Rome fell.

>>3145864
I never much liked the WRE anyway. Too gay.

>>3145864
not your western rome-centric safe-space. byzantine empire WAS rome. you can kys if you don't understand this fact

>>3145896

Ottoman empire was Byzant

>>3145896
>byzantine empire WAS rome.
It's a semantic argument one way or the other.

But whatever was happening in the Greek East, in the Latin West civilization fell. Trade networks collapsed, industry collapsed, political order collapsed, and cities shrunk to nothing.

>>3145896
This desu

>>3145864
problem is which Rome fell?

I mean Rome is still there, a bit castrated but it's still a thing that exists
Imperial line and empire where still things in the Byzantine empire
The Pope, the de-facto ruler of Rome in the middle ages was the one who officially anointed Charlemagne
Roman culture and Western civilization are basically synonymous

and the only "fall" that was actually a violent takeover was the one the Ottomans did to the Byzantines.

Lot of questions about who and which place really owned Rome in the latter half of the empires life is the reason for the conflicting theories.

File: Screenshot (43).png (61KB, 422x672px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 422x672px

>>3145994
"Rome fell" means that in much of the territory once ruled by Rome, including its original heartland, civilization collapsed into barbarism.

Only contrarian "Late Antiquity" byzaboo fedora-historians (so most of /his/) deny this.

www.bu.edu/historic/hs/perkins.pdf

>>3146056
>"Rome fell" means that in much of the territory once ruled by Rome

that still includes the Byzantine empire