real fall of rome?

[Louis XXIV]

Rome didn't fall, it faded away. The fall of the empire was probably less disruptive then when Sulla or Octavian took power (since there was prescription and stuff). Theodoric in Rome used the same government institutions as before. In Gaul, the Galic-Roman aristocrats shifted allegience to the Franks and became part of their nobles without problem. It was only in places like Spain, North Africa, and England where the barbarians were extremely disruptive that Rome disapeared.

 

[kryszcztov]

It seems terribly vague to me to say things like "antiquity had reached her limits" or "antiquity seemed to be staggering". What on earth does that mean?

Well, I'm only discovering the stuff, so I'll give you what the paper says.

[pure translation by myself] Why didn't the forms of the economic rationality, which were specific to the European adventure compared to the rest of the world, appear in the Antiquity already ? Isn't it that the Roman Empire, after bringing the precapitalistic potentials of the antique civilization to their ultimate level of realization, had reached their unbreakable limits, the blockading points being as many obstacles to a later qualitative jump ("qualitative" only having a descriptive sense without any value judgement) ?

Then it goes about the Barbs being the blind key to a more advanced civilization, which can only be seen at the end of its evolution (ie. the Renaissance and later). And it says that, after quitting with the Antiquity which was staggering, Europe didn't just put Antiquity back in business at the Renaissance, for the Renaissance cultural streams only focusing on the Antiquity produced far less than the others. The Ancients wouldn't have been able to produce the painting of the XVth century, the Compagny of India, or the Bank of Amsterdam.

Here I gave you some thinking paths about this theory. I admit I'm a bit tempted to agree with it. Gives a kick in my loving of Antiquity, and that's what needed to put things in order - and maybe love Antiquity even more afterwards... instead of staggering.


And Louis, exactly, the fall of Rome is more of a fading away than anything else... if you consider everything, not just the demise of Romulus Augustus.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The Roman Empire's fall was a gradual process in some places; like Italy, Greece and southern France.
In others, like Hungary, Spain, north Africa and Mesopotamia it was clearly and undeniably the result of conquest and sometimes complete destruction by foreign powers like the Huns, Vandals and Arabs.

I'd be tempted against calling it an evolution; in many cases it was straightforward extermination and replacement.

Much like China, it became too insular and fragmented. It's vast power and wealth ultimately attracted envious foreigners but couldn't furnish the military resources to keep them away. The sleeping giant just couldn't wake up to meet the new millenium in time.