Historicism Debunked, Pt. 4 - The Fall of Rome

One of the many claims made by historicists, and their entire theology rests on this, is that Rome fell in 476 A.D. This is the foundation claim of historicists because they insist that the ten horns on the beast are the barbarian tribes that sacked the Western half of the Roman Empire. David Nikao Wilcoxson maintains this view. But if the view is historically untenable, then of course, it collapses in toto. Indeed, the view is actually highly historically untenable. There is a German thesis that has also been developed on the subject of the history of imperial claims to the title of Roman Emperor called the zweikaiserproblem or "problem of two emperors". It reflects on the fact there often was not a single Roman Emperor in charge of the entire territories of the Roman Empire at a given time.

It was during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian that the Roman Empire was first divided into a tetrarchy of two Augusti or ruling Emperors and two Ceasares or designated successors. "The system, often called the Dominate, soon fell apart and Constantine restored the monarchy by defeating all his rivals (313 AD). Later, however, the Empire was permanently split between the two sons of Theodosius, in 395 AD. The Eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, is also known as the Byzantine Empire." (Francois Velde, "The Title of Emperor") Those Eastern Emperors reigned in an unbroken line of succession through until the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D.! The problem is that a modernist historians typically try to negate the impact of Christianity on the Empire and proclaim that Rome was inherently Pagan. Thus, when the Western half was sacked in 476 A.D., the entire Empire fell. But how could that be if the Empire's capital wasn't even in Rome at the time?

Another further point to make is the succession through the West of the Emperor Charlemagne. Some may not recognize his legitimacy to the claim of Roman Empire, but the West did. And they may have had a solid basis for it too. The West eventually claimed a thesis of translatio imperii on the grounds that it too was permitted to have a Western Emperor and that the Empress Theodora arose through questionable means.

"While in practice there had been no emperor in the West since 480, this does not mean the position was vacant. In Roman political thought the empire was universal and indivisible. When in the fourth and fifth centuries there had been separate emperors in East and West, they were seen as colleagues ruling a single empire. This view of the indivisible nature of the empire survived in eight-century Constantinople, whose citizens still saw themselves as Romans. It was also shared by the Western kings who continued to recognize the superior status of the emperors in Constantinople. So, Charles could not be proclaimed Emperor without Eastern agreement, which was unlikely to be forthcoming.

Pope Leo, however, had a solution to this constitutional issue. The young emperor Constantine VI had been blinded and killed by his mother in 797 when he tried to revive the iconoclast policies of his predecessors. She had then taken the throne for herself, the first woman to rule in her own right in the history of the Roman empire, but the uneasy nature of her position was indicated by her using the male form of the imperial title. Her regime remained weak until her overthrow in 802. However, in the West in 800 the fact that she was a woman allowed it to be claimed that the imperial office was vacant, and thus no Eastern consent was needed." (Roger Collins, Keeper of the Keys of Heaven, 147)

Philotheus of Pskov, in the 16th century, developed an idea of understanding Russia as the Third Rome. To him, there couldn't be a "Fourth Rome". Russia was the final Rome. Rome had to be led by a Christian in accordance with his interpretation of prophecy. (Marshall T. Poe, "Moscow, the Third Rome", in The National Council for Soviet and East European Research, 4) This, of course, led to a development of another translatio imperii thesis among the Russians. Also justified by the fact that Ivan III was wed to the niece of the last Paleologue emperor in 1472. Peter the Great showed the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna a letter signed by Maximilian I recognizing the title of Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians as applied to the Czar Ivan III. (Velde) This indicates that the Russians even acknowledged the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire.

There was even reference to the Ottoman Emperor, after the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., as the "Prince of Turkish Romans" (Katharina Süß, "Der 'Fall' Konstantinople(s)"). Considering that often in the Roman Imperial of ancient, and even through the Byzantine medieval period, Emperors often arose through treacheries, civil wars (as did the Paleologues), and other means, the Ottoman Emperor would have just as much claim to legitimacy as soon as he inherited the throne as any one else. Certainly, partisans will view the date of the Fall of Rome differently but the established evidence shows that only a hack could trace the Fall of Rome back to 476 A.D.! Considering this is the basis of the historicist school of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, the actual facts of history show the entire interpretation sorely wanting. Of course, the Fourth Beast subdues the entire world under its dominion. Perhaps we can see this with the claims of legitimacy made to being the genuine successor of the Roman Empire? Maybe there is something to say on this as to how everyone wants to rule the Roman Empire. From France and Germany to Constantinople to Moscow. All roads lead to Rome, don't they? This raging beast ultimately sees kings divide it into ten parts. Was that really fulfilled with the barbarian invasions? But Rome hadn't conquered the world just yet!