Reply
Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:15 am
Most people believe that the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century was the end of them and their civilisation. This was not the case. The Eastern Roman empire survived the barbarian invasions and was to survive as the little known Byzantium Empire until 1453. A thousand years after the fall of Rome. Its eventual fall to the Ottoman Turks was final and catastrophic. But was it also political. The Byzantines were Orthodox Catholics and at the time of their demise were at odds with Roman Catholism. Could the Byzantine Empire with the aid of their Christian brothers (ironically based in Rome) survived the final onslaught and could they still be around today? And if so, in what direction would their civilisation have progressed.
I don't think so; Constantinople is smack between Europe and Asia, and with the wealth and extensive wars it had, it would attract enemies. Uneducated guess though.
Considering how much political evolution occurred in the 1,500 years since, no.
I'm sure you've heard of the Vatican? Placed in Rome, correct? What did Rome try to do during its 2,000 years of its world empire? They prosecuted and kill many who defaced the word of God. They were based of Christianity, follwed by Catholism. What does the Vatican do? The Vatican is head of the Roman Empire. In secrecy. Why is the Vatican the soul base of the Catholic church? There you go.
I think Byzantine empire was simply too weak and too rich to be left alive. The moment it fell the vatican state was too weak to face the Ottomans, also there where other matters to attend to in Italy and other states in europe where too occupied in trying to find a way to destroy each other to care... There was a foreign contingent during the desperate defence of Byzantium, anyway: it was from Venice and Genova, who decided to put aside their differences because they didn't want to loose the oriental market.... It was too weak, anyway
Maybe if Mehmet the Conqueror -- it is Mehmet the Conqueror isn't it? -- hadn't of gotten help from those Hungarian cannon-smiths to knock down those impressive walls of theirs, sure. Romans and Huns just don't mix.
No.
The Empire in the west was condemned economically by slavery; in the east, although it survived a thousand years after the sack of Rome by the Goths, it degenerated into fanatical religious navel gazing . . . all bad things must come to an end . . .
oh, lord, setanta, thank you for showing up.
Setanta wrote:No.
The Empire in the west was condemned economically by slavery; in the east, although it survived a thousand years after the sack of Rome by the Goths, it degenerated into fanatical religious navel gazing . . . all bad things must come to an end . . .
You contend that slavery is what doomed the Roman Empire in the West? You think it failed for economic reasons? Hunh? Please expand.
The man can explain.
It is a question re if he wants to.
ossobuco wrote:The man can explain.
It is a question re if he wants to.
Am I to take it that I have somehow been rude?
No, not exactly. Just that Setanta is one of our more erudite posters when he is able to post. "wants to" was a little rash on my part, as sometimes the best of us are not ready to post at the drop of a hat.
In any case, hound, I didn't take you as rude.
Well, I'm no match for Setanta if he chooses to post re the Roman empire, but maybe others would like to get words in..
It is, after all, rather a thick subject.
Ossobuco is right about setanta: there aren't many people who are more erudite about history unless its vonder from abuzz.
But, the Roman Empire's demise in the west was, in good part, due to economics. Furthermore, the legendary sack of Rome was one of those overblown in importance events, like the Seige of the Bastille, that really meant nothing more than a date. There were already many barbarians within the empire, settlers, merchants and legionnaires.
I think there's also an argument that the Empire, certainly the Western Empire, collapsed because it was trying to maintain rigid artificial boundaries between "our civilised empire" and "the barbarians outside" at a time when socio-economic factors were forcing movement of peoples westward from Central Asia. If the empire had been able to let them in and absorb them, it might have kept going. But it tried to hold the dyke against them, and in the end was overrun.
Sytinen -- I've read the opposite argument: that the Roman Empire was too accomodating to the barbarians.
Setanta has spoken
all further comment is futile.
The Roman Empire will rise again!
In the meantime, we're writing Latin mottoes for tattoos.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace