Senate in the City of Rome still around 603AD

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate

 

This makes for a very, very awkward situation for many historians who insist the Roman state ended with the last Western Emperor, the Senate was still around in the 7th Century, and still had enough independence to overrule both the Eastern Emperor and the Italian King in choosing who was going to be Pope!

 

It's another pain in that it was Emperor Justinian, of the eastern roman empire, who abolished most western senatorial offices.

 

The last act of the Senate in Rome (The east had their own authentic Senate), was to recognize statues of Eastern Emperors.

 

This will cause a considerable amount of troubled confusion for historians who include the Senate lead republic, then the emperor lead republic, as the absolute end of the Romans in the east, as well as Identifying the Roman East as something alien and unroman, marked by weak, questionable historic dividers.

 

It appears such historians have been overruled by the Roman Senate itself!

It's offical, the Roman Senate survived 'The Fall', and continued on till the 4th Crusade in the East, 603 in the West. Apparently the republic could survive loosing the backing of the extraconstitutional 'Savior of the Republic' Emperors, which Rome operated just fine for centuries without.

 

The official lifespan of the Roman state in the west has been extended, as well as the 'Byzantines' being 100% authentic Romans, thanks to recognition by the bona fide Roman Senate, who definitely had the better authority to decide who was, and was not, Roman. Much more so than a few modern revisionist historians with a grudge against history.

 

Don't like it, build a time machine. This marks the end of the Roman Fall/Anti Byzantine school, it has about as much historic support as the flat earth theory.

 

The De Jure End (thank you Roman Senate), as well as the De Facto end.

 

Enough said.

[Number Six]

We're talking of the beginning of the 7th century: it's not that late, if you think of it. Pretty obviously the Roman Senate survived under Odoacer and under Theoderic and his heirs, since Cassiodorus and Boethius were senators themselves. Then there was the Gothic War, 'edning' in 554 with the Pragmatic Sanction, which brough Italy under the Justinianian law. During 568-569 the Langobards invaded, and isolated the city of Rome from the rest of the empire: the senate survived few more decades.

There is hardly a problem with recognizing the continuity at least up to the Langobard invasion: any serious historian hasn't been talking of a strict 'fall' of the Roman Empire for at least thirty years.

[Onasander]

I wonder why it ultimately died out. Why the middle ages were dominated by parliments and not senates.... I've read alot of kings mirrors from the middle ages, it's annoyingly never touched upon. Having a independent senate presided over by a emperor solves alot of dynastic weaknesses inherent in monarchy, such as the role and status of busy body nobles, what the kings offspring not expected to rule will do with their time, and a independent institution that can rule if a chold inherits the throne too early.

 

At the very least, they will discuss every idea, point and counter point in detail. It seems eerie Italy of all places gave up on the concept, leaving it to others to resurrect it. My every impulse as a medieval ruler would be towards panic without one. A state's intelligence goes up dramatically when they are around to debate and contribute.

[caldrail]

The senate died out because it became less and less relevant to the actual running of the empire. This was why the empire ultimately broke into cooperative halves, or why Diocletion instituted his Tetrarchy. Partly this has to laid at the feet of the senatorial class themselves - their self serving factiobalism allowed the chaos of the late republic and the rule of the Caesars to emerge - partly because there were Caesars who didn't want the Senate sharing what they regarded as their power - partly because senatorial competition for power had been diluted by changes to the cobnstitution - and partly because Rome was less and less the centre of the Roman world.