When did they know Rome was Dead?

[NapoleonXIV]

How much, if any, of European thought was influenced by the possiblity of a "Roman Return", that is, by the idea that Rome might revive itself? Particularly, my concern is in the latter Middle Ages. Was the fall of Constantinople and the discovery that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery the final nails in the coffin, the absolute pronouncement that the old Empire was gone and would never return? Or had this happened centuries before, with the decline of the Hohenstaufens, the Carolingians, or even with Romulus Augustulus?

 

[MarkA]

How much, if any, of European thought was influenced by the possiblity of a "Roman Return", that is, by the idea that Rome might revive itself? Particularly, my concern is in the latter Middle Ages. Was the fall of Constantinople and the discovery that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery the final nails in the coffin, the absolute pronouncement that the old Empire was gone and would never return? Or had this happened centuries before, with the decline of the Hohenstaufens, the Carolingians, or even with Romulus Augustulus?

Probably at the end of WWI and even then the British thought their Empire was a continuation of sorts of Rome. But then again so did the French and of course the Germans and Russians before the war.

 

[Midgard]

Well, they still don't know it. All the talk of "Third Rome" in Russia, all the ideas of German Reich through the 1940s, the whole "legacy of Charlemagne" thing, the Greek enosis, the megali idea that is only subsided until such time as it rears its head again... and then, there is the American Empire, as some would call it. Long story short, the idea of Rome is far from dead, and we are going to see more of it at some point in the future.

 

[Hapsburg]

In a way, there never really was a "fall of rome", as the ideals of Rome, the very sense of the Roman Empire itself, enver truely died. It continued throughout, and even into the modern world. The Byzantines, the Franks, the Germans, the Russians, the French, and even America, could all be counted as successors and continuers of the Roman ways. Especially the US, most especially in its early days, could be seen as the "New Rome".
An interesting event for such a "revival" scenario would be, not in the middle ages, but in the late 1700s. America forming a constitutional populist monarchy and using some sorts of Romanesque symbolism (the House Mace comes to mind- a sort of new fasces for a new era) would be very entertaining and intriguing.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

I'm gonna have to agree. Ever since Rome, there has been an overarching "empire". Roman, German, Mongol, Spanish, British and, finally, American. Add in any others that gained enough power to dominate other powers.

 

[Douglas]

I'd say that the idea that Rome itself would return (not a big empire with Roman imagery ) died with the end of temporal Papal power during the Great Schism.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Was the fall of Constantinople and the discovery that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery the final nails in the coffin, the absolute pronouncement that the old Empire was gone and would never return? Or had this happened centuries before, with the decline of the Hohenstaufens, the Carolingians, or even with Romulus Augustulus?

I vote for the publication of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, because Gibbon invented the Dark Ages. Until then the attitude was that the empire had been politically balkanized by the barbarian invaders, but that a fundamental romanitas persisted unbroken. Remember that as late as Newton's day, major intellectual work was still being written in Latin.

Gibbon begat Spengler, who begat Toynbee, who begat the Foundation trilogy and Mad Max - the whole theme of general collapses of civilization. But until Gibbon introduced the theme, I don't think the "Fall of Rome" was perceived in the way that we perceive it now.

-- Rick

 

[Hermanubis]

I'm gonna have to agree. Ever since Rome, there has been an overarching "empire". Roman, German, Mongol, Spanish, British and, finally, American. Add in any others that gained enough power to dominate other powers.

I probably wouldn’t include the Mongols in a list of Empires continuing the Roman tradition…

 

[Paul Spring]

I vote for the publication of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, because Gibbon invented the Dark Ages. Until then the attitude was that the empire had been politically balkanized by the barbarian invaders, but that a fundamental romanitas persisted unbroken. Remember that as late as Newton's day, major intellectual work was still being written in Latin.

Gibbon begat Spengler, who begat Toynbee, who begat the Foundation trilogy and Mad Max - the whole theme of general collapses of civilization. But until Gibbon introduced the theme, I don't think the "Fall of Rome" was perceived in the way that we perceive it now.

-- Rick

I don't think the idea of the "Dark Ages" started with Gibbon - I think it goes back at least to the 15th (or even 14th) century in Italy, when intellectuals started to see their own period as a "rebirth" of classical Roman ideals after a long "barbaric" period. Most modern historians essentially reject this view, but it was a powerful one well into the 20th century. Gibbon just gave it one of its more eloquent expressions. (Even Gibbon felt compelled to cover much of the history of the East Roman or "Byzantine" Empire, although he was obviously not sympathetic to it and regarded it as "degenerate" compared to the earlier, classical empire.)

 

[Nicole]

I would say Napoleon. Before his claim of "Emperor of the French", the idea of Empire was always linked to Rome in the west.

 

[Sargon]

I don't think the idea of the "Dark Ages" started with Gibbon - I think it goes back at least to the 15th (or even 14th) century in Italy, when intellectuals started to see their own period as a "rebirth" of classical Roman ideals after a long "barbaric" period. Most modern historians essentially reject this view, but it was a powerful one well into the 20th century. Gibbon just gave it one of its more eloquent expressions. (Even Gibbon felt compelled to cover much of the history of the East Roman or "Byzantine" Empire, although he was obviously not sympathetic to it and regarded it as "degenerate" compared to the earlier, classical empire.)

Gibbon has a LOT to answer for in why the history of the Eastern Roman Empire is very wrongly ignored in mainstream history. When did you last see a TV documentary about the Byzantines for exampe?

Absolutely unforgivable.

Sick and tired of show after show saying the Roman Empire ended in the 5th century, and always showing people in togas and classical columns for buildings as if that was all the Romans ever were.

Hello bloody media idiots! The Roman Empire lasted another 1000 years don't ya know?

Damn ignorance of history. And I blame Gibbon for it, for painting the later Roman Empire as being so bad, that it has actually put people off saying anything about it.

Except for the good crowd of people here, and in other more rational circles of history.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

 

[Fabilius]

I would say Napoleon. Before his claim of "Emperor of the French", the idea of Empire was always linked to Rome in the west.

But didn´t he take up the title of emperor because of Rome´s legacy? After all this is during the period of neo-classicism.

 

[Hapsburg]

But didn´t he take up the title of emperor because of Rome´s legacy? After all this is during the period of neo-classicism.

Compounded with the fact that he personally assosiated himself with Charlemagne, another Frank/French monarch and Roman Emperor. Hell, Napoleon's personal symbol was the bee, the same as Charlemagne's.

 

[Max Sinister]

I think the (golden) bee(s) were the Merovingian symbol, not the Carolingian's, and Napoleon only adopted it - to show he'd belong to an even older dynasty than the Carolingians / Bourbons.

 

[Paul Spring]

Gibbon has a LOT to answer for in why the history of the Eastern Roman Empire is very wrongly ignored in mainstream history. When did you last see a TV documentary about the Byzantines for exampe?

Absolutely unforgivable.

Sick and tired of show after show saying the Roman Empire ended in the 5th century, and always showing people in togas and classical columns for buildings as if that was all the Romans ever were.

Hello bloody media idiots! The Roman Empire lasted another 1000 years don't ya know?

Damn ignorance of history. And I blame Gibbon for it, for painting the later Roman Empire as being so bad, that it has actually put people off saying anything about it.

Except for the good crowd of people here, and in other more rational circles of history.

I have to disagree - Gibbon was actually one of the relatively few European historians to give the East Roman Empire any exposure, even though he didn't think highly of it. His preference for the earlier classical period was a product of the educated European society that influenced him. Since at least the 15th century the classical period had tended to be looked on as the apogee of pre-modern civilization, while the medieval period (in both western and Eastern Europe) was regarded as degenerate or barbaric by comparison.

IIRC, Gibbon actually took a more favorable view of medieval Islamic civilization than he did of either the Byzantines or western Europe.

 

[Sargon]

I have to disagree - Gibbon was actually one of the relatively few European historians to give the East Roman Empire any exposure, even though he didn't think highly of it. His preference for the earlier classical period was a product of the educated European society that influenced him. Since at least the 15th century the classical period had tended to be looked on as the apogee of pre-modern civilization, while the medieval period (in both western and Eastern Europe) was regarded as degenerate or barbaric by comparison.

IIRC, Gibbon actually took a more favorable view of medieval Islamic civilization than he did of either the Byzantines or western Europe.

The point that I am making is that by his very dislike of the Byzantines and by calling them a "base civilisation" he has poisoned the idea of Byzantium in modern terms. You'll find very few Byzantine historians who'll disagree with that. Granted he brought exposure to it, but the exposure is such that it actually had the effect of burying Byzantium in ignorance in terms of mainstream history.

I ask again: how many documentaries do you see about Byzantium on TV; how many times in a documentary has history stopped in the 5th century and the voiceover or end titles flatly say that the Roman Empire fell, end of story? That is what really irritates Eastern Roman historians, and a lot of that blame is put at Gibbon's doorstep. If I had a pound for everytime I've met a Byzantine historian who has said that, I'd be very rich indeed. A Byzantium expert and I were discussing this only a few days ago, and if anything, he was even more indignant about it than me!


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose