Read on Twitter
i& #39;ve addressed this topic before but i& #39;m returning to the end of the roman empire
some historians try to define it as going beyond the fall of the west (476) and ending sometime between emperor justinian and emperor phocas (530-615ish)
this is bizarre
some historians try to define it as going beyond the fall of the west (476) and ending sometime between emperor justinian and emperor phocas (530-615ish)
this is bizarre
the logic of the argument is that what matters is not political continuity which would lend itself to 1453-70 end date
but rather some & #39;character of romanness& #39; which was not lost in the east in the 5th century when the west fell, but was by some time in the 6th
but rather some & #39;character of romanness& #39; which was not lost in the east in the 5th century when the west fell, but was by some time in the 6th
we definitely do see an evolution in the structures and culture of the empire in this period, things become decidedly more feudal, the mentality moves from universalism to survival etc.
but to suggest that constitutes the end of the empire is bizarre
it assumes some static identity as having existed prior which is simply not true
the rome of 400 would be unrecognisable to the rome of 200 let alone 50ad
it assumes some static identity as having existed prior which is simply not true
the rome of 400 would be unrecognisable to the rome of 200 let alone 50ad
the reforms in the economic structure and state that the empire went through in the 3rd century culminating in the diocletian reforms and the conversion of the state to a monotheistic one were far larger breaks than anything that happened in the 6th century
yet no one suggests that rome ceased to exist in 275
because that is absurd
and yet
some people would argue it did in 560???
because that is absurd
and yet
some people would argue it did in 560???
