Is the "fall" of the Roman Empire a myth? The Rise and Fall of the Ostrogoths
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лис 2019
- The Rise and Fall of the Ostrogoths - Gothic barbarians took over Rome after the Empire’s fall. The story of what happened next.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Ostrogoths ruled a “barbarian” kingdom of Italy from 493 to 553, when their kingdom was conquered by the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. We’ll look at the continuity of the Roman state under the Ostrogoths and ask whether their fall wasn’t the true end of the Western Empire.
This is a superb history lecture that answers so many lingering questions I have had. I have felt for a long time there is something wrong or missing about traditional western history and this lecture has helped me put together a more complete picture in my mind. Thank you!
Most of the Christians living in Asia Minor and Greece were called Roman Orthodox after the split between East and West. The term Greek Orthodox is more modern concept after the fall of the Turkish empire.
I always thought the Gothy teenagers were inspired more by the "Gothic" art and literature of the 19th Century (Stoker, Byron, Poe etc.) than the architecture.
They're inspired by the people the Goths feared, as are the art and literature. The Goths did not have a relationship with the people of Europe, whom they tried to exterminate. Other invaders did much better, and integrated peacefully to everyone's great advantage. Unfortunately, the fears and prejudices of those who failed did survive in some families, most of whom eventually left, corrupting North America and leaving Europe free to recover.
I thought it was inspired by the music stage, that's why they are dressed up
@@2adamast It was inspired by what is called 'Gothic horror' which portrays those people as ghouls, demonizing the targets of genocide.
No shit.
@Elvis Edge RR Woodward Druids wore white.
Thanks for posting this. Great video, with great visuals!
One small correction. By the later period of the Western Empire, large scale slavery had been replaced by "free" workers and slaves were mostly domestic servants.
"Free workers" that's mean they could leave right?
@@black6master
Right?....
I always find this type of argument that the Roman Empire never fell, but kinda only changed - or that the underlying structures beneath the political changes remained so Roman that you can just call it a continuation - to be just a clever sidestep to the question.
Regardless of how you view continuity or what local rulers may have paid lip service to with respect to calling themselves Roman, there was a point in time when all of modern-day France, Spain, Italy, and North Africa belonged to a polity and answered to authorities based in Italy that were known as the Roman Empire. This political entity raised taxes, equipped men, and held a frontier behind which they could call themselves masters of the land.
At some point in time, this ceased to be the case. To try and turn a blind eye to this, or handwave it away is to turn a blind eye to the obvious. That political control of the territories once held by the Roman Empire slipped into the hands of local kings and warlords that definitely *did not* answer to a central government. There definitely was a "fall" of the Roman Empire. While the administrative apparatus, underlying laws, and culture may have remained intact, the change to the political structure of Western Europe is undeniable.
This is not exactly true.
The leadership of the Roman Empire was taken over by barbarian warlords. Stilicho, Aetius etc.
They were no kings, they had a position within the empire named magister militum.
The structure remained, the formal government remained but the factual government changed because the magistri took advantage of the economic crisis due to the loss of the rich Northern African provinces. Rome couldn't pay their military, so they privatized it. Obviously the commanders realized that they had the Empire in their hands. They controlled who was emperor and they ran the show essentially fighting off rebellions, foreign powers etc.
And at some point in time, the position of the emperor became obsolete as several barbarian warlords supported various "emperors" all over the place and eventually god rid of the emperor altogether. That did change the overall imperial structure but if you had asked any person back then, they would have never agreed with you that the Roman Empire suddenly stopped existing when Romulus Augustulus got dethroned.
To answer that question, you need to define, what the Roman Empire exactly means.
Trust me, you will get into trouble. Therefore, the proposition that it didn't suddenly stop existing, but rather transformed in structure (as it did before) is more productive and more reasonable.
@@Nazdreg1 Nope. Germanic Tribes were settled into Roman territory as Feoderati (where we get our current word for Federalism). They were given the right to administer the land assigned to them in return for military forces fighting under local leadership when Rome called upon their services.
As late as 451, many Feoderati who were only recently settled answered the call to fight against Atilla.
That is an important point because it showed that there remained some form of central authority that meant the Western Roman Empire was still in existence.
The definition of Empire is precisely defined in English. "An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state."
There is no trouble with this definition at all with regards to Rome or the Western Roman Empire which was in effect a separate polity. After 476, that ceased to be the case. There was no central authority that governed the lands that once belonged to the government based in Ravanna, regardless of who was in defacto control.
We can argue over at what point in time Ravanna actually lost control but lose control it did.
@@michaelchung1526
That definition works? Cool, then the Roman Empire continued to exist. The Ostrogoths ruling in Italy accepted the Eastern Roman Empire as souvereign state, which made the Eastern ruler emperor. And of course the Empire of Charlemagne who claimed to be the new Roman emperor as well as king of the Franks and Lombards qualified as well.
At 451 Aetius fought Attila and Aetius was the strong man in Rome exerting central authority, not the Emperor. Aetius wasn't a Roman and he wasn't the emperor. So according to your definition, the Roman Empire already fell.
The only difference between 451 and 476 is that in 451 an emperor formally existed with no power whatsoever and from 476 it was exactly the same situation just without the emperor. Central authority was claimed by Odoacer and later by the Ostrogoths who were installed as a vassal kingdom by the remaining emperor in the east. They were foederati, yes.
Aetius, Ricimer, Stilicho were magistri militum, no foederati.
@@Nazdreg1 It is farcical for you to try and claim that Ostrogoths kept the Western Empire alive when they excercised no soverign control over Gaul, Ibera, North Africa or any of the core territories outside Italy. Indeed this is why people argue 410 was real date because Rome lost effective control of Iberia and North Africa shortly after and never regained control of it. But you know this.
Even more absurd is you trying to claim Charlemange's Empire meets that definition as there is no continunity in territory or administration between it and the Western Roman Empire. I guess the British Empire is still actually alive and well because the Queen is head of the commonwealth?
As a comparison, we can say the Roman Empire did not fall during the crisis of the 3rd century despite the fact that the Empire effectively dissolved for 50 years because concluding the series of civil wars, the central authority reemerged and could claim defacto sovereignty over its core territories.
Post 476, not a single poilitical entity could ever claim defacto sovereignty over the core provinces that the Western Roman Empire held.
It is irrelevant as to whether the Emperor or the Master of War was in charge. The core point is that the central authority existed and was respected, even in 451 when the Emperor was a nobody and just a figurehead. Control that included all of Gaul, North East Iberia, and the Balkans with Feoderati answering the call to war.
Yes you can argue that the empire already fell but the point I am making is that the Western Empire did fall. That it wasn't a myth. We can argue over when it we should stamp it as dead, but we can't sit there and try to say it isn't a corpse becuase the maggots now crawling around on the corpse constitutes life in a "different form".
Well, the Ostrogoths didn't rule over the Western Roman Empire, but they ruled over an officially supported vassal kingdom of the Eastern Roma Empire, so they were in fact part of the Roman empire that still existed in the east.
As for the Western Roman Empire, it really is hard to find an exact point where it went out of existence. It didn't suddenly switch off at some point in history.
If you ask me, I would say, that the loss of Africa triggered an economic crisis that would lead into slow process of fragmentation and transformation of power within the administrative structures of the empire but it's prestige was still so much alive that the barbarian local authorities claimed successorship so they were technically loyal to the concept although it was obviously completely hollow. That is why Charlemagne's empire can be technically seen as a successor dynasty of the Roman Empire. He had the Northern half of Italy and almost all of modern day France, most of modern day Germany and Austria, thus many of the territories of the Roman Empire (with the exclusion of Spain). But I can't set an objectively clear date when the Western Roman Empire stopped existing when it clearly existed before. This is up to personal subjective definition.
Obviously, at some point, one can't call it Western Roman Empire anymore (which didn't exist at all prior to the partition), but the Roman federal administrative structure continued to exist, just the Germanic way of government slowly trickled in resulting eventually in a change to Feudalism. But this change began much earlier than 476 and I argue that it begins with the magistri militum, because this type of position works exactly the same as the typical Germanic warlord. Foederati or formally under a Roman flag or hostile to Rome.
And that is why transformation is the much better concept.
As for the British Empire, I believe Prince Charles admitted in 1997 after the loss of Hongkong to China that it ceased to exist at that point. But you could say, it is a monarchy that still incorporates England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some form of loose control over Gibraltar and the Falkland Isles. So it would technically qualify. Factually, it is a democratic federation of states.
I'm continuing to enjoy this channel's excellent content, thanks for posting it.
Good talk. Covers a time frame that often gets passed over or treated superficially.
Rome's "Fall" per Gibbon was North European "protestant" propaganda. This was a great presentation. It just missed the motivation for the myth we sadly suffer here. Majorities of Christians lived East of Constantinople into the 14th C. We just repeat the nonsense phrase "Western Christianity" over and over so many times, we imagine they go together. But they don't.
The image labeled a germanic ruler trying to look Roman is actually Stilicho, a famous magister militum for the eastern Roman empire.
Pretty sure he was still half Roman (other half was Vandal).
Stilicho was also leader of the Western Roman Empire's armies and, due to the emperor's youth, he was effectively in command of the Western Roman Empire for a time.
@@davidfinch7407 he was in fact more famous for leading western rome's armies under honorius, though he was appointed as eastern rome's Magister millitum by theodosius as well, but since the east under arcadius almost instantly split off after theodosius death and appointed different Magisters, even some full blooded goths at times.
Thank you very much for the lecture! It was fantastic 1 and half of an hour. There’s not much that could be found in internet on this topic.
Yes, the Visigoths & Ostrogoths were almost elements of the Roman army. The Kings, as military leaders of federate or quasi-federate tribes (and not of territories) represent an arm of the greater Roman state, though a very altered state from the Principate of Augustus or even the Empire of the Theodosian era.
Hamer gives a solid explanation for that it seems; the decline of small farms and rise of the slave worked latifunda.
But that actually was already a problem in the Late Republic when conscription of farmers as soldiers did not bring enough soldiers.
soldiers who also that to bring their own equipment. One way of resolving that problem was the Marian reorganisation of the army in which poor Romans from the cities could contract themselves as soldier and the state or the recuiting army leader provided the equipment. That process set in motion the creation of the Emperor as a ruler of the state.
@@kamion53 is this a reply to the wrong comment?
@@mimief7969 I used your entry to express my doubt if Hamer did not mix up the state of affairs of the Late Empire with the state of affairs of the Late Republic considering the recruting potentials in the Roman world.
@Eduard Medrea I don't think so, take it from someone who is not an economist, but interested in history and I more then once encountered the situation that the small business, small farmer was the most solid base for the income of the state. In Rome it wasn't the great lords that coughed up a regular taxbase, in Spain it was not the gold from America's but the taxes extorted from the Castilian farmers the state relied on. And in the USA the small businenes don't have the means to get great tax exemptions or the tax experts to minimise taxes from huge profits.
In Republican Rome it were the wealthy who made political carreer by financing great state projects, when they stopped doing that and did spend their money on the country houses, Rome's infra structure went in decline, because the costs of the militairy apparatus kept rising.
There is a parallel with the USA with the struggle of the small business and the lack of investing in infrastructure by the wealthy. Some documentation called the constant extent of suburbia a "pyramid sceem" big companies make big money on building new suburbs which don't generate enough taxmoney by the time the infrastructure needs maintenance.
Christ existing and the Bible having scientific accuracy outranks anything you said in importance.
From what I understand, the Franks and later German rulers who had been crowned “Roman Emperors” were aware that their title was not a legitimate continuation of the previous Western Empire. The Pope May have nominally crowned them Western Roman Emperor, but they would not have believed that the Western Roman Empire was legitimately restored. There was a great deal of debate at the time (in 800 when Charlemagne was first crowned) whether the pontiff even had the authority to crown someone emperor. The Franks and Saxons, as Germanic peoples, were simultaneously reverential and distrustful of the original Roman Empire.
As I understand it, they did.. they must not even realised the Roman empire had fallen.. they just thought it had been lacking an individual strong enough to be crowned emperor for the past centuries.
A political entity without a single political leader expressing sovereignty over all of it's territory must seem unthinkable today.. (so much as imagining the United States without a president for several years), but it wasn't back them, and a Roman empire without an emperor was not an uncommon thing since before 476 (just remember Recimer ruled without an emperor for almost 3 years in total, and the Holy Roman Empire itself also haven't had an emeperor for many years in total and nobody ceased to see it as a single empire because of that in both cases).. anyway, during this over 3 centuries without a Roman emperor, wherever you looked, you would see Roman buildings and houses, you would see higher class people wearing in Roman fashion speaking the Roman language for official porposes, and worshipping the Roman religion, Christianity..
so for all intents and purposes, the Roman empire was basically still a thing after 476 only with many different warlords controlling different parts of it's territory. It's almost like Syria or Libya today.. in effect, it's divided in many areas of control by different warlords that are not recognized by most countries, so if you ask most people they would still say each of this countries is just one thing. So as all the Roman leaders, be it the eastern emperors or the Popes wouldn't recognize the many different barbarian kingdoms inside the former empire as legitimate or would see them as their vassals..
Anyway, the way most have understood it at 800, was that the crowning of Charlemagne by the pope was kind of like the pope giving Roman citizenship to a germanic king and crowning him the brand new Roman emperor, the first of his kind in centuries.. in fact if you look at all the coins made with the face of Charlemagne, he had a very mediterranean face, that matched with Einhardt descriptions of him.. Einhardt also said Charlemagne wore in Roman fashion for official porpose, meaning that Roman fashion and therefore culture was still a thing in the 800s, so his coronation as a Roman emperor wouldn't actually have been seen as an absurd back then as we might think at first with our anachronistic views of it, molded by modern historiographical conventions..
@@bumblebeeeoptimus You can claim if that way but the deposing of the last emperor in 476 certainly marked an end to an era. Thereafter, it wasn't a unified political entity. Roman culture may have survived for sometime but the political structure (senate, emperor) was certainly gone. Even the Holy Roman Emperor didn't have direct control of Italy.
@@bumblebeeeoptimus interesting concept but this is incorrect. odocer became a vassal and unified Rome under a single emperor, Zeno. West Europe became a mishmash of immigrating tribes which blended cultures, ultimately eradicating the Roman identity during the dark ages, leaving only the language and religion as Christianity was essentially the only unifying force in such a diverse landscape. The Eastern Romans were unable to assist the papacy (and its Italian holdings) after the Arab invasions so he turned on the Romans and allied with the Franks. Pope Leo was deeply unpopular and close to deposition but Charlemagne saw an opportunity and added “Emperor of the Romans” to his list of titles. Did any citizens change their identity? No, they were Frankish and didn’t take any notice to another of several accolades Charlemagne has obtained. This is a theme throughout the HRE, it was a title for kings, never one for the people and the HREs failure to truely centralise its own power is proof of many sub-identities that they couldn’t agree on one, let alone be called “Roman”. Many had their own currencies etc. The Pope was desperate for power and being situated in Rome (despite the Roman identity being eradicated centuries ago in the west) so used this as the means of becoming a king maker. It was never a true ‘Empirical Office’ as after Charlemagne the Franks ignored it until Otto I... who again got the title as reward. The only one who cared about the HRE title was the Pope who sought to delegitimise Constantinople’s legacy as the Orthodox Church was becoming increasingly at odds and the Catholics wanted domination of all Christianity. By stealing Rome’s legacy, you weaken the Orthodox Church which was the intension. Catholics have also stopped teaching crusades after the third as the fourth crusade essentially destroyed the Roman Empire... it had a merge comeback but Mehmed II proclaimed himself “Caesar of Rome” in 1453, after which only Muslim history is celebrated. In 1557 the HRE invented the term “Byzantium” to further distance it from Rome, while reducing any challenge to their claim on the title and rewriting the medieval Romans as “Greek heathens”.
@@rockstar450 You are wrong 'Frankish' identity didn't exist even the word is Roman. For example if you look at Merovingian dynasty the coins show them with Roman motifs and dress. Also they spoke vulgar Latin that later became French. And Charlemagne didn't just add 'Emperor of the Romans' to his name this was a direct attack on Rome in Constantinople. But there was a president for this within Rome when Justinian II named Tervel of Bulgaria caesar. In fact the title Rex(what people translate to King) was a Roman title. There was a clear hierarchy among titles , from what I know the only self proclaimed 'Emperor ' was Dusan who thought he was a legitimate Roman emperor(Tsar). English and protestants started propagating this myth first because the King of England wasn't a legitimate title in the old sense. Also when nation states where invented they started creating myths about some ancient origin and adding modern interpretations in public schools.
@@FilipCordas huh? of course Frankish identity existed. The ruling class in Francia still spoke a germanic dialect well into the 9th century, had germanic names, and saw itself as part of a separate ethnic group than the Latin-speaking populace of what used to be Gaul.
A thousand thanks. This was very enjoyable and highly informative.
Their language died, their pantheon died, their form of government died and every culture in close proximity tried to emulate them as much as possible.
Rome didn’t just change.
Rome is a pustule on the rest of the world.
You two didn't learn a thing from this lecture, did you?
Way off. They definitely didn't die. The Goths of Anatolia, The Dacian Goths (later the Galatian Goths), the "germanic" kings of England. The Vandals of southern Spain and Carthage, the Franks, the Gauls, the Lombards, the Picts...all Goths. The Greeks called them "Celts" and that spilled over a little into early Roman nomenclature. Gothic architecture also predates his claims. Venice had many and still has some, Gothic style buildings some of which were built during Venice's conception or shortly after. Many were covered over post Renaissance.
Latin didn't just die it evolved into the other Romance languages.
@@imemberberry You forgot the Visigoths and Suevi of Spain.
I’m amazed that John can lecture on such wide range of topics with such details.
Phenomenal lecture, thank you!
Interesting and enlightening as usual. Thank you.
Associating Sarmatians, other Indo-Iranian-speaking, and even Turkic-speaking peoples with Croats and Serbs are the opposites of historicism for the following reasons:
a) Croats and Serbs boast no East Asian, Scythian, Sarmatian, and Alan-like aDNA, and they're devoid of East Asian, Sarmatian, Scythian, and Alan-like Y-DNA
b) The most prominent theory states that the name “Serb” is of Proto-Slavic origin. According to Hanna Popowska-Taborska, who also argued native Slavic provenance of the ethnonym, the theory advances a conclusion that the ethnonym has a meaning of a family kinship or alliance, and it is argued by Pavel Jozef Šafárik, Josef Perwolf, Aleksander Brückner, Franz Miklosich, Jan Otrębski, Heinz Schuster-Šewc, Grigory Andreyevich Ilyinsky, J. J. Mikkola, Max Vasmer, Franciszek Sławski, among others. German-Sorbian scholar Schuster-Šewc listed the *srъb- / *sьrb- roots in Slavic words meaning "to sip, munch", found in Polish s(i)erbać, Russian сербать, etc., and also cognates in non-Slavic languages, such as Lithuanian suřbti, Middle German sürfen, which all derive from Indo-European onomatopoeic roots *serbh- / *sirbh- / *surbh- meaning "to sip, to breast-feed, to flow". According to him, the basis of the ethnonym lies in "kinship by milk" and "brotherhood in milk" which was widespread in early ethnic groups (between both relatives and non-relatives) and thus carried the secondary meanings of "those who belong to the same family, kinsman"; "member of the same kin, tribe"; and finally, an ethnonym (name of a people, nation). According to Vasmer's etymological dictionary, the root *sъrbъ is most probably connected with Russian paserb (пасерб, "stepson") and Ukrainian priserbitisya (присербитися, "join in") in the meaning of "alliance". Zbigniew Gołąb similarly derived it from Proto-Indo-European in the meaning of "outgrowth, member of the family". Stanisław Rospond derived the denomination of Srb from srbati (cf. sorbo, absorbo), and Proto-Indo-European base *serpłynąć as a possible reference to the humid areas inhabited by the same people, which was also argued by Stanisław Kozierowski.
c) While it's tempting to theorize that the ethnonym of the Croats and Serbs are of "Iranian, or Turkic origin" like Vasmer and Trubachyov have done, it is ultimately wrong, for the aforementioned reasons in the case of Serbs, and in the case of Croats, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński and Radoslav Katičić would prove that the Iranian thesis doesn't properly fit the Croatian ethnonym, as according to them, the original plural form was Hrъvate, not Hъrvate, and the vowel "a" in the Iranian harvat- is short, while in the Slavic Hrъvate it is long among others. The Medieval Latin C(h)roatae and Greek form Khrōbátoi are adaptations of Western South Slavic plural pronunciation *Xərwate from the late 8th and early 9th century and were introduced to Medieval Greek via a Frankish source. To its Proto-Slavic singular form, the closest forms are the Old Russian xorvaty (*xъrvaty) and German-Lusatian Curuuadi from 11th and 12th-century sources, while the old plural form *Xъrvate is properly reflected in Old Russian Xrovate, Xrvate, Old Church Slavonic xarьvate, and Old Croatian Hrvate. The form Charvát in Old Czech either came from the Croatian-Chakavian or the Old Polish (Charwaty) tongue. The presence of Croatian ethnonym Hr̀vāt (sl.) and Hrváti (pl.) in the Kajkavian dialect also appear in the form of Horvat and Horvati, while Harvat and Harvati in the Chakavian dialect. The ethnonym itself occurs only in Slavic history and language, and its bearers are only ever referred to as being Slavs, or as being part of Slavs in primary sources, just like the Serbs.
d) De Administrando Imperio states the following in regard to the Croatian war with the Avars:
"Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats."
e) They and the Serbs would put all Avars to the sword in all of Rome's northern provinces: "The war with Persia in 600-614 strained the Roman resources and thus denuded the coast of soldiers, therefore the Avars and Slavs inroads ravaged as they pleased under Heraclius (610-640), who had called in the latter to drive out the Avars; Narona, Salona, Epidaurus, Burnum, and Rhizinium were destroyed. In 641 Pope John IV., a Dalmatian by birth, sent Abbot John to Istria and Dalmatia to ransom prisoners and collect relics. The Croats and Serbs exterminated the Avars in the middle of the seventh century and delivered the province, the Croats occupying the west to the river Cetina, the Serbs the east from the Cetina to Albania." - The Shores of the Adriatic, the Austrian Side, The Kustenlande, Istria, and Dalmatia by Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
The only "connection" between Serbs, Croats, and Turkic peoples is that the former entered history by exterminating the Avars across a large landmass, and that's it.
You are correct 100%. I am American Romanian and I learn long time ago in Romanian University .
You are absolutely right that Serbs, Croats, and even Bulgarians are descended almost exclusively from Slavs.
Nonetheless during the 7th to 11th centuries the Serbs and other south slavic peoples were ruled by a Bulgar elite that descended from Turkic-speaking peoples who rapidly assimilated and left little genetic or linguistic trace. So the professor was sort of right to list Bulgars as an example of elite assimilation at 28:25, even if the Serbs and Croats are mislabeled in the example.
@@darkmiles22 The Proto-Bulgars have only ruled over the Seven Slavic tribes and the Severians - tribes that were limited to the territories of modern-day Bulgaria, not the rest of the Slavs, the Serbs themselves were ruled by the Vlastimirovic dynasty at the time, whereas the Croats were ruled by the Trpimirovic dynasty.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 I see! Very interesting. The wikipedia article on the First Bulgarian Empire is a bit confusing. In any case the general point remains that Turkic proto-Bulgars conquered some South Slavic tribes, then assimilated to the slavic language and culture.
Wonderful lecture Bravo!
Yola is also called the "Forth and Bargy dialect from the county wexford in Ireland.
It descends from middle english which came to Ireland when saxons fled the normans during the norman invasion in 1066
That’s actually really cool
Why did the ostrogoths fall? Belisarius wants to know your location.
ostroGOTHs = GOliaTH
This is narses erasure
Whoooooa. Take a breath! This is such an intricate part of history, I think I'll have to watch this for a THIRD time. :-) And then put it together with the lecture you did on Gothic Architecture. Well done, John Hamer, well done.
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's I googled Michael Hudson. Are you speaking of the one connected with money and debt?
A phenomenal presentation that has changed my perspective of much of history immensely.
A writer in the early 9th century describing Gaul at the time of Charlemagne tells us that the Gauls considered themselves to be living in the Roman Empire.
@@bradleyeric14 what???? really? got a direct source for that? that could be in reference to Charlemagne as he consider himself the new eastern roman emperor .
@@MrAwrsomeness Western?
@@actuallrealgaming yep meant western
@@MrAwrsomeness I can't find any of this online, I doubt it's an actual thing, your hypothesis would make sense though.
This guy is really good, easy to understand and a sense of humor.
Awesome video, thank you.
Talks about this period are very interesting, mostly because of the misconception that the Roman empire fell while being pretty much the same thing it was around 1 CE, only more corrupted - with the Barbarians being the same as back then. It was different. Especially noteworthy how Charlemange actually did revive Roman architecture in Aachen - just the later one nobody thinks about when thinking about Rome. (Not to mention the Ostrogothic kingdom totally getting into the way of complete annihilation post-476.)
Interesting discussion!
John Hamer is somehow able to talk for 90 minutes on a potentially dry and boring topic and hold our attention throughout. Amazing!
That you deem the fall of Rome and the early middle ages a potentially dry and boring era, is a sign that you should study this vast subject just a little bit more.
@@zaniwoob , get over yourself
@@zaniwoob It's not the era that's potentially dry, is that historical narratives are sometimes distilled to their dates and names which is very dry. I'd recommend having a bit more humility in your judgement, there's no way one can judge any degree of their knowledge just by this one comment.
Surely Gothic teenagers take their inspiration from 19th century Gothic literature rather than 12th century Gothic architecture.
Yes, they do
Gothic literature took inspiration from 12th century gothic ruins though, so kinda
Gothic architecture predates this guy's claims by at least a thousand years. Shoutout Venice.
@@tristandavies9597 Ah okay, that makes sense.
At 1:13:44 it is mentioned that there was a lecture on "The consolation of philosophy". Is the lecture available on the channel? Thank you!
The lecture will be available soon in this channel.
@@centre-place thx
Very interesting. Like everything being said is something I've wondered about or thought about... Hell, the whole topic of this video is something I've wondered about...
Just found your channel and I'm smitten. And bless you for pronouncing schism correctly!
Very informative ....................... Thank you.
Thank you very much for this superb lecture. I would like to note that the title is a bit misleading because it's about continuation of Roman cultural influences, 'Magyar' is pronounced with a soft 'g', and mention of the Arian sect being named after Arius would prevent some misunderstandings. Please tell us the name of this excellent speaker.
John Hamer Centre Place, Toronto
@@klightlightmusic Thank you very much.
Interesting, I wonder if resident of western portion of the empire just assumed they were in the throes of another civil war, with the different polities simply represent different claimants to the empire.
I think there is also a lot of confusion due to modern representation of the "fall" of the west. If we entertain the idea of the fall perceived as another ruler positioning himself in the western throne, might not have been that apocalyptic to them.
This is one of those videos which will have me hitting the share button. I am biased because I have been to Ravenna and I am currently reading Gibbon. Check out the background of Justinian's wife who featured in the wonderful mosaics. Courtesan, dancer, political backbone; what a gal! ps The Byzantine factions (Green versus Blue) are reminiscent of current US politics. pps I am very pleased to be reminded of the hands on the columns.
blue VS red.....
@@yiannimil1 Is red big-endian or little-endian?
thank you dear professor hamer and people of center place.
Very nice video about the Ostrogoths. But there was no mention of Theodoric's daughter, Amalasuintha, whom I just read about. Theodoric had no male heirs, but a male grandson. So, his daughter took over as regent for her son, Athalaric. By reliable accounts, she was an able leader of the kingdom. After all, she had good genes, as her uncle was Clovis, king of the neighboring Franks. And she was well-educated. But eventually, she was murdered by conservative Ostrogoth leaders who thought she was too 'Roman' or too woke. Quite an early medieval story.
I feel like there are some errors in the lecture. Hungarians are not from Finland. They speak a sister language from the finno-ugric family but they did not migrate from Finland as implied.
Are you still doing these lectures live? I realise that this is 4 years old. Really benefiting from them
The Roman Empire still stands today. It just looks different
Ah, first we had the Germans, then the Russians, then the Germans again, which one is it now?
@@badmann7783 you will find that they are 2 sides of the same coin. Rothschilds, Rockefeller's, Kissinger, Trump and many more are all from a German background. The Illuminati ( Council Of Foreign Relations ) in America was created by Adam Weishaupt who was initially a German Jew, who then defected to Catholicism, and then created the Illuminati which was funded by the Rothschilds. The 5 Rothschild that started the global banking empire came from Frankfurt Germany where their father owned a coin counting house. Who are the biggest investors into Israel, the Rothschilds. What really sat on the Temple Mount in Israel, the Antonia Fortress of the Roman Empire. Not the Temple of Jerusalem. Rothschilds labelled themselves as German Jews. But Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews? Rothschilds have been the global superpower since the 1700's? Plenty going on
You believe in the Illuminati? The Illuminati are just a front for the lizardmen of planet Blarg! Wake up sheeple!
@@tariqkhan6725 LOL turn off star trek and learn history
The United State's of America is the current Roman Empire. Founded/Controlled by the Jesuits.
amazing lecture
38:35 Charlemagne’s coins cited him as an emperor though this is largely understood to only be a ceremonial title. The reason Charlemagne had to go to Ravenna to model his “Roman” church is because Eastern Rome had been controlling it, thus keeping it Roman for much longer. Coins are self glorifying and are a portrayal of a ruler, not their kingdom and the notion of being Roman would be ridiculous to the Franks. His kingdom identify as Franks and viewed Charlemagne as greater than a king but nobody seriously considered themselves as Romans. This was just a glorious title which would later be drawn upon as the source of divine authority for the German emperors. The fact Justinian had such trouble holding Italy (other than the plague) is because Italy had already started moving on from Rome and by Charlemagne’s time they certainly had become their own people.
Incorrect. The Frank's powerbase was in the region of Northern France which had been the last place in Western Europe to exist as a Roman area still ruled by Romans. He was king of the Romans and the Franks.
@@realityisenough your comment is completely incorrect. With all due respect your observation is literally centuries out of date. Watch the K&G video on the aftermath of the fall of the Western Empire and I’ll expand on what they omit. Charles was King of the Franks, Lombards and a corrupt Pope (who Charles effectively installed) who happened to live in Rome. He was an emperor which was a Roman word and he related to the scale of his empire as a title for himself, suitable for someone greater than a king, such as he was. Charles and his Franks would have laughed if somebody considered them Romans. To them Romans were a distant land in Constantinople though a Charles wanted control over that too; so why not press a claim and see what happens? The “marriage alliance” Rumour is cited only by a single questionable source, but needing a pope to call him Roman shows Charles never believed he was Roman. This was embellished by the HRE who struggled to control their empire and needed every bit of help they could get, even a contrived claim to imperial greatness.
Considering Italy was only out of roman control for about sixty years I doubt they forgot Thier previous owners.
@@naughtybear2187 60 years? How much do your grand parent’s “back in my day” speeches influence your culture? Italy was a free for all and true Romans were driven out and absorbed all for the highest nobles, and even they got absorbed and ousted. The economy collapsed and with it most of Roman culture, the church is the only symbol that remained Italy became largely decentralised and conquered again by Theodoric, so say hello to another round of pillaging. Many systems stayed in place because Roman administration worked well but they would struggle to keep power and many lost their positions once the goths were comfortable. See the Kings and Generals video on how the Mediterranean changed after the fall of the West. What Justinian’s boys had to revisit was an absolute cluster...
@@rockstar450 nevertheless the idea of Rome was still Fresh in thier minds as far as civilizations go, I mean you do know that Pearl harbor happened 80 years ago and consider the cultural impact that has on America today. Look at the cultural impact of the Vietnam war as a matter of fact. The rest of your short essay is nothing but opinionated dribble with no way of backing it up, so I shall state my case again and unless you concede, wait for a response.
These civilizations always keep going. They adopt new social and ideological frameworks that work towards the same end.
Great talk .
Wonderful. Refreshing, enlightening, and done in style. Thanks a lot.
Who's the man teaching ? He's fantastic
@@isakfalk-eliasson1675 Thanks a lot, Isak ! Cheers from Brazil
In architecture gothic was pejorative for theat first called modern style
Did you find this out? I see your thanks but not the response you were saying thanks to!
@@Muzikman127 Yeah, Michael ! In fact, when Isak answered He wrote the name, but I didn't take note by the time, and now, his answer is gone... Maybe He erased it
Why is no in description who is doing the exposition?
This is great.
I goth thank you.
Old English (8th-11th century) was written in the Gothic style fonts of the 12th+ century ? I think there a confusion between the computer font called like that and the actual period of old english.
No, we don’t know that the Huns spoke a Turkic language. Or rather, we know it was a confederation of many tribes/ethnicities/languages. There were likely Turkic speakers there (as well as Gothic, Slavic, and Mongolic speakers), sure. The Hunnic language might have been a Yeniseian language.
good job
Even if I hear them 1000s times, jokes about goths when discussing gothic architecture and Goths will never grow old to me hahaha
What about Gothenburg, Sweden?
Lame historian jokes always make me smile
He had that slide and joke ready to go for at least a year in advance lol
@RIproject0 The Goths aren't a joke to me. My great grandmother descended from both Goth ruling tribes, the Ostrogoth Amal dynasty, and the Visigoth Balto lineage, along with Faralando D'Angleria (or De Vere), the son of the Roland of the Chanson, who married Flora Baltés of the Luarca, Asturias Goth family, around 800 aD, and who was brought to Spain by his uncle Nunio Belchidez, Rolands brother, and who is described as a Frankish knight. More specifically we are descended from Theodorico Amalo king (by choice not emperor) of Rome, and of both Goth tribes, ruling from Rávena, and from an undisclosed daughter of Alarico, who sacked Rome. My Hierro-Olarte family descends from Garcia Sanchez III "He of Najera" who founded the Olarte lineage as a prince. He was the first legitimate son of Sancho the Great king of Navarre, who by war, luck and inheritance came to rule a big chunk of Spain. Try 'Faralando de Vere' on any genealogical site, such as Geni, or Geneanet, and see what you get. The De Vere are better known as the Earls of Essex, having arrived in England with the 1066 Norman invasion, and who's ancient background is very well documented. The Des Baux (Balto), of Provence, spectacularly independent lords, as long as they could hold out, whom the French genealogists fail to designate as descending from the Balto clan, perhaps hoping they'll be seen as home grown and very French. The Des Baux in Italy are called del Balzo. The life of Barral Des Baux, of Provence is inspiring to me. He refused to be anyone's vassal. Augúri.
I really appreciate the fresh look at this subject. However, couldn’t we say that the Romans themselves saw the Western Empire as fallen when the Eastern Romans send expeditions to the West that ended up wiping out the Ostrogoths and Vandals in the 700’s?
Stop you're thinking too much into it just stew in the Catholic propaganda and stop thinking
@@44theshadow49 - LOL… I didn’t realize. This is my first time watching a video from this channel.
@@44theshadow49 Is this a Catholic church channel??
@@ulsterscotsman6648 I was just memeing I didn't actually watch the video
Appreciated
Great talk, thank you sir! You are so right about turkey, DNA tests modern turks show that most are either greek or armenian.
@koksal ceylan Greeks and Armenians predate all the ppls you mentioned by thousand or more years. Excluding ancient iranians.
And even then, the term “ancient Iranians” encompasses such a VAST number of people, many of whom were nomadic, so it seems like such a broad classification that it isn’t as useful. It’s sorta like saying “Asian”, which encompasses everything from Japan to India
Thats just factually untrue. Turkish genetic ancestry is still primarily ancient Anatolian, then Greek and Turkic influence each below 10% on average.
I had to pause after 18 minutes yesterday. I learned so much in just the first 18 minutes, when I came back to it today I couldn't believe there was another 1:20 left to watch.
These lectures are just amazing.
The imperial roman seals were in Constantinoupoli not with charlemagne or the pope. Therefore, the character actors in the west were totally illegitimate
Maybe... but how do you know?
@@enricomanno8434 just a fact of life.
The only reason you cling onto the seals is that you‘re a bitter Greek… They‘re pointless objects.
@@LOLERXP ok. Thanks for explaining
Andalusia is a word derived from Vandals. Also do you know what language the Dacians spoke considering they occupied territory which is in present day Austria and southern Germany. They were a well established nation/civilisation but I have no idea what they were about. Thank you.
Yolo was a language used in South-West Ireland, the first place the English landed and conquered in the 12th C. In 14C it was again replaced by the native Irish (Gaelic) and then later by modern English.
The Huns used an asymmetric recurved bow, a powerful and compact bow that they used from the backs of fast, small horses. They would have spoken Mongol, but by absorbing Turkic peoples, the Turkic language may have entered their language.
Just thank you! The name of the lecturer?
From what I can tell from the maps, that picture of Ravenna shows the location of today's Ravenna marina, not the city itself which is some 5 km southwest. So I'm wondering whether it's the artist's mistake or the silting-in info is wrong (there's a canal that stretches all the way to the city itself, so it probably is correct.)
Thanks!
The spirit takes form in a moment of time. The form dies whilst the spirit lives.
28:27 "Turkic peoples like the Serbs, the Croats, and the Bulgars..." Serbs and Croats are Turkic peoples? Pray explain, professor. That is news to me.
It is perhaps poorly phrased, but in context Turco-Bulgar elite assimilation to Serbian language and culture in the 7th century is similar to Frankish assimilation to Romano-Gallic language and culture in the 5th century. Even then the Croats were never conquered by the Bulgars so it is surely a mistake to include them.
@@darkmiles22 It was definitely mistake to include Serbs or Croats
Excelente exposición!
Fantastic lecture.
Just one quibble.
The Germanic migrations map close to the beginning is incorrect when regarding the Alemani.
The Alemani did in fact migrate out of central Europe.
They entered the old Hispania (Iberian Peninsula) and set up a kingdom.
Along with the Suevii and the Visigoths conquered and ruled Hispania for 350 hundred years.
The Visigoths later fought wars against the Alemani and Suevi which resulted in their defeat.
However they were not expelled.
They were incorporated into the Visigoth clan system and the whole peninsula was ruled as the incorporated Visigoth Kingdom of Hispania.
The thing about the difference in the scripture at the baptism of Jesus is that there are two types of text, one of them is called the alexandrian text and that was a Christian cult that developed about 100 years after Christ.
In that text they removed or changed 1800 scriptures and the scriptures removed all point to the deity of Christ.
Now some scholars have found these alexandrian text and they have dated them to be older than some of the Scrolls from the Christian crucible of Antioch.
Those original scriptures were lost after being copied over and over again and those scriptures from Antioch, matched up over 90% with eachother when the kings authors came to authorise the book. Those scriptures were different in age and language yet they still matched perfectly when compared. More than any text in history.
The Dead Sea Scrolls 500 years later also match over 90% with the original scriptures and the King James Bible.
However, they found three separate copies of the alexandrian text and none of those copies match with each other because they had been so butchered buy this Christian cult.
But because these scriptures from Alexandria where very old they thought they were more original but they are not, they are bastardized versions of the originals.
So when you read out the version of text about the baptism of Jesus, I straightaway recognised it as Alexandrian.
Also Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and nobody comes to the father except through me. That sounds eternal to me.
Even the Quran says that Jesus Returns with a 12 iman but Muhammad does not once again more eternal proof for Jesus.
Begotten is the old way of saying comes from. Like you would say birds beget Birds, dogs beget dogs, people beget people and God begets God.
"This is my begotten son in him I am well pleased".
Stick to the history lesson feller and stay away from the religious context otherwise you're like a biology professor marching into a seminar of physicists and telling them how it is.
The Textus Receptus. English is a harlots language. Excellent comment.
I know this comment serves no purpose other than throwing in a very small historic detail, but Dutch has pockets that are influenced by other Germanic languages. In the West of Flanders we have costal regions that have Saxon influences in the language coming from over the Channel. But more interestingly: in the south of West-Flanders (where I live) where the actual county of Flanders was founded, some Saxons and Suevi were deported after the Saxon War as slaves and we still have villages who speak a mordern form with West Lower Franconian with Saxon and Suevi influences. The town of Zwevegem is Suebi-Ingeheim (home of the Suevi). Their dialect actually had a very distinct sound, which can be traced back to the Suevi.
Just a very small bit of history of the Low Lands which adds nothing to the video. I know.
BTW the name Attila is used nowadays in Hungary, so yes the Hungarians like to identify themselves with the Huns.
You are correct.
Chinese say the Huns always lived west of the Mongols. Bit of a mystery as to the origins of the Huns.
Its not much of a mystery anymore. We have pretty much put together their story with few loose ends.
@@ashtonhaggitt216 What is the conclusion?
Very interesting. But wouldn't it be nice to know who is lecturing?
"The Empire never fell." - PKD
Yet😈
Correct, it just changed it's cover.
@@HOWBAZARY for now😈
It collasped when my tribe the Sarmatian knights and Amazon women rode away merging with the Slavs we were no longer there to protect them
Nice to see James May has been able to get a job lecturing after Top Gear
Lol
While some of what Gibbon says is debatable, it is generally accepted that after Justinian’s holdings eventually fall there Roman Empire is gone in the west. Charlemagne’s citizens called themselves Franks, as did every other HRE. The HRE title was a name for rulers, not people they were over. German history pushes that the empire was “redivided” with Charlemagne but in reality the true Roman Empire survived in the East and the Western title holders were simply branding onto political bodies.
there also was the idea that an Emperor could not be a woman, at the time of Charlemage the Emperor in Constatinople was Empress Irene. So to some cleverclogged pope there was no Emperor.
@@kamion53 there had been female regents before and the citizens determine legitimacy. There was no rule stating a women couldn’t do the job. Remember this is a corrupt pope who was deposed and restored by Charlemagne, so legitimacy had nothing to do with his motivations.
1st Reich: Roman empire
2nd Reich: Charlamagne
3rd Reich: Hitler
4th Reich: bush and his nwo.
Yes, altho Sicily is the exception.
γεγεννηκα (gegenneka), the original Greek word translated "have begotten," literally means "having brought forth" as in "having caused to arise" and is the Story of
Very interested in this, what does that mean? As in that supports the trinity concept or not? Thanks!
Book:
*Archivio Veneto vol.7*
Page 130
"In the year 490 the Ostrogoths called *GHOTO-Serbs* dominated
in Prevalia"
As one colour gradually transitions into another, at what point is the original colour lost? So the Roman Empire gradually transitioned into something else, and the people at each point in time saw continuity.
It's historical that the Romans legions went back to Roman territory due to the invasion of Goths and Vistgoths. In leaving Britian and Northern Europe the Roman absence sent the area into the Dark Ages......
Rome was never in Northern Europe. They were stopped at what became the Limes in southern Germany.
It was due to the climate getting colder with food not being able to be grown. Also Romans were known for salting peoples farmlands for control.
My ancestry on my Mom’s side of the family is from the Goths. Her paternal grandmother was trilingual, Gotlandska (a Gothic dialect of Swedish that was spoken in her native Gotland), Swedish (the language of the occupiers), and English which she learned from a British governess.
There wasn't a Gothic dialect of Swedish unless you're referring to the Gutnish influenced Gotlandic. Which isn't Gothic, since it's North German rather than Eastern. The Gutes of Gotland have the same etymology as the Goths and Geats but whether or not they're the same people has been debated.
@@hyperion3145 My maternal grandfather’s parents both came from Gotland. The stories my Mom told me were of a fiercely independent Gothic people living under occupation by Swedes, who did not perceive themselves to be Swedes, even generations after their putative conquest by the Swedes. Whatever you might have heard from the Swedish victors and occupiers, Gotland was the ancestral and spiritual home of the Goths, and the Swedish imposed upon them became only a dialect of Swedish for eventually complying with the Swedish governors. My Mom told me stories of how the native Goths on Gotland would feign ignorance of Swedish by day, when the Swedish governors barked their commands in Swedish, then continue to govern their Gotland by night. Such was the state of affairs on Gotland in the latter half of the 19th Century when my great-grandmother grew up, before the Swedes erased us from the history books you read.
No, it's not a myth: Romulus Augustus was the last emperor of the Western Empire, it then fractured into a bunch of petty kinglettes, and that was the end of the Empire: they literally stopped referring to themselves as Romans and viewed the Eastern empire as a totally separate and distinct entity. In fact if you want to see the continuity of this the French still call Germany Alamain and the Germans still call France Frankright.
If you look at the military tactics, they barbarize in Western Europe, if you look at the trade goods, they straight up go away. Stone buildings and well built farm houses turn into holes in the ground with thatched/wooden walls between posts. To say the empire didn't fall is to ignore the large mass of archaeological evidence: they forgot how to make running water! When your king has to have water brought to them from a well versus a peasant who can open a tap and water comes out, that's decline on a scale unfathomable to modern minds.
If you really want to see it: Take the Roman Army at any time period before 300 AD and put it up against Charlemagne's army, 400 years later and the Roman Army would probably beat Charlemagne's army without any major losses whatsoever.
It fell, and what replaced it was so wholly inadequate that it caused a Dark Age over Europe and North Africa.
true, everyone wants to challenge today the ideas of yesteryear so they can feel smarter i guess, sure the villagers maybe didnt felt it immediatly but the fact is the empire fell
the question is also stupid "Is the "fall" of the Roman Empire a myth?"
i dont see a roman empire today so no it obviously is not a myth, western fell with odoacer since he himself sent the regalia to the east, and east fell 1000 years later, but it still fell and its no myth
@@poki580 According to Debt, the first 10,000 years the Ostrogothic kingdoms were minting new coins but still tabulating debts in Roman sesters until Chalemagne even though no one had any actual money lol.
What did they make those pipes out of for the running water? Lead. That was part of the downfall that isn't mentioned often enough!
@@jeffjones3040 True. Although in their defense, Copper was still a precious metal. It's like how we only use silver and gold for specialty electronics.
@@89technical ....I know that they did not KNOW about the problems of ingesting lead, at that time in history. Or at least didn't think running water through it would give them enough to be a problem.
15:24 - "that's where we get pants"
I think it was from them that we also got soap?
Excellent lecture, as always, but I must point out that the Croats were not a people of Turkic origin who adopted the Slavic language - there is no substance to that claim.
Very knowledgeable lector! But he seems a little shy.
It's possibly a useful.expression coined.much later by historians to describe something only perceptible in hindsight. Like the Renaissance and the French Revolution. No one can decide just how many Crusades there were by the same token.
My man had that first slide and joke set up for months in advance lol
What is the name of this lecturer?
Very nice and accurate presentation.
Ooohhhhh, that explains it!
2:45 thereabouts, the diagram is omitting Flemish which is very similar to Dutch and Afrikaans.
Who is the lecturer?
The reason the phesot of Rome existed after the fall of the actual Empire, is because it was now sacred because of the Catholicum faith, by the now Tradition Latin Mass. It was the only way to b period. The clothes weren't really that much different nor the weapons at thistime, it was still ancient times so Rome was an absolute monicer of style and a civilization to sout after.
Zosimus doesn't agree....writing around 500 ".... By these means, the Roman Empire, having been devastated by degrees, is become the habitation of barbarians, or rather having lost all its inhabitants, is reduced to such a form, that no person can distinguish where its cities formerly stood."
1:05:00 that's POSEIDON ON THE LEFT, with a small substitution!!!
There is a missing part. The vidden Last is a concept of time.. we are talking of the inca Priest Kings.. mountaim People and the Watchers in jungle
The First Priest King was 2-På Amaru shachur
2-Pack Amaru shachur..
Kind pr odd when the tired last few just multiplief over night.. The Army was in the same Numbers as the Last time the roman army Changed its war formations and attacked the inca Tribes in the jungle.. this time.. this was the Last time they came out from Deep Jungle to fight the City People ..
I thought I got what I needed at the 21 minutes, however the professor kept unpacking history in an excellent reductionist form.
The Late Roman Army elite troops were mounted archers and lancers. The Romans had a tradition of copying the military equipment of their enemies. The classic late Republic short legionary sword was copied from their 1st Century BC Hispanic opponents.
How come the works of Aristotles was almost lost to the West and then later reintroduced by Arabs? Didn't the Byzantines and Greeks also have copies?
They most likely had, but those would've been Greek, which nobody in Latin Europe understood at that point. Vice versa, the Byzantines didn't know Latin any longer. Seems still like translating Aristotle should've been possible, but it should not be forgotten that both sides weren't very sympathetic towards each other. Moreover, things really were rudimentary in the early middle ages*. Even so rudimentary that things considered simple or viable today might've been impossible, like finding someone literate, well versed in Latin and Greek and able to take the road to Constantinople (and back). (And why should you, just for a philosopher? Philosophy would be of interest much later, in the high middle ages.) Another factor: There were some parts of Aristotle's works which were available due to the writings of Boethius.
*While it might have been true that living standards in the West rose after the empire fell due to it being an extracting and limiting institution in its late stage, the short afterlife of antiquity of 50-150 years with still active, yet declining cities and continuing yet also declining trade was met with a new order which was very local and marked by almost no division of labor, starting as early as the 400s in Britain, or as late as the 600s in Southern Gaul and Italy.
These works allow for analytical and free thought. Something not really very "conductive" to the NEW RELIGION
When something is described as lost in history it means that people stopped believing in it or caring about it. It is found when the people remember it.
Like God.
That is a myth.
Well the west were in dark age due to Roman collapse. weren't able to communicate with Byzantine empire. So west lost access to information.
Of course they had copies to it Byzantine empire is actually Greek empire... would understand more if you would read myths of andualsia .