MovieChat Forums > The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) Discussion > The title of the movie

The title of the movie

posted 20 years ago by Quinibus-Flestrin
5 replies | jump to latest

For those of you who don't know: the reason this is called 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' is because the greatest modern historian of them all (Edward Gibbon) said in his masterpiece (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) the question we should ask is not why Rome fell, but why it lasted so long: that the death of Commodus was the end of Rome, and that it simply staggered its way toward death from then on. The complete fall of Rome would not actually occur until the end of the 15th century when the Turks took Constantinople.

Not sure if anyone else had clarified this, there just seemed to be some confusion on the board.

[–] diamondgroup 19 years ago

Rome in 180 AD was certainly not ready to fall. It was, in fact,after the reign of the so-called five "good emperors", it was at it's apex. The beginning of the decline of the Empire, from this golden period, is usually ascribed to the ascension of Commodus to the throne. He was the first emperorer in decades to succede his natural father, and was not adopted because of his ability, as had been the practice since the emperor Nerva in 98 AD, and it showed. He was a disaster.The empire in the west was totally finished by about 500 AD, although the exact date usually given is 476. The eastern empire existed, in one form or another, until 1453, with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. This title is catching, and was probably calculated to peek interest, although historically inaccurate. I remember the newspaper tag lines when the film was released went something like, "With the barbarians at the gates, they found a love for all time." This ,of course would have made more sense if the film was set 250 years later. There is a pretty good film about the later period called "The Last Roman" , starring Lawernce Harvey.

[–] Quinibus-Flestrin 19 years ago

Yes, I know, I was simplifying this a bit. When Commodus dies and Julian bids to become Emperor is when Gibbon says that Rome has died, hence the title is a reference to his book, not neccessarily an attempt at historical thoroughness, I'm sure, but that seems to be where the idea came from. But, as you said, Rome officially does not die until then defeat of Orestes and the abdication of his son Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD.

[–] froske1 19 years ago

I think the title is more of a metaphor than a reference to Gibbon's book. I mean, whoever decided on this title probably agreed with Gibbon's idea, but I've seen no reference to Gibbon in the movie. In fact, there's not much historical accuracy in this film at all, but that doesn't make it less interesting.

God is real unless declared integer.

[–] theromanempire-1 9 years ago

now why i think that in 476 AD the roman empire was united again under zeno the emperor of eastern rome ?

[–] nelson95 9 years ago

You're absolutely right--the title is historically inaccurate and a misnomer and I think that's the big flaw about the movie because the setting is 180 AD and yet the Roman Empire survived for three centuries after that.