> > Barbara Blithered;
> > As in our world, before the christianisation of the Empire, Rome had
> > withdrawn from the west and left it to its own devices.

> John Jotted;
> Rather more so than in our world, it seems.  The Popes at Rome *here*
> saw themselves as the effective successors of the Western Emperors.
> Perhaps there was no division of the Empire there?

Barbara Babbled;
There was division of the Empire, but the Papacy had moved to Byzantium. The
rationalisation being that the title "Bishop of Rome" refered to Rome the
Empire rather than Rome the City. As it was the Pope in Byzantium that held
the succession of Peter the Patriarchs of Rome didn't see themselves as
either the rightful spiritual or temporal leaders of  christendom.

The Western Empire had a Governer rather than a co-emperor, but the west
fell appart for the much same socio-ecconomic reasons, and Byzantine
neglect, as it did in our world.