Rome/constantinople Etc...

[PerfectimusPrime]

Rome was literaly a rat infested dump by then.

Well, no...

 

Rome the City, was in a rather good condition back then. But its importance was mainly symbolic one, because it was never a great production city (unlike constantinople).

 

Anyway, the Imperial court first relocated to Milan because of its tactical location, and later to Ravenna because it was safe behind marshes.

 

Rome's (the city) infrastruture only significantly collapsed later on.

[Lex]

Awesome posts Sebastianus, keep up the good work!

 

I would also like to ask everyone, how 'legitimate' was the title of "Holy Roman Emperor" really? Since the Donation of Constantine was actually a forgery and the Franks were still considered as Barbarians and they didn't seem to make any real effort to continue Roman culture, laws or architecture or even show any patriotic Roman sentiments.

 

To me it just seems like a very empty title that they tried to exploit to gain more wealth and one which the Pope granted because he believed that the Eastern Romans couldn't protect the Italians from the Lombards and the other Barbarians raping Italy.

 

And how legitimate was the title for Western Europeans at the time? Did they really consider those Barbarians as "Roman" Emperors of the West?

The Eastern Roman Empire was at least still ideologically Roman and I don't believe that the change of the official language to Greek really changed anything.

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

Sebastianus, Excellent post.

 

The Eastern part of the Empire was indeed far more richer than its Western part. Constantinople was far more richer than Rome in terms of GDP because the trade routes it had from the eastern continent especially from the Silk Road. Not to mention that Constantinople was a major port town as well.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Fox Hound