3 ms·

“By 476, the empire’s reach was zero.” I stopped reading right here. The Western Empire fell in 476 (for many reasons). The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Em

“By 476, the empire’s reach was zero.” I stopped reading right here. The Western Empire fell in 476 (for many reasons). The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) lasted until 1453. Even that isn’t a perfect way of articulating it, given the continued influence of the Catholic Church had well into the 1500’s (Luther). In some ways one could argue civilization has never ended, but paused in different areas of the world. Also, taking a myopic view on civilization focused on the western civilization ignores the inter-continental trade that existed around Africa, Asia and Europe, doesn’t seem fair to the history. I know that’s a reductive argument, but I do think global civilization has been continually making progress, all be it with some slow downs and set backs along the way. Yes some empires went away, but we still read writings from Ancient Greece, so is it correct to say even that civilization ended? Long way of saying, “no” but things might change, and it could be uncomfortable for a while.

edgyquant 5y ago
Further. The empire ending didn’t mean civilization did as the Kingdom of Italy continued to exist and the empire was simply replaced with German kingdoms.
- labster 5y ago
  Replaced is an interesting word. Certainly the Holy Roman Empire claimed to be a successor state to Rome in the west, but in some sense Latin language and Roman culture pervades Europe. That’s why we have Kaisers and Czars who claim the power of Caesar. The United States’ civic architecture and symbols are explicit references to the Roman Republic, as it’s own bald eagle replaces the legion’s Aquila. Might as well say America replaced the Roman Empire.
- nsf39k 5y ago
  Odoacer also recognized Julius Nepos as de jure Western Emperor (although Nepos only ruled over a small rump state in Dalmatia) until Nepos was assassinated in 480. The Kingdom of Italy also maintained Roman institutions like the consuls and Roman senate, which continued to exist as an organization until the 7th century. With Odoacer acknowledging Nepos as the nominal ruler, referring to himself with Roman honorifics (usually as a patrician), and Roman institutions being preserved, I bet the average Roman civilian wouldn’t have experienced too big of a difference between 474 and 478 even if the Western Roman Empire had already been ‘replaced’ by the Kingdom of Italy.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    There wasn't much change in the 470s, but that's because the big earth shattering moments happened decades earlier. The Sacking of rome in 410 was really the moment everything changed for the common person. Rome had long since stopped being the capital of the west but it was still thought of as the core of the empire, the eternal city, and you can read accounts of how shocked everyone was when it fell for the first time in over 800 years. This led to many changes in how society functioned, for example the elites in italy stopped their euergetism which maintained the public works there. By the time Rome was sacked again in 455, the empire was already beginning to disintegrate into autonomous states, most of which were distinctly not Roman. Roman civilization may not yet have dissapeared from the world, but it was no longer present in many of the places it had been. By the time you get to 476, odds are the vast majority of people in italy weren't old enough to remember Rome as a functioning civilization. Sure some traditions carried on, just as some do to this day, but people's sense of identity and cultural values had long since changed from the days of Augustus.
huijzer 5y ago
So, the general rule of thumb still holds: whenever a news article’s title poses a question, the answer is probably no.
oroul 5y ago
> Yes some empires went away, but we still read writings from Ancient Greece, so is it correct to say even that civilization ended? I get your point, but I think it misses the mark. By this measure, no civilization has ever ended. If you go that far, you have to argue that the end of a civilization is the same as the end of the human species. I think it's helpful to think of it more like the end of the French revolution. No one can agree on a point in time when the revolution ended, but we all agree that it happened.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
That's a very literal abd misleading reading. The collapse in the West had very specific observable results including: * A trade crash across the Western empire * A crash in manufacturing * Widespread famine * A retreat from cities and villas * The withdrawal of the military * The withdrawal of centralised government influence * Their replacement by regional warlords * A huge decrease in civil stability * A huge increase in petty violence and lawlessness The millions of people living in the area certainly didn't experience continued expansion and prosperity. And most writings from Ancient Greece and Rome were lost to the East. Only fragments survived. Byzantium wasn't enough of an outpost to preserve the rest. What was left in Europe until the Renaissance was a kind of Christianised cargo-cult of the original empire, with most of the knowledge and working features lost. After the Renaissance there was a superficial rediscovery of some of the writing, the architecture, and the history, and it had an influence on modern European culture. But again in a kind of cargo-culty way which eventually turned into something else entirely in every area except politics. (A Roman senator would understand exactly how the US political system works, while being baffled by the technology.) You can argue that empire building continued elsewhere, but that's a different argument. There were empires in India, China, and the Middle East, but they were distinct and unrelated entities. If anything they've been even more forgotten.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  To steel-man parent's post, usually it's not that civilization per se collapses, the collapse is better characterized as a loss of state capacity. The important distinction being - technology wasn't lost. This framing is also relevant to present-day conversations. Claiming that our civilization is collapsing makes people eyes roll. Claim that we're losing state capacity is a message people are more receptive to.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    except a great deal of technology was lost. One of Hobbs insights is that in an era with a non-functional state, the rewards of technological investment are few. Also loss of state capacity has severe impact on international trade; recognize that trade also brings ideas and innovation. And any technology that relies on supply chains becomes challenging, any technology that relies on high levels of education becomes challenging.

edgyquant 5y ago

Further. The empire ending didn’t mean civilization did as the Kingdom of Italy continued to exist and the empire was simply replaced with German kingdoms.

labster 5y ago
Replaced is an interesting word. Certainly the Holy Roman Empire claimed to be a successor state to Rome in the west, but in some sense Latin language and Roman culture pervades Europe. That’s why we have Kaisers and Czars who claim the power of Caesar. The United States’ civic architecture and symbols are explicit references to the Roman Republic, as it’s own bald eagle replaces the legion’s Aquila. Might as well say America replaced the Roman Empire.
nsf39k 5y ago
Odoacer also recognized Julius Nepos as de jure Western Emperor (although Nepos only ruled over a small rump state in Dalmatia) until Nepos was assassinated in 480. The Kingdom of Italy also maintained Roman institutions like the consuls and Roman senate, which continued to exist as an organization until the 7th century. With Odoacer acknowledging Nepos as the nominal ruler, referring to himself with Roman honorifics (usually as a patrician), and Roman institutions being preserved, I bet the average Roman civilian wouldn’t have experienced too big of a difference between 474 and 478 even if the Western Roman Empire had already been ‘replaced’ by the Kingdom of Italy.
- jjk166 5y ago
  There wasn't much change in the 470s, but that's because the big earth shattering moments happened decades earlier. The Sacking of rome in 410 was really the moment everything changed for the common person. Rome had long since stopped being the capital of the west but it was still thought of as the core of the empire, the eternal city, and you can read accounts of how shocked everyone was when it fell for the first time in over 800 years. This led to many changes in how society functioned, for example the elites in italy stopped their euergetism which maintained the public works there. By the time Rome was sacked again in 455, the empire was already beginning to disintegrate into autonomous states, most of which were distinctly not Roman. Roman civilization may not yet have dissapeared from the world, but it was no longer present in many of the places it had been. By the time you get to 476, odds are the vast majority of people in italy weren't old enough to remember Rome as a functioning civilization. Sure some traditions carried on, just as some do to this day, but people's sense of identity and cultural values had long since changed from the days of Augustus.

huijzer 5y ago

So, the general rule of thumb still holds: whenever a news article’s title poses a question, the answer is probably no.

oroul 5y ago

> Yes some empires went away, but we still read writings from Ancient Greece, so is it correct to say even that civilization ended? I get your point, but I think it misses the mark. By this measure, no civilization has ever ended. If you go that far, you have to argue that the end of a civilization is the same as the end of the human species. I think it's helpful to think of it more like the end of the French revolution. No one can agree on a point in time when the revolution ended, but we all agree that it happened.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

That's a very literal abd misleading reading. The collapse in the West had very specific observable results including: * A trade crash across the Western empire * A crash in manufacturing * Widespread famine * A retreat from cities and villas * The withdrawal of the military * The withdrawal of centralised government influence * Their replacement by regional warlords * A huge decrease in civil stability * A huge increase in petty violence and lawlessness The millions of people living in the area certainly didn't experience continued expansion and prosperity. And most writings from Ancient Greece and Rome were lost to the East. Only fragments survived. Byzantium wasn't enough of an outpost to preserve the rest. What was left in Europe until the Renaissance was a kind of Christianised cargo-cult of the original empire, with most of the knowledge and working features lost. After the Renaissance there was a superficial rediscovery of some of the writing, the architecture, and the history, and it had an influence on modern European culture. But again in a kind of cargo-culty way which eventually turned into something else entirely in every area except politics. (A Roman senator would understand exactly how the US political system works, while being baffled by the technology.) You can argue that empire building continued elsewhere, but that's a different argument. There were empires in India, China, and the Middle East, but they were distinct and unrelated entities. If anything they've been even more forgotten.

thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
To steel-man parent's post, usually it's not that civilization per se collapses, the collapse is better characterized as a loss of state capacity. The important distinction being - technology wasn't lost. This framing is also relevant to present-day conversations. Claiming that our civilization is collapsing makes people eyes roll. Claim that we're losing state capacity is a message people are more receptive to.
- mellavora 5y ago
  except a great deal of technology was lost. One of Hobbs insights is that in an era with a non-functional state, the rewards of technological investment are few. Also loss of state capacity has severe impact on international trade; recognize that trade also brings ideas and innovation. And any technology that relies on supply chains becomes challenging, any technology that relies on high levels of education becomes challenging.