Years and years ago I took a course on early medieval history that showed, without much doubt, how Rome never really "fell" and the Roman imperial order was simply translated into a wider European order. But, you know, nobody fXing cares.
-
Hmmm, there must be a bunch of axes on which to measure the effect of the Roman imperial order. acoup︎.blog has this chart of atmospheric lead as measured in Greenland ice core samples—a proxy for silver production. https://acoup.blog/2020/01/30/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-ii-water-spilled-on-the-sand/ … Sᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ happened around 500CE.pic.twitter.com/qaCPZDY9HZ
If you want more of that sort, take a look at Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005). He looks at a number of archaeological indicators to argue that there was a real decline in living standards as the empire fell in the west.
-
-
My thanks for serious reply to what was a peevish generalization on my part. I should just cut my losses here, but the point, from the broader historical viewpoint, is the word "fall" carries with it some problematic views of the cultures around Rome that asserted themselves.
-
The British Empire definitively fell, too, and we could characterize all of the 20th century as the fall of the British Empire. We don't, though. We see the global dominance of English and the fact that the American dominance is but an extension of it.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.