After the fall of Rome, Venice was the doomsday bunker of the elites. Extremely defendable position (back when cannons didn't exist), close enough to the shore to transport things and people quickly, yet far enough that it's impossible to besiege. They pooled all their money to build a city on water while everything else around them was on fire both politically and literally.

  • kot
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Dolores [love/loves]
      ·
      2 years ago

      this is an over-correction of sensationalist narratives from earlier historiography. notions of apocalypse and decline are very present in late roman writing and meshed well with christian eschatology. Gibbon worked mostly with Roman written sources so it really pervaded his work---perhaps to an unreasonable extent---but the notion that things changed imperceptibly is also bunk in light of primary sources spelling that opinion out.

      • kot
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • Dolores [love/loves]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Procopius, Zosimus, Gildas, John Lydus. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization is a relatively recent book that consciously catalogues the bad & ugly to synthesize with the current historiography

    • KobaCumTribute [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      not the sack of the city of Rome, which was not even the capital at the time (it had been moved to Gaul).

      Also Rome itself was sacked by a Roman army led by a Roman general who happened to be of German descent, and IIRC was more an act of opportunistic looting over grievances than it was any sort of invasion.