[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Period after the Roman Empire?

Poster: Neil Maclay <nmaclay@psi.prc.com>

I bated the hook and I got a bite.
>IIRC the "fall of Rome" bit was from the time the actual City of Rome was
>invaded in 410 AD.  The theory was that Rome no longer counted as an
>effective empire when they couldn't protect their capital city, therefore
>the Dark Ages essentially began then.  The Holy Roman Empire, by using
>that name, admitted that they were not the actual Roman Empire any more.
>=Tamar the Gypsy (sharing account dickeney@access.digex.net)

My argument is that from the time of Constantine at about 315, the
Roman Empire had two capital cities, Rome and  and
two Emperors. This lasted until 473 the gereral Arbogast (sp?)
removed the last Emperor in Rome and recognized the Emperor in
Constantinople as his ruler. Not that he obeyed him, but he
pretended to obey the Emperor and acknowledged his legitemacy.

The laws and institutions of the Empire ruled from Constantinople
were that of the later Roman Empire and their continued existence
and development was continous until the Turks took Constantinople
in 1453. Rome had been sacked in the 4th century BC by the Gauls
but that did not mean the end of the Roman state.

The concept of a 5th century end to the Roman Empire I suspect
was promoted by the Roman church in order to delegitemize their
rivals in Constantinople.

List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org