Why do some people say the Roman Empire was never destroyed?

Answer 1

I guess technically, 1/2 of it branched off and became the Byzantine Empire which part of it eventually became the Ottoman Empire. But that ended in WW1!
People might be speaking figuratively in the advances the Romans made (roads, irrigation, better military organization, etc).
It's difficult to know about what "some people say" who the some people are and what exactly they said isn't clear.
I'd need more details to comment.

Answer 2

This is because of the great influence and benifits that that empire has given to subsequent civilizations. It has given things from styles and forms of government to massed public entertainment. It's influence has pervaded down throughtout the millenia. People think that because of this that somehow this empire has somehow survived in some form or definition.

The Roman Empire was the greatest empire the world has ever known. It had the finest army and was, by far the most sophisticated of all ancient civilizations. It was this, that and the other thing. But as I have said-the Roman Empire WAS.
Whatever the Roman Empire was, and it was many many things, it was not immortal-no empire is. The fact of history is that the Western part of it DID fall in 476 A.D. when the last emperor of the west-Flavius Romulus Augustulus was disposed. The Eastern part fell on Thursday, the 29th of May, 1453 when it's last emperor-Constantine XI (Dragonis) threw off his imperial robe, insigniture and crown-took sword in hand, jumped into the fray and was never seen again.

Hence, the damm thing, went ages ago. What's left of the actual physical part of ancient Rome- ruins. It is them that people go as tourist and archeologists and historians study. Whatever these people say, there is no more Roman empire. It's dead. For it is said that there are two historical questions that are asked mostly and most ardently. How to account for Rome's rise-and how to account for it's FALL.

Most of these people who say that the Roman Empire was never destroyed fall into either three cateogories. The first are those that are saying that no particular enemy conquered it, thus it was not DESTROYED. What happened was that it was so powerful and respected that it rotted from within, had so many causes for it's fall and sucsessors, and that those who took over afterwards adopted it's forms. Therefore it wasn't destoyed in the classical sense. However, rotting from within or whatever-it went-is no more-and ceased to be a force-therefore, whatever the causes-it was, if not strictly speeching destoyed, nevertherless it died. Hence destoyed in the general, if not specific sense. The second group are those who claim that such is it's influence that we are a continuation of this empire. Whilst we may be a continuation of the type of civilization and the heirs-it is our powers(not Rome) who is. What it is is the Roman empire might have even evolved into what we are today(it has at least in form and structure) but evolving into , then it becomes not that which evolved. There is no Rome, it at least evolved into SOMETHING ELSE. Also it is the form and structure that has evolved, changing it into other powers. And we have our own unique history.

The third type are deluded individuals who wish the thing were still around and that do not accept that it is long since gone. I even came across a web sight inviting people to join the XXth Atlanta legion, or something. Now if this is just for fun-so be it. However there are some people around who really think that the empire is still here. Now I myself have studied Rome extensively. It is my favourite empire. I love reading about it and looking at things about it. However, if you study history seriously, you must know and acknowledge it's truth. For what is the ultimate lesson in history? It is to stand on the ground where you are. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Your question can be interpreted in a number of ways.

There is an arguement that Rome didn't "fall", rather, it transformed, and "the fall" is a modern construct. Some say that Charlemange, who was crowned as the Roman Emperor in 800 CE (a full 324 years after the formal dismantling of the old empire) was a legitimate inheritor to Caesar Augustus and the proper Roman state. If you count the Holy Roman Empire as the legitimate successor, then it lasted until 1806.

I tend to dismiss it. For the same reason Voltaire said that Charlemange's empire was "Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire". Though it was a conscious attempt to ressurect the fallen realm, it gets to a point where there is so much difference that calling it the Roman Empire is ridiculous.

Others say that the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of Rome, and I would grant them more legitimacy than the proponents of the Holy Roman Empire. Because It actually was the Eastern Roman Empire, they called themselves the "Rhomaioi", the Roman people, spoke Latin and Greek, and can trace the line of their emperors all the way back to Constantine, if that was the case, the Roman Empire lasted until Constantinople was taken by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 CE.

Once again, I am dismissive, because it becomes absurd at some point to keep calling something something when it is so radically different that the only similarity is semantics.

As far as the proper "fall", it would be a mistake to assume that Rome collapsed in a night. The decline of Rome happened over the course of hundreds of years. Rome in 476 CE was vastly poorer and standards of living had declined considerable since the days of the Pax Romana of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

I think it is dishonest to say that Rome never fell. However, I also think it is equally dishonest to say that it fell in a day. The truth, it seems, is that both are partly true. For people living in the cities, the fall of the empire was truly a disaster. archeology proves mass migrations from the cities and much suffering as refugees searched desperately for peace.

However, for the people in the countryside, 476 was just another year. Only now, instead of having Roman masters, they had German ones. And by 476, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference.

Answer 4

The Romans left a legacy of teaching, learning, language, architecture, history, political intrigue, territorial conquest, ideals of government such as the Republic and many lessons that we continue to face today. And this legacy has not been surpassed in Human history - and that was over 2000 years ago.

When Odoacer resigned in 475, he just simply sent the Imperial seal back to Anastasius, the Eastern Emperor. By that time, all had recognised that the future of the Empire lay in the trade rich East, than in the long decaying West of Rome and Europe. But at the same time, Anastasius did give the sign of imperial recognition to Clovis, King of the Franks - recognising Clovis as the ruler in Western Europe.

I feel that the Roman Empire transformed rather than fell.

Answer 5

Technically, the Roman Empire was never destroyed. It just got too big and they couldn't handle it....They went broke!

Answer 6

Philip K Dick the SF writer appears to have said so because psychedelic drugs destroyed the little common sense he had.

Answer 7

take Brian T's first paragraph and add to it.......
" and those ideas and ideals are still alive to day in the Republic of the United States of America........"

some people feel that Rome didn't die....it just went into hibernation and woke up again in Philadelphia in 1776....

Answer 8

idk cuh