When did the Roman Empire stop being the Roman Empire

[Timotheus]

Depending on the historian or author when the Roman Empire stopped being the Empire became something else.

Some take it as far as until the Ottomans finally overran Constantinople. Some suggest sooner with the fall of the city of Rome.

I am curious what the people here think. I dont care what your favorite author thinks. I dont care what professional historians think. I am curious what each of you personally think. No one is going to be attacked for revealing their deep secret opinion on this topic hock: . At least I hope no one will be.

To start things off I will post my opinion.

I have two in fact. To me the Roman Empire changed enough to not truly be the culture of Rome anymore and thus no longer the Roman Empire either when Constantine tried to create the serf class of the coloni, locking them to the land in 332. My other choice is when in 380 Christianity was made the official religion by Theodosius I. To me the toleration that had so well allowed Rome to accept foreign people and ideas ended and with it the Empire.


So when do you think the Empire stopped being the Roman Empire and became a sucessor state that was similar but different enough to you?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I personnally go with the Beginning of the Ottoman occupation of the Greek Eastern Empire, ie Greece itself, which was the last vestige of the old Empire.

[Epictetus]

I would agree with Byron. Personally, I feel that the last remants of the Roman Empire disappeared with the capture of the little Greek states about 1460 or so. They had survived a couple of years after the fall of Constantinople.

This question really depends upon one's personal definition of "Roman Empire." That in itself is an interesting topic, and I think the answer to that will give answers to when it ceased to exist.

[Sardaukar]

I think that "Roman Empire" ended with fall of Constantinople 1453. You cannot really have empire without Emperor and capital (traditionally Rome or Constantinople).

[Tita Iuventia Martia]

Salvete,
I personaly think that the end of Roman empire would be also the time, when the empire was disunited to east and west empire. As far as I can reason crises in Roman empire started in the end of the second century a.d. after Marcomanian war during reign of Marcvs Avrelivs and after his death. The third century a.d. was really critical for Roman empire - I mean mainly a distress and an army decline, financial failure and economical troubles of the empire, barbarians invasions etc. I think that imp. Dioclecianvs was a great man, because he rebuilt a glory of Roman empire, stabilised financial situation and reorganised the army.
In my oppinion: the decline of Roman empire definitely started in the second part of fourth century a.d.

vale and regards

[sonic]

Probably 1204 and the capture of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade. Before that, there was an empire: after that there may have been delusions of Empire, but really it was a thing of the past. Instead the emperor in Constantinople ruled over 'just another' medieval kingdom.

[Timotheus]

I personnally go with the Beginning of the Ottoman occupation of the Greek Eastern Empire, ie Greece itself, which was the last vestige of the old Empire.

That is a common choice but one thought always comes to mind. Mehmed II ruled over a very large percentage of the people that had been at one time part of the Roman Empire. At the same time he made sure to take the title Caesar as one of his many titles.

So why not say the Empire continued? The Empire had fundamentally changed from Latin to Greek, why not from Greek to Turk?

[caiusbeerquitius]

1806? :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I personnally go with the Beginning of the Ottoman occupation of the Greek Eastern Empire, ie Greece itself, which was the last vestige of the old Empire.

That is a common choice but one thought always comes to mind. Mehmed II ruled over a very large percentage of the people that had been at one time part of the Roman Empire. At the same time he made sure to take the title Caesar as one of his many titles.

So why not say the Empire continued? The Empire had fundamentally changed from Latin to Greek, why not from Greek to Turk?

Actually I was just about to say 'It never ended....' :lol:

[Timotheus]

I personnally go with the Beginning of the Ottoman occupation of the Greek Eastern Empire, ie Greece itself, which was the last vestige of the old Empire.

That is a common choice but one thought always comes to mind. Mehmed II ruled over a very large percentage of the people that had been at one time part of the Roman Empire. At the same time he made sure to take the title Caesar as one of his many titles.

So why not say the Empire continued? The Empire had fundamentally changed from Latin to Greek, why not from Greek to Turk?

Actually I was just about to say 'It never ended....' :lol:

Well the Ottoman Sultan is gone, so is the Kaiser, and the Tsar. The Holy Roman Emperor who was not Roman or holy was last crowned in the 1910's so I do not think there is anyone around trying to associate back to the Roman Empire.

[Matthew Amt]

This may get hotter than you think! I tend to throw up my hands and say "It's all over" when Diocletian splits the Empire into East and West. But that's just my own (not completely serious) bias against that yucky Late Roman stuff. Or maybe 476, the ousting of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacer, who had himself crowned King of Rome.

However:::

Greek Orthodox monastaries on Mt. Athos peninsula still fly the Byzantine flag and consider themselves the last unconquered vestige of the Roman Empire.

Germany was not a unified country until the early 20th century. Before that it was a mass of little principalities known as the Holy Roman Empire. From the time of Charlemagne, they considered themselves to be the direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Catholic Church is still going strong, based in Rome and headed by a Pontif (Pontifex Maximus). Its organization runs along late Roman lines (diocese, etc.). More tolerant in some ways, too--impiety is no longer a capital crime, as it was during the Principate.

Many choices!

Matthew

[Timotheus]

This may get hotter than you think! I tend to throw up my hands and say "It's all over" when Diocletian splits the Empire into East and West. But that's just my own (not completely serious) bias against that yucky Late Roman stuff. Or maybe 476, the ousting of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacer, who had himself crowned King of Rome.

However:::

Greek Orthodox monastaries on Mt. Athos peninsula still fly the Byzantine flag and consider themselves the last unconquered vestige of the Roman Empire.

Germany was not a unified country until the early 20th century. Before that it was a mass of little principalities known as the Holy Roman Empire. From the time of Charlemagne, they considered themselves to be the direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Catholic Church is still going strong, based in Rome and headed by a Pontif (Pontifex Maximus). Its organization runs along late Roman lines (diocese, etc.). More tolerant in some ways, too--impiety is no longer a capital crime, as it was during the Principate.

Many choices!

Matthew

The day the Pope's legions conquer under an eagle I will give them full credit.

[Ioannis]

I'd go for the fall of Constantinople and the few other Byzantine strongholds. After all, the Byzantines identified themselves as Romans. Also, all their friends or foes were calling them like that too.

[Eleatic Guest]

30 BC
330 AD
476 AD
1204 AD
1453 AD
1461 AD
1806 AD
1917 AD

2004 AD beginning (European constitution signed in ROME)

[Urselius]

An easier question to answer is: when did Rome finally stop being imperial?

The answer to this being between 29 April and 1 May 1357. At this time the Papal States in the 'Constitutiones Sanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ' promulgated their own law code and the territory of Rome stopped having a legal connection to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.