Which year did the Roman Empire fall?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
I use 1453. But really I think it is a bit before that. Just don't care to put an exact date, probably the point where the roman state became way, way too small and was going to fall. Still easier to say 1453.
Dirk
Banned
I used to say 476, when the city of Rome and all of Italy fell to non-Roman barbarians who didn't even want the imperial regalia.
Then I used to think it might have been in 391, when Christianity became the state religion of the Empire.
Now I'm more inclined to believe that it was somewhere from the 640's to the 660's, between the Roman loss of Syria and the loss of Africa. A bit before then saw the death of the last native Latin (not Italian) Emperor, Justinian, and the evolution of the military from the foederati-based military model of the late Western Empire to one depending on the manpower of native Greek farmers in Thrace and Anatolia. During and after the Muslim conquests of Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and Africa really tolled the death knell for Roman Empire and opened the way for an almost exclusively Greek, Byzantine, Empire.
Then I used to think it might have been in 391, when Christianity became the state religion of the Empire.
Now I'm more inclined to believe that it was somewhere from the 640's to the 660's, between the Roman loss of Syria and the loss of Africa. A bit before then saw the death of the last native Latin (not Italian) Emperor, Justinian, and the evolution of the military from the foederati-based military model of the late Western Empire to one depending on the manpower of native Greek farmers in Thrace and Anatolia. During and after the Muslim conquests of Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and Africa really tolled the death knell for Roman Empire and opened the way for an almost exclusively Greek, Byzantine, Empire.
I chose none of the above because I feel that it depends on how you define the fall of the Roman Empire. If you define it as the point where the final state that could reasonably claim to be the heirs of Caesar fell, then it is 1453. However if you define it as the point where Roman/Latin culture died out, or the fall of the city of Rome, then it is 476. The one I would definitely not choose is 1923. I don't feel that the Turks, who are a completely different religion, culture, and have no connection to the old Roman Empire, can claim to be a descendant of the Roman Empire, any more than say America or Canada could.
Adding onto this, I think a stronger claim than 1923 would be 1917, with the fall of Tsarist Russia (going along with the idea of Moscow being the "Third Rome" and whatnot). Not that I would vote for that.
The Principate started falling apart in earnest around 235 and was firmly and finally replaced by its successor state, the Dominate, in 284. The Dominate was replaced by successor states in the West (the barbarian kingdoms) gradually over the course of the 400s, and in the East (the Byzantine Empire) when Heraclius officially abandoned his Latin titles in 629 as part of a program of replacing the institutions of the Dominate with the new feudal and Hellenized institutions of Byzantium.
Where it gets confusing is that the Principate, Dominate, and Byzantium all called themselves The Roman Empire. While they did share a common tradition and a more-or-less continuous national identity, they are more properly considered a series of successor states, the way the Russian Federation is a successor state to the Soviet Union and the latter in turn was a successor state to the Russian Empire.
Where it gets confusing is that the Principate, Dominate, and Byzantium all called themselves The Roman Empire. While they did share a common tradition and a more-or-less continuous national identity, they are more properly considered a series of successor states, the way the Russian Federation is a successor state to the Soviet Union and the latter in turn was a successor state to the Russian Empire.
Growing up in Belgium in the 1970's, -80's I was always thought it was 476. First of all because it ended the Roman empire for 'us'. (Kortrijk/Courtrai where I went to school actually traces back to a Gallo-Roman community called Curto Raicum: Court or farmstead of Raicum or Raicus or Raiko or the Raikians or something alike) so Belgium had Roman villas until 476. Then there was 200 years of nothing until along came Saint Amandus and started building monasteries and preaching the gospel in middle Dietsch instead of Latin... So yes 476 was pretty much when it all changed... Give or take a year or two, or twenty, or hundred..
Also, it's hard to have a Roman empire without Rome, and that one fell in 476.
Also, it's hard to have a Roman empire without Rome, and that one fell in 476.
1453. As far as I know, the first time Byzantine used to differentiate Byzantine was in the 16th century and heavily used in the 19th century.
Had the Eastern Roman state survived until present day, they won't be calling themselves Byzantines. We wouldn't be probably calling the Byzantines as well specially if they are at superpower level as China and usa otl present day.
The ottomans nor the Russians didn't identify themselves as Romans nor there ordinary citizens identified themselves as Romans.
Had the Eastern Roman state survived until present day, they won't be calling themselves Byzantines. We wouldn't be probably calling the Byzantines as well specially if they are at superpower level as China and usa otl present day.
The ottomans nor the Russians didn't identify themselves as Romans nor there ordinary citizens identified themselves as Romans.
476. IMO the you can't have a proper "Roman" Empire without the city of Rome. I consider the ERE to be a sucessor state.
Even though Rome was without doubt part of an empire run from Constantinople for a good two centuries, and loosely connected the better part of another century after that?
Anyway, for me it's the late seventh and early eighth centuries, with the decisive breaking of East Roman power over the Mediterranean and the beginnings of the great institutional and ideological reforms of the Isaurian Emperors. Byzantium undoubtedly was a part of the Roman continuity, but I think from herein it's much more useful to consider it alone, rather than folding it in to the broader study of the ancient Roman Empire.
Either 1453 or 1917. (fall of the Russian Empire)
If Montenegro recognises the Imperial Throne as sovereign at some point in the future, then I'd consider that to be successor to the Roman Empire.
If Montenegro recognises the Imperial Throne as sovereign at some point in the future, then I'd consider that to be successor to the Roman Empire.
jahenders
Banned
I agree that 476 is the most apropos date, though you could point to other dates as imminent decline (around 410 with the pulling back of the legions) or further indignity ( the fall of Byzantium)
I don't understand this fixation with 476, really.
What really happened that leads people to claim it's the moment the Empire ended?
Romulus Augustulus was a usurper and a puppet of Orestes (who by the way was only slightly more "Roman" than Odoacer). When Odoacer defeated Orestes and forced R.A. to abdicate, he accepted the nominal authority of the legitimate Emperor Julius Nepos - an arrangement identical to past ones, where power resided with the powerful Magister Militum and not the Emperor. To give a few examples:
- Flavius Aetius and the teenage Valentinian III
- Ricimer and Libius Severus
- Ricimer and Olybrius
- Gundobad and Glycerius
- Orestes and Romulus Augustulus
If the Roman Empire didn't end on any of those above mentioned instances, it didn't end in 476 either.
One could make the case that the Western Roman Empire ended when, upon the death of Julius Nepos, both the eastern Emperor and the de facto ruler of Italy decided not to appoint another Emperor, and instead have only a single one, residing in Constantinople.
However, speaking from a practical point of view, nothing really changed in Italy at that moment either, to warrant 480 A.D. to be defined as the "end":
Nominally, an ethnic Roman was acknowledged as Emperor, who resided somewhere other than the Italian peninsula (a situation which could be found as far back as Constantine the Great). Real power continued to be shared between the leader of the Army (Odoacer, later Theodoric), whilst the business of governing was increasingly being carried out by the Senate in Rome.
What really happened that leads people to claim it's the moment the Empire ended?
Romulus Augustulus was a usurper and a puppet of Orestes (who by the way was only slightly more "Roman" than Odoacer). When Odoacer defeated Orestes and forced R.A. to abdicate, he accepted the nominal authority of the legitimate Emperor Julius Nepos - an arrangement identical to past ones, where power resided with the powerful Magister Militum and not the Emperor. To give a few examples:
- Flavius Aetius and the teenage Valentinian III
- Ricimer and Libius Severus
- Ricimer and Olybrius
- Gundobad and Glycerius
- Orestes and Romulus Augustulus
If the Roman Empire didn't end on any of those above mentioned instances, it didn't end in 476 either.
One could make the case that the Western Roman Empire ended when, upon the death of Julius Nepos, both the eastern Emperor and the de facto ruler of Italy decided not to appoint another Emperor, and instead have only a single one, residing in Constantinople.
However, speaking from a practical point of view, nothing really changed in Italy at that moment either, to warrant 480 A.D. to be defined as the "end":
Nominally, an ethnic Roman was acknowledged as Emperor, who resided somewhere other than the Italian peninsula (a situation which could be found as far back as Constantine the Great). Real power continued to be shared between the leader of the Army (Odoacer, later Theodoric), whilst the business of governing was increasingly being carried out by the Senate in Rome.
Is just possessing the City enough, or does it have to be the capital? If the latter, the end came sometime in the 4C, either when Constantinople was founded or when the WRE government moved off to Milan and later Ravenna.
