The Roman Empire never fell, forum users argue

The Roman Empire never fell: the millenarianist thesis stirring up Burbuja.info

What if the Roman Empire never fell in 476, but instead transformed into the Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire and Tsarist Russia? That is the thesis defended by a user on Burbuja.info in a thread that has already drawn 60 replies and mixes theology, history and conspiracy. The debate is not innocent: behind the idea of the "third Rome" lies an apocalyptic reading of today's political and economic situation.

The continuity thesis: from Caesars to tsars

The thread, started by "Jesùs lo dijo", argues that Rome did not die but evolved. To support this, it relies on the idea that the Byzantine Empire (the second Rome) fell in 1453, but Moscow took up the mantle as the third Rome. It adds that the Catholic Church preserved Roman law and that the medieval kingdoms were a continuation of the imperial model. There is no shortage of quotes from Revelation and Daniel 8, where it is prophesied that at the end of the empires the Antichrist will arise. The user links this prophecy to the Huns, the French Revolution, Sarracin, Hitler, communism and Zionism.

Several forum members, such as "Soto." or "burbubot", respond with skepticism. "Soto." describes the Middle Ages as "1000 years of obscurantism" and laments that the barbarians prevented a Roman industrial revolution. By contrast, "Fausto1880" argues that the Middle Ages were not dark, citing population growth and Gothic cathedrals, and attributes the black legend to Freemasonry.

The data that clashes with the narrative

The thread is not limited to theory: concrete figures are provided. "Jesùs lo dijo" recalls that in Rome water and bread were free for all citizens, that the baths were open to the public, and that the mortality rate among soldiers wounded in battle was not matched until the First World War. He also claims that Rome's population (one million inhabitants) was not equaled in the West until nineteenth-century London. For his part, "Fausto1880" counters that life expectancy improved in the eleventh and twelfth centuries compared with Roman times.

The debate drifts into economic and political territory. "socrates99" argues that the Roman Empire was the first attempt at a "New World Order" through debt and terror, and that it has been replicated by Napoleon, Hitler and the USA. Other users, such as "nekcab", introduce the distinction between ancient and modern liberty.


The question nobody fully answers is whether the millenarianist thesis is a geopolitical metaphor or a literal prophecy. The thread remains in that limbo: those who believe in Roman continuity see it as a sign of the end times; skeptics see it as a fantasy that hides the usual interests. But everyone agrees that Rome, one way or another, is still present in the debate over global power.

---

Related debates on the forum

• Do you consider yourselves white? Have you experienced racism in Europe's white countries because of your looks? · 143 replies
• The 'Right to the Restroom' movement is born to end queues outside women's bathrooms and redesign these spaces · 90 replies
• An idea repeated a thousand times - it's very easy for me to understand why there was a civil war in this country · 20 replies
• MANILA - PHILIPPINES - A true failed state... Latin American countries look like California next to it. · 11 replies