24 August 410 CE is the date of the Sack of Rome, and its treatment as a milestone in our understanding of European history is a good example of how wide the gap is between reality, as scholars seek to understand it, and the storybook fables that many people come to believe and then try to spread tendentiously on to others.
The Writer's Almanac entry for the Sack of Rome says that Alaric and the Visigoths "were one of the many tribes who were suffering at the hands of the Roman Empire. Roman leaders enforced higher and higher taxes on the people in their outer provinces and corrupt local officials grew wealthy while the people stayed poor. Rebellions broke out and the Visigoths started moving toward Rome."
Alaric is often portrayed (in WASP-derived cultures) as a kind of precursor figure to Martin Luther or to Calvin, coming to reform the corruption and decadence of Rome and free people from their burdens. It's not just a false portrayal or an oversimplification - it's a fabulation that seeks to elevate our view of the seeds of the Holy Roman Empire and the rise of Germany.
Even the wikipedia entry on this topic is quick to try and correct some of the many false images we have of this event and its ramifications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)?
Most basically, the city of Rome had not been the center of the Roman Empire for two generations by 410 CE, and the Empire had been shifted to the East (Constantinople) even earlier. Alaric was thoroughly part of the military culture of the Empire, not an outsider or foreign invader, and Visigoths themselves had been ~romanized~ for a couple centuries. So the Sack of Rome was far, far from a horde of foreign invaders attacking the capitol of an empire. You might say it was more like an attempt to seize more power by someone who didn't want to concede the orderly transfer away from the party that supported him to those that were more popular.