3 ms·

> If you were living in Rome in 477 Then your civilisation was in a constant state of flux beginning at least in the 230s with the advent of the "barracks empe

> If you were living in Rome in 477 Then your civilisation was in a constant state of flux beginning at least in the 230s with the advent of the "barracks emperors". The "fall from grace" of the roman civilisation was a lengthy process with several changes not only to roman society but also to the tribes surrounding Rome (better organization due to trade- and military links to Rome; introduction of advanced metalurgy; christianity). I bet, for the people living in that time period, as a roman citizen of the Western Empire, not much would have changed, except for some details in taxation and military conscription. Oh yes, and the dude you pay taxes to was now a military leader of germanic descent who called himself King, instead of a individual of the roman aristocracy, who called himself Emperor. In retrospect though, this date can be seen as a definitive turning point with no way back to the days of the past. But only due to the fact that a title (Emperor of the West) was abolished. If anything, the West was 'comprehensively fucked' long before that date.

coldtea 9y ago
>I bet, for the people living in that time period, as a roman citizen of the Western Empire, not much would have changed, except for some details in taxation and military conscription. Oh yes, and the dude you pay taxes to was now a military leader of germanic descent who called himself King, instead of a individual of the roman aristocracy, who called himself Emperor. In fact lots have changed, except if you constrain the consideration only to rural places. The life of a citizen in Rome before and after the collapse would have been very different (that said, the collapse indeed took centuries to be completed).
oblio 9y ago
> Oh yes, and the dude you pay taxes to was now a military leader of germanic descent who called himself King, instead of a individual of the roman aristocracy, who called himself Emperor. Even that was not a major factor at the time. Several emperors had already been of Germanic origins, plus many others were of non-Latin origin and had been from quite early on. Also not all emperors were former Roman aristocrats. At the time it was probably much less of an event than one of the two recent sacks of Rome.

coldtea 9y ago

>I bet, for the people living in that time period, as a roman citizen of the Western Empire, not much would have changed, except for some details in taxation and military conscription. Oh yes, and the dude you pay taxes to was now a military leader of germanic descent who called himself King, instead of a individual of the roman aristocracy, who called himself Emperor. In fact lots have changed, except if you constrain the consideration only to rural places. The life of a citizen in Rome before and after the collapse would have been very different (that said, the collapse indeed took centuries to be completed).

oblio 9y ago

> Oh yes, and the dude you pay taxes to was now a military leader of germanic descent who called himself King, instead of a individual of the roman aristocracy, who called himself Emperor. Even that was not a major factor at the time. Several emperors had already been of Germanic origins, plus many others were of non-Latin origin and had been from quite early on. Also not all emperors were former Roman aristocrats. At the time it was probably much less of an event than one of the two recent sacks of Rome.