[klnbgqr]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Even though Charlemagne took a Latin title, adopted some Roman legal codes, and used cleric advisors some of whom may have been from Italy surely you can see that his state a far cry from being a true successor to the Roman Empire. His reign was 500 years after the empire ha died. The technology that distinguished Rome, the technology to build great buildings, the baths, the highways and so much more was long lost. The social structure and educational system of Rome no longer existed. Furthermore you fail to realise that even though Roman law was practised within the borders of the Germanic states they reserved their own traditional legal codes to govern themselves. This in fact probably contributed a great deal to the establishment of the medieval class system - the upper classes, mostly descended from the Germanic warriors were judged by a completely different legal code than the lower classes composed of the indigenous peoples who were judged by Roman and Gallic laws. I'm not trying to pretend Charlemagne's empire was a copy of Rome but I'm saying that post-classical European society eventually came to adopt a great deal of the Greco-Roman heritage. Cue Christian scholars. The titling of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus is just an example of this. He adopted some Roman legal code, but others adopted some more, and yet others adopted even more. The entire process of codification on the European continent, moving away from customary law, essentially meant Romanisation. The personal law system you speak of had withered away by the 9th century. Moreover, a personal law system also existed for a very long time during the Roman era, with the distinction between ius civile, applying to Roman citizens, and ius gentium, applying to 'barbarians'.
And I wouldn't know what construction techniques the Romans used and in how so far they weren't carried on to medieval Europe. I know technologies such as the watermill and the screw press (used to make wine and eventually applied in the printing press) were transplanted though. A quick google tells me the crane also returned. That's a construction technology, right?

My thesis is that while barbarian invasion eradicated the western Roman empire the simple fact of barbarian invasion isn't suffidient to explain the disappearence of the Roman empire. China was overrun by barbarians but survived intact as it's superior culture rapidly assimilated each successive conquering tribe. The difference is that Rome was overrun by 6 major barbarian nations and for that reason could not by put back together into one imperial state. Additionaly the assimilation of the barbarians was not complete enough to continue the imperial Roman culture. Yes certain aspects of Roman culture survived, but not enough to unite the broken empire. Still confused about what your point. Is it that the Roman Empire as a state disappeared? That's obvious. Is that the Greco-Roman culture disappeared? That's far less obvious. The thing is that you consider "proper" Rome to being imperial, unified and pagan, while during chunks of its history it wasn't imperial or unified, and while christianity was a substantial aspect of it during the later stages. Weren't the 3 kingdoms of China properly Chinese either then?

China survived as a state. It's barbarian conqueror eagerly became its sons and daughters, not the other way around. Such was not the case for the Roman empire. While the barbarians may have adopted trappings of Roman culture they retained their identities. Charlemagne's kingdom became France and Germany, not Rome. What is the Roman identity according to you? Didn't Rome adopt Greek philosophy as barbarian Europeans came to? For instance, the Roman concept of "civil rights" (see ius civile) made a come-back in the city-states of Low Countries and the Italian peninsula. Note the parallels with the Greek city-states and birth of Rome as a city-state in this.