Did Rome just fade away in her last years?

[stevesarak]

I was thinking about this last nigh. If the governing body of a country falls with no replacement then so does that country.

But the Roman government was replaced numerous times. Several waves of invaders went through Italy in the 5th century and later, and each conqueror set himself up as "king" and began to issue Roman-style coinage. Basically, they saw themselves as the legitimate rulers and actual successors to the classic Roman emperors. The last of what most people call real Roman emperors was Romulus Augustulus, deposed in 476 AD by Odoacer. You can call that the final Fall of Rome, if you like, though of course the Eastern Empire continued (and even reconquered part of the West). Or you can say that the end came in 285 AD when Diocletian split the Empire into East and West, each with an Augustus and a Caesar. Or 1453, the fall of Constantinople. Or the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, since before that it was the Holy Roman Empire whose rulers felt they were simply following the old line of succession. And today there is still the Roman Catholic Church, still ruled from Rome by the Pontifex Maximus. It all depends on how you look at it.

Vale,

Matthew

The people of Rome accepted (reluctantly or not) their new rulers.

I’d have to say that when a governing body falls, that unless it’s replaced by another that is accepted by either its people or other countries or its people are still fighting to regain control, then the country is considered fallen and ceases to exist.

It is possible for another country to invade and take over, replacing the government, but if it’s not accepted by its people or the other countries, then its invalid, and even though they may be in control, until a legitimate successor (accepted by the people or other countries) comes along, the country does not exist.