1 Answer | Add Yours
The revolt against the Romans was important in the demise rather than the development of the Roman empire. Rome had always had small rebellions, but these were usually solved by bringing in masses of reinforcements which was easy for them as their successful system relied on conscription and human slavery. However, there were later symptoms that the Romans had begun, like so many invaders, to over reach themselves.
In the autumn of 476 AD, the last of the Roman emperors of the western flank (Romulus Augustulus) was in trouble. He had been ousted by Odovacar who was a royal Germanic chieftain and who had taken control of the last vestiges of the Roman army from Italy. He made a strategic move to dispatch the imperial regalia of the west to Constantinople.
Western Europe's side of the empire had survived and thrived for half a century - a massive state which was centrally administrated but now was defunct,being run by a mixture of royal clans. Odovacar wasn't new to this system - it was the culture he came from himself and was used to conscripts from all lands whether enslaved, peasant or immigrant in origin.
So many of these 'rebellions' were not that surprising, rulers and administrators were often local in origin whether they had been Anglo-Saxons from Britain, Vandals in Africa or the Goths of southern Gaul and Spain, so it was easy for them to resort to their roots.
We’ve answered 333,573 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question