Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Atticus_of_Amber" data-source="post: 488344" data-attributes="member: 2683">The Roman empire fell in 1453Provocative headline, I know.The point I want to make is that the Roman empire did last for a very long time.&nbsp; The Emperor Constantine XI who died at the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453 stands at the end of a line that begins with Augustus (or Julius Caesar if you say he was a de facto emperor).&nbsp; It is really hard to say when &quot;Rome&quot; became &quot;Byzantium&quot;.&nbsp; One just morphs into the other over the years.True it is that in 324 Constantine I moved the capital of the empire to what he called &quot;New Rome&quot; but what became know as &quot;Constantinople&quot;.&nbsp; But, in reality, Rome hadn't been the capital for over a century by then.&nbsp; It was too out of the way down in Italy when the &quot;centres of gravity&quot; of the empire were now in Eastern Macedonia and Gaul.&nbsp; The previous few emperors had hardly spent any time living in Rome at all.And its hard to say the Roman Empire ended with the sack of the city of Rome in 476, because that would say that the very Roman Justinian (527-565) was not a Roman emperor.So what I'm saying is that your &quot;what if&quot; is not a &quot;what if&quot; at all.&nbsp; The Roman Empire lasted until the early Renaissance.Of course, maybe what you're saying is what if the there had been no loss of the Western Empire?&nbsp; But there were various attempts to revive that (e.g. Charlemagne) which showed that by then Roman culture in the West had been subsumed and morphed by Frankish and Germanic traditions. True, as the Eastern Empire’s Roman-ness became increasing Greek, but it was still recognisably Roman in 1453 – the chariot races in the Hippodrome, much of the architecture, the Senate, the Another interesting question is what if the West had come to the aid of the Empire in 1427 and saved it from the Muslims?&nbsp; That would have been interesting.I suppose the point I'm trying to make is the point made in John Julius Norwich's excellent three volume History of Byzantium - the city of Rome may have fallen in 476, but the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.&nbsp; I found this fascinating when I realised it.&nbsp; The so called &quot;Dark Ages&quot; are not what I thought.&nbsp; Roman civilization didn't end, it just contracted away from the backwoods of Western Europe and continued to evolve in the East.&nbsp; Byzantium was a fascination and sophisticated civilization.&nbsp; &quot;Greek fire&quot; alone demonstrates their technological proficiency.The fall of Constantinople was a major impetus to the Renaissance because of the influx of refugees from the New Rome bringing classical texts and teachings with them.&nbsp; In many ways the Renaissance is return of classical thought to the West from the East.&nbsp; Of course, what the previously primitive and backwards West then did with that tradition was quite extraordinary (late Renaissance and the Enlightenment).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Atticus_of_Amber, post: 488344, member: 2683"] [b]The Roman empire fell in 1453[/b] Provocative headline, I know. The point I want to make is that the Roman empire did last for a very long time. The Emperor Constantine XI who died at the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453 stands at the end of a line that begins with Augustus (or Julius Caesar if you say he was a de facto emperor). It is really hard to say when "Rome" became "Byzantium". One just morphs into the other over the years. True it is that in 324 Constantine I moved the capital of the empire to what he called "New Rome" but what became know as "Constantinople". But, in reality, Rome hadn't been the capital for over a century by then. It was too out of the way down in Italy when the "centres of gravity" of the empire were now in Eastern Macedonia and Gaul. The previous few emperors had hardly spent any time living in Rome at all. And its hard to say the Roman Empire ended with the sack of the city of Rome in 476, because that would say that the very Roman Justinian (527-565) was not a Roman emperor. So what I'm saying is that your "what if" is not a "what if" at all. The Roman Empire lasted until the early Renaissance. Of course, maybe what you're saying is what if the there had been no loss of the Western Empire? But there were various attempts to revive that (e.g. Charlemagne) which showed that by then Roman culture in the West had been subsumed and morphed by Frankish and Germanic traditions. True, as the Eastern Empire’s Roman-ness became increasing Greek, but it was still recognisably Roman in 1453 – the chariot races in the Hippodrome, much of the architecture, the Senate, the Another interesting question is what if the West had come to the aid of the Empire in 1427 and saved it from the Muslims? That would have been interesting. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is the point made in John Julius Norwich's excellent three volume [B][I]History of Byzantium [/I][/B][I][/I] - the [I]city[/I] of Rome may have fallen in 476, but the [I]Roman Empire[/I] lasted until 1453. I found this fascinating when I realised it. The so called "Dark Ages" are not what I thought. Roman civilization didn't end, it just contracted away from the backwoods of Western Europe and continued to evolve in the East. Byzantium was a fascination and sophisticated civilization. "Greek fire" alone demonstrates their technological proficiency. The fall of Constantinople was a major impetus to the Renaissance because of the influx of refugees from the New Rome bringing classical texts and teachings with them. In many ways the Renaissance is return of classical thought to the West from the East. Of course, what the previously primitive and backwards West then did with that tradition was quite extraordinary (late Renaissance and the Enlightenment). [/QUOTE]

Verification