Rome abandoned?

I read once a while ago (can't remember where) that Rome was completely and entirely trashed by the Gothic Wars, to the point where, besides the Pope, there was basically no reason for its continued existence.

Is it possible, if the Papacy ends for some reason (death, angering the Byzantine Emperor, angering the Gothic rulers) for Rome to become just a group of ruins, like Babylon? Or, like Carthage, would a "new" Rome be built a few miles away from the old?

Thoughts on the causes and the effects of this coming to pass?
 
I don't think it's be entirely abandoned. Rome is the lowest practical crossing point of the Tiber and has a motherlode of useful building stone, and useable bridges.

Might be interesting to see it decline to insignificance, though. The pope in Ravenna?
 
I think that people would always move to populate Rome, if only for the historic prestige and allure of the place. The Rhomaios probably won't let the city fall into complete ruins if only for the moral boost of the Roman Empire actually holding the city of Rome.

What are the processes for abolishing a patriarchate (particularly one of the five greats)? I'd imagine that it wouldn't exactly be a simple matter, and if the Emperor tried to do it pretenders outside of the imperial borders might pop up.
 
I don't think it's be entirely abandoned. Rome is the lowest practical crossing point of the Tiber and has a motherlode of useful building stone, and useable bridges.

Might be interesting to see it decline to insignificance, though. The pope in Ravenna?

I can see the part about the motherlode of stone being true, so there will always be people rumbling around the ruins of Rome looking for some building materials, but couldn't the bridges be destroyed and rendered useless?

And I agree, the Pope in Ravenna would be interesting.
 
I can see the part about the motherlode of stone being true, so there will always be people rumbling around the ruins of Rome looking for some building materials, but couldn't the bridges be destroyed and rendered useless?

I guess you could destroy them if you really wanted to, but they're Roman-built, so it takes a lot to demolish them. Plus, if the bridges go, the Tiber needs to be forded. Guess where the lowest ford is...

Don't think Rome as a ghost town is viable. It's very well placed.
 

Susano

Banned
I guess you could destroy them if you really wanted to, but they're Roman-built, so it takes a lot to demolish them. Plus, if the bridges go, the Tiber needs to be forded. Guess where the lowest ford is...

Don't think Rome as a ghost town is viable. It's very well placed.

Well, I did always wonder about its location. I mean, a metropolis, so near by the sea - but not at the sea? Where there would be a convinient river mouth, too... I mean, I know of course the reasons political history, still, always occured to me as somewhat weird...
 
Well, I did always wonder about its location. I mean, a metropolis, so near by the sea - but not at the sea? Where there would be a convinient river mouth, too... I mean, I know of course the reasons political history, still, always occured to me as somewhat weird...

Early Romans didn't care much for the sea; that was the Greeks' and Etruscans' business. Ostia served Rome just fine when they started caring. When you think about it, not even Athens was a port - Piraeus was nearby but separate. And if you do care about the sea then it's an advantage if your capital can't be subjected to a naval attack.
 
For whatever reason - good, bad, improbable or whatever, have the Papacy move to the Iberian Peninsula, along with political and economic leadership, leaving Rome and northern Italy to the barbarians, and Rome may well become just another old town living on memories of it's once-glorious past. Not necessarily abandoned as in Ghost Town, but certainly living alongside its ghosts.

POD? Anything from plague associated with barbarian invasion, to ASB . . .

Bobindelaware
 
Top