way unto societal redefinition rather H u m a n i t i e s

Read the Blackboard selections on the “Fall” of the Roman Empire. What are the chief theories? Do you agree with Peter Brown that the end of the Roman Empire should be considered a “change and continuity rather than a “decline and fall”? After posting you should respond to at least two of your peers with a comment that is substantial and constructive (do not simply simply say I like your post) to debate the question.

response 1: In his assertion that Rome did not fall but rather transitioned into medieval Europe, Peter Browne is based on the fact that older Roman values were redefined by the church, local interests, and the new barbarian rulers. Despite the prevalence of scholars opining on the fall of Rome and speculating on why I have always seen the decline of the Empire more as a way unto societal redefinition rather than the death of a great system. Like Browne, I believe that the conquerors of Rome merely leant the Empire their images and name. At the same time, Rome’s real administrative and political identity remained an influential factor in their daily operations. In a nutshell, Rome didn’t die but continued to lie on courtesy of the Empire’s barbarian conquerors.

In league with the church, various Roman articles were preserved in medieval Europe, which has greatly defined the trajectory of humanity. Its language, Latin, continued to exist as a means of enlightenment and prestige, as did its governance system in representative democracy and the notion of public service. The church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, an extended appendage of the Empire in its final years, has actively maintained its colossal shadow over temporal politics, maintaining its intangible power throughout the centuries. Based on the arguments presented and many more, it is only logical to agree with Peter Browne’s assessment of the end of the Roman Empire; it wasn’t an ending unto itself but rather, a means of providing space for a transition into something even better (de Oliveira, 2020).

response 2 :Several theories provide insights into the main reason why the roman empire fell. Some of the dominant theories, in this case, include; barbarian tribes’ invasion. Of the rest, this is the most straight forward theory since it links the fall to credible reasons such as successive military losses. Besides this theory includes more reliance on labour from slaves and economic troubles; the eastern empire rise after its division in two halves, the east and west. Other chief theories include military overspending, political instability and the corrupt nature of the government, barbarian tribe’s migration and the Huns arrival, loss of traditional values and lastly is the loss of strength of the Roman legions.

I concur with peter brown that the roman empire end is not a decline or a fall instead, it marks a change or continuity. I am inclined to believe that this was a gradual process that can also be called a transformation occurring between several centuries. In this case, the focus was between medieval and classical worlds. Furthermore, other historians, such as Henri Pirenne argues that the empire, in a certain way, continued until the conquest of the Arabs (Lavan, 2008). This conquest happened in the seventh century and resulted in the European economy decline due to the disruption of the Mediterranean trade routes.