3 ms·

While there is no one event, the population collapsed, the security situation deteriorated, material conditions became dramatically worse and literacy rates plu

While there is no one event, the population collapsed, the security situation deteriorated, material conditions became dramatically worse and literacy rates plunged through the 5th and 6th centuries. Mass death and poverty combined with a collapse governmental capacity is more than just a "terminal decline" in my book.

mr_toad 5y ago
> While there is no one event The fall of Constantinople to Ottoman cannons in 1453 drew a line under the Roman polity, Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn for good. You can debate how Roman the empire was at that point, but it was still officially Basileía Rhōmaíōn, known informally as Rhōmania, and the people still called themselves Romaioi.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eropple 5y ago
  Ehh-sure, but also no? If we want to have fun with it, one can make a reasonable argument that the Catholic Church and today's nation-state of the Vatican City is the further continuation of the Western Roman Empire to this day. They still even speak Latin! Historical labels are fun. The arguments mostly so when you're drinking.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    Frankly, that’s even less of a legitimate claim that that of the Holy Roman Empire. Pun intended.
    - eropple 5y ago
      Sure, but the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. (Said mostly unseriously, of course. Labels are just that.) I did once take this dumb argument to the end that the Roman Empire never actually ended, it just ended up on an island with a different flag and then unceremoniously transferred itself to North America later. Then I learned Asimov had already done it.
      - mr_toad 5y ago
        > the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. The Eastern Roman Empire is a historical fiction by western authors who have grown up in nations who had historically chosen to label the remaining territories of the Roman Empire as not the ‘real’ Rome for political purposes, and religious ones. It lent church and state an aura of legitimacy. Necessarily they had to deny that the inconveniently tenacious Rome in the east was really Rome. Constantine moved his capital in AD 324. The Empire in the west had been declining, so the move east was hardly surprising. At that point, the Empire stretched from Britain to Egypt. When the emperor Valens lost the battle of Adrianople in 378, along with his army and his life the empire effectively lost control of he situation in the west. But the Empire itself was not lost. At that point Rome still controlled the most populous and richest parts of the empire, including the capital the levant, and Egypt. They would continue to hold off, and hold on, for another thousand years. Meanwhile Frankish and Gothic kings wanted the title of emperor for themselves to legitimise their rule and increase their standing. So too, the patriarch in Rome wanted to be the preeminence. Inconveniently, a Roman emperor still controlled the Roman capital and most of a wealthy and still powerful Empire. The pretenders needed to keep pretending, not only to the throne, but that the Empire didn’t exist. Thus began the policy of calling the Roman Empire the ‘Empire of Constantinople’ or the ‘Empire of the East’, or the ‘Empire of the Greeks’. That way, Franks and Goths could claim to be the ‘real’ emperor, even when they only controlled the depopulated and impoverished remains of the west.
        eropple 5y ago
        ...Yes, I know these things. You get that I'm goofing around a little, right? (I don't know how much clearer than an Asimov reference one needs to get there!)

mr_toad 5y ago

> While there is no one event The fall of Constantinople to Ottoman cannons in 1453 drew a line under the Roman polity, Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn for good. You can debate how Roman the empire was at that point, but it was still officially Basileía Rhōmaíōn, known informally as Rhōmania, and the people still called themselves Romaioi.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eropple 5y ago
Ehh-sure, but also no? If we want to have fun with it, one can make a reasonable argument that the Catholic Church and today's nation-state of the Vatican City is the further continuation of the Western Roman Empire to this day. They still even speak Latin! Historical labels are fun. The arguments mostly so when you're drinking.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Frankly, that’s even less of a legitimate claim that that of the Holy Roman Empire. Pun intended.
  - eropple 5y ago
    Sure, but the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. (Said mostly unseriously, of course. Labels are just that.) I did once take this dumb argument to the end that the Roman Empire never actually ended, it just ended up on an island with a different flag and then unceremoniously transferred itself to North America later. Then I learned Asimov had already done it.
    - mr_toad 5y ago
      > the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. The Eastern Roman Empire is a historical fiction by western authors who have grown up in nations who had historically chosen to label the remaining territories of the Roman Empire as not the ‘real’ Rome for political purposes, and religious ones. It lent church and state an aura of legitimacy. Necessarily they had to deny that the inconveniently tenacious Rome in the east was really Rome. Constantine moved his capital in AD 324. The Empire in the west had been declining, so the move east was hardly surprising. At that point, the Empire stretched from Britain to Egypt. When the emperor Valens lost the battle of Adrianople in 378, along with his army and his life the empire effectively lost control of he situation in the west. But the Empire itself was not lost. At that point Rome still controlled the most populous and richest parts of the empire, including the capital the levant, and Egypt. They would continue to hold off, and hold on, for another thousand years. Meanwhile Frankish and Gothic kings wanted the title of emperor for themselves to legitimise their rule and increase their standing. So too, the patriarch in Rome wanted to be the preeminence. Inconveniently, a Roman emperor still controlled the Roman capital and most of a wealthy and still powerful Empire. The pretenders needed to keep pretending, not only to the throne, but that the Empire didn’t exist. Thus began the policy of calling the Roman Empire the ‘Empire of Constantinople’ or the ‘Empire of the East’, or the ‘Empire of the Greeks’. That way, Franks and Goths could claim to be the ‘real’ emperor, even when they only controlled the depopulated and impoverished remains of the west.
      - eropple 5y ago
        ...Yes, I know these things. You get that I'm goofing around a little, right? (I don't know how much clearer than an Asimov reference one needs to get there!)