When did the Western Roman Empire technically end?

When did the Western Roman Empire technically end?

  • When Ovida was killed by Odoacer and Dalmatia annexed, December 9th 480

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    78
When Italy was reconquered from the Ostrogoths.
The Ostrogoths inherited the same sort of political see-saw that Odoacer had to deal with in his reign. They were still nominal subjects and the only difference was the sheer amount of barbarians that the King represented.

When the Roman took back Italy, that was when it was truly reintegrated back into the East, in fact.
 
This idea NEEDS to die painfully and slowly, because it get repeted over and over and over again without the slightest historical basis, only to lead to semi-pedantic "Roman Empire disappeared because of Napoleon, ho-ho-ho".

Charlemagne NEVER claimed the Imperium over Romans, Frankish emperors almost never did so (at the exception of ONE diplomatical boast).

Titles used, besides kingship over Franks or Lombards, were either

- "Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" (and that's only for Charlemagne)
- "Emperor"
- "August Emperor"

And that's the thing. Once he is an Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire, there is a Roman Empire - in the west - , no? And I said nothing else.
 
And that's the thing. Once he is an Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire, there is a Roman Empire - in the west - , no?
No.

That's painfully obvious when one looks at historical sources : Rome there is a reference to the city and papacy. Not over Romania and even less as a revival of WRE.

What mattered there was (you can read Alcuin if you doubt it) the imperium over Christians, with Rome as a spiritual center. It's why the title was the relatively strange "Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" and not the simpler "Emperors of the Romans" or "Roman Emperor". And why this title fall quickly into disuse even during Charlemagne's reign ("August Emperor" is far more widespread).

Carolingia was NEVER called Roman Empire in the contemporary sources, and the frankish emperors NEVER officially called themselves Romans Emperors. Period.

And I said nothing else.
And it's why I pointed it as wrong : "Romania", as in the land of Romans, as a politic entity, was always considered as Byzantium by Carolingians authors (the ones that were pretty much about supporting imperial claims).

What was challenged was the imperium over Christians, part of the old Roman Imperium, that Constantinople claimed and that wasn't really challenged in posterior centuries. Claiming it was how Frankish rulers wanted to stress their domination on the Church, as Byzantine emperors did.
 
The WRE existed as long as the last emperor was alive. This was Nepos! Augustulus was just an usurpator, who was never accepted by Zeno, the prime Augustus.

When Zeno decided, to not appoint a successor, the WRE ceased to exist technically. This is of course the point of view of a jurist or state-theorist.
 
The WRE existed as long as the last emperor was alive. This was Nepos! Augustulus was just an usurpator, who was never accepted by Zeno, the prime Augustus.

When Zeno decided, to not appoint a successor, the WRE ceased to exist technically. This is of course the point of view of a jurist or state-theorist.

Zeno is only one Roman Emperor. His approval is not necessarily needed. It would not have been had Western Rome still been strong. So legally, that's not a perfect algorithm.
 
Technically with Zeno, but the last significant Roman enclave in the west died with Syagrius in Noviodunum, so I chose that.

That's exactly, all respect due, what I pointed as "educated nip-ticking" earlier; and partially due on an outdated view on Late Antiquity where Barbarians get opposed to Romans that somehow are better institutionalized than the latter (and then GOT to have their state if Franks/Burgunds/etc. have one) : it's telling that you use Noviodunum (classical formal name) instead of Augusta Suessionum (widely used at this point) on this regard.

(You're not the only one doing so, that said : I remember a similar thing in a thread made a while ago)

That Syagrius ruled over a "demesne" is essentially an historiographical idea, with really little historical base (mostly a way to "fill" maps) : we could list names of provincial nobles with a similar power (as Vicentius on Ebre basin) that didn't had this historiographical posterity.

At best, you have a local power with really blurry borders with Frankish kingdoms, but as well Gallo-Roman entities as with Abrbogast of Apollinaris' Auvergne. Anything implying a state or an unified entity between Somme and Bretagne is wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Technically with Zeno, but the last significant Roman enclave in the west died with Syagrius in Noviodunum, so I chose that.

What do you mean with Zeno? You meant to say Nepos, right?

Also, I'm genuinely surprised SO MANY people chose what was really a non-event, where a military strong-man kicked out a usurping emperor and shortly thereafter acknowledged the legitimate one.
 
For everyone concerned, there wasn't a western or eastern Romania, but one : they couldn't have chosen or marked a date themselves because they simply didn't tought something ended there.

The whole concept of WRE being historiographical, rather than historical, you shouldn't be surprised people eventually choose an historiographical relevent event that was fairly minor contemporarily (and to be totally honest, all the other choices are pretty much non-events as well).

Giving that the whole historiographical division is based on territorial collegiality, if the WRE is about having a western emperor acknowledged both by the West and East, it ceased to be a thing with the western Senate formally renouncing it.
 
Giving that the whole historiographical division is based on territorial collegiality, if the WRE is about having a western emperor acknowledged both by the West and East, it ceased to be a thing with the western Senate formally renouncing it.

When did they do that? Because it sure wasn't 476.
 
When did they do that? Because it sure wasn't 476.

Odoacer sending back the imperial insignas to Constantinople was made with the senatorial support. It, exactly, means they acknowledged Zeno as emperor, ending the territorial collegiality for what mattered them.
 
Odoacer sending back the imperial insignas to Constantinople was made with the senatorial support. It, exactly, means they acknowledged Zeno as emperor, ending the territorial collegiality for what mattered them.

They ASKED Zeno to become sole emperor, and Zeno told them to stuff it, which they did.

If a virgin asks a girl to have sex with him, he doesn't automatically lose his virginity by virtue of opening his mouth and asking. Either the girl consents, and they get down to business, or he forces his will upon her against her wishes. But accepting her wishes means said virgin remains a virgin.

Had Zeno said "ok, I'm now sole emperor", or had the Senate, upon receiving his OTL reply, said "screw you, we're not accepting Nepos", you would be correct. But the thing is THE SENATE ACCEPTED NEPOS (against their initial wish, sure, but they accepted him nonetheless)
 
They ASKED Zeno to become sole emperor, and Zeno told them to stuff it, which they did.

BY ASKING Zeno to become the sole emperor, the formal roman power in West renounced territorial collegiality, which is the only thing on which the historiographical definition of WRE (and there's not one contemporary definition you could find) and therefore making WRE going down.

It might be surprising, but historiography of ancient polities have actually few to do with discussion on defloration or rape.

But the thing is THE SENATE ACCEPTED NEPOS (against their initial wish, sure, but they accepted him nonetheless)
Sure, IT DID ACCEPTED NEPOS, but not on the grounds of territorial collegiality.

First, Odoacer revieved the title of Patrice, and governorate of Italy, from Zeno and not Nepos. That alone points that Nepos' power was de facto bypassed by Zeno, intervening directly in Western politics, breaking territorial collegiality.

Then, the lip service to Nepos isn't much different from the lip service Romans emperors recieved from, say, Burgundians or Goths. So far, nobody argued they were part of Byzantium for that.
Even the lip service to Nepos wasn't without breachs : coinage made, even during Nepos' reign, often rather bear mentions of Zeno.

Finally, having the Senate directly answering to Odoacer and not a Roman Emperor in the west, pose an important question about how the West percieved Nepos' power : arguing that THEY ACCEPTED NEPOS as emperor in the West, in a total continuity should be at the very least nuanced.
 
Top