Roman Continuity into the Mediaeval Era?

[Llywarch Hen]

Well, here's the basics;

Originally Posted by Wikipaedia

Fall of the Empire and rise of the Papacy
With the rise of early Christianity, the Bishop of Rome gained religious as well as political importance, eventually becoming known as the Pope and establishing Rome as the centre of the Catholic Church. After the Sack of Rome (410) by Alaric I and the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, Rome alternated between Byzantine rule and plundering by Germanic barbarians. Its population declined to a mere 20,000 during the Early Middle Ages, reducing the sprawling city to groups of inhabited buildings interspersed among large areas of ruins and vegetation. Rome remained nominally part of the Byzantine Empire until 751 when the Lombards finally abolished the Exarchate of Ravenna. In 756, Pepin the Short gave the pope temporal jurisdiction over Rome and surrounding areas, thus creating the Papal States.

Rome - Castel Sant'Angelo


Rome remained the capital of the Papal States until its annexation into the Kingdom of Italy in 1870; the city became a major pilgrimage site during the Middle Ages and the focus of struggles between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire starting with Charlemagne, who was crowned its first emperor in Rome on Christmas of 800 by Pope Leo III. Apart from brief periods as an independent city during the Middle Ages, Rome kept its status of Papal capital and "holy city" for centuries, even when the Pope briefly relocated to Avignon (1309–1337). While no longer politically powerful, as tragically shown by the brutal sack of 1527, the city flourished as a hub of cultural and artistic acitivity during the Renaissance, thanks to the maecenatism of the nepotist Papal court. Population rose again and reached 100,000 during the 17th century, but Rome ultimately lagged behind the rest of the European capitals over the subsequent centuries, being largely busy in the Counter-Reformation process.

But what can we say of the idea of Roma in the Middle Ages, and thus in Modern times, being the unbroken descendant of Romulus's fortress on the Seven Hills?
To what extent did civil life and organisation survive all these disruptions? Did the Nobles of Renaissance Lazio have much in the way of blood from the Patricians of the Empire?
How did the economic life of the city change? Was there continuity of population, or are later Romans the product of regional and national migration?

[Strengthandhonour]

Well first, I moved the thread to the historical forums since it's more of a historical question and not in a Italo-Dalmatian dialect.
But to answer your question, the easy way to find out how the city changed is to read the book "Lords of Italy", the medieval version, not so much the renaissance version. For some time Rome became a very poor city, after being looted over and over again.
The rise of Rome began once again around the 900's-1000's. One of the factors that enriched Rome again was all the pilgrimages and christian visitors from all over Europe. Rome at this time was a small city and had lost a lot of it's former glory, but with the abundant amount of traders and merchants that came along with the pilgrims, the economy of Rome began to develop once again.
One of the last blows to Rome was the sack of the Norman's in the 1080's. After this, a few of Rome's richest families began investing to rebuild the city. This was a very important point in the history of Rome, because this rich families used the wealth they gained from commerce and banking, and not from land owning and the use of humans as resources. With this spendings of resources towards Rome, a bigger economy began to grow.
More rough times came though, the Romans began rebelling and wanted some sort of autonomy from the church and in this period there was constant fighting and arguing..some wanted to stay tied completely to the church while others wanted to unite to the Holy Roman Empire.
Eventually, the pope just decided to give some autonomy to the Roman people, but this brought lots of troubles and constant fights for the next years. During the middle ages, more or less that was something of the events happening in the city. During the renaissance, things began to pick up once again due to the pope comissioning lots of art work and Rome being looked at by many as the center of humanism.
There was a few leaders in between that tried to re-create the Roman Empire. Most failed miserably while some mannaged to get some land.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

One of the last blows to Rome was the sack of the Norman's in the 1080's. After this, a few of Rome's richest families began investing to rebuild the city. This was a very important point in the history of Rome, because this rich families used the wealth they gained from commerce and banking, and not from land owning and the use of humans as resources. With this spendings of resources towards Rome, a bigger economy began to grow.

It is indeed this particular phase that interests me, and its background in the immediately preceding three centuries or so. I'd be very grateful to hear of any more leads you or anyone could give to help further my understanding of this.

[Strengthandhonour]

Well, you should look into Frederick Barbarossa's invasion of Northern Italy and the tension that created with the pope. Also, it is important to notice the Roman rebellion led by Giordano Pierleoni and the Roman rebellion he led that re-created the Roman republic and tried to eliminate the large influence of the Roman nobility and papacy in the development of the city.
I don't remember which individual it was, but there was a leader of Rome around the time who was somehow connected to the church. He promised the people to bring back the Roman Empire and conquered some lands. His major flaw was he was a megalomaniac and very much into indulging himself completely in absolute hedonism. The Roman people got angry and decided to kick him out of power by storming his home.
He sucesfuly sneeked out wearing a monk Robe and sandals..except he forgot to take off all his jewelry such as big rings and was quickly spotted and killed.

[Marcus Marulus]

There is a continuity of the Roman civilization from the fall of Rome onwards. There can be no doubt about it.

[Strengthandhonour]

Indeed Prometheus. The spirit of the ancients is among us even today.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

Indeed Prometheus. The spirit of the ancients is among us even today.

let's say that this is true for a few selected individuals like you ... another name that comes to my mind is Prince Junio Valerio Borghese.



For the rest i don't really see many old roman types around today, especially among politicians, who sound more like low empire morally rotten wheeler-dealers.

[Strengthandhonour]

Well I don't mean it just in politics Breha. But just look around..at buildings,law systems,architecture,art,etc..The Romans might be gone, but they forever changed the world.

[Marcus Marulus]

Hilaire Belloc maintained that barbarian invasions did not significantly change the cultural identity of Europe, since those "barbarians" took over all the tools ofr the Roman civilization. He said there is a direct continuity between Rome and today's Europe.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

Well I don't mean it just in politics Breha. But just look around..at buildings,law systems,architecture,art,etc..The Romans might be gone, but they forever changed the world.

I deeply believe that the most important characteristic of the old romans was thir moral strength, summarized in the MOS MAIORVM moral code.



their frugality, their focus on hard work, prowess in war, simplicity of habits, honesty: there are hundreeds of examples of high moral standards from their republican era.



That was really what made them different, technology and other achievements were partly theirs and partly derived from the people they had businnes with, starting from the etruscans and the greeks.



But their moral strength was unique, so leading them to conquer all what they conquered.



When they lost it to foreign moral corruption (mostly oriental ..) they started losing the empire.



I see their ancient ethics as similar to the pre-1945 japanese one.

Pity that globalization diluted their MOS until it faded.

[kyashan]

their focus on hard work

now Rome and everything down there is not exactly the epytome of hard-working attitude

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by kyashan

now Rome and everything down there is not exactly the epytome of hard-working attitude

I suppose you are from Milano?

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I don't remember which individual it was, but there was a leader of Rome around the time who was somehow connected to the church. He promised the people to bring back the Roman Empire and conquered some lands. His major flaw was he was a megalomaniac and very much into indulging himself completely in absolute hedonism. The Roman people got angry and decided to kick him out of power by storming his home.
He sucesfuly sneeked out wearing a monk Robe and sandals..except he forgot to take off all his jewelry such as big rings and was quickly spotted and killed.

I think you surely meant Cola di Rienzo.

[Caesar Princeps]

I do not think that Classical Rome and European Rome are part of a same historical continuum. Classical Civilization (civilization and culture in a Spenglerian meaning) died out in V-VI century, while European Culture was born in the second half of first millennium a.D. as a result of Classical Culture, Christianism and Barbaric (mainly Celtic, Germanics and Slavic) peoples.
In fact Classical forma mentis was far different from European one, though the latter is offspring of the former.

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by kyashan

now Rome and everything down there is not exactly the epytome of hard-working attitude

Here is the problem: Roma has been for a long time the centre of the civilized world, so that all the best and all the worst of all the Empire came there. Then the best perished, while the worst flourished. This is the origin of the Roman Plebs, in my opinion.
The same process is typical of all centres of power.