Did Rome Really Fall?

[longshotgene]

During a streak on Eureka while sitting on the white porcelin god, I had an epiphany. Did the Roman Empire really fall? Much like the Mafia in the U.S., I think it did not. It just changed directions. Instead of having an emperor, you now have the Pope. The Diocese concept from Diocletian still exists to today. I have numerous times over where it says the Barbarian controlled the church. Wasn't it the other way around? Who got the Kings of Europe to join in on a crusade? Who commands the religious obediance of almost a billion people around the WORLD? I have now taken a new view on Rome (Western Half) and have come to the conclusion it never did fall. It realigned its direction from that of a military superpower to that of a religious superpower.

[Gaius Octavius]

I am pretty sure that the Roman Popes did carry some Imperial titles until the 19th century. So did the Austrian emperors. I don't think that is why Rome really never fell. I feel that Rome took bits and pieces from others; added and improved them; provided their own innovations, and left them to us. Rome is and has been an idea - an ideal - today.

[ASCLEPIADES]

During a streak on Eureka while sitting on the white porcelin god, I had an epiphany. Did the Roman Empire really fall? Much like the Mafia in the U.S., I think it did not. It just changed directions. Instead of having an emperor, you now have the Pope. The Diocese concept from Diocletian still exists to today. I have numerous times over where it says the Barbarian controlled the church. Wasn't it the other way around? Who got the Kings of Europe to join in on a crusade? Who commands the religious obediance of almost a billion people around the WORLD? I have now taken a new view on Rome (Western Half) and have come to the conclusion it never did fall. It realigned its direction from that of a military superpower to that of a religious superpower.

Salve, amici.

 

I find this issue intriguing, but before we continue discussing it, maybe we should ask our legates if this topic doesn't fit better at the Momotheism subforum.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Did the Roman Empire really fall?

 

The Romans certainly thought their empire had fallen, and many blamed the Christians (hence, Augustine's reply in the City of God). Hard to align these facts with your porcelain musings.

[Honorius]

rome did fall as a political entity but its institutions did continue within the 'successor kingdoms' actually only the western empire fell with the continuation of the east.

[M. Porcius Cato]

rome did fall as a political entity but its institutions did continue within the 'successor kingdoms' actually only the western empire fell with the continuation of the east.

 

It's true that the Eastern capital of Constantinople didn't fall until 1453, but Roman dominance of the Levant and the lands bordering the Aegean fell to the Persians, Arabs, and Slavs beginning around 600. Moreover, the continuation of the Church in the West is small consolation for the utter collapse of all the literary and material comforts enjoyed by Romans, including such basics as tile roofs, pottery, and trade in specialized goods. Heck, even the quality of cows declined to that of the Iron Age. For most of Europe, the barbarians brought a horror-fest of wrenching poverty, vast illiteracy, and bloody violence. If that's not a Fall (with a capital F), I don't know what would be.

[Klingan]

I am pretty sure that the Roman Popes did carry some Imperial titles until the 19th century. So did the Austrian emperors. I don't think that is why Rome really never fell. I feel that Rome took bits and pieces from others; added and improved them; provided their own innovations, and left them to us. Rome is and has been an idea - an ideal - today.

 

I'm quite sure that the popes still are titulated Pontifex Maximus. I so wonder where they got that idea from

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve.

I see no actual contradiction between both positions.

 

Not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Eastern Orthodox Churches are remanent institutions from the ancient Roman state. But the countries where those churches have thrived are not Rome anymore. By any standard, Rome and Romania "fell" centuries ago.

 

It would be analogous to the case of the Islam in Indonesia; Islam was born as an Arabic institution, but Indonesia is not an Arab country.

Edited October 12, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[DecimusCaesar]

I have to agree with Cato on this one. Rome, at least the Western Roman Empire, did fall. The Roman state changed constantly throughout its history, although there were many things that stayed the same. Roman culture with its baths, aqueducts and sports had been in existance since the Republic, and they had continued well into the Dominate period- even if the Empire had become a militarised christian bureaucracy. Another famous feature of Roman society was the life centred around towns and cities.

 

By the seventh century, virtually all of this had disappeared in Western Europe. Now you had Germanic Kingdoms in their place, ruled by tribal warlords who lived in small villages. Culture centred around Heroic singing and drinking mead in the warlord's hall. It wasn't until Charlemagne became Holy Roman Emperor, that these kingdoms began looking back to Rome for inspiration. They did not carry 'Rome's flame' as it were, as some historians such as Peter Brown suggest.

 

Still, after reading Francis Pryor's 'Britain AD' I realise that those that support the 'continuity' hypothesis are still going strong. Pryor seems to suggest there was no invasions or collapse of Roman power in Britain...he even goes as far as too suggest that this same pattern applies to the whole of Roman Europe. Personally I think that Pryor and Brown have some interesting ideas, it's just that they tend to overstate their case.

[Honorius]

its a valid argument in my eyes that as the roman empire was centered around the mediteranean that it only fully fell after the arab invasions in the seventh cenutry. the arabs conquered a substantial amount of roman land aswell as the majority of the Visigothic kingdom in spain which correct me if im wrong was much more romanesque then most other barbarian nations? i think it was Henri Pirenne who proposed this theory

[Ursus]

As a geopolitical reality it did indeed fall. As a cultural influence it lingered on. I'm all about culture and heritage. Nonetheless I don't pretend the empire is still around just because the Pope likes to call himself Pontifex Maximus.

[Klingan]

As a geopolitical reality it did indeed fall. As a cultural influence it lingered on. I'm all about culture and heritage. Nonetheless I don't pretend the empire is still around just because the Pope likes to call himself Pontifex Maximus.

 

Of course not, the empire is dead since long, it's cultural influence (That have already been discussed at these boards several times) still lives on however.

 

Yes Rome fell, no doubt.