When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[neutra]

Hello,

There was a debate on a french website about the real date of the fall of the Roman empire which ended in a major fight and was locked by the moderators. I hope people here will behave as gentlemen

What are your thoughts about the real date of the fall of the (western) Roman empire. 476, 480, 410, 395, 214, ...
Here are mine. 476 coincide with the start of the kingdom of Italy after the last roman emperor had been deposed. But was there still a roman empire then? Wat was left after the barbarians crossed the Rine in 406? How much power did have emperors after 410?

I think that the Roman empire slowly died from the barracks emperors and despite some period of revival had almost ceased to exist about 406. Followed 70 years of chaos and warlords local wars for power in name of a so called empire.

please don't shoot :wink:

[Marja]

The Western Empire?

I don't think the economy or the institutions entirely collapsed until Iustinianus's attempted reconquest.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yes, if you look at the sources the Goths upheld many of the institutions of the Western Empire until the Romans re-conquered Italy under Justinian.

The Western Empire, however, Fell whent he last legitimate claimant to the Throne (Julius Nepos, who was backed by the Eastern empire) Died in 480 before he could attack Italy with the Illyrian Field Army (remnants of Marcellinus' Army).

the Eastern Empire fell in 1453 when the Palaiologi were deposed at Konstantinoupolis (i.e. when Konstantinos XI charged into battle against the Ottomans with the Roman and Venetian Garrisons after the Theodosian walls were breached)

[M. Val. Naso]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius: if you give 480 for western, you should give 1461 for the eastern (end of trebizond)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius: if you give 480 for western, you should give 1461 for the eastern (end of trebizond)

Yes, I do remember that Epirus and Trebizond were claimants for the Byzantine Throne, but Nicea won the ticket after the sack of 1204.

Wasn't Trebizond the remnant of the Komnenian Dynasty? If so, then yes 1461 would be the best bet.

[Epictetus]

I'm curious what this new book has to say about the matter. I've ordered it and hope to get it next week.

[neutra]

@ MM Flavius Aetius

"Legitimate" is somehow contradictory for self-proclamed emperors no?
Keeping 476 or 480 as the end of the Roman Empire would mean that it still existed while an emperor was ruling the state. So if Odoacer would have proclamed himself emperor i.o. King of Italy it would have last longer.

We use the word "empire" for many civilisations or countries that ruled a large part of the world but where never ruled by an emperor: The British, Spanish, Dutch and Portugese empires for instance. All these "fell" when we commonly agreed they did not rule the world anymore, culturaly, economicaly or military.

Based on this, what wan we consider the end of the Roman Empire or ancient Rome era?

The Goths maintained some roman institutions but can we consider this as a prolongation of the Roman era? To me it's more a legacy.

If we look at the territories the ancient Rome ruled, then maybe it ended around 461?
As a whole entity, it ended in 395 with the final split East-West.

Debating over the Roman wolrd as a whole cultural entity would be a never ending story I believe.

As for the East, I always considered it fell in 1204. Trebizond and Epirus were basically city-states and Nicea recover a fringe of teh empire past territories.
By the 1300's, the "romanoi" where largely turkified and byzantium ended as a vassal state to the turkish sultans.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, i think the end could be the fall of Constantinople in 1450(?)
The Greeks held on and considered themselves Roman, (the precise term they used eludes me) well after that. While East and West were divided, they we smaller parts of the whole.
I think to say it fell at these early dates is to ignor the east as part of the Empire, which is not really the case.

I like these threads as there are a lot of opinions and information to glean from them.

[sonic]

There are several problems with discussions about the Fall of Rome. Before the question can be answered at least two more need to be asked.

1. Do you mean 'Rome' as a whole, or just the West, or just the East?

2. There is a need to define 'Empire'.

Once these are answered, options appear.

If an 'Empire' is a political entitiy that has expanded its sphere of control far beyond its original boundaries,then the East did not last until 1453, as by that time it only controlled the area around Constantinople plus a few other small territories: hardly an 'Empire'. (The same argument applies to 'Trebizond etc.) Possibly 1204 and the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth crusade?

In the West, several dates can be proposed:
- 395 and the definitive division of the Empire;

- 454 and the death of Aetius, the last effective commander to retain control of large areas of the West;

-461 and the death of Majorian, after which the 'Empire' was reduced to the rule of Italy and a few other territories - hardly an Empire;

- 476 and the death of Romulus Augustulus;

- 480 and the death of Julius Nepos;

- the reign of Heraclius and the conversion of the East to using Greek;

- 1204 and the Fall of the East.


I don't believe that any of the 'successor' kingdoms in Europe can be classed as part of the Empire after the Empire lost the ability to control them. If the West is classed as falling only when the Roman economic and political institutions adopted by the 'Barbarian Kingdoms' collapsed/faded away, then in theory the British Empire still rules India - which is an odd thought.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Mark,

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius: if you give 480 for western, you should give 1461 for the eastern (end of trebizond)

Agreed! That was arguably the last part of the Roman Empire (sort-of) governed continuously as such.
Nepos death did not end the Roman Empire, only the Western part. That's so often overlooked when discussing this topic.. The Roman Empire did not fall with the fall of the City.

Hi Neutra,

You are limiting this question with a bit of assumptions, I see..

"Legitimate" is somehow contradictory for self-proclamed emperors no?

No, I don’t think so. ‘legitimate’ is very subjective, after all. Constantine was a usurper, but he hardly is recognized as such even by his contemporaries.

So if Odoacer would have proclamed himself emperor i.o. King of Italy it would have last longer.

Again no, because you assume that by ‘Roman Empire’ we should refer to the Western Roman Empire’. That’s a wrong conclusion, because the eastern part was also very much part of the Roman Empire and looked at itself as such. IF you insist that the East was different, the end should have been in 395, at the last occasion where both halves were unified.

Based on this, what wan we consider the end of the Roman Empire or ancient Rome era?

Those are totally different subjects., and influenced by modern views which are contantly changing. When did the ‘Middle Ages’ start? When did ‘Late Antiquity’ end? Interesting as discussion but extremely semantic.

If we look at the territories the ancient Rome ruled, then maybe it ended around 461?

That’s also arbitrary, because how do we limit ‘empire’ to a number of territories? Those are such vague limits that they can’t give us proper answers when such a question is to answered, for they are subject to massive interpretation.

As for the East, I always considered it fell in 1204. Trebizond and Epirus were basically city-states and Nicea recover a fringe of teh empire past territories.

As good a date as any I suppose, but as Nicaea was not some different entity, I see no reason to brand them as ‘non-Roman’ any more than I would the preceding dynasties. The area covered hardly matters for the definition I think, as ‘Roman Empire’ was by then largely a legal status.

By the 1300's, the "romanoi" where largely turkified and byzantium ended as a vassal state to the turkish sultans.

So? I bet that Julius Caesar would hardly recognize his successor Theodosius the Great, who is considered very much to have been a ‘Roman Emperor’, but with a totally alien stance on religion (monotheistic), statecraft (emperor of a very centralist state) or the army (hiring Goth by the thousands under their own kings to fight for Rome)! That does not make Theodosius non-Roman, as it does not make the last Romanoi non-Roman either. :wink:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

@ MM Flavius Aetius

"Legitimate" is somehow contradictory for self-proclamed emperors no?
Keeping 476 or 480 as the end of the Roman Empire would mean that it still existed while an emperor was ruling the state. So if Odoacer would have proclamed himself emperor i.o. King of Italy it would have last longer.

Most Roman Emperors were self-proclaimed, Augustus himself was a Self-Proclaimed Emperor.

As for the East, I always considered it fell in 1204. Trebizond and Epirus were basically city-states and Nicea recover a fringe of teh empire past territories.
By the 1300's, the "romanoi" where largely turkified and byzantium ended as a vassal state to the turkish sultans.

Not True, Byzantium managed to reconquer a lot of greece from the Ottomans Multiple Times after the collaps of the so called "Serbian Empire"

Manuel II got a s Far as Varna and Thessalonike Recovered, and Konstantinos XI got Athens and Larissa, along with reconstructing the Hexamilion. If the Byzantines had built up their fleet the could have prevented the ottomans from crossing to Greece and essentially reconquered most of it. Even EU3 can simulate this.

The "Basileia toh Romaioi (That's what the East Called itself as the "Byzantines") lasted until 1453, I personally think the end of the Palaiologan Dynasty was the end of the Roman Empire.

As for the west, I'd have to say 480 AD with Nepos, who was assassinated before he could launch an attack on Italy, and was the last Emperor supported by Eastern Claims.

However, Mauretania Tingitania and Mauretania Caesarensis remained "Roman" until 533 in Belisarius' reconquest of Africa.

Aegidius' Gallic Domain lasted until 487

[starman2012]

476 coincide with the start of the kingdom of Italy after the last roman emperor had been deposed. But was there still a roman empire then? Wat was left after the barbarians crossed the Rine in 406?

They still had Africa, and parts of Gaul and Spain for some time. In fact Euric didn't proclaim the visigoths fully independent of Rome until 475 so maybe 476 isn't so bad after all. :wink:

How much power did have emperors after 410?

The emperors were mostly figureheads but the WRE still had some power--albeit pathetic compared to what Rome used to have.

I think that the Roman empire slowly died from the barracks emperors and despite some period of revival had almost ceased to exist about 406.

Too early.

[Marcus Julius]

The timeline of the fall really comes down to how you define the Empire.

You might argue that Roman rule extended far into the medieval period in the form of the church. As the Imperial government assumed control of the church, and later the church established it's authority over the western world, the continuity of authority from Rome over the rest of the Empire's lands (and even more) was maintained. Pope Gregory I claimed to be descended from Rome's older Senatorial family bloodlines. This was the closest that someone of the new religion could get to the old Imperial tradition of claiming to be descended from the Gods. Just as some of the early Emperors were deified after their deaths, so were popes elevated to sainthood. European Kings were crowned by the church and ruled by "divine" right, just as the governors of those territories were appointed by the older Roman government. The church took "donations" from those territories, just as Rome had collected tax. The Kingdoms of Europe were all influenced by the church's ambassadorship throughout the western world. A decree from the Pope to the kings to march their armies against the enemies of Rome, was not much different than the old Emperors to their generals and governors.

On the contrary, you could also argue that Rome, as it existed previously, ceased to exist because of the crisis period of the 3rd Century. The reformations and changes to Roman society, economy, government, religion, etc. The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

[Alanus]

We also have to look at the "crisis period" of the 4th century. After the battle of Adrianople, the Western Empire never really recovered. What we see is a central state run by "late Romans" whose fathers were Vandal and Gothic. If we account for the leadership directly following that unfortunate battle and subquent death of Theodosius, we can see Fritigern, Alatheus, and Safrax, as those responsible for the decline and fall that ocurred exactly 100 years later.

And the sad fact is-- it didn't have to happen... if it were not for the greed and mismanagement of Lupicinus and Maximus Magnus. :whistle: In that backlash-battle, we can even view Fritigern and his comrades as the "good guys." And that is testament to Roman incompetence that extended forward from that date until the last whimper. :|

[starman2012]

The timeline of the fall really comes down to how you define the Empire.

You might argue that Roman rule extended far into the medieval period in the form of the church. As the Imperial government assumed control of the church, and later the church established it's authority over the western world, the continuity of authority from Rome over the rest of the Empire's lands (and even more) was maintained.

I doubt many historians would concur.

On the contrary, you could also argue that Rome, as it existed previously, ceased to exist because of the crisis period of the 3rd Century. The reformations and changes to Roman society, economy, government, religion, etc.

You could say that the Roman Empire became the Illyrian Empire. But the Illyrians like so many others, had long been romanized.

The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

Sure it was a big change. But Gibbon saw it as paving the way for the fall, not the fall itself. Down to fifth century there was still too much continuity with the past to speak of a fall. As late as 394 Eugenius still favored paganism.