3 ms·
I agree with you, but I think it's safe to say that contemporaries didn't think that Rome had fallen at all. As you say the western emperor felt about 400, but
by serans 14y ago
I agree with you, but I think it's safe to say that contemporaries didn't think that Rome had fallen at all. As you say the western emperor felt about 400, but the Eastern lasted to 1453. Even not taking the east into consideration, the Papacy was seen as a continuation of the empire, and it was the Pope who crowned Charlemagne emperor about 800AD. Circa one hundred years later, the Holy Roman Empire was formed claiming "traslatio imperii" (that is, that there was a legitimate line of succession since the last west emperor), and it lasted until the XIX century.
- lifeisstillgood 14y agobeing seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire is not the same as providing the material benefits of the Roman Empire. In my view the Dark Ages were a rolling back of the benefits of a continent-wide peaceful trading bloc and a scramble to find a non-anarchic equilibrium from which everyone could rebuild. The multiple sackings of Rome however really made contemporaries realise Rome had fallen (and probably drove everyone to look for a solution closer to home - just the wrong move in Economics 101)
- bane 14y agoEuropean history is full of petty dictators claiming heir to a new and resurgent Roman throne.