> On the one hand, it is reinforced by still-popular narratives that focus on destruction and discontinuity — based strongly on highly positivistic readings of ancient sources.
Thia point is So key... and its so nice to see Harland's work compared to Kaldellis' takes. Although Croke should be included in that debate I think.
The Fall of the Roman Empire continues to fascinate many and was traditionally seen as a key point in the history of Europe. However, new research appears to have shifted the focus from the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire to multiple other factors in the middle of Late Antiquity. It does seem, at least if we fallow the authors of this study, that the Fall explains very little and might have even been a very limited in scale and impact. Is that so? The study sounds fairly convincing, especially when it comes to seeing the "broader world" but can we really explain the end of Antiquity without the Fall of Rome? What really is the Fall of Rome?
The Fall of Rome by Bryan Ward Perkins is a pretty short and readable take on the subject. At times it’s gets dry though because he focuses on the tangible effects of the collapse of the WRE, such as the shrinking size of cattle, the disappearance of industrial-scale pottery, the collapse of the intra-empire trade network that moved that pottery (and other goods) around the Mediterranean, etc.
My take: While we can look at what came after with a more nuanced lens than just “the dark ages,” Rome’s fall absolutely was the end of a civilization in a “this is how the world ((what we care about of the world)) is and has been for hundreds of years” kind of way.
It continues to fascinate, because the Roman Empire was a remarkably developed society - strikingly similar in many aspects to the modern world - as opposed to the tribal savagery of the barbarians. There is this very common misconception that, somehow, the Romans were very advanced for their time, then Europe fell back during the Dark Ages.
But in reality, we never stopped progressing. When Rome fell, Europe actually evolved into a more progressive social order. People often forget that. Slavery was replaced by the feudal contract. This was the most important change. The disappearance of unlimited free labor made some things impossible. However technology continued to improve. Scientific knowledge continued to improve.
GeetaJonsdottir | 2 hours ago
As many others have pointed out: down is the resting state. Elevation requires constant effort.
Asking why something fell is rarely as productive as asking what kept it up.
DistributionBrief644 | an hour ago
> On the one hand, it is reinforced by still-popular narratives that focus on destruction and discontinuity — based strongly on highly positivistic readings of ancient sources.
Thia point is So key... and its so nice to see Harland's work compared to Kaldellis' takes. Although Croke should be included in that debate I think.
[OP] chlochilaichus | 9 hours ago
The Fall of the Roman Empire continues to fascinate many and was traditionally seen as a key point in the history of Europe. However, new research appears to have shifted the focus from the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire to multiple other factors in the middle of Late Antiquity. It does seem, at least if we fallow the authors of this study, that the Fall explains very little and might have even been a very limited in scale and impact. Is that so? The study sounds fairly convincing, especially when it comes to seeing the "broader world" but can we really explain the end of Antiquity without the Fall of Rome? What really is the Fall of Rome?
DatUglyRanglehorn | an hour ago
The Fall of Rome by Bryan Ward Perkins is a pretty short and readable take on the subject. At times it’s gets dry though because he focuses on the tangible effects of the collapse of the WRE, such as the shrinking size of cattle, the disappearance of industrial-scale pottery, the collapse of the intra-empire trade network that moved that pottery (and other goods) around the Mediterranean, etc.
My take: While we can look at what came after with a more nuanced lens than just “the dark ages,” Rome’s fall absolutely was the end of a civilization in a “this is how the world ((what we care about of the world)) is and has been for hundreds of years” kind of way.
mmomtchev | 11 minutes ago
It continues to fascinate, because the Roman Empire was a remarkably developed society - strikingly similar in many aspects to the modern world - as opposed to the tribal savagery of the barbarians. There is this very common misconception that, somehow, the Romans were very advanced for their time, then Europe fell back during the Dark Ages.
But in reality, we never stopped progressing. When Rome fell, Europe actually evolved into a more progressive social order. People often forget that. Slavery was replaced by the feudal contract. This was the most important change. The disappearance of unlimited free labor made some things impossible. However technology continued to improve. Scientific knowledge continued to improve.