bitparity

Has anyone made a pitch for the collapse of Rome due to the failure of migrant integration? Republican Rome greatly increased its power in integrating disparate groups like the Samnites and the Etruscans. Pre-Crisis Rome with Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana, giving citizenship to all in the empire, from the Celts to the Egyptians. I'm of the opinion had the ruling barbarian generals of late empire been "allowed" to become romans, they would've continued utilizing its infrastructure, and we would be seeing Gallic Governor Clovis rather than King of the Franks Clovis, and Western Emperor Theodoric rather than King of Italy Theodoric. And as an additional corollary, one only has to look at China, and see how they co-opted their barbarians into becoming sinicized, to the point where now they consider the Xiong-nu (Huns?), Mongols, and Manchus as "Chinese." Which is why I'm of the opinion if people want to know what the Roman Empire would look like had it survived to the modern day, they only need to look at the Chinese Empire.

http://kotaku.com/5857802/constantinople-looks-stunning-in-assassins-creed-revelations I thought they did a semi-decent job with Rome, though obviously everything was smaller, and they turned palatine hill into merely a series of arches...

You know what else is doing a good job of recreating Constantinople, Assassins Creed Revelations. If you watch their newest trailer, they have a segment where you're running through the ruins of the old Hippodrome before it was turned into a park.

No. The Roman Empire's own survival was dependent upon a complex taxation, trade and logistical support system for its military, which enabled it to fight while outnumbered. There was nothing in Soissons to trade, the population too low to tax into forming a capable professional military, and its population of farmers and landholders probably preferred simply switching loyalties to the Franks than fighting to the death for the soissons king, no matter his romano-gallic cultural affinity. Especially since in the germanic tribes most males were technically warriors, the simple demographics were not for soissons' survival. Better to be traded over than fought over.

How have they vanished? I don't think they've vanished at all. Can't we simply say the Franks evolved as a culture over the hundreds of years since their emergence as a barbarian tribe, to a ruling warrior aristocracy over a predominantly differently cultured (gallo-romanic) population, to finally a hybrid nation? I mean look at the evolution of the Normans into Anglo-French then ultimately English. Their situations are actually pretty analogous. Invasion, replacement of the ruling caste. After hundreds of years, cultural integration to form a new hybrid culture with a hybrid language. End culture does not look much like the first culture, but maintains a continuous lineage. Critical question, how are you defining vanished? Are you talking about genetic lineage? There is a continuous genetic lineage of French (as well as most of europe)'s descent from charlemagne. As a unified state? One could argue a non-bureaucratic kingdom could only be held together by the strength and will of the king by rule of conquest or the threat of it. Without which a weak king naturally devolves administration to his vassals with their hereditary claims, which results in feudalism. In which case, a unified state is the anomaly, not the norm to regress to. As an ideology? Early frankish history and culture is celebrated as an integral part of medieval and modern france. I disagree with your assertion that the Franks have "vanished." They have merely evolved like all other civilizations evolve. Frankish->French. Just like Norman->AngloFrench->English. Just like the culture of the Rome of 14 AD was not the same as the Rome of 285, 476, 1204, and 1453.

Been reading through John Julius Norwich's fabulous history of Venice, and was noticing the connotational difference in his history when he simplify referred to the leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire as simply the "Western Emperor" vs. the "Eastern Emperor." It immediately gave me a sense of the competition as well as the continuity from the original empire that each side claimed during that period in history. Which got me thinking. Byzantine Empire is so unwieldy. The first time I heard of them I had no clue they were a continuation of the Roman Empire. In my mind, with that name, it's still difficult to reconcile that fact. I mean even the more unwieldy Constantinoplan Empire would probably be preferable, as it indicates the new locus of that empire. Now we know that the west referred to the Byzantines as the "Empire of the Greeks," to reflect their belief that the byzantines were not the true inheritors of rome, but maybe that can be a useful guideline? Why not, post-heraclius we go with Greek Roman Empire? Obviously post-diocletian we'd keep calling it the eastern roman empire, but with Greek Roman Empire, it could simultaneously imply continuity with the old roman empire, as well as an acknowledgement the overwhelming greek nature of the empire post arab conquests. Are there any other cultural pitfalls I'm missing here? tl;dr - Call it the Greek Roman Empire instead of the Byzantine Empire?

Especially given the overlap, between the Ottomans taking over formerly Byzantine areas, and Gibbons saying the Ottomans merely took over the top the bureaucracy, while continuing its administrative practices. Was wondering if this would be akin to the norman conquest, or perhaps even the barbarian invasions of China. That though one invading group conquered the other, they were eventually subsumed culturally into the other. Was there overlap in dress sense, both before the fall of constantinople, and in the few decades afterward?

Chinese history, especially during their period of disunion after the fall of the Han Dynasty. I've always been fascinated by the question of why China as a culture was able to reintegrate itself into a state in a way Rome never did. My theories include: -an ideographic writing system not tied to alphabetic pronounciation, which created a unity of literary thought independent of spoken language. -a longer period of barbarian integration. -a few lucky breaks that went China's way that didn't go Rome's. I'm also distantly related to one of the emperors of the fractured southern dynasties after the fall of Han.