How come Italy used to be the center of the civilized world,

[Plug Drugs]

and now its all spaghetti and meatballs..

shit happens

having your country be the center of pizza is better anyways

[maks]

because the moors invaded and polluted the roman gene pool with groid blood IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR?

[Plug Drugs]

all the barbarian tribes of the north uniting, then rolling through the roman empire, pillaging and razing as they went, sounds epic... but did it actually happen?

[Genital Doli]

all the barbarian tribes of the north uniting, then rolling through the roman empire, pillaging and razing as they went, sounds epic... but did it actually happen?

no lmfao are you retarded

[Genital Doli]

A grand coalition of barbarian tribes attacked the Roman empire at its height and brought Caesar to his knees, the little bitch. Even though Rome was united and had a very strong sense of Roman identity at the time, and wasn't just a bunch of barbarian tribes slapping the label "Rome" on because some merchants in the cities told them to. It could not stand against the might of the Barbarian Coalition (as it is called in historical circles today). This is how Rome fell.

[Plug Drugs]

yeah and the colonial americans couldn't handle the well-organized british army because after all they were just crazed wild-men with a sense of adventure and a hard on for the wilderness there's no way they could defeat the redcoats

[Genital Doli]

"rome" as a cohesive entity a la legions and centurions (in the west) didnt even exist at the time of its "fall". it was mostly a loose confederation of barbarians that had been invited into its borders by the patricians in the cities in order to defend against other barbarians, a policy that had the effect of barbarianizing rome.the barbarians never once presented a unified front against rome, either, and the western roman empires fall happened via puttering out not some massive sack of rome (rome was actually sacked 3 times and it didnt fall any of those times)

[Plug Drugs]

is that what the church taught you during your studies to become a priest

[Genital Doli]

the christian identity had become far more important than the identity associated with citizenship and rome (this is rly common because of gibbon theme that you see over and over again) and thus the latters fall was regarded, mostly, as a non-event. the "last" roman emperor was some kid who no one even cared about. (even tho the real last roman emperor was constantine xi in constantinople but i digress)

[Plug Drugs]

"loosely tied confederation of barbarians", is that why Rome is still the head of the catholic church and Western Europe has been, for the past 800 years, the definition of "civilized"?

[Genital Doli]

is that what the church taught you during your studies to become a priest

*nods head sagely8

[Genital Doli]

"loosely tied confederation of barbarians", is that why the vatican is still the head of the catholic church and Western Europe has been, for the past 800 years, the definition of "civilized"?

what are you talking about

[Genital Doli]

first of all the western roman empire fell in 400 a.d. not 1200 a.d. so i dont get "the past 800 years" comment, second of all the "loose confederation of barbarians" was referring to the western roman empire at the time of its fall, when it was made up mostly by ostrogoths and lombards, the same people who eventually said hey we dont need a roman emperor anymore.

[Genital Doli]

those barbarian tribes later developed into the feudal kingdoms of europe and far less directly the "enlightened monarchies" of 1400+, sure, but i dont get what your point is, that has nothing to do with the state of rome in the middle of the 5th century

[Plug Drugs]

the christian identity had become far more important than the identity associated with citizenship and rome (this is rly common because of gibbon theme that you see over and over again) and thus the latters fall was regarded, mostly, as a non-event. the "last" roman emperor was some kid who no one even cared about. (even tho the real last roman emperor was constantine xi in constantinople but i digress)

the collective consciousness' sense of "identity" and ego (which 'religion' could most undoubtedly be categorized under psychologically) only comes secondary in the human mind's priority to realistic affairs such as socioeconomics (one's "role" in society) and survival.
You could say that the western empire had become lazy, or that the extent of its territories had simply become too large for it to manage and northern barbarians found this exploitable,
but does religion have something to do with it? Probably not. Religion only reinforces what's already present in the mind

[Genital Doli]

[maks]

he never actually said religion had anything to do with it, he said that western rome was a patchwork of various conquered tribes who eventually got tired of taking orders from a fat guinea

[Plug Drugs]

what are you talking about

i'm saying that the eastern empire was under just as much pressure from pissed off middle-easterners who didn't want them there as the western empire was under pressure from northern barbarians who didn't want them there.

[Plug Drugs]

he never actually said religion had anything to do with it, he said that western rome was a patchwork of various conquered tribes who eventually got tired of taking orders from a fat guinea

he said "the christian identity had become far more important than the identity associated with citizenship and rome" sic

[Plug Drugs]

those barbarian tribes later developed into the feudal kingdoms of europe and far less directly the "enlightened monarchies" of 1400+, sure, but i dont get what your point is, that has nothing to do with the state of rome in the middle of the 5th century

The nation of England did not have its Feudal roots established by barbarians; most historians agree that the Romans played a much larger role in England's development than Barbarians did.

[maks]

oh I must have missed that one I didn't realize he posted twice. he was right the first time.

[Plug Drugs]

On the contrary, the post-Roman state of Britain still experienced attacks from Barbarian tribes even after it was no longer a part of Rome -- it was not "given over to the barbarians" like Doli makes it sound like.

the Western Empire basically said "fuck it, you're all on your own" to its far away territories (such as Britain), but these territories still maintained a Roman-esque style of government and persevered through an onslaught of barbarians to eventually become the feudal states we hear about in the history books.

If this discussion is about the 'gray area' in European history - the transition of Europe between the Roman Empire and the Feudal Era, General Doli is wrong.

[Plug Drugs]

but I suppose Doli can't be blamed; the bullshit pumped out of the Vatican is probably pretty convincing.. I mean, it has to be

[Plug Drugs]

"The withdrawal of Roman legions did not put an end to the Roman culture of the "lost province", which still remained part of the Roman cultural world, as Britons self-identified as Roman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Roman_Britain

[Plug Drugs]

I only cite Britain because it seems to be the most discussed in literature, and the least confusing - therefore we can use it as a focal point for our discussion on the Western Empire's transition to Feudalism

Unfortunately it also seems to be the province we know the least about, as writings from that time period and place of the world are extremely rare; but this just makes it good for theorizing and arguing about

[Genital Doli]

The nation of England did not have its Feudal roots established by barbarians; most historians agree that the Romans played a much larger role in England's development than Barbarians did.

yes it fucking did you fucking retard holy shit where do you think the feudal system came from in the first place

[Genital Doli]

"The withdrawal of Roman legions did not put an end to the Roman culture of the "lost province", which still remained part of the Roman cultural world, as Britons self-identified as Roman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Roman_Britain

yes, they did. britons weren't the people who founded the kingdom of england, i hope you realize that

[Genital Doli]

the kingdoms of england were mostly made up of invading danes, saxons, angles, jutes, etc. these people had never ever ever been part of the roman empire and brought with them the systems established by the ppl in their homeland - where do you think the term "danelaw" comes from