For centuries, we’re taught that Rome “fell” in 476 AD.
But the more I read about Late Antiquity, the more this date feels like a simplification rather than an actual civilizational collapse.
The administrative system, laws, economy, and even Roman identity didn’t suddenly disappear.
Much of what we call the Roman world clearly continued in the East.
So I’m curious how people here see it:
Do you consider 476 AD a true fall,
or more of a political transition within a longer transformation?
by EmpireCrownfall
3 Comments
This is actually a very popular stance nowadays among scholars of Late Antiquity. Highly recommend Kaldellis’ _Romanland_ and _The Byzantine Republic_ for more.
This has been the mainstream view of the subject for decades, that “fall” is an overly simplistic narrative.
Every single college academic has held this view going back many decades.