here, both Roman emperors and Persian shahs sought to influence local potentates living in the zone between their two empires (Isaac 1992: 229-49; Parker 1986; see Drijvers, ch. 29, in this volume). That did not prevent power-brokers along the frontiers from seeking to pursue policies independent of their nominal overlords. Thus, for instance, the Armenian king Pap (ad 368-75), who was installed with Roman help, sought to balance the Roman influence over his kingdom by negotiating with Persia - an act of independence for which he paid a heavy price, when Valens, his Roman overlord, had him assassinated (Blockley 1992: 34-6). Similarly, the emperor Anastasius I’s war against Persia in AD 502-6 caused widespread upheavals along the frontier that were exploited as opportunities for raiding and gathering booty by the Arab allies of both Rome and Persia (Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, Chron. 80).
The behavior of those Armenians and Arabs indicates that any consideration of the late antique grand narrative needs to construct an account of events that does not simply prioritize the unity of the Roman Empire. Some further examples show how the upheavals of Late Antiquity were experienced in different parts of the empire, often in ways that confound expectations based on the frameworks that underpin traditional narratives. The Spanish chronicler Hydatius of Lemica wrote an account that stretches from ad 378 to 468, and therefore covers many of the key events that saw the western provinces dismembered and displaced by barbarian kingdoms. Yet his attitude in such matters is insistently local (Gillett 2003: 54). He recounts in great detail the invasions of Spain by Goths, Vandals, and Sueves, and, in particular, diplomatic exchanges that had a major impact on his home province of Gallaecia in northwestern Spain. By contrast, events that modern historians would regard as pivotal in any narrative of the fall of the Roman Empire often receive rather perfunctory treatment at his hands. For example, he dispenses with the sacks of Rome by the Goths in ad 410 and the Vandals in ad 455 in just a few lines (Hydatius, Chron. 35, 160). In both cases, those events are overshadowed by Hydatius’ more detailed account of contemporary events in Gallaecia. For Hydatius, then, the activities that impinged on conditions of life in northwestern Spain counted for more than events in the ancient heart of the empire. This parochial vision was emulated by later Spanish chroniclers, such as John of Biclaro and Isidore of Seville (see Wolf 1990).
A similar example is provided by the retirement forced upon the emperor Romulus Augustulus by the warlord Odoacer in ad 476. In traditional histories, that event has sometimes been regarded as marking not just the end of Roman rule in the west, but the end of the ancient world tout court. Most immediate contemporaries seem not to have viewed it that way: by ad 476, after all, the western empire had been reduced to a rump in Italy, with other regions already firmly under the sway of barbarian kings. The events of that year took on greater significance only in the sixth century in the lead-up to the emperor Justinian’s reconquest of Italy (Croke 1983): then, for the first time, the deposition of Romulus Augustulus was presented as marking the demise of the Roman Empire in the west (Marcellin. comes, Chron. s. a. 476. 2).
World History
