How Excessive government killed Ancient Rome

[D.Turtle]

That too, but they did leave them behind for extensive campaigns or raids sometimes.

Just how coordinated were the so-called barbarian hordes? Was the conquest of the Roman Empire (or rather East Roman Empire) simply a relatively uncoordinated mass movement into their territory by various tribes, etc. Or was it a more systematic conquest?

[ray245]

That too, but they did leave them behind for extensive campaigns or raids sometimes.

Just how coordinated were the so-called barbarian hordes? Was the conquest of the Roman Empire (or rather East Roman Empire) simply a relatively uncoordinated mass movement into their territory by various tribes, etc. Or was it a more systematic conquest?

It varys from being coordinated to uncoordinated, given the fact that we are talking about an event that take place over a few decades.

[Setzer]

Some of them might have been invited in by Roman usurpers during civil wars. And if they were typically recruited as auxiliaries, they may have generations of military experience fighting alongside Romans. I doubt Arminius was the only former auxiliary to turn on Rome.

[Big Orange]

King Geiseric of the Vandals was allied with a Roman official from North Africa, governor Bonifacius, in May 428 and his nomadic kingdom was invited over into the vital African provinces.

[Simon_Jester]

Right up until the end (the Hun invasions of the 450s), the Romans remained capable of rallying large armies to meet barbarian invaders if they perceived those invaders as hostile to the state. Even if most of those armies consisted of other barbarians, they were there. I suspect they were at least some degree of deterrent to random wandering barbarian groups, because a nervous Roman governor could quite possibly drop several thousand Ostrogoths or the like on the lead elements of your tribe if you weren't welcome in his province.

If "uncoordinated" means "small, weak groups infiltrating across the frontier and carving out fiefdoms in the Roman interior," then that threat would be a problem for the "uncoordinated" tribes.

But conversely, if "coordinated" means "all the great barbarian warlords, commanding hundreds of thousands of warriors in total, held a council and divided up the Empire between them," then there was very little coordination. The barbarians were often fighting each other at least as much as they were fighting the Romans. As I understand it, many barbarian tribes were driven into the Empire by beefier tribes further east (especially the Huns). And, as mentioned before, the Romans often recruited one group of barbarians against another (allying with the Visigoths against the Huns at Chalons, leading to the death of the Visigoth king and the retreat of the Huns, for instance)

[ExarKun]

I don't know why anybody bothered debunking that article after seeing terms like "socialism" and "free market" right in the titles. What a joke

[Samuel]

I don't know why anybody bothered debunking that article after seeing terms like "socialism" and "free market" right in the titles. What a joke

Because if you don't constantly test your arsenal you no longer know if the warheads have degraded to the point of uselessness.

The same goes with logic, reason and argumentation.

Also because we like mocking it. It wasn't as bad as the "lets destroy the empire to save it" though.

[Simon_Jester]

Good point. "Mockery of stupid people," it says so on the label. And these guys definitely invite mocking by trying to recast the collapse of an empire 1500 years dead in terms of a political dispute that has only been framed in the terms they're using for the past few decades.

[Samuel]

Good point. "Mockery of stupid people," it says so on the label. And these guys definitely invite mocking by trying to recast the collapse of an empire 1500 years dead in terms of a political dispute that has only been framed in the terms they're using for the past few decades.

It is fun to look at how the theories about how the Roman Empire collapsed change due to the prevailing ideology and problems that the current scholars are facing- anyone now if the version of the fall of Rome was different in communist countries?

[Thanas]

Depends on the scholar. Some of them did attribute the fall of the empire directly to the "enslavement" of the farmers.

[Simon_Jester]

Depends on the scholar. Some of them did attribute the fall of the empire directly to the "enslavement" of the farmers.

Hmm. Is that reasonable or unreasonable?

There's a major sociological difference between a nation of small farmers and a nation of latifundia, and an empire that thrived when it was the former might not do so well after shifting to the former. Even if it's not always a bad idea to go to massive slave plantations (I suspect it is, but that may be ideological), it's certainly disruptive. Especially if you were depending on the small farmers as a recruiting base for your highly motivated and disciplined military.

[Thanas]

Completely unreasonable when you say the roman empire was in decline since the gracchi when their farming reforms "failed".
If you attribute it to the loss of farming land over the foruth and fifth century, it is an oversimplification IMO but at least it is an honest argument to be made.

[Simon_Jester]

What about an intermediate position: "We can see the seeds of this major problem as early as the late Republic and the disruptions that made the series of Roman strongmen who ended the Republic and created the Empire, but it didn't become a major threat to the life of the state until centuries later?"

[Thanas]

It is an incomprehensibly bad argument. If the problem was present for over seven centuries and never failed to destroy the empire before, why would it suddenly do so? Why was it not that present in the second and third century crisis, for example?

It also assumes that conditions are equal in every part of the empire.

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm. I don't know if I'd characterize that argument as incomprehensibly bad. I am not an expert on Roman or Byzantine history, but my impression is that there was a tendency to oscillate back and forth over long time scales between small holdings and slave/serf-worked large farms owned by the aristocracy. If the Empire (and here I'm treating both the Romans and the Byzantines as a single entity with political continuity) were invariably weakened during the latifundia periods, it wouldn't guarantee the fall of the Empire, but it would still be a contributing factor during at least some times of trouble.

But that would not imply that latifundia were responsible for every crisis the Empire ever faced, or even involved in every crisis; only that they tended to make some crises worse than they would have been otherwise by interfering with the state's ability to recruit a large army loyal to the central government and forcing it to rely more heavily on foreign mercenaries or auxiliaries.

[Thanas]

You would have to prove that Latifundia were a bad thing per se - some of the largest of them were located in Egypt and we all know how much of a grain exporter Egypt was.

[Simon_Jester]

You would have to prove that Latifundia were a bad thing per se - some of the largest of them were located in Egypt and we all know how much of a grain exporter Egypt was.

Since the Romans* valued Egypt more as an agricultural supplier than as a source of troops, Egypt may well have been a special case. A system that worked in the Empire's favor in Egypt could still been bad for the Empire when exported to the core territory of Italy**, where the supply of freemen to go into the army was a more important resource.

*and Byzantines
** or Asia Minor

[Thanas]

You would have to prove that Latifundia were a bad thing per se - some of the largest of them were located in Egypt and we all know how much of a grain exporter Egypt was.

Since the Romans* valued Egypt more as an agricultural supplier than as a source of troops, Egypt may well have been a special case. A system that worked in the Empire's favor in Egypt could still been bad for the Empire when exported to the core territory of Italy**, where the supply of freemen to go into the army was a more important resource.

The empire of Rome had a population of over 50-75 million, depending on the source. Do you really think there was a shortage of manpower? In fact, let's assume the romans had a need for having 10% of their forces replaced each year. That would mean about 60.000 recruits.

Do you really think there were less than that available? Rome itself had a population of over 1 million (close to 1.5-2 million at some times, if you believe some calculations) and could easily replace the losses there alone. Fact is, the army was an unpopular choice for a farmer. It carried very high risks - only one third of roman soldiers ever made it to retirement - and one had to give up a lot of rights.

EDIT: Nevermind the fact that after the Constitutio Antoniniana all romans who were not slaves were Roman citizens and the fact that the Barbarians were eager to serve in the roman army.

[Simon_Jester]

The empire of Rome had a population of over 50-75 million, depending on the source. Do you really think there was a shortage of manpower? In fact, let's assume the romans had a need for having 10% of their forces replaced each year. That would mean about 60.000 recruits.

Do you really think there were less than that available?

No, in point of fact I really I think I don't know what to think. The reason I've been bouncing all these ideas off you is because I have heard them, and because I don't know the context well enough to evaluate whether they are likely, sane but unlikely, or batshit idiotic.

[Thanas]

I don't mind answering those, sorry if I gave the impression otherwise.

[TC Pilot]

Weren't the latifundia more of a problem during the late Republican era when manpower was derived from the small landholders?

[Setzer]

IIRC, Coloni were eligible for conscription. So the Latifundia would only be a problem if workers on them could not be drafted. I know that the army frequently got lower quality levies but it's not like all the Latifundia were exempt.

[Thanas]

Weren't the latifundia more of a problem during the late Republican era when manpower was derived from the small landholders?

That certainly is true, I should have elaborated more on that point, my apologies. This was only a problem considering the change from a milita-based system to a semi-conscription based system that produces professional soldiers. The problem was mainly used by some members as justification for their politics, it had no real effect on the power of the empire at all. One might even make the argument that the professional soldiers of Marius were far more competent than the previous "militia" soldiers while retaining most of the advantages of the militia system.

IIRC, Coloni were eligible for conscription. So the Latifundia would only be a problem if workers on them could not be drafted. I know that the army frequently got lower quality levies but it's not like all the Latifundia were exempt.

The problem is that in the Late Roman Empire, many of the coloni belonged to senatorial estates (or at least entered into a semi-feudal contract with the nobiles), making enforcement of existing laws very, very complicated. You find a whole host of laws pertaining to that problem in the various codices. This is also one of the reasons why the Romans liked recruiting barbarians - you got highly motivated, highly loyal troops that nobody cared for if they died and who also were easy and cheap to replace. After all, if one Goth died, you could always recruit another (who apparently were also in quite good shape).

Of course, a lot of those "problems" are only rhetorical, not practiccal ones. For example, even in the fourth century, we find that most of the "barbarian" units, namely the ausxillia palatina named after barbarian tribes/regions (for example the Salii, which are named after the franks) only had a barbarian percentage of about 20-30%. The rest was all Roman, albeit provincial ones. Therefore, the romans did not seem to have suffered that much of a manpower shortage, considering that in the "barbarian" units they still outnumbered the "barbarians" more than two to one.

This is also only logical - if you live in a harsh region without much opportunities and much hardship - say, for example the balkans - you might find the prospect of military service very, very advantageous, especially since in the Late Roman Empire, the soldiers were paid very well (of course, more of them also died compared to earlier times, but hey, that's the risk of being a Roman soldier).

[ray245]

Came across one stupid article that deserved to be mocked. Thought that I should post it up for others to see.


http://www.gantthead.com/article.cfm?ID=177101

We've explored the principles and elements that led to the rise of the
Roman Empire and have applied these lessons to modern day project management. Now let's examine the decline of the Roman Empire and see what lessons are in store for us there. As we did with the rise of the empire, we will first spend time examining the chronological history, so we can see exactly how Rome fell. Then, in our next installment, we will examine how we can apply the lessons to modern project management.



The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

If you recall, the last good Emperor that the Romans had was Marcus Aurelius (ably portrayed by Richard Harris in the film Gladiator). After the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D., everything went downhill. A string of mostly bad emperors followed, beginning with Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix in the film, although the film was only partly factual). After Commodus (and after two very short-lived and completely inept emperors, Pertinax and Didius Julianus), the mostly poor-to-mediocre Severan Dynasty ruled for about 50 years (including the Emperor Caracalla, known mostly for his extravagant public baths and spas).



The important thing is that during all this time, with constant threats along the perimeter of the empire, power was shifting from Rome to the Roman provinces responsible for defense along the borders. This eventually led to a period of military generals from these provinces taking control (the so-called "barracks emperors"). Civil wars alone nearly tore apart the empire, as various army factions nominated and backed their own rulers. For 30 years, there was a pattern of generals becoming emperor, and then being murdered to make way for another. To make matters worse, the economy was weak as well.



Splitting Heirs

Fortunately, in 284 A.D., Diocletian--the last of the barracks emperors (but much more effective than the ones before him)--finally made reforms that once again brought order to the empire. He enlarged the army and gave them power of administration. He increased security and restored stability after years of civil war.



Unfortunately, he also shared the narcissistic tendencies of Caesar and began to perceive himself as a deity. In addition, he ended up raising taxes considerably to fund the large army and resources to support it. This, combined with the poor economy, caused much dissention among the masses.



In 286 A.D., he made what many feel to be the first mistake that ultimately led to the fall of the empire (there were several more made by others). He decided that, since Rome grew so large and unmanageable, it should be divided into an Eastern and Western Empire . This was a fatal mistake and was the beginning of the end, as conflict would inevitably follow.



Constantine , and the Rise of Constantinople

In 311, after conflicts did indeed arise between heirs to the separate divisions of the Roman Empire , Constantine --one of the heirs--marched into Rome to assert what he felt was his right to the throne. He emerged as the sole emperor of both the Eastern and Western Empire in 324.



Constantine continued and furthered the military and administrative reforms started by Diocletian (and unfortunately the associated taxes as well). He improved security and built lavishly, recalling some of the old glory of Rome at its peak. However, his most lasting achievement was that he ruled as a Christian (whereas Christians were persecuted under Diocletian's rule), establishing Christianity as the official religion of Rome , and thus the Western world. Christianity had been spreading through Rome since the days of Nero, but it was now official.



In 330, Constantine moved the capital east to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. Constantine took the best Roman artisans, politicians and public figures with him, knowing that, with the barbarians closing in, the city of Rome was vulnerable to attack.



For all intents and purposes, Constantinople was the new Rome . In fact, for a time it was even called Nova Roma, or New Rome. Rome had become second fiddle.



A House Divided--Four More Times

When Constantine died in 337, he divided the empire among his sons. When they died, their cousin Julian became the sole emperor, who, turning back the clock, restored paganism in place of Christianity. When he died in 363 (killed in battle), a series of Christian emperors ruled, thus restoring Christianity as the religion of the empire. One of these emperors, Valentinian I, gave control over the Eastern Empire to his brother, Valens, thus dividing the empire into two halves once again.



Around this time, the Huns, a barbarian tribe from Asia, were attacking and forcing the barbarian Gallic and Germanic tribes--including the Visigoths, Vandals, Saxons, Franks and others--to migrate west. When the Visigoths sought refuge from the Eastern Emperor, Valens, he accommodated them by giving them shelter within Roman territory (on the Roman side of the Danube River). However, he treated them badly and they rebelled, eventually killing Valens in 378 in the Battle of Adrianople.



Many consider Valens' accommodation of the Visigoths as the second major mistake that led to Rome 's downfall (the first being the division of the empire), as the barbarians were now truly "within the gate."



With Valens dead, the Visogoths rebelling and other barbarian tribes approaching, Valentinian I (the Western emperor) was pretty worked up. He died of a stroke, leaving control of the empire to his 16-year-old son, Gratian, who then appointed his army commander, Theodosius I, as the new eastern emperor, thus dividing the empire again.



Gratian was quickly killed by rebelling troops. His successors faired no better and were eventually defeated by Theodosius in 394, effectively putting the empire under one leader again--for now.



Theodosius ended up signing a peace treaty with the Visigoths, allowing them to settle within Roman territory, armed and under the direction of their own king (another costly mistake). Eventually, Theodosius's sons, Arcadius and Honorius, inherited the Eastern and Western empires, respectively (once again dividing the empire). During this period of change, in 395, the Visigoths seized the opportunity to rebel in Constantinople. They eventually settled in Greece and made several unsuccessful invasions of Italy.



The Fall of Rome

In 410 A.D., fed up after several years of unsuccessful negotiations with Honorius (the Western emperor), the Visigoths finally sacked Rome . They eventually left and were given a nearby kingdom of their own. However, Honorius and his successors had very little control and merely became figureheads, while the mostly assimilated Germanic commanders were left to rule the armies.



Also, there were five major things happening around this time that were also very relevant to the ultimate fall of Rome (which, although weakened, by this time had still existed, even after being sacked):



* As Rome had grown over the years, their people became more comfortable and civilized (i.e. fat and happy), which made them somewhat less interested in military concerns. They no longer had an "ax to grind."
* As taxes increased and the government grew more and more authoritative, they were less and less loyal and trusting of the government.
* Famine and plague began to take hold, reducing the population of Rome from over a million people to about 20,000, further disillusioning and weakening the resolve of the people.
* With less resolve and dedication, not enough Roman citizens were willing to become soldiers, so barbarian Germans (and eventually even the Huns) ended up becoming a regular part of the Roman army.
* Gallic and Germanic barbarian tribes had migrated from the North and East, with the Franks and Burgundians moving to France, the Alemanni moving to Germany (the French word for Germany is Allemagne), the Anglo-Saxons (made up of the Angles and the Saxons) moving to Britain (and changing the language from Latin to English) and the Vandals moving to Spain and North Africa. Rome itself became a melange of peoples.



The result of all this was that the Roman army, made up mostly of foreign soldiers, tended to be less disciplined and certainly less motivated (Napoleon Bonaparte would later share a similar fate, when foreign troops, comprising 2/3 of his army, deserted in droves during his failed Russian campaign in 1812).



Because of this, civil war and rebellion was once again rampant, and the western empire was under continuous attack. Ultimately, Visigoth mutineers ended up ousting what was to be the final emperor of Rome, Romulus Augustus (himself part barbarian). They did not acknowledge his position on the throne, as his father, who had taken it in a military coup, had given it to him. With this ousting, in 476, the Western empire (and therefore the Roman Empire) had officially ceased to be (the leader of the revolt, Odoacer, chose not to rule the Western empire, but rather to be the King of Italy, ruling from Ravenna, a nearby town).



This left the city of Rome abandoned and in ruins, eventually to be salvaged and run under Papal leadership. The Christian Church grew in power, and it was eventually the Bishops who were able to organize resistance to the barbarians and govern Rome. However, viewing the baths and technological breakthroughs as materialistic excess and an affront to God, these things were abolished. Roman technology would be gone for nearly 1,500 years, as oppression remained through the Dark and Middle Ages. Technology didn't really make a recovery until the 19th century.



Constantinople (now called Istanbul) stood for another thousand years after the fall of Rome as the capital of the great Byzantine Empire. It withstood numerous invasions by Islamic armies in the 7th century, and later by the Crusaders, but was left weakened by years of war. Eventually it was taken over by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.



To some, the Byzantine Empire preserved the last remnants of the Roman Empire, although they eventually reverted to the Greek language and gradually shed Roman customs. To others, the much later "Holy Roman Empire" represented the last ties to ancient Rome. However, it wasn't really Roman (nor, as one author pointed out, was it holy or even much of an empire), but rather was called this because of the kings who chose to be confirmed and crowned "emperor" by the pope.



This idea started with Charlemagne, but became officially referred to as "The Holy Roman Empire" beginning with Otto the Great in 962. It lasted for nearly a thousand years (mostly in Germany) until it was eventually abolished by Napoleon in 1806 when he established the Confederation of the Rhine (a league of German States) after defeating the Austrians at Austerlitz. This is somewhat ironic, since two years earlier Napoleon had planned to be crowned by the pope, but in the end chose to crown himself instead.



Up Next

Well, we have come full circle (of course, I'm alluding to the fact that my last series was set in the times of Napoleon, which is coincidentally where we have ended up). We have explored the principles of Rome as well as its glorious rise, gradual decline and inevitable fall. In our next installment, we will apply the lessons from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to modern day project management. If you have missed some of the installments (or have limited time and are unable to read through the details), not to worry, as our last installment will summarize all of the lessons we have learned in this series.

Let's see if my rebuttal towards his essay is correct. If I made any crucial mistake, feel free to correct me.
Spoiler

If you recall, the last good Emperor that the Romans had was Marcus Aurelius (ably portrayed by Richard Harris in the film Gladiator). After the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D., everything went downhill. A string of mostly bad emperors followed, beginning with Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix in the film, although the film was only partly factual). After Commodus (and after two very short-lived and completely inept emperors, Pertinax and Didius Julianus), the mostly poor-to-mediocre Severan Dynasty ruled for about 50 years (including the Emperor Caracalla, known mostly for his extravagant public baths and spas).

What the hell? You are ignoring Septimus Severus rule as an Emperor? Also, Carcalla despite his flaws did admistrate the Empire competently

.

The important thing is that during all this time, with constant threats along the perimeter of the empire, power was shifting from Rome to the Roman provinces responsible for defense along the borders. This eventually led to a period of military generals from these provinces taking control (the so-called "barracks emperors"). Civil wars alone nearly tore apart the empire, as various army factions nominated and backed their own rulers. For 30 years, there was a pattern of generals becoming emperor, and then being murdered to make way for another. To make matters worse, the economy was weak as well.

No argument here.

Splitting Heirs

Fortunately, in 284 A.D., Diocletian--the last of the barracks emperors (but much more effective than the ones before him)--finally made reforms that once again brought order to the empire. He enlarged the army and gave them power of administration. He increased security and restored stability after years of civil war.


Unfortunately, he also shared the narcissistic tendencies of Caesar and began to perceive himself as a deity. In addition, he ended up raising taxes considerably to fund the large army and resources to support it. This, combined with the poor economy, caused much dissention among the masses.

Diocletian didn't see himself as a deity, he see himself as a person who has a special connection to the gods. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Roman Empire and its economy started to grew under his rule.

In 286 A.D., he made what many feel to be the first mistake that ultimately led to the fall of the empire (there were several more made by others). He decided that, since Rome grew so large and unmanageable, it should be divided into an Eastern and Western Empire . This was a fatal mistake and was the beginning of the end, as conflict would inevitably follow.

Diocletian didn't divide the Empire into half. And why is dividing the Roman Empire into half a mistake? Conflict and civil wars still occurred even when the Roman Empire is not divided.

Even when the Roman Empire was divided, it didn't result in a decline until the 5th century.

In 311, after conflicts did indeed arise between heirs to the separate divisions of the Roman Empire , Constantine --one of the heirs--marched into Rome to assert what he felt was his right to the throne. He emerged as the sole emperor of both the Eastern and Western Empire in 324.

Constantine continued and furthered the military and administrative reforms started by Diocletian (and unfortunately the associated taxes as well). He improved security and built lavishly, recalling some of the old glory of Rome at its peak. However, his most lasting achievement was that he ruled as a Christian (whereas Christians were persecuted under Diocletian's rule), establishing Christianity as the official religion of Rome , and thus the Western world. Christianity had been spreading through Rome since the days of Nero, but it was now official.

What? Constantine didn't make Christianity as the official religion. That occurred after his death. He wasn't a christain as well. Also, why is his rule as a Christian considered an achievement? Achievement in what ways?

In 330, Constantine moved the capital east to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. Constantine took the best Roman artisans, politicians and public figures with him, knowing that, with the barbarians closing in, the city of Rome was vulnerable to attack.



For all intents and purposes, Constantinople was the new Rome . In fact, for a time it was even called Nova Roma, or New Rome. Rome had become second fiddle.

He didn't rename Byzantium into Constantinople!

* As Rome had grown over the years, their people became more comfortable and civilized (i.e. fat and happy), which made them somewhat less interested in military concerns. They no longer had an "ax to grind."

What? Then kindly tell me how the hell did the Roman Empire defeat the various barbarian invasion during the late Empire Era? The idea that the Romans are fat is so wrong on so many levels. Hell, tell me how did the Eastern Empire survive if their people are so fat and happy, and less interested in military concerns.

# As taxes increased and the government grew more and more authoritative, they were less and less loyal and trusting of the government.

That's assuming that more and more provinces are declaring their independence from Rome.

# Famine and plague began to take hold, reducing the population of Rome from over a million people to about 20,000, further disillusioning and weakening the resolve of the people.

And when did which plague are you talking about? Hell, does the survival of the eastern empire means anything to you?

With less resolve and dedication, not enough Roman citizens were willing to become soldiers, so barbarian Germans (and eventually even the Huns) ended up becoming a regular part of the Roman army.

What's your point? That the barbarians are degrading the Roman army?

*

The result of all this was that the Roman army, made up mostly of foreign soldiers, tended to be less disciplined and certainly less motivated (Napoleon Bonaparte would later share a similar fate, when foreign troops, comprising 2/3 of his army, deserted in droves during his failed Russian campaign in 1812).

Because of this, civil war and rebellion was once again rampant, and the western empire was under continuous attack. Ultimately, Visigoth mutineers ended up ousting what was to be the final emperor of Rome, Romulus Augustus (himself part barbarian). They did not acknowledge his position on the throne, as his father, who had taken it in a military coup, had given it to him. With this ousting, in 476, the Western empire (and therefore the Roman Empire) had officially ceased to be (the leader of the revolt, Odoacer, chose not to rule the Western empire, but rather to be the King of Italy, ruling from Ravenna, a nearby town).

WTF? Using barbarian in the Roman army doesn't necessary mean the barbarians are not loyal to the Empire. Hell, why are you calling Ravenna a town?

This left the city of Rome abandoned and in ruins, eventually to be salvaged and run under Papal leadership. The Christian Church grew in power, and it was eventually the Bishops who were able to organize resistance to the barbarians and govern Rome. However, viewing the baths and technological breakthroughs as materialistic excess and an affront to God, these things were abolished. Roman technology would be gone for nearly 1,500 years, as oppression remained through the Dark and Middle Ages. Technology didn't really make a recovery until the 19th century.

That's partially due to Justinian's war in Italy. Even then, Rome is still under the rule of the Romans as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna until Charlemagne came along.

To some, the Byzantine Empire preserved the last remnants of the Roman Empire, although they eventually reverted to the Greek language and gradually shed Roman customs. To others, the much later "Holy Roman Empire" represented the last ties to ancient Rome. However, it wasn't really Roman (nor, as one author pointed out, was it holy or even much of an empire), but rather was called this because of the kings who chose to be confirmed and crowned "emperor" by the pope.

For the love of god, can you at the least explain why did the Eastern part of the Empire manage to survive while the West didn't?