Although most emperors from Diocletian onwards no longer resided in Rome, the city continued to be held in high regard throughout the fourth and fifth centuries. During this period, three usurpers once again established the Urbs Aeterna as their capital: Maxentius (306–312 CE), Nepotian (350 CE), and Priscus Attalus (409–410 CE). This article examines how each of them sought to employ the unique prestige of Rome as an asset to strengthen their claims to the purple. It argues that Rome was a flexible ideological concept that could be employed in a variety of ways to suit the circumstances of different rulers and appeal to various audiences. While Maxentius made some efforts to present himself as a civilis princeps , he mostly favored an exalted style as conservator Urbis suae , associating himself closely with Rome's aeternitas . Nepotian and particularly Attalus were more inclined to present themselves as senatorial emperors. As all three cases show, ambitious men could exploit the discrepancy between Rome's high status and political marginalization, yet a Rome-based emperorship also confronted them with hazards and limitations, such as the expectations of a huge volatile crowd and a long-established, powerful aristocracy.

The flourishing of late-antique studies in the last half-century has coincided with the rise of “world history” as an area of academic research. To an extent, some overlap has occurred, particularly with Sasanian Persia being considered alongside the late Roman Empire as constituting an essential component in what we think of in terms of the “shape” of late antiquity. Yet it is still the case that many approaches to late antiquity are bound up with conventional western narratives of historical progress, as defined in Jack Goody's The Theft of History (2006). Indeed, the debate about whether late antiquity was an age of dynamic transformation (as argued by Peter Brown and his disciples) or one of catastrophic disruption (as asserted, most recently, by Bryan Ward-Perkins) can be regarded as representing two different faces of an essentially evolutionary interpretation of western historical development. This article argues, however, that we can challenge such conventional narrative frameworks by taking a world historical perspective on late antiquity. It shows, first, that our interpretation of late antiquity depends on sources that themselves are representative of myriad local perspectives. Secondly, it argues that since Gibbon's time these sources have been made to serve an essentially western construct of and debate about history. The final section considers how taking a more global perspective allows us to challenge conventional approaches to and narratives of late antiquity.

This paper focuses on the justifications for feeding Rome as a case study for evaluating the transition from a classical model of civic euergetism to one of Christian charity. Civic euergetism, which customarily entails public philanthropy publicly directed toward one's city or fellow citizens, was a social transaction intended to gain personal glory. In Christian charity, the poor were now supposed to be the objects of acts of public giving. Based on my analysis, I propose that scholars who view this transition as either continuity or novel change are adopting flawed models. I offer an alternative model for this transition that stresses the dynamic, on-going interaction of civic euergetism and Christian charity. These two sets of ideas influenced one another even as they remained distinct components of justifications for the feeding of Rome well into the late sixth century.