It is the concept of the fall of the Empire versus the concept of the disintegration of parts of the Empire, which implies that it never ceased to exist, because the disintegration was partial, affecting only the western part.
Well, that is literally the difference between the two concepts. You asked about that. It's a fairly literal answer, I don't know what you don't understand about it.
The word ‘disintegration’ simply does not mean “never ceasing to exist.” I’m sorry I had not shared that with you. If I had we could have agreed to disagree about your definition of it, as we are about to. Please know my confidence in the claim that no dictionary will describe it with that term.
I'm not talking about the word, but rather a concept, which has very different implications. Perhaps now you can better understand what I was explaining to you.
This is an excellent post about one of my favorite subjects! It is interesting to see how the situation in Italy was reversed as compared to Africa and southern Spain, where the Eastern Roman army was invited to support Roman rebellions against the Vandals and Visigoths. Theoderic's Italy was very different and more legitimate for the reasons you describe, although I believe his rule is blighted by his treatment of Boethius and Symmachus.
I agree with you. Theodoric is different; there's a reason he's nicknamed "The Great." Unfortunately, he handled the situation of Boethius and Symmachus very poorly, and I understand that it was something the king regretted and weighed heavily on him until his death. Something I have to study.
What’s the difference between a “fall” and a “disintegration”?
It is the concept of the fall of the Empire versus the concept of the disintegration of parts of the Empire, which implies that it never ceased to exist, because the disintegration was partial, affecting only the western part.
You’ve repeated what you wrote and for which I had asked for distinction, not reiteration.
Well, that is literally the difference between the two concepts. You asked about that. It's a fairly literal answer, I don't know what you don't understand about it.
The word ‘disintegration’ simply does not mean “never ceasing to exist.” I’m sorry I had not shared that with you. If I had we could have agreed to disagree about your definition of it, as we are about to. Please know my confidence in the claim that no dictionary will describe it with that term.
I'm not talking about the word, but rather a concept, which has very different implications. Perhaps now you can better understand what I was explaining to you.
I certainly do! In your using that conception of ‘disintegration’ I understand its distinction from the definition of the word.
This is an excellent post about one of my favorite subjects! It is interesting to see how the situation in Italy was reversed as compared to Africa and southern Spain, where the Eastern Roman army was invited to support Roman rebellions against the Vandals and Visigoths. Theoderic's Italy was very different and more legitimate for the reasons you describe, although I believe his rule is blighted by his treatment of Boethius and Symmachus.
I agree with you. Theodoric is different; there's a reason he's nicknamed "The Great." Unfortunately, he handled the situation of Boethius and Symmachus very poorly, and I understand that it was something the king regretted and weighed heavily on him until his death. Something I have to study.