Quote Originally Posted by alatar
I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

I understand that with the collapse of the western empire, and the migration period the west of Europe lost the organization skills the romans had, but surely in the rest of the world claimed to be civilized?

((And thats not even questioning the idea of civilization, and the assumption that only the romans had it))

Just wondering
I would have to say that yes, that is in fact anglocentric.

you would have to realize, that after the fall of the west, there was still the Eastern Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire we all know and love. It goes with saying that the splitting of the empire into 2, actually was a big factor in the decline of the Western half, as most of the empires wealth was concentrated in the east.

After the collapse of the west, the east viewed themselves as the true sole heir of the Roman Empire, and it can be argued rightfully so. Many customs, traditions, military styles, lifestyles were identical to the West. The only notable difference is that Greek and Greek based language was the dominate language. the East carried on these traditions while at the same time the fallen West was scalping roads and aqueducts that fell out of repair for building materials.

The East had ambitions to reconquer the west once it fell into "barbaric darkness" after the collapse of the west. The East did have great success with this, having regained Italy, parts of North Africa and several other critical areas, before a great plague engulfed the East, at which point the army in the west was recalled. IIRC this was during the reign of Justinian.