Except Rome never "fell." It created a new legal, moral, and spiritual structure called "The Church," created the most powerful self-managing social controlling belief system (AKA religion) of all time (by number of adherents), changed it's name to the Holy Roman Empire to represent that the Ruler was no longer just an Emperor, but had become both an Emperor and Divine, and it plays a huge part in the legal and moral rulership of the world today.
It was more of a "morph into an all powerful being that controls the minds and owns the souls of all mankind" than a "fall."
Some slight disagreement with you here fren, as to the timeline of events.
Western Rome (where the actual city was) 'fell' (i.e. ceased to exist as a state entity) with the sack of Rome around 479 AD.
Eastern Rome continued for ~1000 after Western Rome fell.
After the sack of Rome by the goths and eventual restoration of some rule, the pope started his shenanigans about being some sort of secular ruler. This pissed off the Eastern Roman Emperor (which represented actual Roman authority at that time, whatever that meant anyway). There was some uneasy peace between them but a growing rift that culminated in the Schism of 1054.
"Holy Roman Empire" was a germanic construct, that took place at least 600 years AFTER the fall of Rome (the city). It was neither holy (lol), nor Roman (it was basically the proto-german state), nor an empire (it was a federation of german and german-adjacent principalities & city states).
The gist of your message I agree with, but there was no immediate transition from Roman Eagles to "Holy Roman Empire" via the funny guy with the white hat. It was a lot more nuanced than that.
Western Rome (where the actual city was) 'fell' (i.e. ceased to exist as a state entity) with the sack of Rome around 479 AD.
Not really. What you are repeating is the standard fare. You need to dig deeper to understand what actually happened.
By "the fall of Rome" in the fifth century, the REAL rule of southern Europe/Mediterranean had transferred to The Church already. This transfer of legal rulership began with Emperor Constantine in 325 AD when he created the religion we today call "Christianity". In this act of creation he silenced all debate on anything having to do with Jesus, marrying Judaism, Mithraism, and Christianity into one religion to unite the "Empire" which was at the time, really four different Empires. I.e., the "Roman Empire" had already become decoherent as a State entity, but was reunited under one Religion through a bit of conquest, and by making the tenets of the Religion into law, forcing the whole populace to have the same beliefs, by law, creating a coherent state.
After the sack of Rome by the goths and eventual restoration of some rule
The "Goths" as we call them (or as the Romans called them) were just the Scythians, who ruled almost the whole of Eurasia and had for millennia. (A bit of erased history you probably don't know. They were later known as the Tartarians, who you might have heard of.) The Roman Empire, or parts of the Roman Empire, had been under their thumb (paying tribute) numerous times during its existence as a coherent state.
the pope started his shenanigans about being some sort of secular ruler.
The entity called the "Papacy" may have started after the "fall of Rome," but the papacy was just a continuation of the previous rulership started by Constantine. It was the same entity under the same management with a new sign hanging over the door. It is the exact same scam pulled today, where a company goes bankrupt, they close their doors, transfer all their assets to a new company (or several other companies), but that new company is really the old company, because all the members of the Boards of Directors remain the exact same, managing the same assets with a new sign over the door.
"Holy Roman Empire" was a germanic construct, that took place at least 600 years AFTER the fall of Rome (the city).
Again, you are confusing a sign change with a change in the actual group who is Ruling. If the people remain the same, the assets remain the same, the structure remains the same, but the name over the door changes, that's not a change, that's a scam.
Look at what actually happened during these "transitions." The people in power, the actual group of people who have the power before, retain the power after. Yes, one person may come down, thrown under the bus, but the group of people retain control.
The fundamental problem with not understanding how the world works is this confusing a Corporation, which is an entity that doesn't actually exist, or the "leader" (AKA Front Man) of that Corporation, with the People who actually run it.
Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
That part of the empire DID NOT subject itself to the 'authority' of the guy with the funny white hat. Not at all in fact.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore. The eastern part. Very little to do with the western part.
They also fought the Khazarians, the Arabs, christianized the Russians & the slavs, held the Muslims at bay for a long time and eventually succumbed first to the crusades (one of the actual purposes of those things in fact), and then to the turks.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events. They need to fit into the story somehow. They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
They may have declared independence, but they were still ruled by the same group of people. Perhaps there was a real schism, perhaps they were controlled opposition. In either case, it doesn't change the fact that it was the same Aristocratic group that ruled over it (hint, the Papacy were not the real rulers of The Church either). Just because cousins fight (literally cousins, they are all related), doesn't mean it isn't the same family.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore.
I didn't "ignore" anything. You can't really explain the whole world all at once.
They also fought the Khazarians
The "Khazarians" were just a Scythian tribe.
the Russians & the slavs
the "Russians" and the "Slavs" were also just Scythian tribes (at that time).
the Muslims
The Muslim religion was a creation of The Church, specifically to have a controlled opposition. The "Crusades" were a contrivance between two entities controlled by the same source, just like almost all wars.
the turks
The Turks were just a tribe of the Scythians.
You really can't understand how anything works until you understand the erasure of the Scythian Empire, the largest Empire in the world since the Younger Dryas.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events
Again, not "ignoring," just, there's a whole lot of stuff.
Don't get so huffy. Please ask questions, I'm happy to answer and send you to sources. I can back up everything I am saying with substantial evidence (except the Crusades, that one takes way to much context, so please don't ask about that one). Trying to do all of that all at once ain't easy.
They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
This I agree with. I think in no small part because they were much closer to the Scythians.
I would also like to note that you didn't actually address anything I said. You only addressed what I didn't talk about. I will assume that you agree with me then.
On the money with the scythian stuff only this word like tartaria confuses. Seems at different times it has been used to explain different things. A land mass, coalition of tribes, a race etc
these so called "Germanic" defisntly brought a different order thats for sure. Before they sacked Rome there was many vandal and gothic battles against early christians of which they had an alternate version of called Arianism. Whats misunderstood as an invasion is actually many groups where invited to settle on roman lands and made up alot of legions. Some of these settled lands that where previously empty later became the holy roman empire. Although some may have been "barbarian" after this "invasion" things like knife an forks where used to eat and people starting wearing pants. Dosent seem like much of a fall to me.
Other notable things to imagine is the "Germanic" way of life was more about the individual, Rome was like a corporation. In Britain when the Anglo- saks (germanics) apeared the inhabitants where amazed to see each of them where adorned like a wealthy Roman as though each was a king.
One story I've read is a meeting of British and saxons after a small group had landed.
One of the new comers fills a bag with earth and sand and approaches the brit, how much do you want for this earth? The Brits confused by this but give a price, the newcomer agrees and pays them. They go back and think how are these rich men so stupid. Some time later they return to find the anglos have brought there families and settled and started building. It is then they realised they just sold the land to them and that they didn't even know they had owned.
Except Rome never "fell." It created a new legal, moral, and spiritual structure called "The Church," created the most powerful self-managing social controlling belief system (AKA religion) of all time (by number of adherents), changed it's name to the Holy Roman Empire to represent that the Ruler was no longer just an Emperor, but had become both an Emperor and Divine, and it plays a huge part in the legal and moral rulership of the world today.
It was more of a "morph into an all powerful being that controls the minds and owns the souls of all mankind" than a "fall."
this. Rome never fell, it became the Vatican.
Some slight disagreement with you here fren, as to the timeline of events.
The gist of your message I agree with, but there was no immediate transition from Roman Eagles to "Holy Roman Empire" via the funny guy with the white hat. It was a lot more nuanced than that.
Not really. What you are repeating is the standard fare. You need to dig deeper to understand what actually happened.
By "the fall of Rome" in the fifth century, the REAL rule of southern Europe/Mediterranean had transferred to The Church already. This transfer of legal rulership began with Emperor Constantine in 325 AD when he created the religion we today call "Christianity". In this act of creation he silenced all debate on anything having to do with Jesus, marrying Judaism, Mithraism, and Christianity into one religion to unite the "Empire" which was at the time, really four different Empires. I.e., the "Roman Empire" had already become decoherent as a State entity, but was reunited under one Religion through a bit of conquest, and by making the tenets of the Religion into law, forcing the whole populace to have the same beliefs, by law, creating a coherent state.
The "Goths" as we call them (or as the Romans called them) were just the Scythians, who ruled almost the whole of Eurasia and had for millennia. (A bit of erased history you probably don't know. They were later known as the Tartarians, who you might have heard of.) The Roman Empire, or parts of the Roman Empire, had been under their thumb (paying tribute) numerous times during its existence as a coherent state.
The entity called the "Papacy" may have started after the "fall of Rome," but the papacy was just a continuation of the previous rulership started by Constantine. It was the same entity under the same management with a new sign hanging over the door. It is the exact same scam pulled today, where a company goes bankrupt, they close their doors, transfer all their assets to a new company (or several other companies), but that new company is really the old company, because all the members of the Boards of Directors remain the exact same, managing the same assets with a new sign over the door.
Again, you are confusing a sign change with a change in the actual group who is Ruling. If the people remain the same, the assets remain the same, the structure remains the same, but the name over the door changes, that's not a change, that's a scam.
Look at what actually happened during these "transitions." The people in power, the actual group of people who have the power before, retain the power after. Yes, one person may come down, thrown under the bus, but the group of people retain control.
The fundamental problem with not understanding how the world works is this confusing a Corporation, which is an entity that doesn't actually exist, or the "leader" (AKA Front Man) of that Corporation, with the People who actually run it.
Same scam, going on for millennia.
Where does the Eastern Roman Empire, the continuation of Constantine, based in Constantinople, and surviving (and sometimes thriving), for 1000 years after the fall of the city of Rome stand into all this?
That part of the empire DID NOT subject itself to the 'authority' of the guy with the funny white hat. Not at all in fact.
There's another part of 'the church' that you completely ignore. The eastern part. Very little to do with the western part.
They also fought the Khazarians, the Arabs, christianized the Russians & the slavs, held the Muslims at bay for a long time and eventually succumbed first to the crusades (one of the actual purposes of those things in fact), and then to the turks.
A 1000+ year, VERY powerful state entity is completely ignored in your narration of events. They need to fit into the story somehow. They have been intentionally brushed aside by the 'western' version of history, but that is obviously by design.
They may have declared independence, but they were still ruled by the same group of people. Perhaps there was a real schism, perhaps they were controlled opposition. In either case, it doesn't change the fact that it was the same Aristocratic group that ruled over it (hint, the Papacy were not the real rulers of The Church either). Just because cousins fight (literally cousins, they are all related), doesn't mean it isn't the same family.
I didn't "ignore" anything. You can't really explain the whole world all at once.
The "Khazarians" were just a Scythian tribe.
the "Russians" and the "Slavs" were also just Scythian tribes (at that time).
The Muslim religion was a creation of The Church, specifically to have a controlled opposition. The "Crusades" were a contrivance between two entities controlled by the same source, just like almost all wars.
The Turks were just a tribe of the Scythians.
You really can't understand how anything works until you understand the erasure of the Scythian Empire, the largest Empire in the world since the Younger Dryas.
Again, not "ignoring," just, there's a whole lot of stuff.
Don't get so huffy. Please ask questions, I'm happy to answer and send you to sources. I can back up everything I am saying with substantial evidence (except the Crusades, that one takes way to much context, so please don't ask about that one). Trying to do all of that all at once ain't easy.
This I agree with. I think in no small part because they were much closer to the Scythians.
I would also like to note that you didn't actually address anything I said. You only addressed what I didn't talk about. I will assume that you agree with me then.
On the money with the scythian stuff only this word like tartaria confuses. Seems at different times it has been used to explain different things. A land mass, coalition of tribes, a race etc these so called "Germanic" defisntly brought a different order thats for sure. Before they sacked Rome there was many vandal and gothic battles against early christians of which they had an alternate version of called Arianism. Whats misunderstood as an invasion is actually many groups where invited to settle on roman lands and made up alot of legions. Some of these settled lands that where previously empty later became the holy roman empire. Although some may have been "barbarian" after this "invasion" things like knife an forks where used to eat and people starting wearing pants. Dosent seem like much of a fall to me.
Other notable things to imagine is the "Germanic" way of life was more about the individual, Rome was like a corporation. In Britain when the Anglo- saks (germanics) apeared the inhabitants where amazed to see each of them where adorned like a wealthy Roman as though each was a king. One story I've read is a meeting of British and saxons after a small group had landed. One of the new comers fills a bag with earth and sand and approaches the brit, how much do you want for this earth? The Brits confused by this but give a price, the newcomer agrees and pays them. They go back and think how are these rich men so stupid. Some time later they return to find the anglos have brought there families and settled and started building. It is then they realised they just sold the land to them and that they didn't even know they had owned.
AKA the Anti-Christ System