Hi,
I've heard that one 'flag post' of the collapse of the western Roman Empire is 476 when Odoacer became king of Italy. This is fine for me, what trips me up is the Empire being described as 'collapsed' when Africa and Italy were largely recovered by the eastern Empire by the 540s. Is there a school of thought that disagrees with the whole notion of collapse?
Thanks.
As you'll find in our extensive FAQ on the topic, most scholars don't hold to a definitive date of collapse. u/bitparity's response here is a great summary of how various aspects of the Roman Empire (religious, linguistic, political, etc.) stuck around. That's not to say that it didn't collapse: there was no Roman political entity in Europe in 500. But the popular conception of a total Imperial collapse is one used for conceptual simplicity; dates are chosen not to say "Rome ended here" but as places to stop writing your book about Western Roman politics.
Can any historians tell me how accurate this is? http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-7.pdf