What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[alfred russel]

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.

I have the read the book and its a good read and convincing argument but considering the Catholic Church as a re-establishment of the (or rather a) Roman Empire is still a bit of a stretch imho.

I haven't read the book and don't even know what book you are referring to.

The Catholic Church obviously isn't the Roman Empire: an empire should have an emperor and the pope doesn't qualify.

But it isn't hard to see how the church stepped into or supplanted the role previously played by the state so that there wasn't discontinuity in the roman way of life even as the secular structures of the western roman empire ceased to function.

[Tamas]

Gregory of Tours (6th Century) felt himself to be Roman even though his patrons were Merovingian Franks.  The local nobility of the Late Roman Period in the West simply turned from what they saw as far away and non-supportive Rome to closer by rulers (who also sought to fit in to the roman system) as Minsky said.

The real change was in the complexity of the culture that went along with the breakdown of trading over distances.  The strength and ingrained nature of Roman Society can be seen in how long the West survived AS Roman before splitting apart.

Fine. I concede the awkwardly-put point.

But what's the argument then? That the Roman Empire didn't collapse?

[Valmy]

It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.

[Valmy]

I think it was the byzantine history podcast that had the story from the Greek independence war. Supposedly some Greek military unit landed on a greek-speaking island and asked the people there what they were, presumably asking whether they were independence-minded or Ottoman loyalists.

"We are Romans" they answered.

Yeah that is a great story. Kind of different as it refers more to a Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian type identity but yeah.

[Tamas]

It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.

Ok but it still ceased to exist at some eventual point in history, I hope we agree on that much.

Anyhow, I have long forgotten what my original point was, I am dead tired from work, had my second AZ shot this morning, and have drunk some beer. Move on.

[Valmy]

It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.

Ok but it still ceased to exist at some eventual point in history, I hope we agree on that much.

Anyhow, I have long forgotten what my original point was, I am dead tired from work, had my second AZ shot this morning, and have drunk some beer. Move on.

Yeah I think we can all agree it does not currently exist

I feel like its final death knell was the rise of national identities in Europe. Eventually a Roman identity came to be an Italian Nationalist thing (or an Orthodox Christian nationalist thing on the other end).

[Tamas]

If you haven't, you should read Peter Heather's books on the period, Fall of Rome and Restoration of Rome in particular.

[PDH]

The Roman Empire in the West faded away to an ever more local system favored by the elites.  This fading away lasted centuries, in my mind starting with the reforms of Diocletian who paved the way for the more local systems (peasants to elites).

As systems got progressively less complex, the trappings of the state became less important and more ceremonial.  By the rise of the Carolingians, the focus change from Italy to the Rhine really shows both that Rome was fully gone, but the ideals of Rome still were powerful in the minds of people.

[alfred russel]

The Roman Empire in the West faded away to an ever more local system favored by the elites.  This fading away lasted centuries, in my mind starting with the reforms of Diocletian who paved the way for the more local systems (peasants to elites).

As systems got progressively less complex, the trappings of the state became less important and more ceremonial.  By the rise of the Carolingians, the focus change from Italy to the Rhine really shows both that Rome was fully gone, but the ideals of Rome still were powerful in the minds of people.

The ideals of Rome have never faded and have lost none of their power in the minds of the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA_N_QVxbKg

"Is Rome worth one good man's life? We believed it once. Make us believe it again. He was a soldier of Rome. Honor him."

[Syt]

[Maladict]

Wow, we actually have some people who have confidence in both. 

[Tonitrus]

Some people are just eternal optimists.

[The Minsky Moment]

There needs to be a control group - like a stone or some other inert object.

[Malthus]

There needs to be a control group - like a stone or some other inert object.

The carbon rod! /Simpsons

https://imgur.com/gallery/oA5BExd

[viper37]

Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.

A majority of British support the monarchy, so they are invested in keeping the system going.  As for fight for its survival, I do not know about today, but in the past, the British army never had major recruitement problems.  If the UK's economic interests were threatened, I think, if needed, the various army branches could count on popular support and new recruits. 

There was no widespread revolution in the streets of London about the war in Iraq, no political coalition promoting a cessation of hostilites as in, say, Spain.