/lit/ - Literature

>>17683714
Except Wickham neither argues fully for continuity nor does he argue for apocalyptic happenings. He's in the middle and tries to synthesize these two opposing views. He also recognizes that different areas and peoples responded differently to the "collapse" (England took longer to progress than the Franks) and that it's not as simple as claiming one historical extreme or another on the issue . For instance, archaeological simplification does not warrant someone to say that roman culture and traditions were lost and that it took ages for Europe to restore any semblance of stability as we see numerous texts such as the Augustine's City of God which show no hint or worry of Rome decaying. So just as the view that post Rome continuity is faulty, so too is the view that barbarian violence destroyed society and civilization in the west for hundreds of years .