If you follow exclusively numbers and count the events from the time of Julius Caesar to the invasion of the Eternal City of the Visigoths under the leadership of Alaric I, then the Roman Empire lasted a little less than five centuries.
And these centuries had such a powerful impact on the consciousness of the peoples of Europe that the phantom of the empire still excites the general imagination. Many works are devoted to the history of this state, in which a variety of versions of its "great fall" are expressed. However, if you put them into one picture, the fall as such does not work. Rather, rebirth.
On August 24, 410, a group of rebellious slaves opened the Salt Gates of Rome to the Goths under the leadership of Alaric. For the first time in 800 years - since the day when the Gallic-Senones of King Brennus laid siege to the Capitol - the Eternal City saw an enemy within its walls.
A little earlier, in the same summer, the authorities tried to save the capital, giving the enemy three thousand pounds of gold (to "get" them, they had to melt the statue of the goddess of valor and virtue), as well as silver, silk, leather, and arabian pepper. As you can see, much has changed since the time of Brennus, to whom the townspeople proudly declared that Rome was bought not by gold, but by iron. But even gold did not save here: Alaric judged that by capturing the city, he would receive much more.
For three days his soldiers plundered the former "center of the world". Emperor Honorius took refuge behind the walls of the well-fortified Ravenna, and his troops were in no hurry to help the Romans. The best commander of the state, Flavius Stilicho (a vandal by origin) was executed two years earlier on suspicion of a conspiracy, and now there was practically no one to send against Alaric. And the Goths, having received their huge booty, simply left unhindered.
Who's guilty?
"Tears flow from my eyes when I dictate …" - confessed a few years later from the monastery in Bethlehem, St. Jerome, the translator of the Holy Scriptures into Latin. Dozens of less significant writers echoed it. Less than 20 years before the invasion of Alaric, the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, telling about current military and political affairs, still encouraged: “People who are ignorant … say that such a hopeless darkness of disasters has never descended on the state; but they are mistaken, struck by the horror of recent misfortunes. " Alas, it was he who was wrong.
Promotional video:
The Romans rushed to look for reasons, explanations and guilty ones at once. The population of the humiliated empire, already largely Christianized, could not help but ask the question: was it because the city fell because it turned away from the paternal gods? After all, back in 384, Aurelius Symmachus, the last leader of the pagan opposition, Emperor Valentinian II called on - return the altar of Victory to the Senate!
The opposite point of view was held by Bishop Hippo in Africa (now Annaba in Algeria) Augustine, later nicknamed Blessed. “Did you believe,” he asked his contemporaries, “Ammianus when he said: Rome“is destined to live as long as humanity exists”? Do you think the world is over now? Not at all! After all, the rule of Rome in the City of the Earth, unlike the City of God, cannot last forever. The Romans conquered world domination by their valor, but she was inspired by the search for mortal glory, and its fruits were therefore transitory. But the adoption of Christianity, reminds Augustine, saved many from the fury of Alaric. Indeed, the Goths, also already baptized, spared everyone who took refuge in churches and at the relics of martyrs in the catacombs.
Be that as it may, in those years Rome was no longer a magnificent and impregnable capital, which the grandfathers of the 5th century citizens remembered. Increasingly, even emperors chose other large cities as their location. And the Eternal City itself got a sad lot - the next 60 years, desolate Rome was ravaged by barbarians twice more, and in the summer of 476 a significant event took place.
Odoacer, a German commander in the Roman service, deprived the throne of the last monarch - the young Romulus Augustus, after the overthrow of the derisive nicknamed Augustulus ("Augustus"). How can you not believe in the irony of fate - only two ancient rulers of Rome were called Romulus: the first and the last. The state regalia were carefully preserved and sent to Constantinople, the eastern emperor Zeno. So the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist, and the Eastern one will hold out for another 1000 years - until the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453.
Why it happened so - historians do not stop judging and playing around to this day, and this is not surprising. After all, we are talking about an exemplary empire in our retrospective imagination. In the end, the term itself came into modern Romance languages (and into Russian) from the foremother of Latin. In most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, there are traces of Roman rule - roads, fortifications, aqueducts. Classical education, based on ancient tradition, continues to be at the center of Western culture. Until the 16th-18th centuries, the language of the vanished empire served as the international language of diplomacy, science, medicine; until the 1960s, it was the language of Catholic worship. Jurisprudence in the 21st century is unthinkable without Roman law.
How did it happen that such a civilization collapsed under the blows of the barbarians? Hundreds of papers have been devoted to this fundamental question. Experts have discovered many factors of decline: from the growth of bureaucracy and taxes to climate change in the Mediterranean basin, from the conflict between town and country to the smallpox pandemic … German historian Alexander Demandt has 210 versions. Let's try to figure it out, too.
Flavius Romulus Augustus (461 (or 463) - after 511), often referred to as Augustulus, nominally ruled over the Roman Empire from October 31, 475 to September 4, 476.
The son of an influential army officer Flavius Orestes, who in the 70s of the 5th century rebelled against Emperor Julius Nepot in Ravenna and soon achieved success by placing his young offspring on the throne.
However, soon the rebellion was suppressed by the commander Odoacer on the instructions of the same Nepos, and the unlucky young man was deposed.
However, contrary to cruel traditions, the authorities saved his life, the estate in Campania and the state salary, which he received until old age, including from the new ruler of Italy, the Goth Theodoric.
Charles, nicknamed the Great (747-814) during his lifetime, ruled the Franks from 768, the Lombards from 774, and the Bavarians from 778. In 800 he was officially declared the Roman emperor (princeps).
The path to the heights of success of the man, from whose name in the Slavic languages, by the way, the word "king" originated, was long: he spent his youth under the "wing" of his father Pipin Korotky, then fought for dominance in Western Europe with his brother Carloman, but gradually with every year he increased his influence, until he finally turned into that powerful ruler of the lands from the Vistula to the Ebro and from Saxony to Italy, the gray-bearded and wise judge of nations, whom the historical legend knows.
In 800, having supported Pope Leo III in Rome, whom his fellow countrymen were going to depose, he received a crown from him, with which he was crowned with the words:
"Long live and conquer Karl Augustus, God-crowned great and peace-making Roman emperor."
Otto I, also called the Great by his contemporaries (912-973), Duke of Saxon, King of the Italians and the East Franks, Holy Roman Emperor since 962.
He strengthened his power in Central Europe, Italy, and in the end repeated the “version” of Charlemagne, only in a qualitatively new spirit - it was under him that the term “Holy Roman Empire” came into official political use.
In Rome, after a solemn meeting, the pope presented him with a new imperial crown in the church of St. Peter, and the emperor promised to return the former ecclesiastical possessions of the popes.
Franz Joseph Karl von Habsburg (1768-1835), Austrian Emperor Franz II (1804-1835) and the last Holy Roman Emperor (1792-1806).
A man who remained in history only as a kind family man and an implacable persecutor of revolutionaries, is known mainly for the fact that he reigned in the era of Napoleon, hated him, fought with him.
After the next defeat of the Austrians by Napoleonic troops, the Holy Roman Empire was abolished - this time for good, unless, of course, the present European Union (which, by the way, began with a treaty signed in 1957 in Rome) is not considered a peculiar form of Roman power.
Anatomy of Decline
By the 5th century, it seems that living in an empire that stretched from Gibraltar to the Crimea had become noticeably harder. The decline of cities is especially noticeable to archaeologists. For example, in the III-IV centuries, about a million people lived in Rome (centers with such a large number of inhabitants in Europe did not appear until the 1700s). But soon the city's population declines sharply. How is this known?
From time to time, the townspeople were handed out bread, olive oil and pork at government expense, and from the surviving registers with the exact number of recipients, historians figured out when the decline began. So: 367 - the Romans are about 1,000,000, 452nd - there are 400,000 of them, after Justinian's war with the Goths - less than 300,000, in the X century - 30,000. A similar picture can be seen in all western provinces of the empire.
It has long been noticed that the walls of medieval cities that grew up on the site of the ancients cover only about a third of the former territory. The immediate causes are on the surface. For example: barbarians invade and settle on imperial lands, cities now have to be constantly defended - the shorter the walls, the easier it is to defend. Or - barbarians invade and settle on the imperial lands, it becomes more and more difficult to trade, large cities lack food. What's the way out? The former townspeople of necessity become farmers, and behind the fortress walls they only hide from endless raids.
True, it is worth noting that changes in material culture are often taken for signs of decline. A typical example: in Antiquity, grain, oil, and other bulk and liquid products were always transported in huge amphoras. Many of them have been found by archaeologists: in Rome, fragments of 58 million discarded vessels made up the whole hill of Monte Testaccio ("Potted Mountain").
They are perfectly preserved in the water - they usually find sunken ancient ships on the seabed. All the routes of Roman trade are traced by the stamps on the amphorae. But since the 3rd century, large clay vessels are gradually replaced by barrels, from which, of course, almost no traces remain - it's good if you can identify an iron rim somewhere. It is clear that assessing the volume of such new trade is much more difficult than the old one. The same is with wooden houses: in most cases only their foundations are found, and it is impossible to understand what once stood here: a pitiful shack or a mighty building?
In many provinces, the potter's wheel is forgotten, and it will not be remembered for another 300 years! The manufacture of tiles almost stops - roofs made of this material are replaced by easily rotting planks. How much less ore is mined and metal products are smelted is known from the analysis of lead traces in the Greenland ice (it is known that the glacier absorbs human waste products for thousands of kilometers around), carried out in the 1990s by French scientists: the level of sediments, modern to early Rome, remains unrivaled until the industrial revolution at the beginning of modern times. And the end of the 5th century - at a prehistoric level … The silver coin continues to be minted for some time, but it is clearly not enough, the Byzantine and Arabian gold money is more and more common, and small copper pennies disappear from circulation altogether. It means,that buying and selling has disappeared from the life of the common man. There is nothing more to trade regularly and there is no need.
Are these reservations serious? Quite. Are they enough to question the decline as such? Still no. The political events of that time make it clear that it happened, but it is not clear how and when did it start? Was it a consequence of the defeats from the barbarians, or, on the contrary, the cause of these defeats?
To this day, economic theory has enjoyed success in science: the decline began when at the end of the 3rd century taxes "suddenly" sharply increased. If initially the Roman Empire was actually a "state without bureaucracy" even by ancient standards (a country with a population of 60 million inhabitants kept only a few hundred officials on allowance) and allowed widespread self-government on the ground, now, with an expanded economy, it became authorities". There are already 25,000-30,000 officials in the service of the empire. "The number of parasites is growing."
In addition, almost all monarchs, starting with Constantine the Great, spend funds from the treasury on the Christian church - priests and monks are exempt from taxes. And to the inhabitants of Rome, who received free food from the authorities (for votes in the elections or simply so as not to riot), the residents of Constantinople were added. "The number of parasites is growing," the English historian Arnold Jones writes sarcastically about these times.
It is logical to assume that the tax burden has grown unbearably as a result. In fact, the texts of that time are full of complaints about large taxes, and the imperial decrees, on the contrary, are full of threats to non-payers. This is especially true of curials - members of municipal councils. They were personally responsible for making payments from their cities and, naturally, they constantly tried to evade the onerous duty. Sometimes they even fled, and the central government, in turn, threateningly forbade them to leave their position even for the sake of joining the army, which was always considered a sacred deed for a Roman citizen.
All these constructions are obviously quite convincing. Of course, people have grumbled about taxes since they first appeared, but in late Rome this indignation sounded much louder than in early Rome, and not without reason. True, charity, which spread along with Christianity (helping the poor, shelters at churches and monasteries), gave some relief, but in those days it had not yet managed to go beyond the walls of cities.
In addition, there is evidence that in the 4th century it was difficult to find soldiers for a growing army, even with a serious threat to the homeland. And many combat units, in turn, had to engage in farming in places of long-term deployment using the artel method - the authorities no longer fed them. Well, since the legionnaires are plowing, and the rear rats do not go to serve, what can the residents of the border provinces do? Naturally, they spontaneously arm themselves without "registering" their units with the imperial bodies, and they themselves begin to guard the border along its entire vast perimeter.
As the American scientist Ramsey McMullen aptly noted: "The common people became soldiers, and the soldiers became commoners." It is logical that the official authorities could not rely on the anarchist self-defense detachments. That is why barbarians are beginning to be invited into the empire - first, individual mercenaries, then whole tribes. This worried many. Bishop Sinesius of Cyrene stated in his speech "On the Kingdom": "We hired wolves instead of watchdogs." But it was too late, and although many barbarians served faithfully and brought much benefit to Rome, it all ended in disaster. Something like the following scenario. In 375, Emperor Valens allowed the Goths to cross the Danube and settle in Roman territory, who were retreating westward under the onslaught of the Hunnic hordes. Soon, due to the greed of the officials responsible for the supply of provisions, famine begins among the barbarians,and they revolt. In 378, the Roman army was utterly defeated by them at Adrianople (now Edirne in European Turkey). Valens himself fell in battle.
Similar stories on a smaller scale have occurred in abundance. In addition, the poor from among the citizens of the empire itself began to show more and more dissatisfaction: what, they say, is this homeland, which not only strangles with taxes, but also invites its own destroyers to itself. People who were richer and more cultured, of course, remained patriots longer. And the detachments of the rebellious poor peasants - Bagaud ("militant") in Gaul, scamars ("shipping") in the Danube, Bucola ("shepherds") in Egypt - easily entered into alliances with barbarians against the authorities. Even those who did not openly revolt were passive during invasions and did not offer much resistance if they were promised not to be too robbed.
Unhappy coincidences
But why did the empire suddenly find itself in such a situation that it had to take unpopular measures - to invite mercenaries, raise taxes, inflate the bureaucratic apparatus? After all, the first two centuries of our era, Rome successfully held a huge territory and even seized new lands, without resorting to the help of foreigners. Why was it necessary to suddenly divide the power between the co-rulers and build a new capital on the Bosphorus? Something went wrong? And why, again, the eastern half of the state, in contrast to the western one, resisted? After all, the invasion of the Goths began precisely from the Byzantine Balkans.
Here some historians see the explanation in pure geography - the barbarians could not overcome the Bosphorus and penetrate into Asia Minor, therefore, vast and not devastated lands remained in the rear of Constantinople. But it can be argued that the same vandals, heading to North Africa, for some reason easily crossed the wider Gibraltar.
In general, as the famous historian of Antiquity Mikhail Rostovtsev said, great events do not happen because of one thing, they always mix demography, culture, strategy …
Here are just some of the points of contact that were so disastrous for the Roman Empire, in addition to those already discussed above.
First, the empire, most likely, really suffered from a large-scale epidemic of smallpox at the end of the 2nd century - it, according to the most conservative estimates, reduced the population by 7-10%. Meanwhile, the Germans north of the border were experiencing a fertility boom.
It also fails because the government turned out to be psychologically unprepared for the challenges of the time. Neighbors and foreign subjects have changed their combat tactics and lifestyle quite a bit since the founding of the empire, and upbringing and education taught governors and generals to look for management models in the past. Flavius Vegetius wrote a characteristic treatise on military affairs at this very time: all troubles, he thinks, can be dealt with if the classic legion of the model of the eras of Augustus and Trajan is restored. Obviously, this was a delusion. Secondly, in the III century, the gold and silver mines in Spain dried up, and the new, Dacian (Romanian) ones, the state lost by 270.
Apparently, there are no more significant deposits of precious metals at his disposal. But it was necessary to mint coins and in huge quantities. In this regard, it remains a mystery how Constantine the Great (312-337) managed to restore the solidus standard, and the emperor's successors - to keep the solidus very stable: the gold content in it did not decrease in Byzantium until 1070. The English scientist Timothy Garrard put forward an ingenious conjecture: it is possible that in the 4th century the Romans received yellow metal along caravan routes from trans-Saharan Africa (however, chemical analysis of the solidi that have come down to us does not yet confirm this hypothesis). Nevertheless, inflation in the state is becoming more and more monstrous, and it is not possible to cope with it.
Finally - and this is perhaps the most important reason - the onslaught on the empire from the outside objectively intensified. The military organization of the state, created under Octavian at the turn of the era, could not cope with the simultaneous war on multiple borders. For a long time, the empire was simply lucky, but already under Marcus Aurelius (161-180), fighting took place simultaneously in many theaters in the range from the Euphrates to the Danube. The resources of the state experienced a terrible strain - the emperor was forced to sell even personal jewelry in order to finance the troops.
If in the 1st-2nd centuries on the most open border - the eastern - Rome was opposed by the not so powerful at that time Parthia, then from the beginning of the 3rd century it was replaced by the young and aggressive Persian kingdom of the Sassanids. In 626, shortly before this power itself fell under the blows of the Arabs, the Persians still managed to approach Constantinople itself, and Emperor Heraclius drove them away literally by a miracle (it was in honor of this miracle that the akathist was composed to the Most Holy Theotokos - "The Climbed Voivode …") … And in Europe, in the last period of Rome, the onslaught of the Huns, who migrated to the west along the Great Steppe, set in motion the entire process of the Great Nations Migration.
Over the long centuries of conflict and trade with the bearers of a high civilization, barbarians have learned a lot from them. Prohibitions on the sale of Roman weapons to them and the teaching of their maritime affairs appear in the laws too late, in the 5th century, when they no longer make practical sense.
The list of factors can be continued. But on the whole, Rome apparently did not have a chance to resist, although no one will probably ever answer exactly this question. As for the different destinies of the Western and Eastern empires, the East was originally richer and more powerful economically.
The old Roman province of Asia (the "left" part of Asia Minor) was said to have 500 cities. In the west, such indicators were not available anywhere except in Italy itself. Accordingly, large farmers occupied a stronger position here, winning tax incentives for themselves and their tenants. The burden of taxes and administration fell on the shoulders of city councils, and the nobility spent their leisure time on country estates. At critical moments, Western emperors lacked either people or money. The Constantinople authorities have not yet faced such a threat. They had so many resources that they even had enough to launch a counteroffensive.
Together again?
Indeed, a little time passed, and a significant part of the West returned under the direct rule of the emperors. Under Justinian (527-565), Italy with Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, Dalmatia, the entire coast of North Africa, southern Spain (including Cartagena and Cordoba), the Balearic Islands were conquered. Only the Franks did not cede any territories and even received Provence for maintaining neutrality.
In those years, the biographies of many Romans (Byzantines) could serve as a clear illustration of the newly triumphant unity. Here, for example, is the life of the commander Peter Marcellinus of Liberia, who conquered Spain for Justinian. He was born in Italy around 465 into a noble family.
He began his service under Odoacer, but the Ostrogoths Theodoric kept him in their service - someone educated had to collect taxes and keep the treasury. Around 493 Liberius became prefect of Italy - the head of the civil administration of the entire peninsula - and in this position showed zealous concern for the overthrown Romulus Augustulus and his mother.
The son of a worthy prefect took up the post of consul in Rome, and his father soon received a military command in Gaul, which German leaders usually did not trust the Latins.
He was friends with the Arelate bishop, Saint Caesar, founded a Catholic monastery in Rome, continuing to serve the Arianine Theodoric. And after his death, he went to Justinian on behalf of the new king of the Ostrogothic, Theodohad (he had to convince the emperor that he justly overthrew and imprisoned his wife Amalasunta). In Constantinople, Liberius remained to serve the emperor-co-religionist and first received control over Egypt, and then in 550 conquered Sicily.
Finally, in 552, when the commander and the politician were already over 80, he managed to see the triumph of his dream - the return of Rome to the general imperial power. Then, having conquered southern Spain, the old man returned to Italy, where he died at the age of 90. He was buried in his native Arimina (Rimini) with the greatest honors - with eagles, lictors and timpani.
Gradually, Justinian's conquests were lost, but not immediately - part of Italy recognized the power of Constantinople even in the XII century. Heraclius I, in the 7th century pressed by the Persians and Avars in the east, was still thinking of moving the capital to Carthage. And Constans II (630-668) spent the last years of his reign in Syracuse. By the way, he turned out to be the first Roman emperor after Augustulus to personally visit Rome, where, however, he became famous only for stripping the gilded bronze from the roof of the Pantheon and sending it to Constantinople.
Was it the fall?
So why, in school textbooks, 476 ends the history of Antiquity and serves as the beginning of the Middle Ages? Did some kind of radical change happen at this moment? In general, no. Long before that, most of the imperial territory was occupied by "barbarian kingdoms", the names of which, in one form or another, still appear on the map of Europe: Frankish in the north of Gaul, Burgundy a little southeast, Visigoths - on the Iberian Peninsula, Vandals - in North Africa (from their short stay in Spain the name Andalusia remained) and, finally, in Northern Italy - the Ostrogoths.
Only in some places at the time of the formal collapse of the empire was the old patrician aristocracy still in power: the former emperor Julius Nepos in Dalmatia, Syagrius in Gaul, for example, Aurelius Ambrosius in Britain. Julius Nepos would remain emperor for his supporters until his death in 480, and Syagrius would soon be defeated by the Franks of Clovis.
And Theodoric Ostrogoth, who will unite Italy under his rule in 493, will behave as an equal partner of the Emperor of Constantinople and heir to the Western Roman Empire. Only when, in the 520s, Justinian needed a pretext to conquer the Apennines, his secretary would pay attention to 476 - the cornerstone of Byzantine propaganda would be that the Roman state in the West had collapsed and it was necessary to restore it.
So it turns out that the empire did not fall? Wouldn't it be more correct, in agreement with many researchers (of whom the most prestigious today is the Princeton professor Peter Brown), to believe that she was simply reborn? After all, even the date of her death, if you look closely, is conditional. Odoacer, although born a barbarian, in all his upbringing and outlook belonged to the Roman world and, sending the imperial regalia to the East, symbolically restored the unity of the great country. A contemporary of the commander, the historian Malchus from Philadelphia, attests that the Senate of Rome continued to meet both under him and under Theodoric. The pundit even wrote to Constantinople that "there is no more need for the division of the empire; one emperor will be enough for both parts of it." Recall that the division of the state into two almost equal halves occurred back in 395 due to military necessity,but it was not seen as the formation of two independent states. Laws were issued on behalf of two emperors throughout the territory, and of the two consuls, whose names were designated the year, one was elected on the Tiber, the other on the Bosphorus.
So much has changed in August 476 for the residents of the city? It may have become harder for them to live, but the psychological breakdown in their minds did not happen overnight. Even at the beginning of the 8th century in distant England, Bede the Venerable wrote that "while the Colosseum stands, Rome will stand, but when the Colosseum collapses and Rome falls, the end of the world will come": therefore, Rome has not yet fallen for Bede. The inhabitants of the Eastern Empire found it all the easier to continue to consider themselves Romans - the self-name "Romei" survived even after the collapse of Byzantium and survived until the 20th century. True, they spoke here in Greek, but it has always been that way.
And the kings in the West recognized the theoretical supremacy of Constantinople - just as before 476 they formally swore allegiance to Rome (more precisely, to Ravenna). After all, the majority of the tribes did not seize the lands in the vast empire by force, but once received them under a contract for military service.
A characteristic detail: few of the barbarian leaders dared to mint their own coins, and Siagrius in Soissons even did it on behalf of Zeno. Roman titles also remained honorable and desirable for the Germans: Clovis was very proud when, after a successful war with the Visigoths, he received the post of consul from Emperor Anastasius I. What can I say, if in these countries the status of a Roman citizen remained in force, and its owners had the right to live according to Roman law, and not according to new sets of laws like the well-known Frankish "Salic truth".
Finally, the most powerful institution of the era, the Church, also lived in unity; it was still far from the demarcation of Catholics and Orthodox after the era of the seven Ecumenical Councils. In the meantime, the primacy of honor was firmly recognized for the bishop of Rome, the governor of St. Peter, and the papal chancellery, in turn, dated its documents to the 9th century according to the years of the rule of the Byzantine monarchs.
The old Latin aristocracy retained its influence and connections - although the new barbarian masters did not feel real trust in it, in the absence of others, they had to take its enlightened representatives as advisers. Charlemagne, as you know, did not know how to write his name. There is a lot of evidence of this: for example, just about 476 Sidonius Apollinarius, Bishop of Arverne (or Auverne) was thrown into prison by the Visigothic king Evrych for urging the cities of Auvergne not to change direct Roman power and resist the aliens. And he was rescued from captivity by Leon, a Latin writer, at that time one of the main dignitaries of the Visigothic court.
Regular communication within the disintegrated empire, commercial and private, also remained so far, only the Arab conquest of the Levant in the 7th century put an end to the intensive Mediterranean trade.
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne with the imperial crown in Rome on December 25, 800. Photo: ILLSTEIN BILD / VOSTOCK PHOTO
Eternal rome
When Byzantium, bogged down in wars with the Arabs, nevertheless lost control over the West … the Roman Empire was reborn there again, like a phoenix! On the day of the Nativity of Christ 800, Pope Leo III placed her crown on the Frankish king Charlemagne, who united most of Europe under his power.
And although under Charles's grandchildren this large state disintegrated again, the title was preserved and far outlived the Carolingian dynasty. The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation lasted until modern times, and many of its sovereigns, up to Charles V of Habsburg in the 16th century, tried to unite the entire continent again. To explain the shift of the imperial "mission" from the Romans to the Germans, the concept of "transfer" (translatio imperii) was even specially created, owing much to the ideas of Augustine: the state as a "kingdom that will never collapse" (the expression of the prophet Daniel) always remains, but peoples worthy of it change, as if taking over from each other.
The German emperors had grounds for such claims, so that formally they can be recognized as the heirs of Octavian Augustus - all the way down to the good-natured Franz II of Austria, who was forced to lay down the ancient crown only by Napoleon after Austerlitz, in 1806. The same Bonaparte finally abolished the name itself, which had been hovering over Europe for so long.
And the well-known classifier of civilizations, Arnold Toynbee, generally suggested ending the history of Rome in 1970, when the prayer for the health of the emperor was finally excluded from Catholic liturgical books. But still, let's not go too far. The disintegration of the power really turned out to be stretched in time - as it usually happens at the end of great eras - the very way of life and thoughts gradually and imperceptibly changed.
In general, the empire died, but the promise of the ancient gods and Virgil is fulfilled - the Eternal City stands to this day. The past is perhaps more alive in him than anywhere else in Europe. Moreover, he combined in himself what remained of the classical Latin era with Christianity. A miracle has happened, as millions of pilgrims and tourists can attest. Rome is still not only the capital of Italy. May it be so - history (or providence) is always wiser than people.
Georgy Kantor