Rome didn’t End, it simply Changed

Unlike a lot of people who’ll say something like this I’m referring primarily to The Western Roman Empire.

According to Genesis 10 in verses 5, 20 and 31 National identity is defined first and foremost by Tongue or Language, and Genesis 11 then explains the origin story of why that is. Modern Romance Languages descend from the Latin spoken by Ancient Rome same as Modern English and Scots both descend from Old English.  

So I consider every modern Nation-State where the Official or Majority Language is a Romance Language a Roman successor state.  And we could maybe also add any Nation whose State or culturally dominant Religion is Roman Catholicism since Latin is still their Liturgical Language (Vatican II allowed Mass to be held in other Languages but it did not abandon their tether to Latin Liturgy entirely).  Additionally I view any communities in the Southwestern United States or Florida or certain U.S. Territories where most of the people’s native tongue is still a Romance Language to be Rome under American Occupation.  Of course Rome only got there itself by Colonizing, Enslaving and Raping the indigenous populations, but still.

By this logic I of course then do controversially consider the Byzantine Empire to not be authentically Roman anymore once it’s instead speaking Greek.  Every History YouTuber defending the Byzantines’ status as Roman acts like they’re going against popular opinion when in fact few actually interested in the topic disagree with them, but I do.  Rome isn’t a Gender being Roman requires more than self identification.  

Now the counter argument to denying the Byzantines’ true Roman status based on Language is often that the East spoke Greek more then Latin already well before the split into separate States. But to me that just proves my point more, Rome only subjugated the East they never truly assimilated it.  Now I do consider the Eastern Empire still Romans ruling the majority Greek population for a while after the administrative split and even after the West is popularly considered to have fallen.  Justinian I consider to be a Roman, but Heraclius was Greek.  Phokas's overthrow of Maurice I've come to view as the key turning point.

Western Europe was not as densely populated in antiquity.  But more importantly the people that were already there when the Romans came were people the Romans considered uncivilized Barbarians and so they were much more invested in culturally assimilating them. In the East however they followed the example of Alexander and his Successors of mostly ruling those people how they were used to being ruled.  There are some interesting counter examples, Rome did assimilate the Dacians and thus from them descend modern Romania and Moldova, they are the true remnant of the Eastern Empire.  However they failed to assimilate the Britons of Britannia, yet some Sub-Roman Brythonic Kingdoms saw themselves as Roman successor states just as much as the Byzantines did, especially Gwynedd.

Now you may respond “okay some today descend culturally if not genealogically from Ancient Romans, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a discontinuity between the Ancient Roman State and the States modern Romans live in”.  So now I shall go on to argue for the continuity of the State but it is complicated.

When people ask “When did the Western Roman Empire Fall”, they are usually using the word “Fall” differently than it’s used in almost any other context.  Normally someone's Fall refers to falling from their past height not when they flat out cease to exist.  That’s why I didn’t title the post “Rome didn’t Fall”, I’d argue it fell more than once, the Crisis of the Third Century was a fall that it went on to recover from culminating in the Christian Rome of Late Antiquity.  Now as far as when did the Western Half of that Rome fall, if you use the term properly 476 AD becomes the latest possible candidate not the earliest.  It ceased to be an Empire when Emperor Majorian aka Maiorianus died in 461 AD since from then on the Emperors didn’t control much beyond Italy itself.

But perhaps the Vandal sack of 455 was the key unrecoverable wound.  Especially from a Biblical POV as that's when the Temple of Peace was plundered the Treasures Titus took from Herod's Temple were carried away to Carthage.

Let’s step back a century now to discuss why French is a Romance Language named after a Germanic Tribe.  The Franks were not one of the Barbarian Tribes whose settlement on Roman territory mostly began after the freezing of the Rhine in the early 5th Century, under Constantine they were allowed to settle in what is now Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands as a buffer.  They were heavily Romanized very early on and some Franks were important officials in the 4th Century Empire like Richomeres and Abrogast, and Magnus Magnentus was a half Frankish Usurper Emperor.  So I strongly believe the Merovingian Kingdom can be considered a Roman Rump State as much as the realms of Syagrius of Nepos can.  

So no Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of The Romans was not the nonsense some History Tubers want to paint it as, it wasn’t the first time a New Emperor was crowned that the already reigning one didn’t necessarily approve of.  Both Imperial Capitals of the Holy Roman Empire, Achen and Vienna were Roman cities, as were other core cities of the HRE like Pavia, Trier and Munich.

But it’s not just the Franks, even the Gothic Barbarians who never became as linguistically Romanized also served as Foderati for the Roman Empire, as did the Vandals and Burgundians and Lombards.  They are all people who should have been recognized as Roman Citizens even though they never were.

When Odovacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus in 476 nothing changed about the day to day administrative governance of Italy anymore than any prior time who was in charge had changed.  Odovacer was called King in terms of leadership of the Gothic Barbarians in Italy but he was also recognized by the still operating Senate of Rome and the Eastern Emperor Zeno as a Roman Governor governing Rome on their behalf. It was actually Romulus Augustulus who was not recognized as legitimate in the East.

When Odovacer and the Eastern Empire fell out, Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths was sent by the Eastern Empire and again he was recognized as ruling Italy for Rome. But when the Ostrogoths and the East fell out Justinian sent Belisarius.  Later the Lombards also first invaded the west as proxies of the East under Walthari and Audion.

Justinian’s Reconquests of Italy, North Africa and other parts of the Western Mediterranean is often looked at as the Eastern Empire expanding its border westward, but from a certain POV it was a war of Liberation.  The same Roman Senate continued to exist until the early 7th Century, and these reclaimed Western Provinces had administrative self governance. It is the Western Empire under an Emperor based in Constantinople ruling both halves just as it was under Constantine, Constantius II and Theodosius I.  But how the Western Province were governed was reorganized creating the Exarchate of Africa and the Exarchate of Ravenna, with the Duchy of Rome then forming within the Exarchate of Ravenna.

In time much of what Justinian reconquered fell to the Arabs or Lombards, but not all of it.  The Papal States and the Venetian Republic and San Marino were never conquered, The Papal States were simply the Duchy of Rome becoming independent when Constantinople lost interest in them and turning to the Carolingians to be their new Emperors.  This is mostly true of Naples and Calabria as well even though there were a few hiccups.  When the Normans conquered parts of Southern Italy they made an effort to keep running it in the Byzantine style, very unlike their approach to England.

And I would strongly argue the same applies to the history of the Island of Sardinia. Which is relevant to the fact that due to how 19th Century Italian Unification happened modern standard Italian descends from what was previously the Sardinian Dialect.

The Iberian Peninsula became Roman again because of the Centuries of Reconquista carried out by Kingdoms that descended from Chalremgne’s Empire.  Britannia was reconquered by Rome in 1066 but after centuries of strife secured independence again in 1604.

I could add arguments about how modern Western legal systems still have their roots in Roman Law filtered through the Justinian Reforms.  Or the fact that various "Feudal" titles came from the Roman Offices.  

I’m posting this on my new Prophecy Blog because my current Eschatology is a mix of Partial Preterism, Postmillennialism and Historicism and this way of looking at Rome is part of Historicism.  But it’s different from standard Protestant Premillennial Historicism where it’s only Clerically they see eschatologically relevant continuity between the modern world and Ancient Rome.  

The Seventh Day Adventists standard approach to Daniel 7 involves believing modern Italy descends from the Lombard Kingdoms not its Roman remnants, and likewise Spain and Portugal are the Visigoths and Suebi and the Burgundians are Switzerland.  Why that is wrong somewhat naturally flows from what I already explained.  But to fill in some gaps the Goths of Iberia were conquered by the Arabs so the Reconquista was against them.  The Lombards were mostly conquered by Charlemagne leaving only a small rump of them left to slowly be absorbed by the Romans around them. And the Burgundians were conquered by the Franks.

The Eastern Germanic Languages spoken by the Goths, Lombards and other Arian Barbarians are dead languages, no one speaks them anymore and the last one to die died in Crimea not in the West.  Genealogical descendants of people who spoke them in the past still exist but they have long been absorbed into other cultures.  My personal theories about Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups lead me to conclude Haplogroup I2a represents patrilineal descent from East Germanic tribes, but it’s strongest presence in The West is on Sardinia where it could only have been  the Vandals who brought them there, the Vandals are one of the tribes the SDAs agree was “plucked out” by Belisarius.  

The Byzantine  Empire does still have Biblical Significance, it’s the restored Third Beast of Daniel 7 specifically The Little Horn.  I argued for that in my Justinian post but it’s also backed up by my Heraclius thesis.

Now you may also ask how do the Romance Languages fit into the Genesis 10 genealogy?  Well I agree with the Italo-Celtic theory among Linguists, that the Italic Languages (including Latin) and Celtic Languages are closely related to each other even more specifically then just both being Indo-European.  And at the end of my 666 post I argued that through Troy the Celts and Romans could share common descent from Ashkenaz son of Gomer.

And hey those who insist on considering the Byzantines Romans in-spite of their Language, you kind of have to do the same for the Brythonic Kingdoms of Sub-Roman Briton which became Medieval Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Starhclyde, they still used Roman Titles and Roman Laws and lived in Romanized cities and defended themselves with Roman Forts.  

This is a good video about Gwnedd as a Roman Rump State.  And Cambrian Chronicles has one on how how the title of Prince of Wales came form the rulers of Gwynedd claiming to be heirs to the Roman Emperors and thus outranking the King of England.