Architecture Transition

[Lysimachus]

When the Western Roman Empire was overrun in 476AD and its' territories taken over by barbarians what actually happened to the buildings? Did the barbarians refuse to replace any destroyed buildings in a Roman style (and so over time the towns would change) or were the conquered territories rebuilt in a way of their choosing? I can't really see any reason why they would replace an effective way of building things with "their" way.

Secondly, same question for the Eastern Roman Empire. Considering they were the Hellenised Romans that should mean that they maintain what they had but overtime things changed into what became a typical medieval style. Sorry if i'm not making myself clear, i'll explain it better if you don't understand.

[DAVIDE]

destruction of Romanity especially in Mediolanum, had place in 535 AD... when Uraia reduced to rubble basilicas, pagan temples, marbles, villas. The citizens slaughtered and the town burnt then

[Lysimachus]

What about Rome? It took Nero a monumental effort to rebuild the city so was it burned to the ground and rebuilt?

[conon394]

What about Rome? It took Nero a monumental effort to rebuild the city so was it burned to the ground and rebuilt?

No rather it shrunk massively. So a lot of its infrastructure was superfluous, and as the economy became smaller it could no longer support the kind of experts that maintained the old imperial systems. Some structures were obliviously valued more than others - the city did try to keep the old Roman mill complex in repair, but when you population falls by 2 orders of magnitude there is a lot that is simply beyond your ability or not worth the effort to repair (consider for example Detroit).

[Sphere]

Did the barbarians refuse to replace any destroyed buildings in a Roman style (and so over time the towns would change) or were the conquered territories rebuilt in a way of their choosing? I can't really see any reason why they would replace an effective way of building things with "their" way.

Its important to distinguish between "style" and "engineering".

The Romans had advanced arch design, dome design, along with cement and brick mechanical properites to an extent that allowed them to build the basilica's, aquaducts, ports and domed structures like the pantheon. Much of this technical expertise was lost in the west when the empire disintegrated.

It would take until the Renaissance before many of these building techniques were re-developed, and in the case of cement with a useable tensile strength, not until the 1800's. Indeed, there are people alive today who would have witnessed the first surpasing of the Pantheon in terms of a monothilic concrete dome (in the 1920's).

[CiviC]

Actualy Roman architecture evolved. It was evolving anyway no matter the political decline. For example in Eastern Empire it evolved in Byzantine architecture. In the West we have the pre Romanic and Romanic architecture. So even without the fall of Western Empire the classical architecture would not have remained the same.

As for Rome in the Dark Ages, you have to imagine that the Aurelian walls were still there but the monuments were in disrepair, invaded by vegetation. Most inhabited areas were abandoned. Where houses were in the time of Empire, there were probably now only the stone fundations of walls also invaded by vegetation. They served as the other monuments as stone quaries for new constructions. The population moved from the old areas to near the Tibre in the ancient Campus Martis.

[SigniferOne]

One of the most pitiful parts of this story is Rome's population shrunk to about 5-10,000 people. This lasted for over a thousand years. That's from a bustling million at the outset.