what is ancient

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Some of Europe. I think the Portugese, Spanish, Southern Italians, English, and some others might object to such a characterization.

I like Charles, thougth he did great things in trying to get Europe BACK to how good it was under Rome, but fell short. However, within 50 years his kingdom was shatter and it was no more unified than when he ascended the throne.

 

Who was it that said this about the Holy Roman Empire? That it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire........

 

I'm pretty sure that it was Bing? (but I was really drunk)

 

Just WOW, you guys are awesome.

 

And maybe he too?

 

hic**. Bing who?

 

Ah ha!

 

Doug, you are giving this credit to Charles. What about his Merovingian forebearers? Why are these leaders overlooked?

I find this fascination with Charlemagne a very francophone idea, trying to overstate the importance of what they consider their first French leader.

Point being, Europe NEVER got back to what they had under Rome. Not until the eastern Rome fell and the West got access to all of this ancient knowledge.did they really get to get closer. This should show everyone something, that even the remnanta of the east of rome had such a huge benefit to the west. This proves how they never came close culturally to what they lost. So, against this backdrop, why choose a leader 300 years after the fall of Rome, a leader who benefited by predecessor civilizations, as the change point? It very much feels a decision reached 100 years ago or longer before we knew very much of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Merovingians, or at least didn't appreciate their contributions. I would say the start is at the beginning, and the beginnings are at the fall of rome. The Merovingians and others should not be ignored just because the pope didn't crown them.

 

Hey Medoraman,
I got some Pyu Final Coinage I consider ancient.
c. 800-832 AD

 

Thank God for Arthur in Britain....