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.
-
And never really becomes Istanbul, and New York has no relation to York. Or New Amsterdam. You know the remainder of the song.
I don't think the analogy to the end of colonialism holds up. Decolonization did not cause demographic decline. The fall of Rome in the west did - in many cases so severe that Roman population levels were not reached again until the early modern period.
-
-
Describing that as a 'fall' requires no judgment on Rome's successors in Europe or anywhere. It simply requires observing a collapse sufficiently severe that it has a body count visible even through the deep paucity of evidence.
-
I'm not so sure. The end of British colonialism came with world wars of titanic scale and significant loss of life. More importantly, "fall" as a term became part of a mythology and ideology that grows into the Early Modern period and influences the thinking profoundly.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.