When did the Roman Empire end?

Sulemain

Sulemain

Banned
What date would you say the Roman Empire collapsed? Some would say it was 476AD with the collapse of the WRE. Others would argue it was in the 7th Century, when the ERE lost the southern and eastern Med to the Islamic conquests, and became a radically different entity in both language in structure to "Rome". I personally would argue that it was only in 1922, with the end of the Ottoman Empire, with it's capital in Constantinople and it's Med powerbase. What are the boards thoughts on this?
 
Sevarics

Sevarics

Possibilities

476--Fall of the WRE
1204--Fall of the original ERE
1453--Fall of the second ERE
1461--Fall of Trebizond
1917--Fall of the Russian Empire
-Insert whatever time in the future that the Papacy ends, if ever-
 
Xgentis

Xgentis

The Ottoman destroyed the last remnant of what could call itself the continuation of the Roman Empire. It's not even a successor state.
 

Deleted member 67076

Sulemain said:
Why would you say that?
Click to expand...

IMO there is a direct continuity and progression between the city founded by Romulus up until the Fall of Constantinople that I just don't see with the Ottoman state.

Happy to be proven wrong though.
 

eliphas8

The year the official language switched from Latin to Greek, which effectively sollidified the transition from Diocletian era Rome to what might as well be an entirely different state.
 
Sulemain

Sulemain

Banned
Soverihn said:
IMO there is a direct continuity and progression between the city founded by Romulus up until the Fall of Constantinople that I just don't see with the Ottoman state.

Happy to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...

If you argue a direct continuity and progression, surely 1204 AD marks the best turning point?

And I'd argue that's by it's scale, grandeur and, how can I put this, world-view, the Ottoman Empire can be considered the same as the Roman one.
 

historyrant

In 811 when the Eastern Roman emperor acknowledged that a Barbarian rules Rome.

I wouldn't say any time earlier because the Ostrogoth kings that ruled Italy all plead their allegiance to the Eastern emperor in Constantinople.
 

The Spitfire017

The Byzantines were the "successor" state to Rome, as they did evolve over the centuries into a very different entity, and that came to an end 1453. I don't consider the Ottoman Empire a successor to Rome. They conquered it and put Byzantine to an end and set up something else in their place.

The Vatican is the last remnant of the Roman Empire. So, when it comes to an end, Rome, in all its political incarnations, will finally be distinguished.

That is all.

:p
 

eliphas8

Soverihn said:
IMO there is a direct continuity and progression between the city founded by Romulus up until the Fall of Constantinople that I just don't see with the Ottoman state.

Happy to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...

What about that whole episode in 1204 where the empire was conquered, four successor states competed for domination and the Nikaeans managed to take over the capital again?
 

Deleted member 67076

Sulemain said:
If you argue a direct continuity and progression, surely 1204 AD marks the best turning point?

And I'd argue that's by it's scale, grandeur and, how can I put this, world-view, the Ottoman Empire can be considered the same as the Roman one.
Click to expand...

eliphas8 said:
What about that whole episode in 1204 where the empire was conquered, four successor states competed for domination and the Nikaeans managed to take over the capital again?
Click to expand...
Im not too well read on the Fourth Crusade, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Weren't the Niceans essentially a rival faction in a civil war who took control of what remained of Byzantine Anatolia?

If so, they just seem like a rebel group in control of territory that eventually 'won' the civil war, sort to speak.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

eliphas8 said:
The year the official language switched from Latin to Greek, which effectively sollidified the transition from Diocletian era Rome to what might as well be an entirely different state.
Click to expand...

Sigh. The eastern half of the roman empire had always been largely greek speaking. Roman officials in the east had always been required to know how to speak Greek. So there wasn't really a change there at all, it just became official.
 

historyrant

Here are all the possible dates the Roman empire could of ended which adds up to 15.

I 476: The Western Roman emperor is deposed and the Ostrogoth king Odoacer becomes king of Italy. Who pleads his allegiance to Julius Nepos the remaining Western Roman Emperor

II 481: Nepos is assassinated this the end of the Western Roman empire but is it the end of the Roman empire? The Ostrogoth king carries on pleading his allegiance to the Eastern Roman empire.

III 629: The Eastern Roman emperor Heraclius now styles himself as a Basileus which is the Greek word for king. From his forward the Eastern Roman empire becomes more Greek than Roman and in the not so distant future Catholics and the pope would call the Eastern Roman empire the empire of the Greeks. The Muslims are a lot kinder and will remember the Empire as Rum(Rome) which is more polite.

IV 756: Rome would cease to be a part of the empire after being reconquered by the East

V 797: The Roman emperor, Constantine VI is deposed by his mother, Irene who becomes Empress. Because of this according to the pope no one is Roman Emperor

VI 800: The Frankish Barbarian Charlemagne is crowned emperor of Romans by the pope in the city of Rome which is an insult to the true Roman emperor in Constantinople.

VII 811: The Roman Emperor, Nicephorus I acknowledges the Barbarian, Charlemagne as Western Roman Emperor and rules the west where Rome is.

VIII 1002: The last real Roman emperor in the West Otto III dies and now the title Western Roman empire is just a title held by German kings.

IX 1204: The Queen of cities Constantinople is sacked and the Barbarians from the West now rule Constantinople.

X 1371: The Eastern Roman Emperor, John V becomes a vassal to the Ottoman Sultan and the Roman empire is not really an empire if the emperor is a vassal to someone.

XI 1453: The Ottomans capture Constantinople and kill the last Eastern Roman Emperor. According to allot of people this is when the empire ends.

XII 1460: Morea an Eastern Roman successor state which is ruled by the dead emperor's brother falls to the Ottomans.

XIII 1461: Trebizond the last place which has claim to the Eastern Roman Empire falls to the Ottomans.

XIV 1806: The last German king with the title Roman emperor is deposed.

XV 1943: Mussolini, dictator of Italy and the so called restorer of the Roman empire is overthrown and murdered and the Roman empire with him.
 
Last edited:

Maniakes

I'm tempted to make a case for 285 AD, when Diocletian buried the corpse of the Principate and collected the insurance money. There were two major breaks here:

  1. The Empire is no longer really "Roman". The cultural, economic, and political heart of the Empire is now in the Balkans.
  2. The transition from the Principate to the Dominate was a fundamental political break. The Principate was an autocratic evolution of the institutions of the Roman Republic, while the Dominate was overtly despotic and monarchical. In addition to the changes in institutional style (e.g. addressing the Emperor as "Lord and God" rather than "First Citizen"), the government also became far more centralized and authoritarian (tying yeomen and peasants to their lands, instituting caste-like hereditary occupations in the cities, draconian price-fixing laws, etc).
 

Armot

Maniakes said:
I'm tempted to make a case for 285 AD, when Diocletian buried the corpse of the Principate and collected the insurance money. There were two major breaks here:

  1. The Empire is no longer really "Roman". The cultural, economic, and political heart of the Empire is now in the Balkans.
  2. The transition from the Principate to the Dominate was a fundamental political break. The Principate was an autocratic evolution of the institutions of the Roman Republic, while the Dominate was overtly despotic and monarchical. In addition to the changes in institutional style (e.g. addressing the Emperor as "Lord and God" rather than "First Citizen"), the government also became far more centralized and authoritarian (tying yeomen and peasants to their lands, instituting caste-like hereditary occupations in the cities, draconian price-fixing laws, etc).
Click to expand...

In fact, the Dominate make Rome less Republic and more Empire, obviously it is not the end of the Empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top