When did the Roman Empire technically end?

[Alcsentre Calanice]

When did the Roman Empire technically end?

The Western Empire was, in the final a analysis, only special, administrative division of the only and united Roman Empire - that is the state founded in 753 BC (no better date available, so let's stick to it) which lasted (legally, mark you) until... yes, until when?

- In 476, when Romulus Augustulus abdicated from the Roman throne
- In 480, when Julius Nepos, last western emperor, died
- During the Conquests of Justinian, when the Roman Senate, symbol of the sovereignty of the Roman nation, was dissolved
- In the middle ages, when the Byzantine Senate disappeared
- In 1453, when Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans and the Byzantine Empire disolved
- In 1464, when the last Byzantine holdout, Monemvasia, became a Venetian protectorate
- In 1540, when this protectorate was conquered by the Ottomans
- In 1806, when the Holy Roman Empire ended
- In 1917, when the Russian Emperor, ruler of the Third Rome, was overthrown by the February Revolution
- In 1922, when Mustafa Kemal abolished the Ottoman monarchy

 

[Kaiser K]

1453, when the Byzantines were wiped out.

 

[LSCatilina]

1453 seems the best choice, giving that it was the fall of the last political entity calling itself Roman and that had claims to a direct continuity with the classical Romania. Anything else is essentially historiographical nip-ticking.

 

[Iudeus Rex britannicus]

1453, fall of Byzantium

 

[Zorqal]

I know I'm alone in this, but I say 476. That could just be me being a hipster against all the Byzantophillia on this site though.

 

[NolanFoster]

The best answer would be 1204, when the empire was destroyed. A crusader state and several orthodox petty kingdoms replaced it.

The neo-Byzantine empire established by the Nicaean empire ended in 1453, but only byzantinophilia keeps its claims to be a direct continuation of the old empire from being challenged.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

I say 1204 or 1453. The Ottomans and the Russians weren't really much of a continuation other than claiming a defunct title. No different than the claimants to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

 

[Magnum]

What, no poll?

 

[Tjakari]

I've been swayed into the 1922 camp at this point, by that point the whole thing is completely unrecognizable but its Rome.

Just really really really Turkish and Muslim.

 

[Zorqal]

I've been swayed into the 1922 camp at this point, by that point the whole thing is completely unrecognizable but its Rome.

Just really really really Turkish and Muslim.

Byzantium was pretty unrecognizable as well. I think that if you are going to call the Byzantines Rome, then the Ottomans need to be considered Rome as well, and 1922 is the best answer. If you don't (like me) then 476 is the best with the abdication of the Emperor.

 

[Magnum]

Byzantium was pretty unrecognizable as well. I think that if you are going to call the Byzantines Rome, then the Ottomans need to be considered Rome as well, and 1922 is the best answer. If you don't (like me) then 476 is the best with the abdication of the Emperor.

Emperors had abdicated both before and since 476

 

[PuffyClouds]

A different idea

The start of Diocletian's reign in 285AD or the murder of Pertinax in 126 AD.

I'm not sure if Rome was ever able to recover from the decline of civic virtue under Commodus. That decline caused Pertinax' murder, and auction of the Principate. Diocletian's reign seems to have changed the nature of the Empire.

 

[Caesar Biden]

1453, of course. Unless you count Trebizond, which I could see people making good cases for either way.

 

[Zorqal]

Emperors had abdicated both before and since 476

Thats not the defining feature, or what makes it special, but instead that it signifies the end of the Roman Empire.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

1453, for sure.

I'm not sure it is fair to say that the Ottoman Empire carried the spirit of the Roman Empire, mainly because it had transformed into a deeply Christian Empire at the time, and that character was counter to the heart of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Magnum]

Thats not the defining feature, or what makes it special, but instead that it signifies the end of the Roman Empire.

If the event itself carried zero importance, how can it mark the end of the Empire?

 

[GlobalHumanism]

As I said on Mag's more robust thread, number 1.

An emperor signing away his blood claim to the throne De Jure, destroys the throne de facto.

All future legitimate decadents would have 0 claim with all future illegitimate holders being usurpers.

As Western Roman holdings were organized as an empire, the loss of the imperial throne meant the destruction of the Empire which is what the OP asks.

It doesn't matter whether the legitimate Western Roman Emperor in 486 could wield and soft or hard power, the throne he occupied was forever legitimate, until of course he made it illegimate by abdicating to a usurper.

 

[Anaxagoras]

395, when the death of Emperor Theodosius resulted in the permanent split between the Western and Eastern halves of the empire.

 

[Halagaz]

In 1453.

I can sort of understand the positions which focus on the end of the "Western" Roman Empire too.
But I believe the Ottomans can't be considered a repainted Roman Empire for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, because they did not consider themselves Romans; the Ottomans used the term Rum (besides for a territory) for Orthodox Christians and especially Greeks for the entirety of the Empire's existence; not for themselves. The Ottomans were the conquerors of a Roman Empire, but not its continuation, and it looks like they felt that way too.
The only thing that would suggest otherwise would be the brief appearance of the "Rome" in the title, but it did not occupy any important place in the state's identity and IIRC it was dropped by later Sultans anyway.

 

[Caesar Biden]

Byzantium was pretty unrecognizable as well. I think that if you are going to call the Byzantines Rome, then the Ottomans need to be considered Rome as well, and 1922 is the best answer. If you don't (like me) then 476 is the best with the abdication of the Emperor.

That's a load of crap. The Romans of the 11th century called themselves Romans, followed a codified series of laws derived from old Roman law, had a legal continuation with the Rome of Augustus, and had already been given the official allegiance of both the West and East. There is no doubt they were as Roman as the people who lived under Augustus or Hadrian or Constantine.

The Ottomans conquered the Romans. Is the United States a continuation of Native American civilizations?