Rome - Why Wasn't it Rebuilt?

[Amenhotep7]

Well, the title says it all. Things like Han China were able to pick up and start from scratch, but exactly what prevented Rome from rebuilding? Go.

 

[Capulet]

They probably thought they if they rebuilt Rome, it would look as though they were preparing for war with other countries again, possibly trying to regain Rome's former glory.

 

[Archer 007]

What exactly do you mean by "rebuild"?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Rome did rebuild. Then it was sacked again. And again, if I remember correctly. After the final fall, the barbarians ruled the city and I don't think they were very interested in architecture. Remember, Southern Europe was conquered land. The economic and political centers of the new barbarian kingdoms were still in Northern Europe. The fall of Rome shifted European history away from the Mediterannean to mainland Europe; Italy wasn't so important anymore once the riches of Rome were pillaged.

What about Rome the nation? It was totally destroyed. The barbarians installed kings of their own. Even in the medieval period when Italy experienced a renaissance, its kings and dukes were still either of German ancestry or Normans [ie, Vikings]. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was also ruler of Sicily. Lombardy [northern Italy, ie Milan] is named after the Lombards, a barbarian tribe which ruled there. The barbarians left an indelible mark on Italy. Just look at your average Roman taxi driver.

On the other hand, Roman civilization did flourish for centuries afterwards in its eastern partner, Byzantium [Constantinople, Istanbul, etc - it's had many names].

EDIT: Ten dollars says the mods move this thread to World History where no one will ever post in it again

 

[Amenhotep7]

D'oh! I did place it in the wrong place, didn't I?

Rebuild: To try and re-establish itself as a power.

 

[Archer 007]

In that case, PP covered it.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The Byzantines attempted to reconquer most of the old Roman empire. It ended up costing them big-time, though, in more ways than one...

 

[Loaf Warden]

For the same reason the Aztecs didn't rebuild. It was conquered. Once a country is conquered, what happens next depends on the conquerers. If the barbarians had simply sacked the place in 476 and then left, then surely the Romans would have rebuilt. But they weren't given the chance, since the barbarians now ruled.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I disagree, Byzantium lasted for an amazingly long time. 410-1453 AD is probably the most turbulent period Europe and the Middle East have ever or will ever experience. True, the last century is nothing to be proud of - the Fourth Crusade and the Ottoman Conquest - but if we can call Venice a tough little city-state and omit Byzantium, which lasted almost 300 years longer [and that's only counting the period since which it had greatness thrust upon it] then that's hardly a balanced view of history

 

[thestonesfan]

You can't just rebuild Rome in a day, you know.

 

[Amenhotep7]

For the same reason the Aztecs didn't rebuild. It was conquered. Once a country is conquered, what happens next depends on the conquerers. If the barbarians had simply sacked the place in 476 and then left, then surely the Romans would have rebuilt. But they weren't given the chance, since the barbarians now ruled.

Many civilizations went under foreign occupation, and rebuilt. Egypt, China, etc. What factors would prevent Rome from rebuilding like these guys?

 

[Stapel]

Last time I was in Rome (jeez, 1997, should go again soon), it was still there. It holds more signs of ancient glory than any other place in the world I have seen. No need to rebuild .

 

[Chauliodus]

Double post, delete plz.

 

[Chauliodus]

Many civilizations went under foreign occupation, and rebuilt. Egypt, China, etc. What factors would prevent Rome from rebuilding like these guys?

Because those that occupied were never expelled and eventually were bred out bred.

The Byzantines attempted to reconquer most of the old Roman empire. It ended up costing them big-time, though, in more ways than one...

Thanks to that idiot Justinian, the Empires resources would have been better served to ensure its security rather that acheive his futile quest of reunifying East and West.

Rome did rebuild. Then it was sacked again. And again, if I remember correctly. After the final fall, the barbarians ruled the city and I don't think they were very interested in architecture. Remember, Southern Europe was conquered land. The economic and political centers of the new barbarian kingdoms were still in Northern Europe. The fall of Rome shifted European history away from the Mediterannean to mainland Europe; Italy wasn't so important anymore once the riches of Rome were pillaged.

It was sacked in 410 by Alaric, the first time in 800 years IIRC, and then in 476.

 

[col]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
EDIT: Ten dollars says the mods move this thread to World History where no one will ever post in it again

You win the fisrt part of the bet - doubt if the second bit is true though...

 

[pawpaw]

rome didn't rebuild because by 476ad there were no romans left, mostly barbarians. the chinese continued their culture because when 200,000 invaders conquerored them they would be absorbed by the 100 million population. in acient rome this was not possiable, they had been letting barbarians into the general population for a couple hundred years and by 476ad the romans were mostly "romanized" germans

 

[Pirate]

In addition to the points already made, there just wasn't the population anymore that required big cities. Rome at its peak had 1 million residents. Throughout the middle ages it had a population of about 10,000 and they all lived in the Campo Marzo - a flat plain near the river - because all the aqueducts were cut. But the population never grew large enough again to make rebuilding necessary.

Interestingly parts of the city of Rome DID grow during this time. The Borgo, or the area within the walls surrounding the Vatican, grew because that was the only protected part of the city. Again there just wasn't enough people to maintain city walls around all of old Rome. So people moved inside the Borgo where there were well maintained city walls.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Pirate
In addition to the points already made, there just wasn't the population anymore that required big cities. Rome at its peak had 1 million residents. Throughout the middle ages it had a population of about 10,000

because they couldn't feed that many, only roman organization during the empire could control trade routes,grain convoys,ect... to feed a population bigger than the area could actually support. this happened through out the empire, only in islamic middle east and byzantium did larger cities exist in the darl ages

 

[DS_Legionary]

Other empires/countries have tried to (in a sense) rebuild the Roman Empire. Byzantium was the first to do this, and they were pretty close to having all of the Eastern Empire back under their control again. But they failed in the end.

Does anybody remember a little war known as WWII? If so, does anyone know what one of Mussolini's motivations was to join Hitler? He wanted to recreate the glory of the old Roman Empire. In a sense bring the Roman Empire back to life once more. Again this attempt was thwarted (thankfully) by the Allies.

So, how can you say the people haven't tried to rebuild/recreate the Roman Empire. God knows people have tried, but IMO it would be impossible to do. There's to many different Nationalities in that one area nowadays. Even if you did conquer all that land, you wouldn't be able to keep it. To many different views in the region. There would be civil war, uprisings, and many other things that would keep it from lasting.

If all that didn't end up killing the new Empire off I'm willing to bet that corruption would. It's what killed the first empire, and it would definately bring the new one to it's knees. So why bother? Europe is fine as it is, don't make a new Roman Empire.

 

[Chauliodus]

Does anybody remember a little war known as WWII? If so, does anyone know what one of Mussolini's motivations was to join Hitler? He wanted to recreate the glory of the old Roman Empire. In a sense bring the Roman Empire back to life once more. Again this attempt was thwarted (thankfully) by the Allies.

So, how can you say the people haven't tried to rebuild/recreate the Roman Empire. God knows people have tried, but IMO it would be impossible to do. There's to many different Nationalities in that one area nowadays. Even if you did conquer all that land, you wouldn't be able to keep it. To many different views in the region. There would be civil war, uprisings, and many other things that would keep it from lasting.

What European power hasn't strove to resurrecte or make the "new" Roman Empire? (especially Andorra! ) The funny thing about your statment against the rise of a new Rome is funny because they were factors that Rome had to overcome themselves, think of how many cultures, religions and ethnic groups existed in it at its greatest extent?

If all that didn't end up killing the new Empire off I'm willing to bet that corruption would. It's what killed the first empire, and it would definately bring the new one to it's knees.

Maybe they had C3C corruption on , but seriously,even if its a cliche to say, more that one factor when into the fall of Rome.