When did the Roman Empire technically end?

[NolanFoster]

Yeah, but there are lots of modern groups which claim to be, and maybe are, continuations of old ones, but people don't consider them to be. Is the United Kingdom still the British Empire of the 1700s? The Byzantine Empire was at most a rump state clinging to something it lost. I mean, how can it call itself Rome if it doesn't even hold the city, for the most part/

So, I guess that's my real argument; how can there be a 'Roman Empire' that doesn't hold Rome?



That's a good argument.

Well whenever you're discussing what was or wasn't Roman, you have to keep in mind the general arc of roman history up to 476.

1. It was the city state of Rome and its clients.
2. It became a pan-italian state ruled from Rome.
3. It expanded into a Mediterranean wide empire.
4. Other bases of power than Italy took on increasing importance.
5. Power shifted east. State and economic structures in the west began to dissolve.
6. The empire was reduced to its eastern, Greek possessions.

The transformation of the city of Rome from the center of the Roman world to one major city to a backwater is a consistent trend in the evolution of the Roman state. That's why I don't think it makes any sense to mark its loss as the end of the empire.

 

[Halagaz]

Yeah, but there are lots of modern groups which claim to be, and maybe are, continuations of old ones, but people don't consider them to be. Is the United Kingdom still the British Empire of the 1700s? The Byzantine Empire was at most a rump state clinging to something it lost. I mean, how can it call itself Rome if it doesn't even hold the city, for the most part/

So, I guess that's my real argument; how can there be a 'Roman Empire' that doesn't hold Rome?

Well, as people already said, it's about Romans, not about the city of Rome itself.

Also, for a partial example, how can there be a Kingdom of Jerusalem that doesn't hold Jerusalem?

 

[Zorqal]

When its ruling class and population call themselves Roman and the political territory "Romania"; and when, furthermore, this claim is acknowledged by their neighbours.

It's the same sillinness than "But why do they call themselves such? I don't want them to do that, they don't have the right to do that" about states as Ghana or Spain (some people felt necessary to poorly illustrate this on the board).

There's a Roman Empire because it's considered as such by everyone concerned. Period.

I just what to know, and this isn't related, but where does Romania come from? Latin was Romanum and Greek what Rhomaion.

 

[LSCatilina]

I just what to know, and this isn't related, but where does Romania come from? Latin was Romanum and Greek what Rhomaion.

Romanum, it's an adjective, not a name. It would be like labelling USA "American". Same goes for Rhomaion.

Romania or Rhōmania are found at least since the IIIrd century, probably before (in, for exemple but not restrictive, the opposition Romania/Barbaricum) and was used in Latin and Greek to name the political entity (more the territory than the institutions), formally known as "Roman Empire".

You can found them, for exemple, in Urban II's calls for Crusade, in IVth Crusade chronicles, for what matter Latins.

Its usage is not too dissimilar to the one that makes one's calling United States of America as "America".

 

[tallthinkev]

Couldn't the Catholic Church be called the Roman Empire, and the Pope, Emperor? I think it is/was called the Roman Church, or church of the Romans.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Yeah, but there are lots of modern groups which claim to be, and maybe are, continuations of old ones, but people don't consider them to be. Is the United Kingdom still the British Empire of the 1700s? The Byzantine Empire was at most a rump state clinging to something it lost. I mean, how can it call itself Rome if it doesn't even hold the city, for the most part/

So, I guess that's my real argument; how can there be a 'Roman Empire' that doesn't hold Rome?

Yes, the United Kingdom is a direct continuation of the British Empire. I don't see what point you are trying to make here. Also, as per the city: In 475, a peasant living in Antioch was Roman, as was a peasant living in Constantinople, as was a peasant living in Alexandria. In 475 an emperor who did not control Rome called himself "Emperor of The Romans".

In 476, with absolutely no change happening in said half of the empire, those people are suddenly not Romans, the emperor not emperor of the romans. And, see, that's the key term. It's not emperor of Rome. It's emperor of the Romans. Rome was, more or less, an idea, not a city anymore. Being Rome is akin to being American or British. Just because it derives its name from a city does not mean that loss of control of that city-a city that had not been used as a capital effectively since the start of the third century crisis-does not mean that loss of that city = no longer being able to call themselves Roman.

When its ruling class and population call themselves Roman and the political territory "Romania"; and when, furthermore, this claim is acknowledged by their neighbours.

It's the same sillinness than "But why do they call themselves such? I don't want them to do that, they don't have the right to do that" about states as Ghana or Spain (some people felt necessary to poorly illustrate this on the board).

There's a Roman Empire because it's considered as such by everyone concerned. Period.

This. Seriously.

 

[Namayan]

I am for 1453.

I believe there are several qualifications for one to be considered Roman Empire. First the easy part, Considered by neighbors, by its government as Roman Empire which qualifies a lot of third Rome claimants including HRE.

Roman imperial tradition must continue like emperor be de facto instead of de jure. Then, you got its ordinary citizens considering themselves as roman citizens. Finally, this empire must be recognized by the previous or one of the holders of the Roman Empire that the other empire is also Roman Empire.

All of this only qualifies ERE or Byzantium.

 

[phatmaus]

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.

Not true. Under Justinian the system, culture, language, etc... was the same as under Diocletian. After the re-conquest of North Africa one could walk from the Red Sea to the Atlantic without noticing anything too different. Sure, Europe was totally different, but Africa and the Levant were the richest parts(and the source of most culture and technology) of the old Empire anyway. The first big break from the past was with the Muslim conquests, but the empire continued diminished, but un-interrupted(in terms of continuity of the law, bureaucracy, etc) until 1204. What was re-created and persisted until 1453 was just a Greek kingdom with delusions of grandeur.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

What, no poll?

I forgot it. Also, polls are a bit sensational - you can click for one option, but nobody knows why.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

They can call themselves whatever they want, but the Byzantine Empire in 1453 had about as much in common with the Roman Empire as the UK does with the Danelaw.

The Empire of Diocletian had not much in common with the little republic in Italy founded in 509 BC.

 

[LSCatilina]

The Empire of Diocletian had not much in common with the little republic in Italy founded in 509 BC.

But then again, the IInd century BC Republic had little to do with the Archaic Republic itself. Or the Late Republic.

The point is less marvelling that social/cultural entities actually changes with time (the same way that not one of modern political entities looks like how they were 200 years before), in spite of what Hollywood peplims taught us, but to see the continuities and the radical cuts.

And eventually, you have such continuity from royal Rome up to Late Empire (whom differences with Principate were widely exaggerated for the sake of decadance pseudo-history), and more importantly, such continuity was acknowledged and claimed by Romans.

 

[The Historian]

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

I honestly think this is the real answer. Theodosius divided the Roman Empire into two rump states. As soon as the heart of Rome became Constantinople and Mediolanum, not Rome, the Empire ended as we think of it. Byzantium may have continued some traditions, but the Byzantium that died in 1453 was not the Roman Empire of Caesar and Marcus Aurelius - the former have more in common (despite the gap between their reigns) than the latter.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

1453 is probably the best technical date. I know very little about late-period Byzantium: did the Emperors of Trebizond style themselves as universal "Emperors of the Romans", and all that? If so, then you can make an argument for 1461.

As for the Turks: how many of the Ottoman ruling class, from Sultan down, considered their primary identity to be "Roman"? If you can demonstrate to me a line of continuity that, from Mehmed II onwards, the Ottoman Turkish state was one that primarily self-identified itself as the Roman Empire right up until 1922, then there's an argument for the Turks. Otherwise, no, Caesar of Rome was no more meaningful a title for the Ottoman Sultan than is Duke of Normandy for the Queen of England.

I do, however, think there's a pretty good case for referring to "Byzantium", as opposed to "Rome" after the seventh century, though there's not a clear date on it, and the transition is a necessarily arbitrary one. Also perhaps a case for breaking up the Principate and the Dominate, but much of that I'm coming to think of as arbitrary, given that many of the aspects that we think of as being clearly "Dominate" were very obviously in gestation long before 284: though that's not to denigrate the genius of Diocletian and Constantine.

I'm currently working my way through Kaldelis' "The Byzantine Republic", which very forcefully makes the case for the essential classical Roman legal, political, and ideological continuity of both the 284-650 and 650-1200 period: I'd recommend it thoroughly to all interested.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I honestly think this is the real answer. Theodosius divided the Roman Empire into two rump states. As soon as the heart of Rome became Constantinople and Mediolanum, not Rome, the Empire ended as we think of it. Byzantium may have continued some traditions, but the Byzantium that died in 1453 was not the Roman Empire of Caesar and Marcus Aurelius - the former have more in common (despite the gap between their reigns) than the latter.

This is what we have come to term as an Eastern and western empire. Theodosius did not divide the empire into two halves any more than Marcus Aurelius did or Diocletian divided it into quarters. To the Romans and to the Roman emperors, there was one indivisible empire ruled by two emperors. There was a senior and a junior emperor (Although who this was at times, such as under Theodosius' sons, was disputed). Stilicho did not consider himself magister militum of the western empire, he considered himself magister militum to one emperor of the Romans, and actively tried to become magister militum of both emperors for most of his time in that position.


Honorius' successors were still technically appointed and confirmed by the eastern emperor, making them, in theory, de facto the junior emperors in this indivisible empire. We merely call it "eastern" and "western" for convenience for discussion.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I honestly think this is the real answer. Theodosius divided the Roman Empire into two rump states. As soon as the heart of Rome became Constantinople and Mediolanum, not Rome, the Empire ended as we think of it. Byzantium may have continued some traditions, but the Byzantium that died in 1453 was not the Roman Empire of Caesar and Marcus Aurelius - the former have more in common (despite the gap between their reigns) than the latter.

Rome hadn't really been the heart of the empire since the third century, and even before then, an Emperor like Hadrian was able to spend most of his time outside of the Eternal City: hell, even Augustus spent significant portions of his reign outside of Rome without any obvious loss of control.

As for what's in common: I see your point, but to counter that argument: what has more in common, the Roman state that faced Hannibal with that of Severus Alexander, or the Roman state of Theodosius the Great with that of Justinian?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

This is what we have come to term as an Eastern and western empire. Theodosius did not divide the empire into two halves any more than Marcus Aurelius did or Diocletian divided it into quarters. To the Romans and to the Roman emperors, there was one indivisible empire ruled by two emperors. There was a senior and a junior emperor (Although who this was at times, such as under Theodosius' sons, was disputed). Stilicho did not consider himself magister militum of the western empire, he considered himself magister militum to one emperor of the Romans, and actively tried to become magister militum of both emperors for most of his time in that position.


Honorius' successors were still technically appointed and confirmed by the eastern emperor, making them, in theory, de facto the junior emperors in this indivisible empire. We merely call it "eastern" and "western" for convenience for discussion.

And an official of the western administration had no problems to get an office in the eastern administration, no?

 

[LSCatilina]

1453 is probably the best technical date. I know very little about late-period Byzantium: did the Emperors of Trebizond style themselves as universal "Emperors of the Romans", and all that? If so, then you can make an argument for 1461.

Even if they did so, I don't think it would have been totally relevant : you had too much claimants, Romania was takenover by Turks, and nobody really acknowledged their claims.

A voice in the desert shouldn't count, IMO.

I'd recommend it thoroughly to all interested.

It's quite what attested by other studies, pointing out a massive social/cultural continuity, with later era referrents having their origin into Principate (if not earlier) era.

And an official of the western administration had no problems to get an office in the eastern administration, no?

Indeed : just look at Theodosius himself or Zeno. The border wasn't a political, but rather military and administrative one.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Couldn't the Catholic Church be called the Roman Empire, and the Pope, Emperor? I think it is/was called the Roman Church, or church of the Romans.

I'm surprised more people didn't pick up this choice. The Papacy did see itself as the continuation of the political authority of the Roman empire. And neither would the Avignon "Babylonian Captivity" nor the elimination of the Papal States destroy the Papacy, the correct answer would be- the Roman Empire lives on in the bureaucracy of the Catholic Church and Vatican City State with the Pope as ex officio King.

To clarify- the Holy See, not the Vatican City State, is the successor of the Roman Empire

 

[LSCatilina]

The Papacy did see itself as the continuation of the political authority of the Roman empire.

Erm, no...It never went this way : it considered itself pretty separate would it be only because it was considered the key feature to legitimize imperium, not the imperium itself.

Struggles with HREmperors never were because of political legitimacy on the empire, but about the theocratic power above secular imperium.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Erm, no...It never went this way : it considered itself pretty separate would it be only because it was considered the key feature to legitimize imperium, not the imperium itself.

Struggles with HREmperors never were because of political legitimacy on the empire, but about the theocratic power above secular imperium.

The Pope believed he had the authority to crown Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" because he believed he was the ultimate authority of the Roman Empire, not because the ultimate authority of G-d gave him the right to bestow a previous title on a new person. In the eyes of the Holy See the Roman Empire never ceased to exist, there was just a vacancy, and the Pope had the authority to fill it on his whim.