@ cmacq: i think you shouldn't think that much of the political changes that occured until the dominate under diocletian. though the kings were drive, rome was sacked by gauls, the plebeians clashed with the senate, etc... you have to keep in mind that nothing really died out in republican rome. the comitia curiata, the oldest ppls councel still coexisted with the comitia centuriata and later on also with the comitia tributa. basically rome in the late republic was a 'living museum'. of course their importance and such shifted over the ages and some were merely symbolical but they were there, i think thats interesting to keep in mind. the principate retained many of the republican features and the senate kept playing an important role (or at least those members close to the emperor).



from my point of view the 3rd century is crucial. why? cuz its in those years the classic roman world got destroyed, especially in the west. after septimus severus and his followers pretty much screwed up the political tradition the empire lands in period of turmoil (the soldier-emperors or how you translate that). as Sakkura said each leader who could beat a few barbarian hordes would march to rome and be crowned emperor.

when finally order is restored and a few capable emperors seize power, and finally one of them, diocletian reforms the principate to the dominate. which is a major socio-political change! mind that, there is a profoundly different tone in the language used by both. to me its most important feature was the foundation of a more or less professional bureaucracy (not that it necessarily was an oiled machine as you'll notice in contemporary sources). its the time of codification (the great lawyers like paulinus ertc, the codices are written in those days).

but the wars of the 3rd century had ravaged roman society. the west was destroyed. the mediteranean was no longer the centre of commerce, meaning the decline of italy. the rhine-danube became the most important economical axis of the empire. another and in my eyes one of the most significant features of the decline of the roman empire (in the west) was the destruction of the very foundation of the roman empire: the destruction of the cities.

basically the roman empire was a federation of city-states. the civitas were of utmost importance in ancient times (economical, religious, political, social, etc). one of the reasons the romans never conquered germany (permanently) was since their was nothing to gain, no cities to use as bridgeheads. when the 3rd era is over, trade had rapidly declined because of the rapidly rising crime. the very interior of the empire was no longer safe. monuments were torn down to strenghten city-defenses (real shame for those beautiful buildings). and most important... the cities ran empty. its what we call a process of 'ruralisation', a return to the land. ppl abandoned cities and returned to a rural lifestyle. cities lost their meaning and thus did also the very foundation of the classic roman empire.

in the east this process only took place 3-4 centuries later. if you look at it, its quite ironic. the first ruralisation takes place in the west, in the end destroying the western empire. when the same happened in the east at the eve of the arab expansion both the sassanid and byzantine empire collapsed. well the latter not as much as the persians but they lost everyting south of antioch and that sucks ass.



concerning the continuation of the roman empire in byzantium i guess thats obvious. though it also means another breakline with the past, namely that christianity was the state-religion. the notion of an emperor serving god is a profoundly new one compared to the previous political regimes were he was the god himself.
the fact that it in reality was a greek empire and not latin also is a big difference. they more had the legacy of alexander than august i suppose.


every empire knows phases of evolution. as i see it, concluding from what i've learned, the real change lies in the 3rd century and the fouding of the principate.


in my opinion there is also no real connection between the papacy and the HRE in terms of continuation. the pope claimed authority that had nothing to do with the old roman empire and the german emperor was nothing but a phoney hailing from lands that had never known roman rule.